I think it's time for Blizzard owns up to being "Responsible"

[facelesssoul]

If you feel like there isn't enough of a community to play the game then quit. Are you able to log in and find a raid group? If so, what's the problem? Or if you pvp, can you find others to pvp with? If so, then what's the problem?

"I can list many reasons" *proceeds to ramble without listing any reasons*

Nice.

People who complain will always find reasons to complain and people who counter-complain will always have the same packaged retorts.

So why shouldn't Blizzard be transparent about their numbers anyway? At least there would be a measure of objectivity to any argument about the health of the game if any side of the argument can have numbers to back it up. Their only argument is the "cyclical nature" of subscriptions. Well the thing about cyclical is ups after the downs and upward and downward trends can be easily inferred along with events that triggered them.

[Th3Scourge]

Yes absolutely they should

So that way we can differentiate the subs from the whales propping up the revenue dollars and puts more pressure on them to deliver a better game for their consumers.

We all know that the reason they stopped reporting was because it was bad press and they could mask it with MAUs and a flat revenue number.

[shadowmatrix]

Well I would like to actually see numbers to back claims of positive or negative impacts of design choices to the game. Instead of seeing BS speculations of "WoW is Dead" and "All is fine". Also makes Blizzard more accountable in front of it's stakeholders.

Positive and negative impacts of design choices aren't measured in subscriber numbers, they are measured by the number of times players actually partake in the activity. How often, duration, etc.
Having 2 million players quit the game after PvP changes means nothing if those players didn't PvP in the first place.

[facelesssoul]

Positive and negative impacts of design choices aren't measured in subscriber numbers, they are measured by the number of times players actually partake in the activity. How often, duration, etc.
Having 2 million players quit the game after PvP changes means nothing if those players didn't PvP in the first place.

Well how about those numbers as well? End game participation broken down to each category would give even more transparency. Heck even a quarterly breakdown would suffice to smooth out the changes and give room for things to brew for a bit before giving a verdict.

As many posters noted, if someone doesn't want to play they can go ahead and if they do they can go ahead. Sub numbers can't possibly be that relevant to people's choices. Right?

[Relapses]

Well how about those numbers as well? End game participation broken down to each category would give even more transparency. Heck even a quarterly breakdown would suffice to smooth out the changes and give room for things to brew for a bit before giving a verdict.

As many posters noted, if someone doesn't want to play they can go ahead and if they do they can go ahead. Sub numbers can't possibly be that relevant to people's choices. Right?

Care to elaborate why you only want subscriber numbers (which are meaningless) instead of attrition and new player generation numbers?

[jackofwind]

Stakeholders are not only the investors, it also includes the player-base and employees.

You're not a stakeholder just because you play the game.

[Afrospinach]

People who complain will always find reasons to complain and people who counter-complain will always have the same packaged retorts.

So why shouldn't Blizzard be transparent about their numbers anyway? At least there would be a measure of objectivity to any argument about the health of the game if any side of the argument can have numbers to back it up. Their only argument is the "cyclical nature" of subscriptions. Well the thing about cyclical is ups after the downs and upward and downward trends can be easily inferred along with events that triggered them.

Can you point to even one historical even that was proved with sub numbers? Really the only thing that has been observed is a cyclical nature of both patches and expansions, a variance to which people like yourself pour all their precious bullshit into. Besides that, maybe hitting the roof with subs implies doing things you would rather Blizzard did not do. Take for example the long downward trend in subs. How is Blizzard going to fix that? Engage a new, younger, fortnite dazzled generation? I'll pass.

You know that old saying, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

"sub numbers went down because blizzard did this thing I did not like"

Truth is you have no clue even with the sub numbers. You are just curious and want to be indulged so you can start a real "productive" conversation, like this one!

Positive and negative impacts of design choices aren't measured in subscriber numbers, they are measured by the number of times players actually partake in the activity. How often, duration, etc.
Having 2 million players quit the game after PvP changes means nothing if those players didn't PvP in the first place.

Even player engagement can have pitfalls. For example the super accessible but impossibly, actually indeterminately long loot treadmill of BFA titan forging. Another example is LFR in MoP. LFR is a great success they say. LFR was the only real character progression I say, and judging by the tone of LFR over many many years it is something people largely put up with not enjoy because it is rewarding.

You're not a stakeholder just because you play the game.

This actually falls precisely within the definition.

[facelesssoul]

Care to elaborate why you only want subscriber numbers (which are meaningless) instead of attrition and new player generation numbers?

It's an easy figure to share without need to go into details? Regional and demographic metadata would paint a better picture of how things are going. Any other details would be welcome of course as it would give a better focus to what the subscriber trends mean.

It's not like I am asking for real-time numbers broken down to the finest detail. I'm just saying a monthly or quarterly figure would go a long way towards establishing transparency and respect with the stakeholders. Too much detail would put too much pressure on the developers, sub numbers are the bare minimum of detail.

[MoanaLisa]

...sub numbers are the bare minimum of detail.

Sub numbers might be your bare minimum but it's not a bare minimum for anyone else. No in WoW's market space is reporting active subs. No one.

[Th3Scourge]

You're not a stakeholder just because you play the game.

lol. Yes, you are by definition a stakeholder because you play the game

[hulkgor]

You need subscriber numbers to make an "informed decision" about playing or not?

You either enjoy the game, or you don't, regardless of 1 or 10 million active players.

This doesn't come across as anything more than wanting validation for bashing the game, or praising it, for nothing else than 'numbers', which in itself, is irrelevant.

[Mysterymask]

lol. Yes, you are by definition a stakeholder because you play the game

Stakeholder means you own something at the company

By all accounts you don't even OWN the game...you just pay for the privilege of playing it

[Swnem]

They aren't going to do that cause it's not in their favor.
A 13m sub mmo having dropped to 1-2m subs is not exactly a favorable sight for them.

[Relapses]

It's an easy figure to share without need to go into details? Regional and demographic metadata would paint a better picture of how things are going. Any other details would be welcome of course as it would give a better focus to what the subscriber trends mean.

It's not like I am asking for real-time numbers broken down to the finest detail. I'm just saying a monthly or quarterly figure would go a long way towards establishing transparency and respect with the stakeholders. Too much detail would put too much pressure on the developers, sub numbers are the bare minimum of detail.

So you acknowledge they're meaningless yet want them anyway?

[MoanaLisa]

Stakeholder means you own something at the company

By all accounts you don't even OWN the game...you just pay for the privilege of playing it

Technically customers can be stakeholders since it's loosely defined as anyone with an interest in a product or service. That said, there are different sorts of stakeholders and typically customers have no say in how the company is run. They can either buy the product or not and that's the extent of it. The notion that because you subscribe to the game you should have access to proprietary information is just stupid on its face. That's not how it works.

[Jester Joe]

lol. Yes, you are by definition a stakeholder because you play the game

It's really semantics.

The correct phrasing would be that you're not an investor just because you're a stakeholder. But we're talking about the investors anyway really in the end only, so in the context you should kinda figure by saying stakeholder we'd be referring to the investors.


Either way, needing to know sub numbers to determine if you're going to play the game or not is kinda a petty level of decision.
Either you enjoy it or not.

[exochaft]

They aren't going to do that cause it's not in their favor.
A 13m sub mmo having dropped to 1-2m subs is not exactly a favorable sight for them.

After WoD, that's likely the reason they stopped announcing sub numbers, as it allows Blizz to control the narrative. Someone mentioned along the lines that Blizz is rather forthright in their presentation of MAUs for investor calls and the like, but I'd honestly say it's classic case of making numbers say whatever the hell you want them to say. While everything that is said is teeeechnically true, it's not necessarily an accurate picture. ActiBlizz is always going to try to paint a positive picture, and you can massage data in any way to make a positive statement about even a terrible situation.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Care to elaborate why you only want subscriber numbers (which are meaningless) instead of attrition and new player generation numbers?

Would you actually support his thread if they posted something saying they wanted those numbers instead?

- - - Updated - - -

Sub numbers might be your bare minimum but it's not a bare minimum for anyone else. No in WoW's market space is reporting active subs. No one.

Well Blizzard certainly used to release those numbers, and that fact is drastically more relevant than what you keep saying. Like even if Final Fantasy did, I doubt you would change your tune on sub numbers. Would you really suddenly agree? No? Then why say this at all? Its not relevant.

[Ringthane]

The numbers will either be higher than you expect, at which time you will accuse them of propping up the numbers with some kind of promotion or trickery, or they will be lower than you expect, at which time you will come back here shouting "WoW is dead! WoW is dead!"

Nobody cares about either.

[nToxik]

Why does this thread exist?