Insomniac to go cross platform?

[NRP]

I always thought MS had first right of refusal, and Bungie's words in those interviews don't necessarily contradict that.

It could be MS was interested in the game, but not Bungie's demands (dev cut, marketing, budget, etc), while Activision, still reeling from the IW fiasco, was desperate enough to give Bungie whatever they asked for (knowing full well they could drill Bungie in the ass at a later date).

Or it could be that MS thought thought the game was a turd, but Activision didn't.

Or I could be totally wrong about all of it.

We'll probably never know. It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out though.

 

[obonicus]

Given the date of the announcement, the Bungie/Activision thing was probably being negotiated way before the IW thing became public.

 

[Rangers]

Isn't the usual trend for sequels to sell slightly less?

I would think it would be more. All the biggest hits are sequels. Reach will sell more than 3, MW2 sold more than MW1, etc etc.

It's funny to me that games is kind of the opposite of movies. In movies, usually the sequels do decline in popularity. In games, it's generally the reverse. Of course there are exceptions.

 

[KongRudi]

Based on the sales figures, I would guess Insomniac's games were paying for themselves but not generating a real profit. There's a serious opportunity cost for a quality studio like Insomiac to target a single platform exclusively when there is effectively a three-way split in the market. I've enjoyed all their games since Spyro, so I look forward to what they have to offer.

The two Resistance games, have sold 5.57 millions, in comparison Valve's two Left 4 Dead-games have sold 5.43 millions. In addition they've made 3 Ratchet games, wich sold 3,44 millions, not counting PSN-sales for Q4B. And the Ratchet-games have legs.
The numbers are from vgchartz.com, numbers aren't 100% accurate, but good enough for Square to use in their quarter-reports, so I guess I could use them here..
They've probably got a much better deal than Valve do aswell due to length of the publisher-relationship, so I'm pretty sure they have a good profit at the studio.

I think it's more about beeing able to control and own the IP for themselves without having to ask Sony if they can do this and that, within the universe they create.
And also it probably dosn't hurt to own some property they could sell, without having to sell their company.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

come on there must be a few(*), Wait Ive just thought of another big title, bioshock.
bioshock 1 when xbox360 exclusive sold better than bioshock2 (xbox+ps3)
thats 2/2 theres something wrong in the state of denmark here folks

(*)After all it makes better business sense according to posters here, so all the companies must want to do it.

Both of those sequels got significantly lower review scores than the first outing. Lost Planet 2 has a metacritic score of 69 and it was released in a month that has Red Dead Redemption and Alan Wake as a competitor (Although Alan Wake doesn't seem to be a big hit either). January 2007 had no such competition as Lost Planet was the only major new release in that month.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I would think it would be more. All the biggest hits are sequels. Reach will sell more than 3, MW2 sold more than MW1, etc etc.

Within the same generation, sequels tend to sell less. GT4 sold less than GT3 despite a larger install base. Kingdom Hearts II sold less than KH. Spyro's best-selling title was the original with sequels selling less. Assassin's Creed II sold less than I. And so on. This is the more common pattern and it's the anomaly for sequels to outperform the originals.

 

[Cyan]

Isn't the usual trend for sequels to sell slightly less?

Like some people pointed out in the last posts already, I think that's the case with a lot of games.

I've bought Halo 3 because I was hyped, but I found it to be the worst Halo game and I never understood the 10s reviewers gave to the game. I didn't buy the sequels and I'm not that interested in Reach, maybe just curious about it.

Same with Bioshock. It doesn't have a bad story but it was really boring towards the end so I didn't play the sequel.

 

[dobwal]

The two Resistance games, have sold 5.57 millions, in comparison Valve's two Left 4 Dead-games have sold 5.43 millions. In addition they've made 3 Ratchet games, wich sold 3,44 millions, not counting PSN-sales for Q4B. And the Ratchet-games have legs.
The numbers are from vgchartz.com, numbers aren't 100% accurate, but good enough for Square to use in their quarter-reports, so I guess I could use them here..
They've probably got a much better deal than Valve do aswell due to length of the publisher-relationship, so I'm pretty sure they have a good profit at the studio.

I think it's more about beeing able to control and own the IP for themselves without having to ask Sony if they can do this and that, within the universe they create.
And also it probably dosn't hurt to own some property they could sell, without having to sell their company.

I didn't know that L4D were bundled with 360 in any significant number.

And they probably got a worse deal then Valve since Valve self financed the development of L4D as well as contributed a portion of the marketing dollars. EA only handled the publishing of retail sales while Valve got 100% of the revenue generated through Steam since they are the retailer, distributor, publisher and developer when it comes to DD on PC. Valve is a unique case for a developer given their ability to self finance development and self publish using DD, which means Valve can leverage better compensation because there is less risk involved to published Valve titles, whereby risk is further mitigated because Valve has a history generating rather healthy sales. Valve controls and owns their IPs. Its hard to see how Insomnaic gets better compensated than Valve.

L4D 1&2 has probably been far more lucrative for Valve than all Insomniac titles on the PS3 combined for their developer.

 

[dobwal]

Within the same generation, sequels tend to sell less. GT4 sold less than GT3 despite a larger install base. Kingdom Hearts II sold less than KH. Spyro's best-selling title was the original with sequels selling less. Assassin's Creed II sold less than I. And so on. This is the more common pattern and it's the anomaly for sequels to outperform the originals.

Huh???

Assassin's Creed 2 just had a press release for passing 9 million in unit shipped. I don't remember AC1 being anywhere near that number.

The top selling title on the PS2 is San Andreas and for the Xbox it is Halo2. UC2 was the first party Sony title to break 1 million in sales in the US and is the fastest selling first party title on the PS3 ever. MW2 and BF:BC2 are clear examples of sequels doing better than their predecessor. And when this gen is said and done, games like Gears 2, Mass Effect 2, L4D2 will, in all probability, outsell their earlier brethren.

Sequels outselling their predecessors isn't an anomaly its a rather common occurence.

 

[obonicus]

Gears 2 is a 2008 game and a clear counter-example, there's probably not much legs left in that title. ME2 not so much... how do L4D2's numbers match to the previous game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Assassin's Creed 2 just had a press release for passing 9 million in unit shipped. I don't remember AC1 being anywhere near that number.

My mistake, using old numbers (VGChartz. I feel so dirty!). AC sold 8 million by June '09..

The top selling title on the PS2 is San Andreas and for the Xbox it is Halo2. UC2 was the first party Sony title to break 1 million in sales in the US and is the fastest selling first party title on the PS3 ever. MW2 and BF:BC2 are clear examples of sequels doing better than their predecessor. And when this gen is said and done, games like Gears 2, Mass Effect 2, L4D2 will, in all probability, outsell their earlier brethren.

Sequels outselling their predecessors isn't an anomaly its a rather common occurence.

Do more than 50% of sequels outsell the first title of the franchise per generation? Resistance 2 sold less than Resistance:FOM. R&C:CIT sold less than R&C:TOD. On PS2 R&C outsold R&C:GC which outsold R&:CUYA. Jak 3 sold less than Jak 2 sold less than Jak 1 on PS2. On Playstation, RE2 did outsell RE1, but then RE3 sold less than 1. On PS, Tekken showed increasing sales from 1 to 2 to 3, but on PS2 TTT outsold 4 and 5. On PS, GT outsold GT2. On PS2, GT3 outsold GT4. Street Fighter tends to have sold more in its sequels. Rock Band 2 sold less than Rock Band. Saints Row outsold Saints Row 2. PGR4 managed to outsell PGR3.

...I'm just typing names of titles in VGChartz here as they come to me...

On PS2 Lego SW outsold Lego SW2 - a million gamers didn't care to finish the whole saga! Let's try DS games. Brain Age outsold Brain Age 2. Pokemon Diamond/Pearl outsold Gold/Silver. Ah, Professor Layton '08 outsold the '07 title. Cooking Mama outsold Cooking Mama 2, but MySims '07 outsold Sims 2 '05. Dragon's Quest iterations are a mixed bag. On DS, it goes 9>4>5>6. God of War...1 outsold 2.

So that's...what, about a third of sequels who have outsold previous iterations, just me picking at random (or rather whatever comes when perusing VGChartz and trying to find titles with numbers in their name, which isn't truly random). Notably sequels sell to a larger install base yet they're doing well if they can even match their older siblings. Maybe sequels outselling originals is a more common occurence than an anomaly, meaning a poor choice of words on my part, but I think you will have a hard time making a strong argument that developers can rely on sequels outselling originals, and certainly Ranger's notion that sequels on average sell better really doesn't hold true with historical figures, unless this generation has seen a noteworthy change in buyers' habits.

 

[dobwal]

My mistake, using old numbers (VGChartz. I feel so dirty!). AC sold 8 million by June '09..

Do more than 50% of sequels outsell the first title of the franchise per generation? Resistance 2 sold less than Resistance:FOM. R&C:CIT sold less than R&C:TOD. On PS2 R&C outsold R&C:GC which outsold R&:CUYA. Jak 3 sold less than Jak 2 sold less than Jak 1 on PS2. On Playstation, RE2 did outsell RE1, but then RE3 sold less than 1. On PS, Tekken showed increasing sales from 1 to 2 to 3, but on PS2 TTT outsold 4 and 5. On PS, GT outsold GT2. On PS2, GT3 outsold GT4. Street Fighter tends to have sold more in its sequels. Rock Band 2 sold less than Rock Band. Saints Row outsold Saints Row 2. PGR4 managed to outsell PGR3.

...I'm just typing names of titles in VGChartz here as they come to me...

On PS2 Lego SW outsold Lego SW2 - a million gamers didn't care to finish the whole saga! Let's try DS games. Brain Age outsold Brain Age 2. Pokemon Diamond/Pearl outsold Gold/Silver. Ah, Professor Layton '08 outsold the '07 title. Cooking Mama outsold Cooking Mama 2, but MySims '07 outsold Sims 2 '05. Dragon's Quest iterations are a mixed bag. On DS, it goes 9>4>5>6. God of War...1 outsold 2.

So that's...what, about a third of sequels who have outsold previous iterations, just me picking at random (or rather whatever comes when perusing VGChartz and trying to find titles with numbers in their name, which isn't truly random). Notably sequels sell to a larger install base yet they're doing well if they can even match their older siblings. Maybe sequels outselling originals is a more common occurence than an anomaly, meaning a poor choice of words on my part, but I think you will have a hard time making a strong argument that developers can rely on sequels outselling originals, and certainly Ranger's notion that sequels on average sell better really doesn't hold true with historical figures, unless this generation has seen a noteworthy change in buyers' habits.

I can't really comment on your post because I really don't know how reliable or unreliable VgChartz are especially in terms of total unit sales. If they are generated by tracking sales then they are undoubtly very poor because if they do a poorer job than NPD or other trackers who track specific regions then they aren't going to do a good job worldwide. If those numbers are composite of sales from PR releases then they are only as good as when they were released.

 

[dobwal]

No, that just means they had to show it to MS first, they weren't obliged to let MS publish it, MS was probably interested but Bungie said we want this game on PS3 and PC as well and MS wasn't willing to go through with that.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/04/29/interview-bungie-discusses-activision-its-new-universe-and/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011740770_bungie30.html

MS is not going to stipulate in a contract something as irrevelant as "show us it first" as MS has board members in Bungie. That makes no sense. Its a right of first refusal. MS is smart enough to include such language. One of the conditions set by Bungie had to be providing funds. I can easily not meet your conditions if I simply say "no" to your project.

 

[dobwal]

Gears 2 is a 2008 game and a clear counter-example, there's probably not much legs left in that title. ME2 not so much... how do L4D2's numbers match to the previous game.

Why? Every game here outpaces their former iteration in sales.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can't really comment on your post because I really don't know how reliable or unreliable VgChartz are especially in terms of total unit sales. If they are generated by tracking sales then they are undoubtly very poor because if they do a poorer job than NPD or other trackers who track specific regions then they aren't going to do a good job worldwide. If those numbers are composite of sales from PR releases then they are only as good as when they were released.

well yes, VGChartz can't be taken at face value, but 1) Dates are given for figures, and some games have none listed, which shows they aren't just making them up but getting them from somewhere. 2) Where are the numbers coming from to show sequels (the majority of, according to Rangers) traditionally sell more? If only from PR statements, you'll only be hearing from titles that show growth, as neither publisher nor developer is going to announce that their sequel has sold less.

 

[Squilliam]

My mistake, using old numbers (VGChartz. I feel so dirty!). AC sold 8 million by June '09..

Do more than 50% of sequels outsell the first title of the franchise per generation? Resistance 2 sold less than Resistance:FOM. R&C:CIT sold less than R&C:TOD. On PS2 R&C outsold R&C:GC which outsold R&:CUYA. Jak 3 sold less than Jak 2 sold less than Jak 1 on PS2. On Playstation, RE2 did outsell RE1, but then RE3 sold less than 1. On PS, Tekken showed increasing sales from 1 to 2 to 3, but on PS2 TTT outsold 4 and 5. On PS, GT outsold GT2. On PS2, GT3 outsold GT4. Street Fighter tends to have sold more in its sequels. Rock Band 2 sold less than Rock Band. Saints Row outsold Saints Row 2. PGR4 managed to outsell PGR3.

..
So that's...what, about a third of sequels who have outsold previous iterations, just me picking at random (or rather whatever comes when perusing VGChartz and trying to find titles with numbers in their name, which isn't truly random). Notably sequels sell to a larger install base yet they're doing well if they can even match their older siblings. Maybe sequels outselling originals is a more common occurence than an anomaly, meaning a poor choice of words on my part, but I think you will have a hard time making a strong argument that developers can rely on sequels outselling originals, and certainly Ranger's notion that sequels on average sell better really doesn't hold true with historical figures, unless this generation has seen a noteworthy change in buyers' habits.

Like anything it really does depend! There are numerous factors involved, enough to make anyones head spin if they tried to consider them all at once for even a single particular title. For instance only a few people know how much Resistance Fall of Man 1 sold vs how many of that particular title were bundled and without that information its really impossible to say what the true difference in sold titles would be that people actually bought. In any case the further you go back into the previous generation the weaker the sales tracking on individual titles are and the more it relies on press statements etc.

One of the reasons why sequels are so popular from a publisher and developers perspective both at once is because when they release X2 game, X1 sales also show a noticeable bump as well and when they sell X3 they get a bump in the sales of X1, X2 and then they can sell X1,X2,X3 in a bundle at some future date and sell even more copies. This also makes this distinction harder to say, if we take Gears of War 1/2 vs 3 which is coming out soon. At this point Gears 1 has benefited from the release of Gears 2 but the sales are close so the release of Gears 3 will probably put the sales of Gears 2 over Gears 1 and the same would go for L4D 2 which is marginally below L4D if theres a sequel released.

I would say in this generation the tendency is for sequels to sell within range of their prequels or +/- 20% when all is said and done. There are very few titles where the sequel will completely die away or increase out of sight beyond the first except when the sequel is obviously better or if the sales of the previous version suffered due to some identifiable/unidentifiable factor and didn't come close to its potential such as being a late port. In many instances like GT or Rock Band theres so much content and the sequel is so similar that many people do not need to buy the next iteration if they are satisfied with the one they have at present.

 

[NathansFortune]

well yes, VGChartz can't be taken at face value, but 1) Dates are given for figures, and some games have none listed, which shows they aren't just making them up but getting them from somewhere. 2) Where are the numbers coming from to show sequels (the majority of, according to Rangers) traditionally sell more? If only from PR statements, you'll only be hearing from titles that show growth, as neither publisher nor developer is going to announce that their sequel has sold less.

A lot of PR statements like to make out that the sequel is better selling, but most times it is better within a similar time-frame. Usually all it shows is that series become more front loaded as they progress. The ones that buck the trend are Mario and Halo. CoD could join that group but we'll see what the effect of IW jumping ship has on the long term sales of MW3. Uncharted may also join that group, but I think 2 could represent the ceiling for the franchise, at least in terms of popularity for PS3 releases. If SCE want Uncharted to turn into a mega franchise they probably need to hold it back until PS4 now and make it a launch title, and instead give the series a PSP outing like GoW in between the platform change.

 

[dobwal]

It still all a matter of individual circumstances.

How well do you expect God of War II to sell compared to GOW1 when its released 15 months after the PS3/360 gen had already begun. How about GT4 when it lacked things like rendered damage or online play which new features added by other racers or promised as features but removed before release. Or Brain Age 2 when it came after a explosion of brain age type games which included games like Big Brain that was released by its own publisher.

Ultimately gamers aren't going to buy a game because it ends in a numerical number. But in the end if your original game is greatly received and your sequel provides a worthwhile experience than with proper market timing and marketing dollars, it has a great chance to equal or surpassed its former iteration.

 

[Arwin]

One important factor to keep in mind is that launch or near launch titles tend to do really well. They always sell pretty good at the beginning, get a big name and become defining titles, and have little competition - even if the install base was small at launch, looking at the install base-to-released games tends to get worse, not better. Then the game keeps on selling the rest of the console lifespan also because they then become the first platinum titles again, etc.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It still all a matter of individual circumstances.

Of course it is, and I've never said otherwise. We're just talking trends, and the trend is that when a developer produces a sequel to a game, on the whole they can expect lower sales unless things happen to work in their favour, some of which they can control and some of which they can't.

Obonicus : Isn't the usual trend for sequels to sell slightly less?
Rangers : I would think it would be more. All the biggest hits are sequels
Me : Nope.

At no point has anyone said, "sequels always sell less," or "sequels always sell more," or, "there's nothing any dev can do to change whether they sell more or less with a sequel."