WoW made 213 million dollars in 2013 from microtransactions!

[riptal]

I seriously hope you are just trolling. Have a nice day.

Trolling? No!

I hate when people write their opinion and state it as a fact. This is an easy way to try to end a conversation and say that there is no other way of thinking.

Who can predict what will happen if Wow becomes f2p? 2 + million subscribers will leave? 2 + million will come back? Who can know? There is no one! It's just this point that annoys me in your post.

[Gilian]

No, I didn't say it will never go f2p. You should READ what you are quoting.

Sorry it was someone else who Farora quoted and then you responded on his reaction. My bad.

[Tharkkun]

Top 10 Online Games, Based on Free-to-Play Earnings - Worldwide
Rank Title Publisher 2013 Revenue (mil $)
1 (CrossFire) Tencent/SmileGate $957
2 (League of Legends) Tencent/Riot Games $624
3 (Dungeon Fighter Online) Nexon $426
4 (World of Tanks) Wargaming.net $372
5 (MapleStory) Nexon $326
6 (Lineage I) Tencent/SmileGate $257
7 (World of Warcraft) Activision Blizzard $213**
8 (Star Wars: The Old Republic) Electronic Arts $139**
9 (Team Fortress 2) Valve $139
10 (Counter-Strike Online) Valve/Nexon $121

** - Not counting their subscription fees.

So according to Gamespot, WoW made 213 million dollars from microtransactions alone in 2013. That's from services like realm transfer and pets/mounts.
linky --http://www.gamespot.com/articles/league-of-legends-revenues-for-2013-total-624-million/1100-6417224/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

I never thought these numbers could be so huge.
Is it finally time for WoW to go ftp? -sorry if this is already posted.

Needs to come from the horse's mouth. Market research is about as accurate as websites that show server population.

[MW4Life]

I pray this game doesn't go F2P. There are already enough troll, rude, nasty, "toxic," e-bully pieces of trash infesting this great game. Going F2P opens the floodgate to many more.

[Berethos08]

Blizzard has shown that you can successfully have both a subscription and a F2P model in the form of microtransactions in a game.

Not necessarily, and not entirely accurate - to have a subscription requirement and micro-transactions is something only a few companies can successfully pull off, Blizzard currently being one of them, and a lot of that so far has to do with their long standing reputation built up over the years and the relatively limited store offerings. So in that sense, you are right that other companies can only dream of doing what Blizzard does (though it's not the pay to win model, not yet at any rate).

However, having micro-transactions ultimately isn't the same as having the F2P model, which is very much about drawing in players for free and then convincing them to pay while they stick around, and the game is designed around doing that. As a concept it's not that far removed from convincing players to stick around and pay a subscription fee, except they invite you in the door first and everything on the menu is a la carte versus paying a cover charge and finding an open bar inside. The best versions of this make the free game a lot of fun to play and then hope you're having so much fun that you don't mind paying, while the not so good lock a lot of things away unless you pay up. In either case, it's all about making paying for those extras really, really attractive, which is a motive that influences the game as a whole in a way you don't see in subscription games like WoW. As of right now, WoW's is pure vanity with the occasional appeal to the heart through charity donations...different beast of a micro-transaction model, and while they could possibly make it work a true F2P model doesn't currently exist in the game and I doubt would be received well at all, considering the reaction to the bare-bones additions thus far and the (unfortunate, in my opinion) decision to make the 90s a paid boost extra.

I say they could possibly make it work because they actually aren't the first to try merging the two...Turbine's LOTRO did so back in 2010 with their hybrid VIP/F2P system and even before that with DDO in 2009, and while neither have ever been the powerhouse that WoW is both shifts saw a significant increase in revenue in the months following, and both games continue to update to this day. Both of those use a true F2P model with a subscription option attached, and have seen success in doing so. WoW would probably be wildly successful using a similar hybrid model (similar models would later be used by Age of Conan and SWTOR), but they weren't the ones that showed it could be done considering they haven't actually done it yet.

[Kagecamia]

I pray this game doesn't go F2P. There are already enough troll, rude, nasty, "toxic," e-bully pieces of trash infesting this great game. Going F2P opens the floodgate to many more.

You should see the lv 10-20 pvp bracket with all the trial account players from Brazil and the latin american realms. You can't get shit done when they are in your BG.

[zephid]

Because i think they could make more money by going ftp, and instead of 7 mill active accounts we would have 20+ mill.

Yeah but that doesn't mean anything unless those accounts would make up for the $1 billion they would lose from not having the subscription fee.

Just face it, there is no way WoW would make more money as a f2p game unless they added a lot of stuff that's "needed" for raiding etc. to their WoW-shop. Cosmetic items, pets, mounts etc. won't cover the loss of the subscription fee.

[Socialhealer]

lol at everyone wanting wow to go F2P, you realise that $213m isn't going to cut it? you're going to have to pay $30 for every new pvp season, $40 for every new raid tier, $25 to go to timeless isle, want heroic scenarios? another $20, isle of giants? $20.

the game won't run on store mounts and pets alone, or a level 90(that a lot of people already have 5+ of) everything would be unlocked via more payments.

[Doktor Faustus]

Ok.

The files below are freely available to peruse.

Please do so, quite interesting and helps you put things into context.

I prefer these reports of (biased) shareholder report.

http://investor.activision.com/secfi...725&CIK=718877

From:

http://investor.activision.com/reports.cfm

Just one interesting nugget, Activision spent $140,000,000 on product development July-September 2013 whilst spending $144,000,000 on marketing in the same period.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, from the legal section:

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims. FASB ASC Topic 450 governs the disclosure of loss contingencies and accrual of loss contingencies in respect of litigation and other claims. We record an accrual for a potential loss when it is probable that a loss will occur and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. When the reasonable estimate of the potential loss is within a range of amounts, the minimum of the range of potential loss is accrued, unless a higher amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range. Moreover, even if an accrual is not required, we provide additional disclosure related to litigation and other claims when it is reasonably possible ( i.e. , more than remote) that the outcomes of such litigation and other claims include potential material adverse impacts on us.

The outcomes of legal proceedings and other claims are subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are outside our control. There is significant judgment required in the analysis of these matters, including the probability determination and whether a potential exposure can be reasonably estimated. In making these determinations, we, in consultation with outside counsel, examine the relevant facts and circumstances on a quarterly basis assuming, as applicable, a combination of settlement and litigated outcomes and strategies. Moreover, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and the timing of development of factors on which reasonable judgments and estimates can be based can be slow. As such, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of any legal matter will not materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

On August 1, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a shareholder derivative action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Miller v. Kotick, et al. , No. BC517086. The complaint names our Board of Directors and Vivendi as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that our Board of Directors committed breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with Vivendi’s sale of its stake in the Company and that Vivendi also breached its fiduciary duties. The plaintiff further alleges that demand by it on our Board of Directors to institute action would be futile because a majority of our Board of Directors is not independent and a majority of the individual defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability for approving the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages sustained by the Company, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement, an order restricting our Chief Executive Officer, and our Chairman, from purchasing additional shares of our common stock and an order directing us to take necessary actions to improve and reform our corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law, including ordering a shareholder vote on certain amendments to our by-laws or charter that would require half of our Board of Directors to be independent of Messrs. Kotick and Kelly and Vivendi and a proposal to appoint a new independent Chairman of the Board of Directors. The Company’s response to the Miller complaint is due on November 18, 2013.

In addition, on August 14, 2013, we received a letter dated August 9, 2013 from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company to ascertain whether the Stock Purchase Transaction and Private Sale were in the best interests of the Company. In response to that request, we provided the stockholder with certain materials under a confidentiality agreement. On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under seal by the same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et al. , C.A. No. 8884-VCL. A public version of that complaint was filed on September 16, 2013. The allegations in the complaint were substantially similar to the allegations in the above referenced matter filed on August 1, 2013. On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended complaint under seal. The amended complaint added claims on behalf of an alleged class of Activision stockholders other than the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi, ASAC, investors in ASAC and other stockholders affiliated with the investors of ASAC. The added class claims are for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi affiliated directors, the members of the special committee of the Board formed in connection with the Company’s consideration of the transactions with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against ASAC. The amended complaint removed the derivative claims for waste of corporate assets and disgorgement but continued to allege derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a class, damages, reformation of the Private Sale, and disgorgement of any alleged profits received by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and ASAC. On October 29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the Pacchia case with the Hayes case described below. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013.

47

Table of Contents

Also, on September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al. , No. 8885-VCL. The complaint names our Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, ASAC, the General Partner of ASAC, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. (“Davis”) and Fidelity Management & Research Co. (“FMR”) as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation by failing to submit the matters contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement for approval by a majority of our stockholders (other than Vivendi and its controlled affiliates); that our Board of Directors committed breaches of their fiduciary duties in approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that Vivendi violated fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of the Company in entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman usurped a corporate opportunity from the Company; that our Board of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench our Board of Directors and officers in their offices; that the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and Vivendi; and that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be unjustly enriched through the Private Sale. The complaint seeks, among other things, the rescission of the Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to the Company of all or part of the shares that are the subject of the Private Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order requiring our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the Company the amounts by which they have allegedly been unjustly enriched; and alleged damages sustained by the class and the Company. In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without stockholder approval. Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement pending (a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the merits; (b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard stockholder vote on the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement under Section 9.1(b) of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or (c) modification of such preliminary injunction order by the Court of Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court. On September 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary injunction for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear the appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of Chancery’s decision and granted the defendant’s motion to hear the appeal on an expedited basis. Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s order issuing a preliminary injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that would require a vote of Activision’s unaffiliated stockholders under the charter.

On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October 29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with the Pacchia case. As noted above, on November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013.

Further, on September 18, 2013, the Company received a letter from another purported stockholder of the Company seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company to investigate potential wrongdoing or mismanagement in connection with the approval of the Stock Purchase Agreement.

We believe that the defendants have meritorious defenses and intend to defend each of these lawsuits vigorously. However, these lawsuits and any other lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual outcome and costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of litigation is necessarily uncertain, and the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these lawsuits and may not prevail.

The Company also may be subject to additional claims in connection with the Stock Purchase Transaction and Private Sale. Monitoring and defending against legal actions is time consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. In addition, the Company may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with litigation and, although coverage may be available under relevant insurance policies, coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. Under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and the indemnification agreements that the Company has entered into with our officers and directors, the Company may be required in certain circumstances to indemnify and advance expenses to them in connection with their participation in proceedings arising out of their service to us. There can be no assurance that any of these payments will not be material.

48

Table of Contents

The Company is not currently able to estimate the possible cost to us from these lawsuits and related indemnification obligations, as they are in the early stages and it cannot be determined how long it may take to resolve these matters or the possible amount of any damages that the Company may be required to pay. Moreover, the Company cannot be certain what the impact on our operations or financial position will be if any of the purported stockholder plaintiffs are successful in having the Stock Purchase Transaction and Private Sale rescinded. The Company has not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to these lawsuits. It is possible that the Company could, in the future, establish reserves, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages. A decision adverse to the Company on these actions could result in the rescission of the Stock Purchase Transaction and Private Sale or the payment of substantial damages and could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition, results of operations, profitability, cash flows or liquidity.

[Zafire]

lol@WoW will go F2P

Right now assuming 7 million subs they're getting roughly 1,260,000,000 a year.

It would have to get REALLY bad for them to go F2P. They would still be making more through subs then they are now with micro transitions until they hit about 1.2M subs, and they are a LONG way from that.

[Cosmic Janitor]

The most shocking thing to me is that Lineage 1 (!) is still going strong .. lol

[rinleezwins]

WoW going F2P is a really bad idea. More players, higher maintenance costs, lower(even lower, Kappa) maturity level of the community, and I don't see how it could significantly boost microtransaction sales.

[Farora]

Even with 3 million subs in EU/US they are making more than all games on that list.

With 2 million subs EU/US + Asia + Microtransaction I'm sure they are beating LoL.

So why again should they go f2p at this state? To lose money? That would be genius.

213.000.000 with 4 million subs, would mean 1 player spending $53,25 on transfers, mounts and other crap.

with 4 million subs their yearly subscription income is let's say 4 million x 10 x 12 = 480 million

So how many new players would the game need if they dropped the monthly fee to get to their current income? 480 million / 53,25 = 9 million.

So right now it wouldn't make sense to go F2P, but those numbers will get closer and closer over time.

[thelightthatstrays]

Some of the revenue calculations you folks are doing in this thread are hilarious. Please, go check out that quarterly report again.
Gotta tell ya, I look at that and the numbers posted in that gamespot page think F2P 2014 is exactly where Activision wants to go. A sub based WoW is already losing to LoL, today, and that is only looking worse for the next six months at best.

Let's see what the numbers for the Q4 2013 report look like. I bet it will be crystal clear WoW is dropping the current sub model to everyone in a matter of weeks.

[Belize]

15 years, lol in 15 years the technology will surpass WoW so bad that it'll look like NES games look today.

Reality check here. Metroid Prime came out 12 years ago. Still looks good by today's standards.

[Anjerith]

lol@WoW will go F2P

Right now assuming 7 million subs they're getting roughly 1,260,000,000 a year.

It would have to get REALLY bad for them to go F2P. They would still be making more through subs then they are now with micro transitions until they hit about 1.2M subs, and they are a LONG way from that.

That amount is ludicrous, you have to factor in server costs, employment expenses, development costs... the list goes on. They may make 1/3 of that at best.

[Xjev]

That amount is ludicrous, you have to factor in server costs, employment expenses, development costs... the list goes on. They may make 1/3 of that at best.

If they go F2P, costs will still be there, maybe even more, you are pointing out an unrelated point..

[Cosmic Janitor]

Some of the revenue calculations you folks are doing in this thread are hilarious. Please, go check out that quarterly report again.
Gotta tell ya, I look at that and the numbers posted in that gamespot page think F2P 2014 is exactly where Activision wants to go. A sub based WoW is already losing to LoL, today, and that is only looking worse for the next six months at best.

Let's see what the numbers for the Q4 2013 report look like. I bet it will be crystal clear WoW is dropping the current sub model to everyone in a matter of weeks.

Care to elaborate how wow is already losing to lol? If even half the subs are considered actual subs from the west and go into the equation with 12*15$ (europeans actually pay more) yearly per player that still leaves us with more than lol, just with the subs. Now they also tripple dip into our pockets with the "box" and the macro transactions (i refuse to call them micro from this point forward). How are they losing exactly?

[Dilbon]

Care to elaborate how wow is already losing to lol? If even half the subs are considered actual subs from the west and go into the equation with 12*15$ (europeans actually pay more) yearly per player that still leaves us with more than lol, just with the subs. Now they also tripple dip into our pockets with the "box" and the macro transactions (i refuse to call them micro from this point forward). How are they losing exactly?

3.5 million subs * $15 * 12 = 630 million. 630 + 213 = 843 million. Less than LoL. Although I don't know where the Asian money is, so if it's not included in the 213 million then the sum is obviously bigger.

[Cosmic Janitor]

3.5 million subs * $15 * 12 = 630 million. 630 + 213 = 843 million. Less than LoL. Although I don't know where the Asian money is, so if it's not included in the 213 million then the sum is obviously bigger.

I took the "2 (League of Legends) Tencent/Riot Games $624" from the front page. I guess somewhere in the last 14 pages of "LOLZ WOW F2P YOU MAD BRO!!11????" and "DIS GAME GONNA DIE!!" other information was provided?