Activision Blizzard Q3 2021 Investor Call, Jen Oneal Leaving Blizzard

[Deln]

actualy, for corporate speak its INCREDIBLY straightforward, or do you have some "personal" meaning to word stronger? you think they talk about their subscribers getting more exercise? bcs "stronger subscriber base" can mean one thing - more subscribers...

It could mean that of the subscribers they have they are online more often than the previous year.

I don't think these earnings calls can be too vague though the government frowns on misleading investors.

[Thetruth1400]

We can all trash Blizzard however much we want, and even if there's been a steady decline, they still have more players in their games than a lot of other companies big or small.

I agree for sure, but there's a massive difference between 26 million MAU playing WoW, and 26 million MAU playing Hearthstone. If all those people were playing WoW, it would be $390M on the sub price alone. If they were all playing Hearthstone, it's literally zero dollars to play it. Yes, that's grossly oversimplified, but it is a factor that needs to be addressed when making broad statements.

[Lolites]

It could mean that of the subscribers they have they are online more often than the previous year.

that would be quite stretching it... thats more likely what their "engagement" metric means but the formulation about stronger sub base seems pretty clear, and i doubt they would go THAT straightforward with a lie, especialy given their current situation

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Modern expansion could be any expansion that is still not a classic, as in vanilla and TBC. MoP would surely fit into it, so do you think WoW got more than 8.3 million subs now?

given that they also “in a decade” in the report I’d think modern needs to be less then that which at most means back to mop.

Besides all that, what it says in that transcript could just as much mean within each expansion, percentage wise. So the sub number is stronger now after a launch year than for example the year after BfA launch year, percentagewise.

it could be % wise true but that doesn’t really change any thing as both legion and shadowlands first quarter says something along the lines of them beating all other launch numbers in a decade.

How they write the whole thing is admitting irregularities to their statement. Typically means that it is not better than all the other modern expansions(and what do they really count as modern expansion?) but most. But how do they actually compare that?

It's nothing to base a conclusion on, that's what I am trying to say I guess. But I think me and you agree that WoW is doing pretty good still, in it's 17th year, which is truly impressive.

Yes typically means most which means it can’t just be bfa/legion as if it was just beating bfa it wouldn’t fall into most.

That means it has to count Wod at least or mop at most and be doing better then 2/3 or 3/4 of expans.

Which means if legion did better then Wod which was at 5.5M at the same time current subs need to atleast be stronger then 5.5m (more if it counts mop) if legion did worse then Wod then currennsubs are under 5.5m but still above what ever legion had.

[Grim32]

Subs are probably higher as many people bought 6 month subs for WoW Classic on TBC release.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Good god shut up.

Nan I think I’m good.

[Cosmic Janitor]

It could mean that of the subscribers they have they are online more often than the previous year.

I don't think these earnings calls can be too vague though the government frowns on misleading investors.

As far as I know the government doesn't give a toss, since almost all your legal options as an investor are of a civial lawsuit nature. The government comes in when you steal even more of their money than their swiss-cheese laws already allow you to.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It could mean that of the subscribers they have they are online more often than the previous year.

I don't think these earnings calls can be too vague though the government frowns on misleading investors.

No it mentions engagement before subs come out so the two are distinct It also later mentions net revenue with no mention of subs so it can’t be connected to that either.

[Pann]

We don’t need to have an actual number to know if they are at or above a previous state.

They also don’t need to say there above previous counts when they say they are stronger then he same period in past expans. Subs count could be lower then last quarter and still be better then other expans at the same point in there life times.

You are conflating the word stronger with subs being higher than in previous expansions. Quite simply they have not said that sub numbers are greater than previous expansions and until they clearly and unambiguously say that sub numbers are higher than a previous quarter and/or release current and historical sub numbers no-one outside of Blizzard knows how well sub numbers are performing.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

You are conflating the word stronger with subs being higher than in previous expansions. Quite simply they have not said that sub numbers are greater than previous expansions and until they clearly and unambiguously say that sub numbers are higher than a previous quarter and/or release current and historical sub numbers no-one outside of Blizzard knows how well sub numbers are performing.

Yes no one outside of blizzard knows how well sun numbers and performing, and they say they are stronger then in most past expans at the same point along.

So subs are higher then other expans even if they may have dropped from last quarter.

[Doffen]

given that they also “in a decade” in the report I’d think modern needs to be less then that which at most means back to mop.

Yeah, MoP and onwards would be my bet, though the whole "old" wow ended with Arthas, but a decade would be well within the lifespan of Cata so MoP most likely.

WoW had a 10% MAU increase in 2016 according to the results in Q4 2016, the one after Legion launch quarter, and 20% year over year in Q4 so if WoD(5.5mill subs in Q3 2015) didn't lose much more after that quarter then Legion was higher than WoD.

Man what a year 2016 was for Blizzard overall though.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Yeah, MoP and onwards would be my bet, though the whole "old" wow ended with Arthas, but a decade would be well within the lifespan of Cata so MoP most likely.

WoW had a 10% MAU increase in 2016 according to the results in Q4 2016, the one after Legion launch quarter, and 20% year over year in Q4 so if WoD(5.5mill subs in Q3 2015) didn't lose much more after that quarter then Legion was higher than WoD.

Man what a year 2016 was for Blizzard overall though.

For legion you’d want to go to Q2 2017 as it would be 3 quarters after it’s launch quarter which is where we are for shadowlands and where Wod was when it hit 5.5m as both came out in NOV compared to legions august.

But you’d right it would seem to be ahead of Wod still with this being the mention of it.

Time spent in World of Warcraft® grew year‐over‐year in the second quarter, and the LegionTM expansion continued to perform ahead of the prior expansion.

https://investor.activision.com/stat...1-9729d769a27b

So we’d be at a minimum of 5.5m if for what ever reason they cut out mop or higher if mop is counted which it then becomes a toss up to rather legion beat mop or not.

[Pendragon]

Or maybe the majority of players don;t want he game you want? You need to stop acting like how you want the game is the only way it can be considered good. You need to start realizing your opinion is just that and not fact.

Enjoy your borrowed power system and other garbage systems.

[Pann]

Yes no one outside of blizzard knows how well sun numbers and performing, and they say they are stronger then in most past expans at the same point along.

So subs are higher then other expans even if they may have dropped from last quarter.

They said that the subscriber base is stronger than what is typically seen at this point in previous expansions (they did not mention sub numbers) this does not mean that sub numbers are higher than previous expansions, it is obviously based on internal metrics but we do NOT know what they are or what it means.

Given that they have deliberately chosen a vague statement over something clear that mentions sub numbers and says that are higher than previous expansions it is likely that this is not the case.

[Doffen]

For legion you’d want to go to Q2 2017 as it would be 3 quarters after it’s launch quarter which is where we are for shadowlands and where Wod was when it hit 5.5m as both came out in NOV compared to legions august.

But you’d right it would seem to be ahead of Wod still with this being the mention of it.



https://investor.activision.com/stat...1-9729d769a27b

So we’d be at a minimum of 5.5m if for what ever reason they cut out mop or higher if mop is counted which it then becomes a toss up to rather legion beat mop or not.

Yeah, it was for comparing it to WoD if we were looking strictly at sub number.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

They said that the subscriber base is stronger than what is typically seen at this point in previous expansions (they did not mention sub numbers) this does not mean that sub numbers are higher than previous expansions, it is obviously based on internal metrics but we do NOT know what they are or what it means.

Given that they have deliberately chosen a vague statement over something clear that mentions sub numbers and says that are higher than previous expansions it is likely that this is not the case.

The subscription base are the subs numbers this has always been the case.

Them being vague is also par for the course for investor reports. What we do know though is that the sub base being stronger doesn't mean higher engagement as that’s a separate statement and it doesn’t mean higher revenue as that’s also separate.

Leaving only sub numbers being higher (if still lower then last quarter), unless you want to suggest something else it could mean.

[Rawrajishxc]

"World of Warcraft is on track to deliver its strongest engagement and net bookings outside of a Modern expansion year in a decade."

Riiiiiiiiighhhhtttt......

They literally say this every year and just like every other year, they're full of shit.

[OrangeJuice]

Yes no one outside of blizzard knows how well sun numbers and performing, and they say they are stronger then in most past expans at the same point along.

So subs are higher then other expans even if they may have dropped from last quarter.

Except we do have a general idea. For starters, we know that Blizzard made $340 million in PC merchandise, and of that $340 million, $40m came from Sub revenue. Well, WoW is their only sub based game. Right? So $40m/$15 = 2.7m subs sold. You divide that quarterly total by 3 to get an average 900k subs per month. Now all thats left to do is break down the remaining $300m. I'd do it but you seem to be a lot smarter, and obviously more well informed than me, so I'll leave you to it.

[Khaza-R]

The subscription base are the subs numbers this has always been the case.

Them being vague is also par for the course for investor reports. What we do know though is that the sub base being stronger doesn't mean higher engagement as that’s a separate statement and it doesn’t mean higher revenue as that’s also separate.

Leaving only sub numbers being higher (if still lower then last quarter), unless you want to suggest something else it could mean.

Incredibly unlikely sub numbers are higher than Legion or WoD even.

The last time we saw WoW have a positive impact on MAUs was the launch of Classic in 2019. Nothing about the games seems to indicate there's more popularity for WoW than at that juncture. They could simply mean that a smaller percentage of people have stopped playing this year than in previous years. Which still gives no indication of actual sub numbers but could indicate that WoW's remaining base is more loyal than previous expansions.

[Pann]

The subscription base are the subs numbers this has always been the case.

Them being vague is also par for the course for investor reports. What we do know though is that the sub base being stronger doesn't mean higher engagement as that’s a separate statement and it doesn’t mean higher revenue as that’s also separate.

Leaving only sub numbers being higher (if still lower then last quarter), unless you want to suggest something else it could mean.

Why would they be vague in an investor report as par for the course? Why would they deliberately obfuscate information to their investors instead of giving them a clear statement?

The sentence you're basing this on starts with the words "With deep engagement across both Classic and Modern..." so I am not sure why you think engagement is separate.

It really doesn't. We don't know what it means, it could mean a number of things but it is unlikely that they would choose such ambiguous language over a clear statement such as With deep engagement across both Classic and Modern, WoW's overall subscriber numbers are higher than we typically see at this point after a Modern expansion launch. if what you claim was the case.