Activision Blizzard Q4 2020 Investor Call

Originally Posted by Gorsameth

lying in these reports to their investors is a crime. So no, everything said is entirely true.
Yes its all lawyer speak and might take a minute to full digest but they are not lies. Because it would could cost them a lot of money if they were.

Yeah, and whilst it's "lawyer" speak to us the intended audience also have expensive "lawyers" so any attempt to obfuscate or fudge the numbers would be caught immediately and no-one would trust them as an investment.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Xjan

"The team intends to deliver more frequent premium World of Warcraft content."

...hmm, this may be worrisome.

Isn't this the "we want to release expansions quicker" line they've delivered every report since forever?

Originally Posted by Trbn

best q ever again and yet servers keep dying and number of players on my server through wowprogress went down to 12k from 20

Thats the thing with corperate data. You have an entire section of a company, which job is to make the data look good and profitable. They can make low numbers look high, make losses seem like calculated investments or hidden and make the entire company overshadow the problems of individual projects.

Like, when it comes to Blizzard, they are so focused on MAU, but it says nothing about what the users are doing, how much time they are spending in the games or what the engagement level of these players are. Its all shallow talk meant for stakeholders, which says NOTHING about the health of the games.

.....Aside from CoD, because god there is a lot of dump people playing that game O.o

Originally Posted by Gorsameth

And google trends have very little to do with sub and engagement numbers.

The people who are playing and enjoying the game don't need to be googling WoW to do so.

Of course. Trends data is merely indicative, and can't anything either way.

There isn't causation, but it's foolish to say there isn't a correlation between the two, looking at how they compare when they did use to announce subscriber numbers:


Subscriber numbers are the fluid result of people going out vs people coming in. While most people on this forum will probably not be googling about WoW, I'm not so sure that many among the playerbase won't - for instance while searching for a quest or item. Even if not, it's still an indication of one of the big factors: potential people coming in.


Anyway, my point is not that trends data proves that Classic did better than Shadowlands - we don't know that. What I'm saying is that Blizzard stating that "Shadowlands had huge numbers and has a higher engagement at this point of an expansion than any other in history" isn't exactly the best information to guide ourselves on, as they will spin their tale in whatever way they can to look as good as they can to the investors.

Originally Posted by Kolvarg

Of course. Trends data is merely indicative, and can't anything either way.

There isn't causation

New content is a direct cause for more google searches as people google for guides. Also the curves cant perfectly correlate because the data points are not identically timed. WOTLK has 3 data points in trends for 8 in subs - its straight impossible.

Originally Posted by Kolvarg

Of course. Trends data is merely indicative, and can't anything either way.

There isn't causation, but it's foolish to say there isn't a correlation between the two, looking at how they compare when they did use to announce subscriber numbers:


Subscriber numbers are the fluid result of people going out vs people coming in. While most people on this forum will probably not be googling about WoW, I'm not so sure that many among the playerbase won't - for instance while searching for a quest or item. Even if not, it's still an indication of one of the big factors: potential people coming in.


Anyway, my point is not that trends data proves that Classic did better than Shadowlands - we don't know that. What I'm saying is that Blizzard stating that "Shadowlands had huge numbers and has a higher engagement at this point of an expansion than any other in history" isn't exactly the best information to guide ourselves on, as they will spin their tale in whatever way they can to look as good as they can to the investors.

You know putting it with the sub numbers just proves that google trends are meaningless right? The game peaked in wrath/cata launch yet the searches were way down from classic-wrath launch this directly contradicts any such claims of correlation.

Originally Posted by Kolvarg

Of course. Trends data is merely indicative, and can't anything either way.

There isn't causation, but it's foolish to say there isn't a correlation between the two, looking at how they compare when they did use to announce subscriber numbers:


Subscriber numbers are the fluid result of people going out vs people coming in. While most people on this forum will probably not be googling about WoW, I'm not so sure that many among the playerbase won't - for instance while searching for a quest or item. Even if not, it's still an indication of one of the big factors: potential people coming in.


Anyway, my point is not that trends data proves that Classic did better than Shadowlands - we don't know that. What I'm saying is that Blizzard stating that "Shadowlands had huge numbers and has a higher engagement at this point of an expansion than any other in history" isn't exactly the best information to guide ourselves on, as they will spin their tale in whatever way they can to look as good as they can to the investors.

your graph shows interest is about half of the peak while WoW's sub's themselves are peaking.
It shows interest at the start of wrath being the same as near the end of vanilla. Yet subs are doubled.
End of the graph interest is equal as at the start, but subs are <1mil and 5 mil respectively.

It doesn't show anything in relation to subs outside that there is an interest peak around expansions which is giant "duh".

Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium

You know putting it with the sub numbers just proves that google trends are meaningless right? The game peaked in wrath/cata launch yet the searches were way down from classic-wrath launch this directly contradicts any such claims of correlation.

His graph is just badly formated. Heres the original reddit post

Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium

You know putting it with the sub numbers just proves that google trends are meaningless right? The game peaked in wrath/cata launch yet the searches were way down from classic-wrath launch this directly contradicts any such claims of correlation.

How exactly does it prove? The fact that the impact of the correlation is not immediate does not prove there is no correlation. The most simple explanation is that there is a correlation, but there was a delay in that translating to actual sub numbers - especially since they only report sub numbers when they want, and using their own definition on how to count them.

Notice how while the trends line was going up there are reports very close one after another (suggests a constant growth, therefore they can constantly show growth), and when the trends line starts stagnating and declining through TBC the sub reports start being much more sporadic (suggest they are waiting for the best moments to be able to show growth).

Also, trends data is relevant to a lot of the world, but particularly in the West, not as much in the East, since they're based on Google data. The reason subscriber numbers peaked in late wrath is very likely because WotLK was only released in China in late August 2010 (which is not unexpected to affect WoW sub numbers but not much trends data).

Originally Posted by Gorsameth

your graph shows interest is about half of the peak while WoW's sub's themselves are peaking.
It shows interest at the start of wrath being the same as near the end of vanilla. Yet subs are doubled.
End of the graph interest is equal as at the start, but subs are <1mil and 5 mil respectively.

It doesn't show anything in relation to subs outside that there is an interest peak around expansions which is giant "duh".

See above.

Correlation is one thing. Causation is another. The fact that there is correlation does not mean that "if trends go up 50%, trends also go up 50%". The correlation is in the general trend of the line, rather than absolute numbers.

As I've said before, the number of subs is fluid and depends on the number of new/returning people subscribing, number of people maintaining subscription, and number of people cancelling subscription.

I would expect trends data to only correlate strongly with the first, and potentially partially with the second. This does mean you can't just extrapolate numbers and pretend they are confirmed, but it certainly does not mean it is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Kralljin

There are:

https://www.warcraftlogs.com/zone/ra...6#difficulty=1

And what makes you sure that none of those points also apply to Classic?

i found non earlier when i checked, so not sure what happened there. Obviously people who aren't logging in classic either. But for every 1 person logging in classic, he covers 39 other players, while in retail every 1 person who logs covers 9 to 29, most raids are 15-25 ish players and every mythic raid is exactly 20. And logs does not cover the vast majority of keystones etc.

Originally Posted by glowpipe

i found non earlier when i checked, so not sure what happened there. Obviously people who aren't logging in classic either. But for every 1 person logging in classic, he covers 39 other players, while in retail every 1 person who logs covers 9 to 29, most raids are 15-25 ish players and every mythic raid is exactly 20.

Due to the fact that you play with different people whenever you queue for LFR, the chances of landing in a group with at least one person that does log increases as time goes on.
If you are in a guild that doesn't log in Classic, you will never appear on warcraftlogs, unless you also do a lot of pugs on the side with alts.

Taking into account that pugs are most likely more prevalent in Retail than in Classic, also makes it more likely to end up in a group with someone that does log.

You won't get exact figures for either, but Classic also has chunk of "unaccounted players" and the number of raiders isn't on retail isn't as unknown because everything is a lot more interconnected, rather than closed off as in classic.

Originally Posted by bloodykiller86

shadowlands had the best launch sales out of any expansion in WoWs history lol so, wrong lol and classic and shadowlands are the same sub and alot of players play both. Shadowlands is a good expansion so far with a few gripes just like in any moment in wow. its never gonna be perfect

Blizzard literally goes out of their way to describe Classic and Retail as two different things for a reason and it isn't "because so many people play them both" as you say.

Likewise, Shadowlands has lots of gripes, just because you choose to fanboy ignore them doesn't mean they're not there and rather significant. Balance, Covenants feeling forced for some specs, lack of gear from M+, anima being extremely slow to gain especially outside of WQs; those are all valid complaints that exist right now and haven't had much in the way of communication from Blizzard on.

Originally Posted by mbit

His graph is just badly formated. Heres the original reddit post

This Graph doesn’t seem to have any thing to do with google trends just guessed data points?

yep, that's their business model, less players but more "whales", though they got lucky with CoViD since everything online got pumped out by lockdowns and quarantine.

Originally Posted by glowpipe

He only posted mythic nathria aswell. Because the only way to prove his "point" is to be dishonest as fuck.
Classic logs is always 40 people per 1 player logging. retail its 10 to 30. Mostly around 20.
How many people do you think logs pugs ? casual guild runs or even lfr ? There is not a single nathria lfr log.

Server stats speak for themselves, and parses proves litteraly nothing.

Server stats count unsubbed toons as well

Originally Posted by Thetruth1400

Blizzard literally goes out of their way to describe Classic and Retail as two different things for a reason and it isn't "because so many people play them both" as you say.

Likewise, Shadowlands has lots of gripes, just because you choose to fanboy ignore them doesn't mean they're not there and rather significant. Balance, Covenants feeling forced for some specs, lack of gear from M+, anima being extremely slow to gain especially outside of WQs; those are all valid complaints that exist right now and haven't had much in the way of communication from Blizzard on.

Many play Classic when it launched. Not as many do so regularly now. Servers are practically dead at all times these days. The novelty wore off fast for those that tried it and never played Vanilla. What remains are mostly the old school private server types and those that returned since there was an official version.

I know this because of reading the forums of people complaining about issues stemming from lack of players. I know this because my buddy has been desperately trying to get me and my guildie to play more so he and his guild can do stuff(something that he didn't need to do in the first 6 months of the game when servers were heavily active.

This isn't about being a fanboy, this is about paying attention. Dead servers during peak times(this is even with 1/3 the amount of servers retail has). Practily no online interest from searches to streaming anymore.

If anyone is fanboying about anything it's you about Classic. Which is fine if you prefer it and like it better than retail. Just stop being blind.

Originally Posted by Kolvarg

How exactly does it prove? The fact that the impact of the correlation is not immediate does not prove there is no correlation. The most simple explanation is that there is a correlation, but there was a delay in that translating to actual sub numbers - especially since they only report sub numbers when they want, and using their own definition on how to count them.

Notice how while the trends line was going up there are reports very close one after another (suggests a constant growth, therefore they can constantly show growth), and when the trends line starts stagnating and declining through TBC the sub reports start being much more sporadic (suggest they are waiting for the best moments to be able to show growth).

Also, trends data is relevant to a lot of the world, but particularly in the West, not as much in the East, since they're based on Google data. The reason subscriber numbers peaked in late wrath is very likely because WotLK was only released in China in late August 2010 (which is not unexpected to affect WoW sub numbers but not much trends data).



See above.

Correlation is one thing. Causation is another. The fact that there is correlation does not mean that "if trends go up 50%, trends also go up 50%". The correlation is in the general trend of the line, rather than absolute numbers.

As I've said before, the number of subs is fluid and depends on the number of new/returning people subscribing, number of people maintaining subscription, and number of people cancelling subscription.

I would expect trends data to only correlate strongly with the first, and potentially partially with the second. This does mean you can't just extrapolate numbers and pretend they are confirmed, but it certainly does not mean it is meaningless.

This is a delay of years we’re talking about and unless you want to argue that the people googling were seeing the future and losing interest you would expect said delay to carry on through wrath as the actual numbers were going up only dropping after a grace period where players started to leave, the chart doesn’t reflect that in any way.

Said delay would also effect subs from launch-peak where we can see multiple dips in google trends yet not a single dip in sub count.

Originally Posted by Skandulous

Server stats count unsubbed toons as well

Im talking server status not stats. That count players online. Rarely do I ever see a classic server say anything above medium. The two servers I play on retail are always full or high. The other servers I have characters on have gone from low to med/high since SL launched. Yes the servers I have classic characters on were high when it launched, but I haven't seen anything but low on those in months.

Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium

This Graph doesn’t seem to have any thing to do with google trends just guessed data points?

The estimates are based on google trend data. Its the output of an ML algo with expected value vs real value trained to predict BFA numbers where sub numbers dont exist. What this shows is that it correlates very well so it should be on point for the later section where sub data is missing.

Originally Posted by mbit

The estimates are based on google trend data. Its the output of an ML algo with expected value vs real value trained to predict BFA numbers where sub numbers dont exist. What this shows is that it correlates very well so it should be on point for the later section where sub data is missing.

Got a link to the methodology or any further info then just this graph?

Without hard numbers from subscriptions and/or concurrent players these investor calls are virtually worthless for determining the size of the playerbase.