WoW Makes Up Half of Acti-Blizz's Earnings

[John Funk]

WoW Makes Up Half of Acti-Blizz's Earnings

Despite having a host of blockbuster franchises under its belt like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty, analysts estimate that about half of Activision-Blizzard's earnings in fiscal 2009 can be attributed to MMO behemoth World of Warcraft.

Stern Agee analyst Arvind Bhatia reported Wednesday that the subscription-based WoW amounted to 30 cents per share out of 60 - a total of about $400 million for the fiscal year that ended in December. With 11.5 million people around the world currently playing - yes, those are current, active subscriptions, not counting players who have moved on - that number isn't too hard to believe.

The report only mentions the subscription numbers as a source of income, leading one to wonder if those figures include the revenue from the record-shattering Wrath of the Lich King launch. If not, then that already-impressive 50% figure might well be even higher.

With those sorts of numbers, it's no wonder that Stern Agee agrees with its fellow analysts at Lazard Capital Markets - if you're looking to invest in videogame companies, Acti-Blizz is your best bet [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/88699-Activision-Blizzard-Safe-Bet-for-Tech-Investors]. Even so, Bhatia is reportedly concerned about the industry giant's financial guidance, lowering his 2009 estimates from $5.2 billion to $4.9 billion.

Still, as long as WoW remains a money-printing machine like it currently is (and it certainly shows no signs of slowing down), it's hard to imagine a situation in which anything short of complete financial idiocy causes Activision-Blizzard to stop raking in money hand over fist.

(CVG [http://www.edge-online.com/news/analyst-wow-made-up-half-acti-blizz-earnings])

Permalink

 

[Faeanor]

Despite what Blizzard says about its merger, I can't help feeling that it will hurt Blizzard more than it will help. While the latest WoW expansion had some great points, it also had plenty of places that just felt unfinished. It would have benefited from Blizzard's usual delays in release time. But alas it was pushed forward. I don't play WoW anymore.

And there's the whole "episodic" thing they're doing with Starcraft 2. Can anyone else say "exploited on an annual basis?"

Of course this also means that Activision gets bigger, and that's better for all of us right?

 

[stormcaller]

I'm so slow... what happened to vivendi?

 

[John Funk]

Despite what Blizzard says about its merger, I can't help feeling that it will hurt Blizzard more than it will help. While the latest WoW expansion had some great points, it also had plenty of places that just felt unfinished. It would have benefited from Blizzard's usual delays in release time. But alas it was pushed forward. I don't play WoW anymore.

And there's the whole "episodic" thing they're doing with Starcraft 2. Can anyone else say "exploited on an annual basis?"

Of course this also means that Activision gets bigger, and that's better for all of us right?

Really? I thought WotLK was exponentially more polished and finished upon release than Burning Crusade was. (See: Blade's Edge Mountains) It also had a much longer beta test.

As far as SC2 goes - we all knew that there was going to be at least ONE expansion pack for SC2 (as with every other game they've ever made since WC2). There's just going to be one more.

That said... we definitely know who got the better end of that deal. If Activision has any sense at all, they'll act like Vivendi before them and just let Blizzard do its own thing.

 

[theultimateend]

Despite what Blizzard says about its merger, I can't help feeling that it will hurt Blizzard more than it will help. While the latest WoW expansion had some great points, it also had plenty of places that just felt unfinished. It would have benefited from Blizzard's usual delays in release time. But alas it was pushed forward. I don't play WoW anymore.

And there's the whole "episodic" thing they're doing with Starcraft 2. Can anyone else say "exploited on an annual basis?"

Of course this also means that Activision gets bigger, and that's better for all of us right?

If they charge full price for all 3 pieces yeah.

But if they don't then I don't see how 2 expansions is infinitely worse than 1 since its been almost 10 years or something since Starcraft came out.

Imagine if they had taken the Sims Approach to it. 500 dollars in expansion packs (something like 1k between the two games including item packs)

I do think that Activision/Vivendi will utterly destroy Blizzard if Blizzard isn't smart. Everytime it makes mounds of money the company still reports losses. It's obvious SOMEONE is blowing money on bullshit.

Really? I thought WotLK was exponentially more polished and finished upon release than Burning Crusade was. (See: Blade's Edge Mountains) It also had a much longer beta test.

As far as SC2 goes - we all knew that there was going to be at least ONE expansion pack for SC2 (as with every other game they've ever made since WC2). There's just going to be one more.

OMG! Someone who isn't having a bitchfit about Starcraft 2 having 2 expansions instead of 1! I knew someone out there existed.

At any rate I agree. I absolutely love the zones (most of them) in northrend . I just got bored because they spend 99% of their time on PVP content and frankly if I wanted to PVP I'd be on a PVP server .

 

[jamiep319]

How did Activision get Blizzard to go along with the merger? I've never quite understood this - Blizzard are some of the most respected and legendary games creators in its history - Activision are scum.

Simple, Activision had a great big pile of money and Blizzard wanted some. However, on a more serious note, think about how much maintaining WoW must cost. Tons of servers with millions of people on at the same time must cost a fortune. Also, most games benefit from having publishers pump money into them because it means you can have better stuff.

 

[John Funk]

OMG! Someone who isn't having a bitchfit about Starcraft 2 having 2 expansions instead of 1! I knew someone out there existed.

At any rate I agree. I absolutely love the zones (most of them) in northrend . I just got bored because they spend 99% of their time on PVP content and frankly if I wanted to PVP I'd be on a PVP server .

On the contrary, I think it's a great idea. And from talking to a lot of the Blizzard team at BlizzCon... well, either they're all really, really good liars, or they all genuinely believe it's the best course to go in order to A.) let people play the game sooner and B.) not have to cut stuff they desperately want in there.

If you look at their reasons for doing it, it really does make sense. I'm sure the potential for increased profits is quite a happy byproduct, but I think they've got a track record that makes them deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

And really, I think that the focus on PvP for now is because Wintergrasp (and PvP balance in general) was kind of borked. There's a *tremendous* amount of PvE content endgame right now, so I don't mind them throwing the PvPers a bone or two every now and then.

Ulduar is coming, after all!

 

[Brokkr]

How did Activision get Blizzard to go along with the merger? I've never quite understood this - Blizzard are some of the most respected and legendary games creators in its history - Activision are scum.

I never really understood this either. I doesn't seem like Blizzard should have needed to do the merger, or even want to.

 

[Blind0bserver]

Well, I guess it's safe to say not that Blizzard wasn't lying when they said they were releasing Starcraft II in three parts so they can make the game better and it wasn't a cheap trick to whore more money out of their fan base. They don't need to whore more money out of the fan base. The company already makes more money in a year than everyone who's a member on this site has made in their entire lives combined. That's just a wild guess, mind you, but I think you get the idea...

 

[Faeanor]

If they charge full price for all 3 pieces yeah.

But if they don't then I don't see how 2 expansions is infinitely worse than 1 since its been almost 10 years or something since Starcraft came out.

It's already been announce that they are going to charge full price. And they aren't calling them expansions either. Their reason for doing this is that they "feel" that it would take too long to make the whole game as one. They're releasing each campaign as a separate game. And THAT is the reason I don't like it. I want to play the Zerg campaign, not wait for another year after the game is released just to play my favorite race's campaign.

Really? I thought WotLK was exponentially more polished and finished upon release than Burning Crusade was. (See: Blade's Edge Mountains) It also had a much longer beta test.

A lot of it is really good. The environments and the quests really shine. I wish I could name specific examples, but alas they escape me. I'd be playing along and something would make me think "That could have benefited from a longer beta" or something along those lines.

And pvp balances was basically removed, not that I cared that much after burning crusade. But come on, if you play WoW than you remember what happened with paladins? All those months in beta, they were balanced. Test realm, still balanced. 24 hours on live? To the ground baby! (Yes I'm bitter, but only because I got to taste something that was never meant to be.)

 

[John Funk]

It's already been announce that they are going to charge full price. And they aren't calling them expansions either. Their reason for doing this is that they "feel" that it would take too long to make the whole game as one. They're releasing each campaign as a separate game. And THAT is the reason I don't like it. I want to play the Zerg campaign, not wait for another year after the game is released just to play my favorite race's campaign.

No, they haven't. They haven't announced pricing at all yet.

What they HAVE said, is that if they feel like expansions, they will be priced like expansions. If they feel like full games, and have enough content to be a full game, then they will be priced accordingly.

That's the only info about the pricing that they've talked about, and anything beyond that is speculation.

Without the trilogy thing, their choices were: 1.) Delay the entire game to include everything they wanted in the campaign... when many people just want to play it for the multiplayer. 2.) Cut out some things in the campaign that they wanted in order to ship it out the door more quickly.

Neither of those are optimal solutions. Especially for a company as notoriously perfectionist as Blizzard. With the trilogy, they can get the game out the door more quickly, letting people start on the story and play the full multiplayer. They can also do everything they wanted in the individual campaigns... furthermore, divorcing the campaign from the multiplayer means they can add units in the campaign without having to worry about their MP balance. For instance, the Goliath unit isn't in the multiplayer, but they could have a level where Jim Raynor suits up in his old Goliath for some hands-on action.

It really does make sense looking at it from their perspective.

A lot of it is really good. The environments and the quests really shine. I wish I could name specific examples, but alas they escape me. I'd be playing along and something would make me think "That could have benefited from a longer beta" or something along those lines.

And pvp balances was basically removed, not that I cared that much after burning crusade. But come on, if you play WoW than you remember what happened with paladins? All those months in beta, they were balanced. Test realm, still balanced. 24 hours on live? To the ground baby! (Yes I'm bitter, but only because I got to taste something that was never meant to be.)

Paladins were nerfed on Live? News to me

And yes, maybe it could have used a longer beta. But the beta was already two months longer than BC's had been, and the end product was BETTER than BC had been. Which I think sort of pokes holes in the argument that Activision forced them to push it out the door before it was ready, given that it took longer to develop and was a better product than the previous expansion that they'd made when they WEREN'T a part of Activision

Sure, it had bugs here and there, but Classic WoW had bugs at launch (oh boy, did it ever), BC had bugs at launch, and EVERY MMO has bugs at launch. I don't think that it reflects poorly on the finished product compared to its predecessors, though.

 

[theultimateend]

It's already been announce that they are going to charge full price. And they aren't calling them expansions either. Their reason for doing this is that they "feel" that it would take too long to make the whole game as one. They're releasing each campaign as a separate game. And THAT is the reason I don't like it. I want to play the Zerg campaign, not wait for another year after the game is released just to play my favorite race's campaign.

The problem with hearsay is when its difficult to confirm. Do you happen to have any links to actual blizzard staff reporting concretely what the price will be?

Plus it's been proven that multi million dollar game companies can't provide quality goods in a bind. Would you have liked a half assed poorly written zerg campaign that was 10 missions long? Or would you prefer one that's had some thought put into it that is 3 times as long?

for some reason the more money you give to a company the less efficient they become after a point. It's probably a bell curve of some kind .

OMG! Someone who isn't having a bitchfit about Starcraft 2 having 2 expansions instead of 1! I knew someone out there existed.

At any rate I agree. I absolutely love the zones (most of them) in northrend . I just got bored because they spend 99% of their time on PVP content and frankly if I wanted to PVP I'd be on a PVP server .

On the contrary, I think it's a great idea. And from talking to a lot of the Blizzard team at BlizzCon... well, either they're all really, really good liars, or they all genuinely believe it's the best course to go in order to A.) let people play the game sooner and B.) not have to cut stuff they desperately want in there.

If you look at their reasons for doing it, it really does make sense. I'm sure the potential for increased profits is quite a happy byproduct, but I think they've got a track record that makes them deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

And really, I think that the focus on PvP for now is because Wintergrasp (and PvP balance in general) was kind of borked. There's a *tremendous* amount of PvE content endgame right now, so I don't mind them throwing the PvPers a bone or two every now and then.

Ulduar is coming, after all!

Meh. I've kind of done all the end game instances one too many times already . If they'd go back and clean up the beginning game I'd be glad to play through it a few more times. Problem is it feels like they kind of left the old areas to die.

At least refer a friend speeds it up .

 

[John Funk]

Meh. I've kind of done all the end game instances one too many times already . If they'd go back and clean up the beginning game I'd be glad to play through it a few more times. Problem is it feels like they kind of left the old areas to die.

At least refer a friend speeds it up .

They already did that with 2.3. Dustwallow actually has quests now

 

[theultimateend]

Meh. I've kind of done all the end game instances one too many times already . If they'd go back and clean up the beginning game I'd be glad to play through it a few more times. Problem is it feels like they kind of left the old areas to die.

At least refer a friend speeds it up .

They already did that with 2.3. Dustwallow actually has quests now

One map down, fifty one more to go.

Don't get me wrong. I like(d) wow, I just feel it's slipping in some areas that it did really well to help lift areas it does poorly. Trying to be a jack of all trades and a master of none which is a shame.