• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

News Business Blizzard loses 11M players in 3 years

TheCockatrice

Member
Jun 16, 2019
3,227
6,499
640
Gee I wonder why.


Bored The Office GIF
 
Mar 17, 2020
641
2,139
430

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
5,779
10,229
725
Misleading thread title - it's just Blizzard games that lose their playerbase, which shouldn't be a surprise given their output in recent years. As far as Acti's condition goes, CoD games are dong exceptionally well, Warzone alone has tens of millions of playerbase.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
May 31, 2018
6,683
14,849
815
Leeds, UK
It would be more, but WoW players have a sort of collective Stockholm syndrome.

There is no bigger fan base on the planet that will endlessly whine about how shit a game is while paying monthly to play it than WoW fans.
 
Feb 15, 2021
224
223
225
Probably the part in the article that states that revenue went up..
So? If they retained those players would it have been even higher and does it really justify that big a pay bonus? Especially when there's data that high paying CEOs perform worse.

Call of duty is too big to fail now they will make revenue almost regardless of anything
 

Bitmap Frogs

Mr. Community
Dec 26, 2008
12,459
7,446
1,560
Spain
Misleading thread title - it's just Blizzard games that lose their playerbase, which shouldn't be a surprise given their output in recent years. As far as Acti's condition goes, CoD games are dong exceptionally well, Warzone alone has tens of millions of playerbase.

Please message mods so that they change the thread title and I apologize for the mistake.
 

Skifi28

Member
Jun 28, 2020
2,374
6,102
420
It would be more, but WoW players have a sort of collective Stockholm syndrome.

There is no bigger fan base on the planet that will endlessly whine about how shit a game is while paying monthly to play it than WoW fans.
I can confirm this. It was the same for me for many years. But, I'm finally free to shit on other games. At least they don't have a subscription.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KingT731

Arimer

Member
Feb 16, 2018
526
858
490
Hots failed. Their content cadence in other games is atrocious and wow has boring systems that drive you away unless you play it like a job. Not to mention their warcraft 3 remake flopped.

Wow should be a megahit but they don't know what to do with it. They put out content once every year. FF14 eats their lunch in content quality and update speed.
 
Last edited:

Hari Seldon

Member
Dec 5, 2008
16,878
1,534
1,230
If you are counting just 3 years then this is likely mostly due to Overwatch. WoW players (myself included) have stockholm syndrome so they keep coming back for each expansion so the player dip there probably depends on when you do the sampling. Hearthstone milked the playerbase down to only the whales and the absolutely ultra casual. Diablo and Starcraft have already died prior to the 3 year window so I doubt they had players to lose lol.
 

Soodanim

Member
Feb 24, 2012
7,921
3,521
1,130
United Kingdom
Why does Bobby have a job?

His decisions basically seem to be:
- Call of Duty
- Milk Blizzard fans

Unless I'm missing some big brain moves by the CEO literally anyone on this forum could do that same job.
OP says “Revenue is up”, and nothing else matters to board members and shareholders unless he does something so bad that it’s a PR nightmare.
 

draw4wild

Member
Sep 23, 2011
800
877
790
After playing ff14 with a controller, I can’t even look at WoW. Release WoW on a console with real controller support and you’d get those subscribers back
 

Men_in_Boxes

Member
May 31, 2020
5,714
11,413
665
The Battle Royale explosion happened 3 years ago and Blizzard/Overwatch was left in the dust.
 
Sep 3, 2020
428
845
370
As a diehard Blizzard fan during the ‘90s and ’00s I’d love to see it shut down completely. I imagine Hearthstone, WoW and Overwatch can keep it afloat for another decade though.
 

harmny

Banned
Oct 29, 2020
1,396
3,580
410
Why does Bobby have a job?

His decisions basically seem to be:
- Call of Duty
- Milk Blizzard fans

Unless I'm missing some big brain moves by the CEO literally anyone on this forum could do that same job.

yes you are missing the part where he bought a company that was bankrupt 30 years ago and turned into a company with a 70B market cap and 8B in revenue. if anyone on this forum could do what we would have thousands of activision blizzards
 
Last edited:

jakinov

Member
Nov 19, 2008
988
1,124
1,120
Why does Bobby have a job?

His decisions basically seem to be:
- Call of Duty
- Milk Blizzard fans

Unless I'm missing some big brain moves by the CEO literally anyone on this forum could do that same job.
CEO's don't just do "big brain moves", they have daily responsibilities and need to drive these "big brain movies" or decisions and ensure that the company not only accomplishes them but does so cost effectively.

Most people on this forum would make horrible CEOs, because they'd be too scared to lay people off , would focus money on non lucrative endeavors, would shift too many things for the benefit of the consumer, and/or just wouldn't have the skills to actually be any sort of manager.

Great work there bobby! Really justifying your 200 million bonus!!
Not that I think he should have got such such a large bonus. His bonus had nothing to do with blizzard's active players metric. Because having less players who already bought your game continue to potentially play your game for free isn't that interesting big picture. Revenue and stock of the overall company being up is.
 

Rat Rage

Member
Aug 13, 2019
1,228
1,918
410
It's often like this: you start as a small, aspiring video game developer who wants to make the greatest video games; you eventually succeed in doing so - everyone loves you. You are at the height of your creative power and popularity, make a lot of money. This leads to the developer becoming bigger and bigger. People convince you to hire all kinds of business and marketing people to help you grow further. You start worring more about the financial success of your product than the actual quality of it. This contaminates your creative power. These business and marketing people start influencing you so much that all your creative decisions have to allign with marketing trends. Your games get worse and worse and lose a lot of their soul (I mean, how else do you come up with the idea to introduce bright, flashy colors /lighting to, let's say, Diablo 3 for example). Marketing convices you that all your gaming IP's need to have the potential to always cater to the most people and, therefore, to the lowest common denominator (I mean, how else do you come up with the idea of turning a mainline Final Fantasy game into a 3rd person action game?).This influences your creative decisions badly. You further start watering down your once amazing gameplay experiences. People start noticing. People start hating you. You eventually use a good chunk of your fanbase.

Hideky Kamiya is probably right when he says there are two types of people in the gaming industry: Creators and business people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zuzu

Hinedorf

Member
Feb 3, 2017
1,829
2,180
490
San Diego, CA
Ask yourself what is Blizzards most successful game release since the Activision purchase? Ask yourself when that game was released. Now ask yourself what the current date is.

Blizzard used to take 10 years to churn out solid 10/10 experiences. They no longer take 10 years and they no longer deliver 10/10 experiences.

It what happens when you become a titan in the industry and want to cash out and enjoy your $$$. Blizzard isn't blizzard anymore and it never will be, just like Rockstar.
 
Last edited:

Nikodemos

Member
May 25, 2013
8,418
172
690
Yeah, HotS is kill and Warcraft 3 Reforged was bomba. Overwatch kinda lost its luster after people realized they prefer not having to be locked into class archetypes, plus it's easier to be an annoying shitter in a BR style game. Diablo 3 and SC2 have already withered. I guess it's down to WoW and HS.
 

Corgi1985

Member
Dec 31, 2020
1,231
2,041
370
After warcraft 3 reforged it should be 100%. They should be glad this was all.
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2021
224
223
225
CEO's don't just do "big brain moves", they have daily responsibilities and need to drive these "big brain movies" or decisions and ensure that the company not only accomplishes them but does so cost effectively.

Most people on this forum would make horrible CEOs, because they'd be too scared to lay people off , would focus money on non lucrative endeavors, would shift too many things for the benefit of the consumer, and/or just wouldn't have the skills to actually be any sort of manager.


Not that I think he should have got such such a large bonus. His bonus had nothing to do with blizzard's active players metric. Because having less players who already bought your game continue to potentially play your game for free isn't that interesting big picture. Revenue and stock of the overall company being up is.
I know lol it was a throw away comment. My general opinion is that a truly visionary ceo/company would be able to spot gaps in the market and fill them with new ips and grow there portfolio of games. Alternatively they could attempt to grow there franchises instead of immediately killing them. Call of duty itself took 4 attempts to be a mega hit. Today it wouldn't get a chance it's cut cut cut unless your a mega hit out the gate.( crash bandicoot RIP again)

Basically what Sony and Nintendo have done this gen

Activision seem completely incapable of moving beyond call of duty and their blizzard games.( I won't comment on their mobile games as I know very little about them)

I know at the end of the day the shareholders are happy ( although seriously not about Bobby's bonus) and they can sit cosy on the call of duty- blizzard cash cow but I would like to think they could move beyond that.
 

jakinov

Member
Nov 19, 2008
988
1,124
1,120
I know lol it was a throw away comment. My general opinion is that a truly visionary ceo/company would be able to spot gaps in the market and fill them with new ips and grow there portfolio of games. Alternatively they could attempt to grow there franchises instead of immediately killing them. Call of duty itself took 4 attempts to be a mega hit. Today it wouldn't get a chance it's cut cut cut unless your a mega hit out the gate.( crash bandicoot RIP again)

Basically what Sony and Nintendo have done this gen

Activision seem completely incapable of moving beyond call of duty and their blizzard games.( I won't comment on their mobile games as I know very little about them)

I know at the end of the day the shareholders are happy ( although seriously not about Bobby's bonus) and they can sit cosy on the call of duty- blizzard cash cow but I would like to think they could move beyond that.
The CEO goal isn't to create new IPs or to create large portfolio of games though. It's to increase the value of the company and help ensure it's future. Having a lot of games that sell okay isn't really desirable. Each new project introduces risk and the reward has to be worth it that they put up tens of millions of dollars up front to make it. The reward has to outweigh risk. It's why a lot of companies will spin-off/sell-off divisions that are profitable. They rather just make a profit on the sale and focus on more rewarding businesses than to allocate their finite funds into high risk low reward projects(investments). Activision seem more interested in capitalizing on trends with promising prospects than to find market "gaps" or to offer a big range of games. For example, there's RTS genre that isn't getting a lot of games made for it. It's not a very promising market and people aren't making a lot of those games. There's still money to be made if you can be good at it. But adding a few million to your bottom line after putting in the same amount of time/money/effort isn't as worthwhile as potentially adding hundreds of millions or even a billion to your bottom line by putting the money elsewhere. For someone who just loves making games or doesn't have a lot of money that's great. But for a big multi billion dollar company trying to double, triple in size, it's not worth the effort/money/risk.

Activision never really had that many franchises. They have a long history of just making licensed games. Sony creates new IPs but they also abandon IPs too. Nintendo doesn't really create new IPs and they don't really focus on all of them. There hasn't really been an Fzero game for a while, and I don't think you'll see another kid icarus game for a while. Sometimes your IPs aren't worth investing in anymore. Neither of them really just fill in gaps. If anything it seems like Microsoft does that a lot more considering they are creating such a wide range of games nowadays that aren't necessarily very popular genres. Sony gutting Japan Studio is probably an example of them being closer to Activision nowadays as the reasoning was that they weren't profitable enough.

With all that said, I do think they should take more risks though. They don't need to have a big list of games or fill in the gaps. But they should still try to find the next big thing. Either way what they are doing, seem to be working.
 
Feb 15, 2021
224
223
225
The CEO goal isn't to create new IPs or to create large portfolio of games though. It's to increase the value of the company and help ensure it's future. Having a lot of games that sell okay isn't really desirable. Each new project introduces risk and the reward has to be worth it that they put up tens of millions of dollars up front to make it. The reward has to outweigh risk. It's why a lot of companies will spin-off/sell-off divisions that are profitable. They rather just make a profit on the sale and focus on more rewarding businesses than to allocate their finite funds into high risk low reward projects(investments). Activision seem more interested in capitalizing on trends with promising prospects than to find market "gaps" or to offer a big range of games. For example, there's RTS genre that isn't getting a lot of games made for it. It's not a very promising market and people aren't making a lot of those games. There's still money to be made if you can be good at it. But adding a few million to your bottom line after putting in the same amount of time/money/effort isn't as worthwhile as potentially adding hundreds of millions or even a billion to your bottom line by putting the money elsewhere. For someone who just loves making games or doesn't have a lot of money that's great. But for a big multi billion dollar company trying to double, triple in size, it's not worth the effort/money/risk.

Activision never really had that many franchises. They have a long history of just making licensed games. Sony creates new IPs but they also abandon IPs too. Nintendo doesn't really create new IPs and they don't really focus on all of them. There hasn't really been an Fzero game for a while, and I don't think you'll see another kid icarus game for a while. Sometimes your IPs aren't worth investing in anymore. Neither of them really just fill in gaps. If anything it seems like Microsoft does that a lot more considering they are creating such a wide range of games nowadays that aren't necessarily very popular genres. Sony gutting Japan Studio is probably an example of them being closer to Activision nowadays as the reasoning was that they weren't profitable enough.

With all that said, I do think they should take more risks though. They don't need to have a big list of games or fill in the gaps. But they should still try to find the next big thing. Either way what they are doing, seem to be working.
Good post I think we're on the same page lol. Let me explain myself my better.

I don't think for a second they should start backing every indie project under the sun but they should be looking for next 10 million seller and then build from there

I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation Sony did it 4 times this generation with horizon, god of war, spiderman and ghost of tushumia (not yet but I believe it will). Ubisoft and Nintendo are similar I think they both have around 10 individual games selling 10 million + units from multiple franchises.

Nintendo doesn't make that many new ips but they do have multiple franchises selling millions of units.

Yes sometimes you want to stop backing an ip but its difficult to know when some series take years then have massive growth god of war and zelda are good examples this gen. Interestingly call of duty looked on shaky grounds midway through this generation until ww2.

Other companies like sony will close or restructure studios if that are not performing but they at least seem to give multiple chances. I am amazed they closed toys for bob after one crash game especially after the crazy success of the n'sane trilogy.

Gaps was the wrong terminology to use I don't necessarily mean genres I mean just backing the right games. E.g. there's a lack of big budget openworld shooters ( only far cry really)call of duty seems perfect to have a go at that. Another example is a triple A dinosaur game if done well would rake in millions. Obviously these games would be expensive, difficult and time consuming to make but isn't everything these days?

At some point your gonna have to take a risk or you will be stuck making call of duty forever lol.
 

Dream-Knife

Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,283
1,548
425
Good. After the Hong Kong fiasco and killing their own games to push you to the newest one, I hope they destroy themselves.
 
Oct 26, 2018
20,843
28,823
820
If users are down and revenue up, it means mtx are off the charts and/or the culling of 11 million gamers were ones who contributed little to the mtx pot.

Internally, it's best to get rid of the cheap gamers as it frees up server space.