World of Warcraft is the Top Franchise of Blizzard

[kamuimac]

We don't need to know the breakdown because COD and Candy Crush are both Activision franchises. So saying Wow makes the majority of Blizzards revenue is totally correct and the breakdown of Activision-Blizzard's top revenue makers is irrelevant because we are only talking about Blizzard here.

and why would you do it like this ? Blizzard hasnt been its own entity since Lost Vikings .

its pointless to discuss "Blizzard" because "blizzard" as blizzard hasnt existed in years now.

[sirethas]

Now, just wait when Classic comes up, those numbers will go through a roof for 2019...Most likely will go rapidly down after few months, because let's be honest, a lot of players will ditch classic after couple of months (if not sooner), not saying it will be dead, definetly will have strong core playerbase, but the report will show big numbers for this year for WoW as subscription will be combined.

But since subscription isn't as big of a income for WoW since tokens were introduced, I think it will go back up by big margin since players playing exclusively classic won't be able to buy tokens...at least I hope they won't since it would ruin Classic economy.

[druenos]

and why would you do it like this ? Blizzard hasnt been its own entity since Lost Vikings .

its pointless to discuss "Blizzard" because "blizzard" as blizzard hasnt existed in years now.

You don't know much about the details of the Activison/Blizzard merger do you? Google it.

[jordanzhang123]

I kind of agreed

[MoanaLisa]

but im sure if future expansions would be to come at some point in time we will see all those servers being connected by transmog.

That's a fantasy.

WoW Classic will be a thing for a while. It's not sustainable over the long run for large numbers like Blizzard needs. I expect Classic to draw in a lot of people at first then drop off over time. At the end of the "new release" cycle it'll jump the numbers a little bit but not enough to be noticeable and would probably not even be noticeable if Blizzard released a decent expansion.

No, Blizzard needs new games, new IP's. They cannot and should not rely on releasing 14-year-old games to save themselves. Whatever Classic is going to be it's going to be a marginal thing at best after a few months passes.

[Zandalariprelate]

Yep, exactly this.

Well considering there are lot of desilusional guys in the industry, I am not totally surprised just take a look at EA with SW BF2

[Zenfoldor]

I understand why this was posted. I have seen the argument many times that WoW is below Overwatch and Hearthstone when it comes to Blizzard priority due to those games supposedly bringing in much more money. It is usually used as a depression technique in the art of war against WoW(by forum haters), when I've seen it used. It was also used heavily on this forum after Overwatch was a success.

I hate BFA, and no longer play WoW, but I also keep my arguments in the realm of reality and try not to be affected by confirmation bias. In the future when this argument is brought up again, I will link this thread(where many posters are saying "duh" to a fact that many other posters simply refuse to accept).

Saying that WoW is not a priority at Blizzard, is a belief many come to because of confirmation bias. Their basic assumption is the game is dying, so they work backwards to the assumption that it is a low priority for Blizzard, and then one more step that if Blizzard sees it as a low priority then it must not make them as much money as their other projects. This is of course wrong, because "the game is dying" doesn't mean what they think it means.

[Eggroll]

Saying that WoW is not a priority at Blizzard, is a belief many come to because of confirmation bias. Their basic assumption is the game is dying, so they work backwards to the assumption that it is a low priority for Blizzard, and then one more step that if Blizzard sees it as a low priority then it must not make them as much money as their other projects. This is of course wrong, because "the game is dying" doesn't mean what they think it means.

WoW is a low priority at Blizz because Blizz wished they had more success with their new IP's, which they don't. I bet it hurts their delicate egos alot that they still have to rely on WoW for the companies success. I am curious if they are willing to put in the quality now so we can eventually get a properly crafted xpac again...

[BananaHandsB]

Revenue doesnt take in account the costs.
Its the money people give to the company.
As far as i understand.

Right, people confuse profit and revenue all the time. Companies tend to talk about revenue rather than profit because of this confusion, so as to avoid people comparing their profit to another company's revenue and inaccurately making them look worse in comparison, which can dissuade investors for no reason other than people's stupidity. Regardless, the operating costs of WoW vs other blizz games is negligible in today's world.

[Big Thanks]

Right, that's called profit aka earnings. Regardless, the operating costs of WoW vs other blizz games is negligible in today's world.

But Moanalisa already said "NET" Revenue is the profits after costs.
I didnt know that.

[BananaHandsB]

But Moanalisa already said "NET" Revenue is the profits after costs.
I didnt know that.

Net revenue and revenue are essentially the same thing. They are both still revenue aka the money received for goods or services, not profit. As long as it's called "revenue" it does not factor in operating or manufacturing costs. Net revenue just subtracts returns of products. When people talk about revenue it almost always means net revenue.

[Big Thanks]

Net revenue and revenue are essentially the same thing. They are both still revenue aka the money received for goods or services, not profit. As long as it's called "revenue" it does not factor in operating or manufacturing costs. Net revenue just subtracts returns of products. When people talk about revenue it almost always means net revenue.

Oh, thanks, i didnt know.
Maybe i misreaded Moanalisa.

Since we are here let me Google it just to be sure

- - - Updated - - -
@BananaHandsB

You seem to be the one who is right after googling it.

Net Income is after costs and expenses.
Net Revenue is not.

Do you think WoW's costs and expenses are really big? I think there is information on the internet about the costs and expenses in Vanilla.

[Pann]

Net revenue and revenue are essentially the same thing. They are both still revenue aka the money received for goods or services, not profit. As long as it's called "revenue" it does not factor in operating or manufacturing costs. Net revenue just subtracts returns of products. When people talk about revenue it almost always means net revenue.

This is correct and just to add a little extra detail net revenue also takes into account discounts.

[Big Thanks]

In Vanilla the upkeep costs were 200 million in 4 years (probably 100 million in 2 years)

The game maker said it has spent only $200m (~ £110.24m) on upkeep since the game launched in 2004.
That $200m figure apparently includes payroll for the entire staff, hardware support, and customer service.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/0...t_upkeep_200m/

This doesnt count the costs of developing a new expansion....i think. So is probably more.

[Eggroll]

In Vanilla the upkeep costs were 200 million in 4 years (probably 100 million in 2 years)



https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/0...t_upkeep_200m/

This doesnt count the costs of developing a new expansion....i think. So is probably more.

Yeah, but I think it's not fair to count in Vanilla. Since they had worked for many many years on WoW before it was even launched. Then they had to once establish the hardware structure which probably cost them a ton and now is probably mostly maintainance, not a completely new build up.

[Pann]

In Vanilla the upkeep costs were 200 million in 4 years (probably 100 million in 2 years)



https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/0...t_upkeep_200m/

This doesnt count the costs of developing a new expansion....i think. So is probably more.

There were articles around the same time as that one was posted that stated that WoW yielded around 80% profit (I assume this was gross profit) although, from memory, it was unclear whether these figures included development costs.

[Vineri]

Yeah, but I think it's not fair to count in Vanilla. Since they had worked for many many years on WoW before it was even launched. Then they had to once establish the hardware structure which probably cost them a ton and now is probably mostly maintainance, not a completely new build up.

Hardware is still upgraded from time to time. If anything, it hurts Activision-Blizzard's pockets more these days to update many servers that are mostly unstressed / underused. They can be linked into clusters, but there is still a good deal of upkeep required. Housing all this architecture isn't as lucrative as it was a decade ago.

However:

One saving grace to the argument of lower costs these days is that current employees seem to be willing to work for peanuts in high cost of living areas. Whereas, a decade+ ago, during rapid growth, employees were grabbed up quickly, likely at higher rates, and likely with overtime built into their expense, in the absence of a fully populated and trained staff.

Then again the studio Blizzard has seen rapid growth, employing thousands now, compared to much, much less a decade+ ago (or back to Vanilla / TBC even). It could very well be even more expensive to operate WoW than ever before.

[Eggroll]

Then again the studio Blizzard has seen rapid growth, employing thousands now, compared to much, much less a decade+ ago (or back to Vanilla / TBC even). It could very well be even more expensive to operate WoW than ever before.

Didn't they say at the start of WoD they had the biggest dev team in the history of WoW, like 100+ team members?

[Vineri]

Didn't they say at the start of WoD they had the biggest dev team in the history of WoW, like 100+ team members?

Sounds right, but that likely doesn't include other positions to make their "dev" jobs possible. Accountants, Analysts, Market Research, Marketers, Physical Sales people, Digital Sales people, Digital Sales site + maintenance, Human Resources, Tech Support, Software Support, Misc specialists , Packing, Shipping, Delivery. + the other dozen I missed.

However, from their numbers (if you are honest), I'm not sure if Test Script writers, testers, Configuration Managers, or Integration Managers are included in a Dev Team. It really depends on how they define a Dev Team. The number seems low.

At the end of the day, their employee count was likely higher than the Dev Count, .. but since they multiplied in size since then .. well, it's bigger now Data we have now is thousands of employees (thanks to the disclosure of layoffs) and the workforce %.

[Aqua]

Well why does it look so much like they're trying so hard to kill it.