0.0047 of Blizzard's Monthly Revenue...

[Vyndree]

I joined a premade BG group last weekend and when I hopped on vent, a girl prompty shouted at me that I was the reason her healer in arenas gamequit.

She said that they had apparently hit me in an arena and I had kicked their butts, and her healer was pissed. The healer wanted to report me, but she explained it wasn't against the rules and the healer got so angry about the "unfair" rules that they decided to gamequit.

The funny thing is, I told her I had never gotten past 1650 rating (typically hovering in the 1500's) and I only play the bare minimum 10 games a week, so if they were unlucky enough to hit me during my 10 games that there was nothing I could do.

She found it humorous, but I was rather shocked someone would gamequit over me. Heh. Especially considering that I only BG on av weekends (because I have to respec my main from enh->resto each time), and I only do 10 games a week of arena for points. I'm not exactly a hardcore PvPer.

In essence, people with complain no matter how rare the circumstance. I am most definitely beatable, but they didn't take the time to exploit my weaknesses -- as proofed by my arena ratings. I probably only hit their team once -- ever -- but they were so upset they had to gamequit? I don't gank or BG often, and yet I'm ruining their gaming experience so badly? Just odd.

[Tonuss]

I find those stories hard to believe. No one quits because a game frustrated them one particular evening, especially if they've stuck through it for 70 levels and countless hours of grouping, raiding, and/or PvPing. If you had just gotten the game and had a hard time, I can see a person deciding to quit and not looking back. But quitting the game, or an arena team, because a particular group beat you one night? Doesn't happen.

Well, I guess it could happen, but that is not a person I'd want to play with, that can go completely to pieces over something like that.

[Vyndree]

I have a feeling it was more likely the "straw that broke the camel's back".

The people who complain about arenas being unfair in general are the types who will typically croak when they see multiboxing is acceptable.

Of course, half the people who complain about arenas either a) grossly undergear the average arena player, b) grossly underskilled compared to the average arena player, or c) have the unfortunate luck to have chosen a non-PvP viable class/spec for the arena they want to play.

[fpanko]

Much easier math.

ASSUMING:
If blizz has 10,000,000 members.
And 5,000 boxers

Then we just need to move the decimal to make 10 million 100%.

100% of total member and 100% of revenue.
.005% of members are boxers then .005% of their revenue comes from boxers.

[Vyndree]

ASSUMING:
If blizz has 10,000,000 members.
And 5,000 boxers

The point of using numbers isn't to make them up or guess.

The point was to use irrefutable facts -- even for non-boxers. They can't argue with the number of registered users on our site, nor wowinsider data that was gathered directly from a blizzard site.

[fpanko]

The point of using numbers isn't to make them up or guess.

The point was to use irrefutable facts -- even for non-boxers. They can't argue with the number of registered users on our site, nor wowinsider data that was gathered directly from a blizzard site.

I totally agree. ( Even though all the numbers in this post are based on "generous assumptions". In other words guesses. )

Just saying the math is easier for most people to understand this way.

All you need to do is figure out what percent of the total population is multiboxers.
That percentage will match the percentage of income that blizz makes from boxers.

example: IF 50% of the population were MB accounts, then 50% of their revenue would be from MB accounts.

I think the only Fact that we can actually get from all this is:
To the best of our knowledge; multi-boxers make up far less than 0.01% of the total population.
Making all arguments about blizz allowing it for financial gain mute.

[Vyndree]

[quote='fpanko',index.php?page=Thread&postID=85442# post85442]Even though all the numbers in this post are based on "generous assumptions". In other words guesses[/quote]

The only time I make assumptions it is always negatively benefitial to the multiboxing community.

For example, by claiming that there are 9k multiboxers (registered on site), but being "generous" that only 2k are potentially 70 and playing arenas, I am actually making the percentage of lvl70 multiboxers with gladiator titles DECREASE. If I were "padding the numbers in our favor", if you will, I would've used the 9k number as per our memberlist. [i](as per [url='http://dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=83849#post83849']this post[/url])[/i]

By "generously assuming" that all multiboxers are playing 5 accounts at once, as opposed to say 2 or 3 accounts, I am actually adding weight to the negative side of the argument for us -- increasing the amount of revenue Blizzard would get from us. If I were padding the numbers, I would've taken the minimum and assumed everyone was a 2-boxer.

So the fact that these numbers come out to 0.0047% multiboxing revenue, or 0.04% multiboxers have arena titles, even WHEN I am rounding my numbers towards the anti-multiboxer's advantage, says something.

As you can see, none of these assumptions are in the favor of multiboxers. If I am skewing the percentages, I am skewing them towards an upper limit rather than a lower limit (spare for item D):

Let's make the generous assumption that
A) they are all active
B) they all multibox on WoW (as opposed to other games)
C) they all multibox two or more characters
D) all multiboxers are represented and registered on dual-boxing.com

...

Let's also make the (untrue) assumption that
A) all players of WoW worldwide pay $15/month in subscription fees
B) there are no more than 10 million subscribers since the original article was written

Anything from us is a guess, really, because Blizzard doesn't release the actual number of active 2+ account multiboxers. We also don't have a more recent count of how many accounts are active at this exact date either. But the difference between rounding the numbers off to make things "clear", and using the facts that we DO happen to have available to us, is that one is an educated guess based on as many facts as we can get -- and the other is not.

All you need to do is figure out what percent of the total population is multiboxers.
That percentage will match the percentage of income that blizz makes from boxers.

This assumption is also incorrect if multiboxers follow a different country-distribution than the rest of the WoW players. If we primarily come from, for example, America... who pays between $12.99-$15.99 per month... while the distribution of "single boxers" veers more towards Chinese WoW which is pay-per-hour, then there will be a disjunct dispite the percentage.

Both of our arguments hinge on the fact that we are assuming that both multiboxers and solo-boxers are statistically spread in the same geographical market areas.

Hence my caveat:

Let's also make the (untrue) assumption that
A) all players of WoW worldwide pay $15/month in subscription fees

[Tonuss]

All you need to do is figure out what percent of the total population is multiboxers.
That percentage will match the percentage of income that blizz makes from boxers.

Well, we know that we'll never figure those numbers out. But the only quote we have regarding the number of multiboxers is Malkorix's statement that multiboxing was "very rare" and practiced by a "literal[ly] vanishingly small" number of players. And as a pure guess on my part, he is not exaggerating. How many people do more than dual-box in this game? Out of 10 million accounts?

If you notice the posts in the forums, most people consider it an epidemic when they have seen a multiboxer (often the same one) two or three times. Two or three times! These are people who are trying to make multiboxing seem as if it's taking over the game, and all that they can recall is two or three occasions when they've seen a multiboxer.

We'll never have the numbers, but common sense tells us that "vanishingly small" seems pretty accurate.