Activision Blizzard Q4 2022 Earnings Results

Originally Posted by sto

The metric for success for this game and how I am evaluating it is based off of how it could have performed, not how it is performing relative to other games. If Michael Jordan in his prime only made half his shots in a game, he would still be performing poorly, for Michael Jordan. You can draw that conclusion. How this is lost on you says more about you than me.

Even in the analogy you're using here, the underlying criticism of what you said originally rings true. We're not comparing Michael Jordan in his prime to Michael Jordan hitting half his shots. We're comparing Michael Jordan in his prime to a version of Michael Jordan that is anywhere from 1 to 99% of Michael Jordan in his prime. We really don't have an easy way to know exactly how well our hypothetical Jordan is performing and it's somewhat telling that you immediately assume half is where we're at right now.

Originally Posted by Relapses

We really don't have an easy way to know exactly how well our hypothetical Jordan is performing and it's somewhat telling that you immediately assume half is where we're at right now.

I think I just figured it out - you're the guy that thinks polls are meaningless because they don't ask every single voter their questions. You seem to believe that if the data isn't all-encompassingly accurate and direct from the source then it must be utterly useless.

Originally Posted by sto

I’ll bite.

Given your comments, I had to guess, you are an ultra low achiever. This is why you made a vacuous off-topic comment aimed at no-one in particular but yourself about having no worthwhile goals in life. You feel like you derive a sense of self worth because you get responses from people who are better than you IRL and it feeds into the delusion that you are more than just a troll with little to contribute. You can glean your susceptibility to propaganda as you drone on about the “West”. While I bring up a cherished past-time of mine and is why I am here to discuss the game, I suppose you are here for similar reasons, which is why you talk about being a flat-earther.

The metric for success for this game and how I am evaluating it is based off of how it could have performed, not how it is performing relative to other games. If Michael Jordan in his prime only made half his shots in a game, he would still be performing poorly, for Michael Jordan. You can draw that conclusion. How this is lost on you says more about you than me.

If you want to have another go “knoicck” yourself out.

Originally Posted by Relapses

Even in the analogy you're using here, the underlying criticism of what you said originally rings true. We're not comparing Michael Jordan in his prime to Michael Jordan hitting half his shots. We're comparing Michael Jordan in his prime to a version of Michael Jordan that is anywhere from 1 to 99% of Michael Jordan in his prime. We really don't have an easy way to know exactly how well our hypothetical Jordan is performing and it's somewhat telling that you immediately assume half is where we're at right now.

So if Michael Jordan hitting shots is equal to subscribers, where does revenue come in? Because they're making more net bookings than ever before, so maybe we don't know how many shots Michael Jordan is landing, but he's winning more games than he ever has before in his life? I don't know how this analogy works anymore.

Originally Posted by VMSmith

I think I just figured it out - you're the guy that thinks polls are meaningless because they don't ask every single voter their questions. You seem to believe that if the data isn't all-encompassingly accurate and direct from the source then it must be utterly useless.

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion based off what you quoted. My issue is that a few people in this thread appear to be arguing in bad faith by coloring the broad strokes, intentionally vague language of this QR with their own negative spin. Full stop: I recognize it's not good news. I'm not debating that. I just don't think it's the worst ever news nor do I think it's indicative of a great recession (in terms of player count) for WoW. As I've said a few times before, my view is one of glass half-full. I'm not trying to deny reality. The only reason my views stand out is because they're layered in between a mountain of overwhelmingly pessimistic takes.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Stickiler

So if Michael Jordan hitting shots is equal to subscribers, where does revenue come in? Because they're making more net bookings than ever before, so maybe we don't know how many shots Michael Jordan is landing, but he's winning more games than he ever has before in his life? I don't know how this analogy works anymore.

It really doesn't work. I was just illustrating how the flaw of the analogy still applies to the counter-argument @Nereidaa had made.

Originally Posted by Relapses

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion based off what you quoted. My issue is that a few people in this thread appear to be arguing in bad faith by coloring the broad strokes, intentionally vague language of this QR with their own negative spin. Full stop: I recognize it's not good news. I'm not debating that. I just don't think it's the worst ever news nor do I think it's indicative of a great recession (in terms of player count) for WoW. As I've said a few times before, my view is one of glass half-full. I'm not trying to deny reality.

That's fair enough and I'm happy to apologize for misconstruing your position. In my defense, your posts across MMOC do not do a good job at hinting that you hold this position.

FWIW, I fully agree with this assessment and acknowledge that there are a good handful of drive-by shitposters that claim the doom of WoW, along with a few regulars that do so, as well.

I think, and it's just my rambling thoughts, that perhaps you are so weary of the actual doomsaying that you now conflate positions similar to this with those doomsayers. I've been posting favorably towards Dragonflight and yet you accused me of a "negativity circlejerk" for recognizing that damage has been done.

Personally, right now I feel that if casual/solo players were willing to give Blizzard the opportunity they would find that Dragonflight is fun for the non-organized player. Still, I understand why they might not grant that opportunity, I barely decided to do so, myself

Originally Posted by Nzx

The internet is a funny place. You're all communists when it suits you, complaining that the capitalistic concept of 'infinite growth' is impossible and no one should be beholden to it and we should all burn it down rah rah rah.

People have a very silly "grass is greener" mindset re: Marxism (and don't really bother to abide by it in a very orthodox way) and conflate capitalism in itself with corporate corruption and the system's worst elements. It is a funny recurring detail that people will invariably blame capitalism, which is understandable but possibly quixotic, or outright blame the market/price system itself, which is outright insane, when our particular, unrestricted variant thereof features things which are understandably very objectionable (i.e. insufficient welfare, corner-cutting, monopolies)

Originally Posted by VMSmith

I think, and it's just my rambling thoughts, that perhaps you are so weary of the actual doomsaying that you now conflate positions similar to this with those doomsayers. I've been posting favorably towards Dragonflight and yet you accused me of a "negativity circlejerk" for recognizing that damage has been done.

I responded that way because you defended @Osmeric's takes which are very much in favor of keeping the negativity status quo flowing. For the last year+, the guy's been dancing in the streets every time anything even remotely negative about WoW is mentioned in a news article because he really wants to be proven right that WoW is just too danged hard to sustain itself.