Over half of Activision Blizzard's $7.16 billion yearly revenue came from microtransactions

While not every consumer is a fan, Microtransactions are often a huge part of a company’s revenue stream. In the case of Activision Blizzard, for example, the World of Warcraft dev has found that in-game purchases are bringing in more money than the actual games themselves.

In its latest financial results, Activision Blizzard revealed it made a record $7.16 billion in revenue across the entire fiscal year. $4 billion of that amount came from “in-game net bookings,” which covers loot boxes, sales of DLC, and in-app purchases.

It’s important to remember that Activision Blizzard owns King, the company behind a series of mobile games including Candy Crush, all of which have a big focus on microtransactions. King generated around $2 billion from in-game purchases for its parent company. That means the other $2 billion came from PC and console titles, as well as Activision Blizzard’s own mobile efforts such as Hearthstone.

Blizzard Activision does, of course, have a number of popular games that come with some form of microtransactions. Loot boxes and other in-game purchase options are present in Call of Duty: WWII, Destiny 2, and Overwatch. Even the long-running World of Warcraft still brings in plenty of revenue through player purchases.

The backlash against the loot box systems in games such as Shadow of War, Forza 7, and especially Electronic Arts’ Star Wars Battlefront 2 shook the industry last year. EA’s title led to some countries' regulators calling for a partial ban on loot boxes, with many claiming they constitute a form of gambling.

Despite the outcry, EA made $787 million from its “live services” during the last quarter. With people spending more on microtransactions every year, it’s easy to see why companies continue to include them in their games.

https://www.techspot.com/news/73230-over-half-activision-blizzard-716-billion-yearly-revenue.html

Not for long.

Vote with your wallet, bros. That'll show them.

Welcome to the future. A pity you are too late to stop it...

Well, to be fair, many people spend their money foolishly, for proof look no further than those 70+ million PS Bore's sold. lol :P

Gamers sure showed them! That'll learn 'em!

*cue eye roll*

The phrase, “poisoning the well”, immediately springs to mind.

I think those of us that podcast, post on forums are already not buying them. But this is evidence we make noise but we aren't the majority. I don't buy them and neither do any of my friends from here or other communities.

I listened to a podcast yesterday and a caster said people who buy microtransactions are losers. Pathetic. Boo hoo if some people like buying something you don't like. Grow up.

Damn!!! what there to say...It's such a shame, vote with your wallet they say, when one doesn't even handle its frustration and start throwing money where he souldn't!!!

Got to live with it but i'm not part of it in any way, shape or form!!! And there's nothing we can do about alas!!!

I'm one of those who says, "It's your own Money, spend it how you want it" type of guy. If you want to spend it on Microtransactions, that's all on you! But me, I'll buy a game I like and play it the way it was meant to be play without spending a dime on Microtransactions. Simple as that.

In other words, I'm looking out for myself as a gamer.

We did make quite an impact. EA and Wallstreet are pissed. You can't make them lose money altogether but any $ you cost them is something. And we got many legislators and gambling commissions around the world at least taking a look at their malpractices.

This is also the reason why we're having a boycott in the first place. They make SO much money with these things that there is hardly any stopping the corruption of games, so we NEED to do something. We can't just sit back because it's pretty much guaranteed it would go wrong. Honestly, for gamers to bring down the government on their hobby, you have to really **** things up.

Remember if you are against their monetization schemes but you can't stop yourself from buying it, then at least consider buying the game second hand so that they don't get all the money. Also, instead of caving in to boosters and loot boxes to make a game you paid money for fun again, consider how you feel about it and writing a review to warn others.

It's very annoying that dumb people who part with their money very easily should make my gaming hobby that much worse. It's also annoying that several really good developers now cares about money instead of making good games, now that people have proved how dumb they are with their money.

This is why there will never be an "online-only future". There will always be a need for gamers to derive a sense of value from a fully developed and fleshed out story. A large enough portion of gamers want to have nothing to do with being some big publishers name and account number. Bottom line.

The fat cats want to push for it, but they know when they go too far that they will alienate the core gamer and they will be left with the fickle crowd that made Angry Birds and Kardashian cash ins a thing. Not a steady source of income.

I've hated the very core of the idea of "wait for 4 hours, or here, pay $5 to get it done right now!" as a game mechanic since it started gaining traction.

Lol "gamers" at it again.

But without money, developers can't make good games...

Disgusting.

You have to know your audience and you need to make DLC thats actually worth buying. Hopefully console gamers will thrash microtransactions the way they did BF2.

@goldenelementxl: This is true, but earning money by making people buy your games because they're good > earning money by milking money from stupid people in a disgusting way.

I rather play a free game, and pay later. Then buying a 60 bucks dud of a game that only gets 1 year support because next year we got a refresh of the same game with a new name.

I am not even remotely upset with microtransactions even in the slightest. I think paying now with ingame gold for ingame time on the blizzard store is the best thing ever.

Developers and Publishers don't care about why you give them your money

Sure they do, so they can cater content for those people as it brings them even more money

Awesome who's excited for Destiny 3 next year?

THE GAMERS HAVE BEEN OWNED

Of course Gamers have been owned. Publishers aims for the weak minded fools and make them there slaves.

If gamers are weak to buy into Microtransactions and not voting with there wallets, then they deserve to be slaves.

That's fine by me. I got nothing but time and I'm not gonna buy out the easy way out. Don't you just hated it when Publishers will try to hustle out gamers more then they pay $60? I get that game is a luxury and all but $60 for a game is all a publisher needs.

Gotta love all the haters.

They want Blockbuster AAA games
With continued development and support.

For £45 or $60 one off purchase.

DLC? how dare you charge me for more content.

Microstransactions? How dare you keep your free2play game going with aesthetic purchases that do not effect my game at all beyond "waaah I can't look like that for free as easily!".

Games... now with dev studios in the 100s... and costs in the 10s-20s-30s-40 millions... living on initial box purchases.....

live in f*cking reality.

One more company into the publisher blacklist.

this is why i did not purchase destiny 2 and any cod game of the last 6 years.

I would rather them monetize a game like Destiny which is still fun to play without using any microtransactions than milk a series to death like they did Guitar Hero. Better that than having another defunct publisher.

When such greedy companies having millions of die hards that will buy instantly everything just because its Blizzard or even worse Activision, im not suprised at all about this microtransaction outcome.

Then people wondering why EA or any other out there trying to exploit even further this moronic situation we are currently in in this gaming era. Keep paying all im saying.

For example, In the old days everyone was waiting for Blizzard to announce the next big hit in their events. Nowdays they are ok by Blizzard showing a new class for Heroes of the Storm and 3-4 new outfits for Overwatch characters. And everyone getting nuts and keep buying and buying !! Haha...

Bottom line ? Keep paying and stop whining later why Blizzard isnt focusing in AAA caliber games or if we getting 10 COD games per generation, about constant DLCs, where whole industry heading etc ...

Keep paying peeps. Ill focus on similar or even better experiences that are Free 2 Play and only games like Path of Exile, Warframe, League of Legends etc will see my money.

You forget the pirates, I bet a lot of the ones complaining in this very thread, are the same ones who download games.

Some kids today lol , complain about the developer actually wanting to make money to pay the people that develop the games. How dare they not make games for free.

It's a con-job. If I have a couple hours to play a game, I want to sit down and play it. Not play it for 15 minutes, then wait 30, then playing it again, then wait 4 hours, then play again.

I got rid of CoDWW2. Too many lootboxes. Hardpass. I traded it in for a Gran Turismo Sport. Never looked back, awesome FULL game.

Well lucky for me I don't really like Activision games on offer.

Blizzard hasn't interested me since they ruined Starcraft and Diablo, and refuse to make a Warcraft RTS game.

I bought COD last year because it was supposed to be a return to roots. But lucky for me it just shows how much Activision and Sledge actually despise (and I'm not using that word lightly) PC gamers. Telling me off to ever buy a game from them ever again.

@GiveMeSomething: Well you still gave Activision your $60, then turned around and gave GameStop (I assume) a revenue stream from other people’s work. This is one of the reasons we’re in the mess we’re in! Devs are accounting for people buying used copies (which they get $0 from) by finding other ways to charge folks money.

You showed them...

MuSt OwN aLl ThE hOlIdAy SkInS iN oVeRwAtCh. F aNd U rAnDoM gEnErAtor.

This is the work of hardcore gamers being gatekeepers. Right now hardcore gamers are on the decline as they are aging up. I remember a couple of years ago that the average age of gamers was 33, now it's 35. Then you have the shrinking console market. Pair this with the rising costs of making video games. Hardcore gamers are a shrinking demographic that wants big budget games. Companies have to make money, so they thought of microtransactions as a way to maximize profits from a shrinking base.

The Wii and DS was a miracle that gamers should have taken. That device made gaming cool and the casuals bleed over to the Xbox and PS3. Instead they alienated them, and Nintendo tried to go after the hardcore gamers again. Now casuals have phones and computers for gaming. Explains why they are increasing at a fast rate while the console industry is on pace to get eclipsed by the collectibles industry.

Microtransactions are terrible.

A loot box legislation is being introduced in Hawaii.

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2018/02/12/hawaii-news/bills-target-video-games-with-rewards-for-a-price/

The bills highlight a common mechanism referred to as “loot boxes,” wherein players can use real money to purchase an in-game “box” of items. The contents of the box are randomized, with some items being much rarer than others, and cannot be revealed until the box is purchased.

One pair of bills, House Bill 2686 and Senate Bill 3024, would prohibit the sale of any game featuring a system wherein players can purchase a randomized reward using real money to anyone younger than 21 years old.

The other two bills, House Bill 2727 and Senate Bill 3025, would require video game publishers to prominently label games containing such randomized purchase systems, as well as disclose the probability rates of receiving each loot box reward.

Microtransactions still don't bother me as a concept. Its how they are implemented in any given game that can cause issues. The approach taken by Overwatch and Rocket League do not bother me in the slightest. The attempt by EA with Battlefront 2 is an example where its wrong. As long as the MT aren't built in a way that **** with the progression system of a game, then go for it. People buying weapon skins and customizations to support a dev is okay. For those that get addicted to opening crates, maybe consider throwing out your console and PC and stick to reading novels.

Yes! They haven't passed yet but this is exactly the thing that we need. That is exactly covering the two direct loopholes they would think of using.

Chris Lee is apparently a gamer(?) and a hero in my book. He knows EXACTLY what's up. One of the bills also stipulates that if you can buy currency or virtual item that can be redeemed/used directly OR INDIRECTLY for a lootbox system, that it can't be sold to anyone below 21.

Blizzard's dirty dance around the skirt of Chinese law wouldn't work there. And Chris Lee is on the phone with half the states in the USA.

I also hear rumours Belgium is getting ready to ban this stuff altogether, though I think Chris Lee's approach would be more effective.

well I didn't buy any so

Buying used copy's is piracy. when it comes from company's that profit from it like gamespot.

LOL at those defending this because “they need to make money off their investments”. You mean like The Witcher 3, which cost $81 million to develop, one that didn’t use these so-called necessary practices, and not only recouped that investment but brought CD Projekt a profit of $64 million as well?

You corporate apologist tools, you are your own worst enemy, and you’re too dumb to even realize it.

Personally, I’ve no trouble at all with the concept of MTs, LBs, and DLC. If a game offers certain items or features that people can pay for if they so desire to save them the time it would take to unlock, but is also balanced for someone who wishes to put in the time in a more traditional method of play and timeframe so that they’d not even know they were optional unless told, then I’m all for that. But if a game’s design is infused and intentionally imbalanced to its core with predatory, exploitative, pure greed driven capitalism to the point it encourages, nigh necessitates, their embracement to progress so as to detrimentally affect gameplay for those that don’t desire to, it’s a big problem. That is nothing but greed to its worst degree, plain and simple, and it’s apparently paying off, AND with the added benefit of ignorant defenders bending over willingly for it, while these greedy corporate fat cats laugh their asses off as they set sail on their new yachts at their expense.

Eh. It’s unfortunate, but my faith in this hobby rests with developers who truly care about the craft. That’s found mostly in indies, and for the bigger games, companies like CD Projekt who value the integrity of that craft instead of using it to sell out for insane profits.

::nods:: I don't believe that for a minute either. With so many extra incomes from digital versions to increased player bases, it just seems unlikely that they 'need' the money. I believe they're trying to screw gamers over while sounding like a victim. What determines the right cost of game development anyway? What if AAA games were $60 without any extra consumer traps? No matter how much we spend, they will always end up in this situation: they want to make more money. What if games were more expensive? Well it's simple isn't it? Gamers would buy fewer games.

If they want a lot of sustainable income then I think what MS is doing with their game pass, that let's you play a library of games for x per month, is the way to go. That library can grow, the value can grow over time. It could get casual gamers to play more games and even core gamers to try other genres. It would be the only way to do away with second hand trade without upsetting the general gamer that I could think of. Playing with friends becomes easier because they don't need to first buy that specific game, they already have it. That sounds to me like it could become a very popular service. Keep in mind how big Steam has become because of its convenience. With such a service, you wouldn't even need to check prices and such. You just have that monthly fee, clean and simple. That is a recipe for success. I don't particularly like MS based on their history but it's a good idea that some of us have talked about before.

Of course that is not easy to do. For instance, how would you determine what share a developer would get from the subscriptions? This is why the MS game pass is for now limited to first party games. Would you base it on play time? But some games can be very long and very cheap to make, or very short but very expensive. They could still all be desired by gamers. Wouldn't that kind of kill games that would be shorter but offering a more impressive audio-visual spectacle? One solution is to implement a user score so that you take into account the amount of time along with the score. Shorter games that were appreciated a lot would be able to make more money. That is scary. Because then users can have an easy impact on a publisher/developer's earnings by simply downvoting a game they played. On the other hand, that may be the most fair system to the consumer. So that requires some thought to put together a system that would satisfy all types of developers and customers.

But of course even with such a system becoming successful I bet they wouldn't be able to stop themselves from putting in all sorts of microtransactions to get some more money out of you. I'm beginning to think there is a big problem with corporations period. I would love to see corporations receive a profit ceiling, a maximum amount of allowed profit for that fiscal year, so that they wouldn't feel in any way driven to attack their customers like they do now.

They should make games cost cheaper or free if they're going to be microtransaction hell.

probably the most stupid community you will encounter these days is the gaming community