Blizzard moves from #47 to #1 in studio rankings
by Allison Robert 
May 11th 2009 at 3:00PM
According to a recent list by Develop magazine, Blizzard has dethroned Nintendo to become the most bankable game studio in the world. I'm surprised they weren't there already, but I guess it's just this side of possible that Nintendo is hard to budge. Develop's top 100 is compiled by their editorial team and accounts for total sales, reputation within the industry, and a variety of other criteria. When all was said and done, the editors wrote, Warcraft "continues to do the sort of numbers previously reserved for crime syndicates and smaller members of the United Nations." Nicely put, but what I find most bizarre about the list is that Blizzard jumped from #47 to #1 within the space of a year (you'll find Blizzard's 2008 listing on page 82 of a highly annoying-to-navigate Issuu archive). While part of that's due to the merge with Activision, Develop claims that Wrath of the Lich King being the fastest-selling PC game in history was the greatest contributing factor. Hang on. WoW was doing just fine even before Wrath hit, so how did Blizzard manage to get itself ranked behind do-little studios with sales of around $1-2 million per game on the 2008 list?
The answer lies in how the numbers start getting weird trying to compare MMORPG's to console games. Develop says it "recalibrated" the list for 2009, but I don't know if that means they changed their methodology or simply updated the list doing it the old way -- but I think it's the latter. On the 2008 list they freely admit their approach to ranking game studios based on retail sales is an awkward fit for the MMORPG model, where most "sales" are in fact monthly subscriptions and not the initial cost of the game itself. So that makes Wrath's phenomenal success both a reasonable expectation given the enormous popularity of WoW, and a statistical headache for Develop trying to rank where these studios actually fall in relation to each other.
Does this mean that Blizzard can expect its spot on the list to yo-yo so dramatically from year to year depending on the release (or non-release) of new expansions, completely independent of actual subscriber numbers? That sounds a little odd to me, but we've seen how this issue has popped up before. Lies, damn lies, and MMORPG numbers.
Filed under: Blizzard, News items
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
End-ALL-Ever May 11th 2009 3:04PM
Sweet! Go Blizz go!
seanfury May 11th 2009 3:17PM
I find it hard to believe Nintendo was #1 in the last three years.
trogdor7 May 11th 2009 3:32PM
And why is that?
Artificial May 11th 2009 4:08PM
@trogdor7: sean is probably a "hardcore" gamer, and doesn't realize that that's a niche market. There are better consoles available for his niche market, since by definition a niche market is better served by products designed for their niche rather than for the general market, but because he doesn't realize it's a niche market, it doesn't understand why the console designed for the general market sells better overall.
Candina@WH May 11th 2009 4:58PM
Based on sales and creativity, Nintendo wins. Between the Wii and the DS they have a very good track record.
Especially for a company that most had written off [game cube anyone?]
I am not a console player, but their resilience and the way the Wii has opened console gaming to new generations -- that is why Nintendo would be #1 in 2008.
Dawkins May 11th 2009 5:04PM
@Artificial: This has nothing to do with consoles. He's probably confused because Nintendo is a 'niche' game studio, because they only produce games for their consoles. Accusing someone without any basis just makes you sound like an elitist; he has a perfectly reasonable instinct.
It would be easy to believe that more game studios that are not hardware specific would place better. Nintendo just puts out very polished products and a lot of them, so I could see it either way.
Irshalthra May 11th 2009 3:23PM
I too am puzzled by the huge jump they made on this list. I understand Activision helps and I understand WRATH was a big seller, but it does not work for me. I am also not saying they don't deserve to be #1! I am saying they have been hosed in the past with these ratings.
Sam May 11th 2009 3:35PM
Nintendo was at the top likely because they actually make a profit on their consoles as opposed to Microsoft and Sony.
Dcaro May 11th 2009 3:41PM
I think they should be #2 since they cant fix the lag problem in wintergrasp yet.
Candina@WH May 11th 2009 4:59PM
yet = ever.
Tough to optimize an open ended system.
Task May 11th 2009 3:41PM
I think Nintendo was #1 for the past 3 years was because due in part to the Wii's initial launch and what it offered in terms of gameplay.
Gameplay being you actually moved the wand to perform certain actions to create a result.
Another part was the price. How could you go wrong with a system that costs $250? It was more than half the price of PS3 when they had the 40 and 80 GB versions.
Its great that Blizz is #1 but yes it'll probably jump around in the top 10 in the next few months until the next annual list is compiled.
Peter May 11th 2009 3:54PM
The reason Blizzard and Nintendo are ranked so high is just the quality and predictable quality of their games.
Buy a random EA, MS or Sony game in any given year, and there is a 50% chance it will horrible.
name a Blizzard or Nintendo game that was released in the last 5 years that you even wish you could return?
Foladar May 11th 2009 4:02PM
In the last five years?
Master of Illusion [DS]
Wario: Master of Disguise
True Swing Golf
Personal Trainer: Walking (seriously?)
Endless Ocean
Pokemon Battle Revolution
Excite Truck
Nintendo puts out just as much crap as MS/Sony.
darthginger May 11th 2009 4:04PM
mario kart wii.. the game was rushed looked like a cube game handled worse than the cube game and was even massivly lacklustre compared to the ds version. as a long time mario kart fan i was truly disgusted with it. wasnt even a 2 player grand prix mode ffs.. for a game built and sustained on its split screen i find that the biggest slap in the face.
other than that tho... yeah your right. Zelda, Mario galaxy SSBB better than 99% of other developers output.
max May 11th 2009 4:05PM
i think he meant games that were actually made by nintendo, not just published for the console.
Deadly. Off. Topic. May 11th 2009 4:39PM
Lol. My first thought was they hotfixed the scoreboards.
Thander May 11th 2009 8:13PM
It seems like they could just take subscription numbers divided by $40 or $50 to come up with with a sort of "units sold" for subscription games. They can then compare those numbers with real units sold of other developers' games. This way they can take into account subscription numbers and how it changes over time.
dippyzippy May 12th 2009 3:16AM
The Activision-Blizzard merger didn't make much sense and will only do so if Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 release on consoles.
Delvin May 12th 2009 3:42AM
Ehh. It's one magazine's rank. Whatever.
kindlingmania May 12th 2009 11:18AM
it's not even a contest, really. Nintendo sells a completely different product in a completely different way. I don't see any going anywhere any time soon but I wouldn't call them competitors any more than Maxim magazine is a competitor of the online version of the wall street journal.