Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?
Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021
In the universe of massively multiplayer online games (“MMOGs”), none come much bigger than World of Warcraft.
Such is the significance of World of Warcraft (“WoW”) in the MMOG space that at its height it accounted for almost 60% of all western consumer spending in the MMOG market. And for its creator, Activision Blizzard, Wow has generated over $2.2bn in gaming subscriptions since 2005.
For a game that has been around for more than a decade, the focus has changed from growth to focusing on retention, slowing the so called “churn-rate” – the rate at which new and existing customers cancel their subscriptions. And whilst some churn is inevitable it’s the scale of subscribers leaving, some 14% (1.3m) between January and March of this year, that has alarmed shareholders, and had them equally looking for the door.
The number of players at WoW has now fallen from its height in 2010 of around 12m to just over 8m today. And Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick expects the decline to continue. Shares in the company fell 5% on the news, and are unlikely to be marching north any time soon.
But what does this mean for Activision Blizzard; is this fall in players a huge concern, or a blip that can be ignored? By any standard loosing over 30% of your players in two years is a cause for concern. Those to a degree, as Zynga and other social gaming companies have more recently found, as a game gets aged you need to have other newer titles for players for players to switch over to. There’s almost certainly some players who will have switched from WoW to other Activision Blizzard titles, but many will have simply gone elsewhere. And of those that did switch to other Activision Blizzard titles how many will have signed up for new monthly subscriptions? Almost certainly very few.
And it’s the Zynga style business model, the free-to-play with micro-transactions, that appears to lie at the root of Activision Blizzard’s woes. There are today very few MMOs that work as a viable business by charging monthly subscriptions – EVE Online is perhaps the one exception to the rule.
And these kind of business challenges are of course not confined to just WoW. They’ll impact on Activision Blizzard’s other titles as well. The company was also hit by an embarrassing bug in a Diablo III update earlier this week as players discovered that by cancelling in-game “gold” auctions, they could free of charge generate more – with one player said to have amassed a vault of some 371 trillion in-game gold using this bug-exploit. Although the auction has been closed it’s certainly not been a good week for Activision Blizzard or its investor.
James Barnes, StatusCake.com
James Barnes
Share this
More from StatusCake
A Notification List Is Not a Team
3 min read In the previous post, we looked at how alert noise is rarely accidental. It’s usually the result of sensible decisions layered over time, until responsibility becomes diffuse and response slows. One of the most persistent assumptions behind this pattern is simple. If enough people are notified, someone will take responsibility. After more than fourteen years
James Barnes
February 11, 2026
Alert Noise Isn’t an Accident — It’s a Design Decision
3 min read In a previous post, The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most, we explored how incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones. These are moments where decision-making under pressure and cognitive load matter more than perfect root cause analysis. When systems don’t support people clearly in those moments, teams compensate.
James Barnes
February 4, 2026
The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most
4 min read In the previous post, we looked at what happens after detection; when incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones, with cognitive load as the real constraint. This post assumes that context. The question here is simpler and more practical. What actually helps teams think clearly and act well once things are already
James Barnes
January 28, 2026
When Things Go Wrong, Systems Should Help Humans — Not Fight Them
3 min read In the previous post, we explored how AI accelerates delivery and compresses the time between change and user impact. As velocity increases, knowing that something has gone wrong before users do becomes a critical capability. But detection is only the beginning. Once alerts fire and dashboards light up, humans still have to interpret what’s happening,
James Barnes
January 21, 2026
When AI Speeds Up Change, Knowing First Becomes the Constraint
5 min read In a recent post, I argued that AI doesn’t fix weak engineering processes; rather it amplifies them. Strong review practices, clear ownership, and solid fundamentals still matter just as much when code is AI-assisted as when it’s not. That post sparked a follow-up question in the comments that’s worth sitting with: With AI speeding things
James Barnes
January 14, 2026
Make Your Engineering Processes Resilient. Not Your Opinions About AI
4 min read Why strong reviews, accountability, and monitoring matter more in an AI-assisted world Artificial intelligence has become the latest fault line in software development. For some teams, it’s an obvious productivity multiplier. For others, it’s viewed with suspicion. A source of low-quality code, unreviewable pull requests, and latent production risk. One concern we hear frequently goes
James Barnes
January 8, 2026