Thanks... by that note I'd brick them both in the face. GC for screwing up the mob/dungeon health pools changing the core of them... and Kalgan for not catching that, allowing things like raiders of the lost uldum to happen, and a WHOLE host of other problems I'd list if I didn't wish to totally derail this thread. :P
In regards to that number, It's highly unlikely that of the $20 million that $15mil goes towards staffing call centers and gm's, and leaving $5mill so actual server maintenence, etc... More likely is that the number is reversed. Personally, I'd be interested in the exact numbers if Blizzard would actually publish it.
Add that it's also highly unlikely at this point that any of it is actually going towards box sales of Cata as the sub numbers are dropping and not going up.
Actually he is missing something very important - the only number in that report that matters is the non-gaap (non-deferred) mmo revenue number. The gaap and the first number he quotes included deferred revenue from expansion sales, while the 2010 comparison has none of that since there was no expansion released in q4 2009.
---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 02:48 AM ----------
This is a fairly bad and wrong way to look at it. You are including q1.2.3 of 2011, which includes almost all the revenue of cataclysm box sales (it gets deferred), versus 3 quarters of 2010 which didn't have any nearby expansions.
A more accurate and honest measure is to use the non-deferred revenue numbers for each quarter, remembering that q1 2011 did have enough box sales to jack it up. Blizzard comparison numbers year over year the last 2 quarters have been lower than 2010 for wow.
Subs will go down until Blizzard stops lazy and makes sure every content patch has a large raid(or two), and some dungeon and PVP content.
Worth adding (you know already of course) that when you get back into comparisons in bc-era, blizzard was gettnig substantially less from the9 than they now do from netease. Imagine backing out that difference. Revenue would be in the late-2007.early2008 area, as far as comparisons.
just waitin for blizz to combine servers so there is more access to player base
netease stated growth in world of warcraft existed for them in q1. Its revenue, not subs, but since their model is hourly and they are expanding geographically anyway I think people who insist about this (not you) are being willfully obtuse.
At least Morhaime finally said over half their subs are in china so I don't have to 'debate' that point anymore.
---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 02:54 AM ----------
wow during the na/eu wotlk timeframe had an exciting 2% annual growth rate. Based on comments in calls and from netease, I think it is possible almost all net growth after dec 2008 till dec 2010 was china. The revenue picture does support this theory as well.
10.3 million is pretty awesome. This number obviously doesn't include people that buy cards to play if they don't have a card to be billed on. Blizzard will never state how many active accounts they have though instead of spamming sub numbers which fluxuate. :/
the revenue picture says 300-350k were western sub losses. this is less that half, consistent with Morhaime/s comment.
---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 02:59 AM ----------
apples and oranges. the west probably did lose about 100k a month, but the total sub number includes china, which is not getting the games you list, at least not anytime soon (maybe they do get d3, the other two i doubt at all).
I think the western sub base is now around 4-4.5m, depending on how you estimate their total value-added service revenue.
---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 03:01 AM ----------
300-350k of those lost subs in q3 were western. You have to look at the revenue change, not the headline sub number.
---------- Post added 2011-12-01 at 03:03 AM ----------
There is a guy on this forum who worked for blizzard for some time who described some of ghostcrawlers behaviors. It is really quite shocking, though it does provide a context for some of those widely unpopular inexplicable decisions that get brought in from time to time on changes.