And you know this how? Read the interview with Tam, Ninja Theory's head. Of course, it's not their only reason.
The "what is a successful game?"/"are exclusives worth it?" cost/benefit thread
- Thread starter Laa-Yosh
- Start date
And you know this how? Read the interview with Tam, Ninja Theory's head. Of course, it's not their only reason.
This. 2.5 million sales here with one exclusive, and 2.5 million sales there with another - many of these will be new PS3 purchasers. Exclusives build up PS3 sales. And down the line as new PS3 purchasers buy the console BECAUSE of that library (not just price) they will go into the back catalogue - so simply looking at launch sales figures isn't always helpful to the bigger picture of - an exclusive game library that prompts console purchases. Eg. LittleBigPlanet will continue to sell and prompt parents to buy the console for their family - that games value to the PS3 goes WAY beyond its initial sales.
I know you're just having a funny dig, but to make a serious point on this, I do believe artistic merit is still a significant, worthwhile, and present target in all creative industries. That is to say, the goal isn't always and in every-way in oursuit of the maximal bottom dollar. There is and always will be a force within the creaative industries trying to create what the artists want to create. Sure, some products will just be bandwagon works looking at existing successes and trying to xerox the formula, but there'll also be people with their own ideas saying 'let's give this a try' and publishers saying, on occassion, 'sure, it's worth a shot'. In these cases, where everyone would be over-the-moon if the result was a massive financial success, that's not the end-game. If it's profitable and seen well received, they'll add it to their portfolio as a success and not necessarily lament having not invested that money instead in a generic creation that would have generated more profit.Sure, they should. Somebody at Microsoft should lose their sleep day and night about the ability of Nintendo to sell zillions of retro remakes and exercise games, and come up with all sorts of weird and core-gamer-offending peripherals to attempt to counter them
There are certainly aspects to Sony's investments that highlight this. Various PSN creations, like that interactive Demo thing or the early interactive Japanese artwork, show a willingness to create something without an expectation of massive returns (unless they were blindly optimistic!).
There are many studios funded by Sony that you guys never hear of though. Money gets poured into them, nothing emerges, then they get closed. You guys only hear about the big name places like Insomniac, etc, but there are many more. For example, right now in California as we speak there is a Sony 2nd party churning away on a game, totally funded by Sony. It's not Insomniac. Any idea who it is? I'd wager most won't because they are totally off the radar. Likewise if their efforts fail, they will also be closed off the radar. There is much of this going on, the ones that make it big you will hear about, the ones that don't will be silently closed. These types of expenditures will bleed them dry. It doesn't matter what Sony, MS, or anyone say publicly, their pr people will always spin everything positively, and if they don't they should be fired. Behind the scenes though ridiculous amounts of dollars are being blown.
Here's one more example, in case you think a studio can't be closed without anyone knowing. A friend of mine was laid off this week, the studio he was at was closed. Any idea which studio it is? I'll narrow it down for you to see if you can find it with google, it was in the west coast in the USA. Any guesses? My point being that this kinda stuff goes on all the time without people knowing. I have knowledge of some of them only because I have friends at these places, but I certainly don't have the full extent of the money pit picture either. It's scary to think what the real numbers actually are, as far as how much money Sony throws at studios in hopes of getting the next big thing. I simply don't see how they can maintain this pattern.
I think this is important to state. A lot of people are looking at lifetime sales for other PS3 titles and measuring just released games against them.
Such as Uncharted 2 against MGS4 and Uncharted 1. It has yet to surpass the latter (not including December's NPD).
But if we simply look at their first months, we can get a better idea of how U2 has done.
In its first month, MGS4 sold around 2.6 million in Japan, Europe and the US (yes, I'm using VGChartz, but it'll give us a round about idea...and they retroactively correct many of their numbers).
In its first month, Uncharted 1 sold only 0.62 million units across those territories. It has now sold around 2.9 million worldwide, built over 2 years. Quite a feat for a slow start.
In its first month, Uncharted 2 sold approx. 1.5 million over those territories. After just over two months, it's now at 2.6 million.
Compared to its predecessor U2 has exceeded expectations by quite some margin. It even, in my opinion, compares favorably to MGS4. I say that for this reason; Metal Gear Solid has high penetration in Japan, whereas the Western stylised Uncharted does not. So when you take Japan sales off from both titles you get the following numbers:
U2 first month US and Europe: 1.4 million
MGS4 first month US and Europe: 2 million
That's not a huge distance for an IP debuted this generation, compared to one of the biggest series of all time that has been around for 10 years.
Such as Uncharted 2 against MGS4 and Uncharted 1. It has yet to surpass the latter (not including December's NPD).
But if we simply look at their first months, we can get a better idea of how U2 has done.
In its first month, MGS4 sold around 2.6 million in Japan, Europe and the US (yes, I'm using VGChartz, but it'll give us a round about idea...and they retroactively correct many of their numbers).
In its first month, Uncharted 1 sold only 0.62 million units across those territories. It has now sold around 2.9 million worldwide, built over 2 years. Quite a feat for a slow start.
In its first month, Uncharted 2 sold approx. 1.5 million over those territories. After just over two months, it's now at 2.6 million.
Compared to its predecessor U2 has exceeded expectations by quite some margin. It even, in my opinion, compares favorably to MGS4. I say that for this reason; Metal Gear Solid has high penetration in Japan, whereas the Western stylised Uncharted does not. So when you take Japan sales off from both titles you get the following numbers:
U2 first month US and Europe: 1.4 million
MGS4 first month US and Europe: 2 million
That's not a huge distance for an IP debuted this generation, compared to one of the biggest series of all time that has been around for 10 years.
The problem here is sony. They have to make sure people see that these previously released games are out there to be played when they are looking for a console to purchase.
You make it sound as if they have no idea what they are doing. If the business is as bad as you picture I doubt they would still be around doing it.
Is Sony's investment in these places well above average? Because as ERP was saying, it's better to can a DOA product than keep investing in it, and it's better to switch from Product A to Product B if the new Product B is going to sell that much more and needs to be out in a hurry before something else arrives. I'm not excusing Sony, just presenting the flipside argument. eg. If Sony were investing in some shooters, and now feel Motion igaming s more important to pursue and secure before Natal arrives, it makes more sense to drop the current shooter projects and invest that money in motion projects.
I'm happy to accept your info shows this isn't smart, dynamic management but the crazy pursuit of lost causes, because you're getting info from the inside, but I would like it clarified. The termination of projects and closing of studios is bad per se. The spending of hundreds of millions of dollars on ever chaning projects without any end products or returns is.
Expanding on that we have to remember that Sony in its own right is one of the largest publishers on the planet, with the commensurate amount of internal development houses. Sony has bad years the same as EA or any of the rest of them.
I don't want to get bogged down in the above, but rather to the topic of all the unnamed titles/studios Sony funds that go to the void; well... Sony is prospecting - nothing more, nothing less. We already know this is a stated strategy of theirs, and as is *often* mentioned, it's the same as a movie studio would do when deciding which projects to bankroll. They're out there like every other major publisher which courts independent projects trying to be the one that scores the 'next big thing.' Personally I think Joker may be looking at the collective millions that go into this prospecting and think it more unsustainable than it actually is; in the greater scheme of things, these are comparatively minor operations.
Sony has certainly not found its 'Halo-killer' yet, and not for lack of trying either. I think some members may have a warped view as to the intellectual integrity of games like Resistance or Uncharted: they are appealing to the 'mainstream gamer' no less than are titles like Halo or Gears. If anyone doesn't see the obvious formulaic mash-up in Resistance that is "Halo meets Call of Duty" for instance... I mean c'mon! Doesn't mean it's still not my #1 favorite FPS of the gen though! But let's call things for what they are. Does anyone think they weren't trying to appeal to the broadest of broad FPS markets? (Again, my #1 FPS though)
Point being, however, that even the 'failed' efforts at a Halo killer can still breed successful franchises in their own rights. Resistance, Uncharted, God of War... these all have long term legs IMO in terms of their franchise merits and profit potential. And of course, the prospecting continues on Sony's side to find that one game that will make the blockbuster money. The Halo 2 of the present gen, as it were. They may never find it. They may find a couple of other Infamous' or LBP's along the way - certainly fine consolation prizes. And should they decide to dial back on the funding of risky 2nd parties, that to is easily done. They can ramp it back up anytime they so deem.
For me, more questionable was the pre-launch acquisition of developers Zipper and Guerrilla, rather than seeing first how they did in 2nd party status efforts on the PS3. Who knows the total costs involved, though, so harder to judge. Obviously their logic at the time was fairly clear, it just seemed like too advance a move. I normally would prefer organic growth or symbiotic relationships of the Insomniac/MediaMolecule variety to anticipatory acquisition.
Anyway this thread can be about more than Sony as well. No one has said anything yet about Microsoft's divestiture moves or Nintendo's own "publisher as platform" status.
I don't want to get bogged down in the above, but rather to the topic of all the unnamed titles/studios Sony funds that go to the void; well... Sony is prospecting - nothing more, nothing less. We already know this is a stated strategy of theirs, and as is *often* mentioned, it's the same as a movie studio would do when deciding which projects to bankroll. They're out there like every other major publisher which courts independent projects trying to be the one that scores the 'next big thing.' Personally I think Joker may be looking at the collective millions that go into this prospecting and think it more unsustainable than it actually is; in the greater scheme of things, these are comparatively minor operations.
Sony has certainly not found its 'Halo-killer' yet, and not for lack of trying either. I think some members may have a warped view as to the intellectual integrity of games like Resistance or Uncharted: they are appealing to the 'mainstream gamer' no less than are titles like Halo or Gears. If anyone doesn't see the obvious formulaic mash-up in Resistance that is "Halo meets Call of Duty" for instance... I mean c'mon! Doesn't mean it's still not my #1 favorite FPS of the gen though!
But let's call things for what they are. Does anyone think they weren't trying to appeal to the broadest of broad FPS markets? (Again, my #1 FPS though)Point being, however, that even the 'failed' efforts at a Halo killer can still breed successful franchises in their own rights. Resistance, Uncharted, God of War... these all have long term legs IMO in terms of their franchise merits and profit potential. And of course, the prospecting continues on Sony's side to find that one game that will make the blockbuster money. The Halo 2 of the present gen, as it were. They may never find it. They may find a couple of other Infamous' or LBP's along the way - certainly fine consolation prizes. And should they decide to dial back on the funding of risky 2nd parties, that to is easily done. They can ramp it back up anytime they so deem.
For me, more questionable was the pre-launch acquisition of developers Zipper and Guerrilla, rather than seeing first how they did in 2nd party status efforts on the PS3. Who knows the total costs involved, though, so harder to judge. Obviously their logic at the time was fairly clear, it just seemed like too advance a move. I normally would prefer organic growth or symbiotic relationships of the Insomniac/MediaMolecule variety to anticipatory acquisition.
Anyway this thread can be about more than Sony as well.
No one has said anything yet about Microsoft's divestiture moves or Nintendo's own "publisher as platform" status.
Last edited by a moderator:
specwarGP2
Regular
What you've described is essentially how a record label is run. Sony has a little bit of experience running a record label, so I think they know what they're doing
What you've described is essentially how a record label is run. Sony has a little bit of experience running a record label, so I think they know what they're doing
That thinking goes too much in the other direction though; we can't pre-suppose that Sony is running things well just because they have similar media based businesses. Plus, that would assume also that this is a mated hierarchy, when truly the operations at Sony Music could suck and at SCEI rock, or vice versa, the management of the two being wholly separate.
Suffice to say that the prospecting is par for the course.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Anyway this thread can be about more than Sony as well.
Well MS's divestiture's that I'm aware of (I'm sure there are more) had more to do with moving away from PC games publishing and developement. Ensemble was given a chance to transition to console developement with the Halo Wars project, but I get the feeling the Ensemble team wasn't entirely happy with dropping PC developement to focus solely on console developement.
And for the Flight Sim team, I don't really see a market (currently) for a realistic non-combat flight simulator on console, so there wasn't much MS could do there.
Bungie was a give us freedom or watch our team start leaving en mass.
MS teams are fewer in number and are afforded greater leniency just due to the fact that MS has published blockbusters for the platform which can cover for any shortfalls from other products.
Additionally, of the titles that didn't sell particularly well, I don't recall there being much hype or large marketing pushes behind them. Likewise, no rumors of large developement budgets.
Regards,
SB
The revenue generated by those hits is immense and covers the costs for failure which brings us right back to the issue. The Sony blockbusters aren't selling in similar quantities to sustain that model.
I'm sure Sony knows exactly what they are doing. The problem is that they are doing the exact same thing in the PS3 era as they did in the PS2 era, which I feel no longer works. I'm happy to admit that we're all armchair quarterbacking here, given that we have many years of hindsight that we can all use as proof for whatever arguments we put forward. No one expected Sony to lose their dominance like they have and few expected Microsoft to actually execute so well on only their second box (it usually takes them 5 revs to get anything right), so sticking with the PS2 strategy in the PS3 era maybe made sense a few years ago. But it needs heavy revision today as they have been outmaneuvered and out profited this gen. They may very well be making adjustments as we speak. But you know the old saying, big companies have small rudders, it takes time to make changes so we may not see a revised strategy until PS4.
Shifty Geezer said:
Some are obviously well above average in cost, KZ2 being the poster child for this. Some are average in cost, but they have so many of them spread out all over the world that even at average cost they represent a substantial amount of capital tied up in hopes and dreams. We don't have exact numbers in most of those cases, but we can speculate based on studio size and time to determine if they are average cost or not. The biggest issue Sony seems to have in the end is not reigning all these projects in. They are almost the opposite of EA, where EA has no problem shutting down any project at any phase of development at any time anywhere in the world if they don't see the vision and/or they don't think it will generate AAA dollars and/or doesn't fit in their product year and/or insert a myriad of other reasons here. Sony just lets stuff simmer in the slow cooker forever, and pays everything along the way without caring if the final meal will taste good or bad. They need to reign all that in.
specwarGP2 said:
Except that in this gen Sony is getting the worst return on the dollar of all three combatants, I can't imagine they are happy with that. It tells me that their strategy needs heavy refining.
specwarGP2
Regular
That's just a consequence of the model. Sony paid Michael and Janet Jackson huge sums of money a while back to stay with Sony Music. That investment never paid off, and Sony lost a lot of money with Michael Jackson in particular, but Sony Music is still alive, bigger than ever and very profitable today!
I honestly think it is the exact opposite in terms of leniency; thus the very drive of Bungie's rebellion, and some of the internal dissent we've heard from within EA post Bioware, for example. Sony is actually known for quite a bit of afforded creative control handed over to the devs. But, that is not the topic so I don't want it to distract - like I said before it's not about nobility or just causes, just the bottom line.
As far as MS goes, I think on a level they simply said if they were going to be externalizing Bungie anyway, there would be little merit to building out the 1st party capabilities vs simply keeping the 2nd party title-by-title thing going. Is Rare their last remaining internal studio, right? Not that I shouldn't know this by heart.
And making plenty of money off of Michael now, ironically!
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I honestly think it is the exact opposite in terms of leniency; thus the very drive of Bungie's rebellion, and some of the internal dissent we've heard from within EA post Bioware, for example. Sony is actually known for quite a bit of afforded creative control handed over to the devs. But, that is not the topic so I don't want it to distract - like I said before it's not about nobility or just causes, just the bottom line.
As far as MS goes, I think on a level they simply said if they were going to be externalizing Bungie anyway, there would be little merit to building out the 1st party capabilities vs simply keeping the 2nd party title-by-title thing going. Is Rare their last remaining internal studio, right? Not that I shouldn't know this by heart.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, I'm honestly not sure how many internal devs are still there. I think there's a couple other than Rare, but my mind is going blank at the moment.
And by greater leniency, I didn't mean with regards to creative license, but with regards to financial performance.
Regards,
SB
I don't know that those two aren't one and the same, though. Obviously the internal deadline/performance pressures were clearly there at MS studios, so leniency maybe on the broader projects level for accounting and management if that's what you mean.
Regards LBP, it's also appears to be a poster-child for DLC. They are constantly releasing content, which I presume people are buying. Certainly MM have been expanding. Over its life, as well as helping establish consumer patterns in adopting DLC, it may make more money than the units sold would suggest - even heavily discounted as it was.