Blizzard's Frank Pearce predicts renewed subscriber growth with Cataclysm, China

When asked if by VG247's Adam Hartley if he thought WoW's subscribers had permanently peaked, Pearce had this to say:
Pearce also noted that "win-back" of subscribers who had left the game after previous expansions is particularly high for WoW, and that subscriber counts should grow when Cataclysm is released."I mean, you can look at that number and if you look at some of the details around it ... In China, for example, we haven't even launched Wrath of the Lich King yet, and that expansion is already 18-plus months old. They're still playing The Burning Crusade there, because we're waiting for approval for Wrath from the appropriate agencies. And once we get that approval and launch Wrath in China then I think we will see growth."
Like refining the 1-60 game, an area many players have never gotten past, no doubt. You can read the full interview with Frank Pearce at VG247."Hopefully we will get some people back from Cataclysm as well. I don't think 11.5 million is a peak, necessarily, but there are certain things that we need to do and need to do well in order to see it go further."
[via Massively]
Filed under: Blizzard






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Joe May 25th 2010 10:42PM
The cash cow has been drying up for a while now..
gatheringsin May 25th 2010 11:06PM
Dried up? Hardly. I'm pretty sure most other developers would give up an arm, leg, their own granny, and first-born to have even half of WoW's numbers for half as long.
It might have peaked for now, but you can't really call the giant hose of cash flowing into blizz dried up by any stretch of the imagination.
kasapina May 26th 2010 1:51AM
And then there's the sparkle pony.
Portals May 26th 2010 2:22AM
12million x $15 = $180,000,000 If anything close to that is dry....can I have the left overs?
Joe May 26th 2010 5:32AM
You guys are forgetting over head costs, pay roll, a few other things too. These servers do not maintain themselves. But if you think that 180M is ALL profit, then please let me do your taxes!
Joe May 26th 2010 5:41AM
And gatheringsin, i said drying up. Did not say DRIED up. Learn 2 read.
jbodar May 26th 2010 6:03AM
From what I've heard, Asian players do not pay anything close to $15/month. They are charged pennies per hour. Think about the cost of living differences.
http://economicsofvirtualworlds.blogspot.com/2008/09/blizzard-l00t.html
Ringo Flinthammer May 25th 2010 10:41PM
When rumor of Cataclysm came out, I was initially very skeptical -- it sounded way too much like fanboy wish fulfillment to be real -- but looking at it from Blizzard's angle, it's starting to look more and more inevitable that they would do something like this, especially since they saw how SOE alienated a lot of players by forcing them to choose between EQ1 and EQ2.
WoW2 will be an expansion to WoW. Arguably -- especially if a lot of the rumors about the timeline prove to be true -- it could even be Cataclysm.
PictoKong May 25th 2010 10:56PM
The best thing for Blizz is prolly cataclysm because:
1. Everyone is happy cause they dont have to level a char again from wow1 to wow2
2. They dont have 2 games with servers upkeep to run
3. They all have the basic skins (zones in old world are done, just not flyable)
4. Cataclysm is pretty nice, even if the only goal to this is to (primairly) update the graphics
phoenixblight May 25th 2010 11:09PM
WoW2?
Did I miss an announcement or is this the new term for Cata?
theRaptor May 25th 2010 11:20PM
Cata is effectively a WoW2 with the re-vamped zones. The tradition in older MMO's was just to launch version 2 when your old game become stagnant. Blizzard instead have decided to revamp the old zones and constantly overhaul the mechanics to prevent that.
I am betting they won't even do a WoW2 when the graphics get really out dated and instead will just do a graphical overhaul (EvE:Online did this and it is older than WoW, it looks very pretty these days).
Blizz are working on another MMO which is supposed to be new IP and possibly a shooter MMO IIRC.
phoenixblight May 25th 2010 11:40PM
Thanks Raptor. Yeah I googled WoW2 and came up with an interview also from Frank Pearce stating their next MMO is not going to be WoW 2.
I am glad Blizzard did it this way and not like other MMOs.
Valt May 26th 2010 1:43AM
The thing is. There cant be wow2. It wouldn't be even wise to produce such title because it should be almost at same size like wow is now.
No game can can "kill wow". No MMO in the market is trying to kill wow at all because that would be impossible. People always seem to assume that "not wow killer = flop/lol baad game". No, they are successful even with million users and thats a lot. Wow numbers are just out of the roof, what other game is bringing BILLIONS steadily every year to company? Sure, there are some big sellers like modern warfare 2 but that doesnt really happen every year (no wonder they are going to make CoD mmo..).
Blizzard said themselves that nothing could kill wow and wow2 would never be as successful because "wow 1" is on own league. They dont even believe that their next unannounced MMO is going to kill wow or be as successfull (10m+ subs), but it doesn't have to be. Even if the game would get million subbers its going to be pretty much fine.
Also going with this topic comparing any new MMO with wow is plain ignorance. You cant compare released game with game that has 2 expansions and has been building up 5 years (+unknown dev time). If you would compare just released wow to lets say "warhammer" etc things would be way different.
Steve May 25th 2010 10:58PM
I'll be returning when we in New Zealand (& Australia) get a server physically based in Australasia. The latency just got too much to bear.
Drakkenfyre May 25th 2010 11:28PM
Good luck on that. That's your government's fault. If they can't control it, they won't allow a server. People need to realize sometimes it's local issues with these.
Hollow Leviathan May 25th 2010 11:21PM
I do feel bad for our Australian friends. The Oceanic servers are a joke, just US Pacific hosted with Aussie timezones set.
tonedeff May 25th 2010 11:46PM
Telstra were going to be the people to Host it here in Australia. Glad its in the US with au times then here in AU with telstra servers.
Cant remember the full story (been many years since i read it) about why there is no Australian servers located in Australia and it did have todo with our goverment & telstra .ect
theRaptor May 25th 2010 11:48PM
@Drakkenfyre
I don't know what you are on about mate. Mandatory internet filtering wasn't a government policy until 2007 (when the current bunch got elected) and it doesn't nor will it ever apply to non-HTTP traffic (which is why it is entirely ineffective at stopping kiddie porn).
The problem is that Blizzard wanted to pay pennies and no-one locally who got asked to do the job would do it for the money offered. Plenty of other MMO's have had Australian servers.
Now with cross-realm BG's and dungeons they would have to create a new Oceanic only battlegroup if they did the move as I believe the cross-realm stuff needs physically co-located hardware to work.
Hivetyrant May 26th 2010 1:38AM
TheRaptor is correct, the fault was not the Governments (directly) it was the simple fact that hosting facilities/services in Australia are ridiculously overpriced and it wasn't practical for Blizzard (and I don't blame them)
Al May 26th 2010 2:30AM
And the Oceanic argument once again boils down to the belief it was Australia's fault. Ignoring that Blizz could have stuck them in New Zealand, or piggy-backed us off the Asian server farm. 'The path of least effort' led to our current predicament, and they'll continue to take that path.
Remember "We do hope to improve communication" from last Blizzcon? That translated to a ghetto thread to get Oceanic complaints off the actual forum, meanwhile changes to our Instance server time only got mentioned months later in passing. As of Children's Week, even the World components of Holiday Events get delayed until they start for the U.S. Again, we didn't warrant a heads up.
I certainly can see how it's the fault of successive local governments..