http://finance.yahoo.com/news/activision-blizzard-announces-better-expected-211000683.html
>For the year ended December 31, 2016, Activision Blizzard’s net revenues presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) were a record $6.61 billion, as compared with $4.66 billion for 2015, an increase of 42%. GAAP net revenues from digital channels were a record $4.87 billion, growing 94% year-over-year."
$6.61 Billion......
>Activision Blizzard had 447 million Monthly Active Users (MAUs) in the quarter.
Dear God.
>World of Warcraft® MAUs grew 10% in 2016
LUL. How? Why????
>>1787964
they got a retard in this call
>>1787996
http://investor.activision.com/eventdetail.cfm?EventID=179214
>Overwatch was released in 2016. If you know anything about video games nothing more needs to be said.
>WoW had a great expansion, unlike the previous one
Who could have predicted increased earnings?
>>>1787964
447 million China men, blizz is notorious for stacking financial reports.
>>1788256
hearthstone is falling off since the release of the karazhan adventure(which was bad) and the gadgetzan expansion(which was bad). theyve been losing players and also less people follow the tournaments/streams. e-sports teams are realizing its not a competitive game so they are starting to reduce their effort in HS too. i mean, it will still be a big game and all that but HS has peaked and will most likely never be as big as it used to be.
ah yesss
ceels good that I have 150 shares which I bought for 16$ some years ago
>wanting to profit off of the evil empire
I'll line it up next to my Monsanto stocks!
>>1788444
Not saying your wrong, but it cost Blizzard almost nothing to produce Hearthstone. (compared to their other games) Hence the ROI is still astronomical.
>>1788769
im aware, i wasnt disagreeing with your statement that the ROI is VERY high. im saying that the ROI will get lower, not higher in the future. but will still likely remain high. it has peaked, but will still remain a big and profitable game.
>>1787964
>in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”)
are all journalists this stupid?
>>1791271
holy shit im jack khaki
>>1791271
They legally have to say that. It's stupid though, I agree.
>>1791271
What's wrong with that? Companies report GAAP and non GAAP numbers and the difference can be huge, the reader might want to know which they're talking about.