Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1
    Deleted

    "The game is profitable even with 1mil subs"

    This argument is so flawed:

    1. First of all, it's not profitable with 1 mil subs. It's profitable with 1 single sub if you spend nothing at all. So if you do absolutely nothing at all and you offer nothing, you can be profitable because 1 guy paid you.

    2. There is a difference between being in decay and being on the rise. For example a game that went from 500,000 users to 1 mil and it's rising to become a 2mil is warmer environment than a 12mil->5mil.

    3. We don't know if the game is profitable or not really. The Accounting of a complex company is ..complex. WoW in isolation might be profitable or it might be breaking-even if suddenly WoD was hated.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by tobindax View Post
    This argument is so flawed:

    1. First of all, it's not profitable with 1 mil subs. It's profitable with 1 single sub if you spend nothing at all. So if you do absolutely nothing at all and you offer nothing, you can be profitable because 1 guy paid you.

    2. There is a difference between being in decay and being on the rise. For example a game that went from 500,000 users to 1 mil and it's rising to become a 2mil is warmer environment than a 12mil->5mil.

    3. We don't know if the game is profitable or not really. The Accounting of a complex company is ..complex. WoW in isolation might be profitable or it might be breaking-even if suddenly WoD was hated.
    What the hell is this? Is there a point?

  3. #3
    They are making a profit. Just not as much as they did with 10 million subs.

  4. #4
    They wouldn't be profitable with one guy if they did nothing because they still need to pay their staff and pay server costs...
    Don't make these useless topics.

  5. #5
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Imnick View Post
    They wouldn't be profitable with one guy if they did nothing because they still need to pay their staff and pay server costs...
    Don't make these useless topics.

    There would be no servers if they offered nothing, or staff. Think. The example was the extreme, not the imminent reality of today.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by tobindax View Post
    There would be no servers if they offered nothing, or staff. Think. The example was the extreme, not the reality of today.
    I'm actually Jesus, but not really.

  7. #7
    "A company is profitable if there's a guy who just gives them money for absolutely no reason" is not a thought worth making a topic about. The time you spent writing either of these posts was a complete waste.
    It's not even an "extreme example", it's not an example of anything.

  8. #8
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Imnick View Post
    "A company is profitable if there's a guy who just gives them money for absolutely no reason" is not a thought worth making a topic about. The time you spent writing either of these posts was a complete waste.
    It's not even an "extreme example", it's not an example of anything.

    Learn to think please. There is a type of argument that goes to extremes to make a point. It does not try to say "THIS WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW DUUUUUUDE!!!11111".

    In this case the point is if, for example, WoD is not spending much and is not offering much, well, yeah less subs will make it profitable, but at what cost?

    Does it make sense now or will you pretend you don't get it?

  9. #9
    If you make a topic saying "if you give a company money when they literally aren't providing anything" then all I am going to think is that you are wasting everyone's time. Just saying "if you think harder my bullshit will make sense!!" doesn't make it true, your ""example"" just isn't as smart as you think it is. I understand it, I just think it's stupid.
    If you exaggerate too much you just make yourself look ridiculous, if you want to paint a picture of something it needs to be close to reality.

    Nothing you've said is in any way applicable to the way any company could work, let alone this one.

    They have recently increased the staff roll of World of Warcraft, they haven't cut support for some time, they are still actively hunting employees on their website.
    Your topic has no point or purpose, it's just meaningless hot air.

  10. #10
    Old God Kathranis's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    10,074
    Obviously growth is better than decline, but decline is not the same as "death."

    Moreover, to an extent, the subscriber base shrinking actually decreases Blizzard's operating costs on the technical side of things. The fewer people playing, the less expensive it is for Blizzard to maintain servers and provide support. In the past, Blizzard's revenue from WoW has even tended to increase despite subscription number falling, as a result of the premium services they offer for the game beyond the subscription fees.

    And it's also extremely unlikely that they could ever fully rebound and return to a steady growth model. It's just not possible in the current market space. Even if Legion turns out to undeniably be the best expansion yet, and the following expansion is even better, do you really think that it would return to 12+ million subscribers worldwide, and resume growth? No, of course not. The best they can really hope for is that a fraction of lapsed players will return. Keep in mind that WoW is an 11-year-old game in a market filled with any number of alternatives that can individually cater to any specific niche that individual players desire (IE, at some point a player who prefers a sci-fi setting and hardcore pvp will innevitably find a hardcore sci-fi pvp game to play, making WoW obsolete).


    The reality is that Blizzard can almost certainly maintain World of Warcraft as a profitable legacy service indefinitely, so long as they manage their operating costs. Even now, it's becoming an increasingly small fraction of their overall revenue. Blizzard is transitioning away from being the "World of Warcraft company" and, if you listen to some of their recent interviews, seem to be accepting of the idea that WoW will eventually become a legacy service. They're actively expanding their portfolio to include a variety of genres that are smaller in scope and target more specific groups of players, a model which will ultimately be more profitable and successful as a business than WoW ever was.


    So, what does this mean for WoW? It means that Blizzard will continue working on World of Warcraft and will try to correct its course, but that we should also expect there to be an innevitable playerbase decline. We should also expect that the game will never disappear, will always be supported, and will always have a core group of players. We can expect that, in time, the game's subscription and distribution model may change; it could become B2P or F2P, expansions could become smaller digital-only updates. We could eventually see the game enter a state more like Classic, where rather than focusing on large marquee expansions, it rather exists in a perpetual state of receiving smaller content patches that introduce new content or revamp old content without adding completely new worlds or continents, with smaller storylines and more focused gameplay.

    Most importantly, you can expect that in another ten years, you'll still be able to log into your character and play WoW if you're feeling nostalgic about a 20-year-old game.


    As a side note, I don't think Blizzard is going to develop a wholly new MMO any time soon. They may eventually revisit the genre, but it's become such a fragmented market that they likely could never hope to repeat the success of WoW. What's more likely is that rather than trying to make "one game to rule them all" like WoW, they'll continue making a large number of smaller titles that are able to capture their respective audiences.
    Last edited by Kathranis; 2015-08-10 at 09:24 AM.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by tobindax View Post
    This argument is so flawed:

    1. First of all, it's not profitable with 1 mil subs. It's profitable with 1 single sub if you spend nothing at all. So if you do absolutely nothing at all and you offer nothing, you can be profitable because 1 guy paid you.

    2. There is a difference between being in decay and being on the rise. For example a game that went from 500,000 users to 1 mil and it's rising to become a 2mil is warmer environment than a 12mil->5mil.

    3. We don't know if the game is profitable or not really. The Accounting of a complex company is ..complex. WoW in isolation might be profitable or it might be breaking-even if suddenly WoD was hated.

    The internet. Where you have to make posts about simple stuff which any normal person with common sense can answer themself. But still there is need for posts like that because there are too many dumb people out there.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathranis View Post
    Obviously growth is better than decline, but decline is not the same as "death."

    Moreover, to an extent, the subscriber base shrinking actually decreases Blizzard's operating costs on the technical side of things. The fewer people playing, the less expensive it is for Blizzard to maintain servers and provide support. In the past, Blizzard's revenue from WoW has even tended to increase despite subscription number falling, as a result of the premium services they offer for the game beyond the subscription fees.

    And it's also extremely unlikely that they could ever fully rebound and return to a steady growth model. It's just not possible in the current market space. Even if Legion turns out to undeniably be the best expansion yet, and the following expansion is even better, do you really think that it would return to 12+ million subscribers worldwide, and resume growth? No, of course not. The best they can really hope for is that a fraction of lapsed players will return. Keep in mind that WoW is an 11-year-old game in a market filled with any number of alternatives that can individually cater to any specific niche that individual players desire (IE, at some point a player who prefers a sci-fi setting and hardcore pvp will innevitably find a hardcore sci-fi pvp game to play, making WoW obsolete).


    The reality is that Blizzard can almost certainly maintain World of Warcraft as a profitable legacy service indefinitely, so long as they manage their operating costs. Even now, it's becoming an increasingly small fraction of their overall revenue. Blizzard is transitioning away from being the "World of Warcraft company" and, if you listen to some of their recent interviews, seem to be accepting of the idea that WoW will eventually become a legacy service. They're actively expanding their portfolio to include a variety of genres that are smaller in scope and target more specific groups of players, a model which will ultimately be more profitable and successful as a business than WoW ever was.


    So, what does this mean for WoW? It means that Blizzard will continue working on World of Warcraft and will try to correct its course, but that we should also expect there to be an innevitable playerbase decline. We should also expect that the game will never disappear, will always be supported, and will always have a core group of players. We can expect that, in time, the game's subscription and distribution model may change; it could become B2P or F2P, expansions could become smaller digital-only updates. We could eventually see the game enter a state more like Classic, where rather than focusing on large marquee expansions, it rather exists in a perpetual state of receiving smaller content patches that introduce new content or revamp old content without adding completely new worlds or continents, with smaller storylines and more focused gameplay.

    Most importantly, you can expect that in another ten years, you'll still be able to log into your character and play WoW if you're feeling nostalgic about a 20-year-old game.


    As a side note, I don't think Blizzard is going to develop a wholly new MMO any time soon. They may eventually revisit the genre, but it's become such a fragmented market that they likely could never hope to repeat the success of WoW. What's more likely is that rather than trying to make "one game to rule them all" like WoW, they'll continue making a large number of smaller titles that are able to capture their respective audiences.
    Here's a good example of a post that is worth writing, I hope we can learn from this

  13. #13
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Imnick View Post
    If you make a topic saying "if you give a company money when they literally aren't providing anything" then all I am going to think is that you are wasting everyone's time. Just saying "if you think harder my bullshit will make sense!!" doesn't make it true, your ""example"" just isn't as smart as you think it is. I understand it, I just think it's stupid.
    If you exaggerate too much you just make yourself look ridiculous, if you want to paint a picture of something it needs to be close to reality.

    Nothing you've said is in any way applicable to the way any company could work, let alone this one.

    They have recently increased the staff roll of World of Warcraft, they haven't cut support for some time, they are still actively hunting employees on their website.
    Your topic has no point or purpose, it's just meaningless hot air.


    Learn to disagree because I'm sorry to inform you have no idea what you're talking about in terms of Finance and Marketing. This is common sense stuff and it's utilized by all companies in existence. Less customers may mean profit if they spend almost nothing, even if that profit isn't that big.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Imnick View Post
    Here's a good example of a post that is worth writing, I hope we can learn from this

    Yet you offer nothing in the discussions. Only "see? This is a smart person, you stooooopid". Keep playing wow.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by tobindax View Post
    This argument is so flawed:

    1. First of all, it's not profitable with 1 mil subs. It's profitable with 1 single sub if you spend nothing at all. So if you do absolutely nothing at all and you offer nothing, you can be profitable because 1 guy paid you.

    2. There is a difference between being in decay and being on the rise. For example a game that went from 500,000 users to 1 mil and it's rising to become a 2mil is warmer environment than a 12mil->5mil.

    3. We don't know if the game is profitable or not really. The Accounting of a complex company is ..complex. WoW in isolation might be profitable or it might be breaking-even if suddenly WoD was hated.
    1. This argument is illogical. You say it is not profitable with 1 million subs but it is profitable with 1 sub. You would better state it that it may or may not be profitable with 1 million subs it depends on the operating costs. If that is what you intended to have as your argument. If not, it is either illogical or unclear.

    2. One or even several data points is not a valid indication of true decay or death. It could very well be (and for the time being most likely) an inverse logarithmic function of subscriptions. It has a very distinct ebb and flow of subscribers based on the content that is released.

    3. See #1. Odds are, if they are continuing work on it it is profitable though. Even as low as it is right now, it still has twice as many subscribers as the next closest competitor. If that is not profitable then it would be hard to argue that any MMO can be profitable.

  15. #15
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Takure View Post
    They are making a profit. Just not as much as they did with 10 million subs.
    Depends on how much extra money is being spend in the store I guess?

  16. #16
    there are mmos which are profitable with zero subs
    whoa
    whoaaaaa
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by tobindax View Post
    3. We don't know if the game is profitable or not really. The Accounting of a complex company is ..complex. WoW in isolation might be profitable or it might be breaking-even if suddenly WoD was hated.
    You can do some 2nd grade math and figure out quite quickly that WoW makes plenty of profit at 2M subscriptions. 1M seems like a good "sustainable" level where the current rate of content development could easily be sustained -- without excess profit but with plenty of money to pay for staff and a data center.

    Or in other words, pretty much every subscriber above 1M is just extra profit that never goes anywhere near the game ever again.

  18. #18
    if you have to exaggerate to make a point maybe you should stop and think for a second. maybe ask yourself, "why isnt reality making my point for me?"

  19. #19
    Deleted
    I think in practice if the sub base continues to decline the game will become unprofitable.

    Talking about offset income from the store misses the point that this is much less of a viable source of income long-term.
    People buy mounts to show off to their friends, if their friends leave they won't buy the mount.

    It would be disturbing if Blizzard believed their own bullshit but I doubt they do, I think they are just trying to dupe their
    more stupid investors.

  20. #20
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by apples View Post
    if you have to exaggerate to make a point maybe you should stop and think for a second. maybe ask yourself, "why isnt reality making my point for me?"

    Or you have to learn how arguments work. If I say 1 + 1 = 2 does not mean it's an "outlandish" example because you wanted to add 1000 + 1000 to make 2000. Extremes are excellent ways to make a point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •