The "what is a successful game?"/"are exclusives worth it?" cost/benefit thread

People might be buying it they might not but there was an interview I recall with MM a while back where they were focused on a DLC model vs a sequel.

So we might just be seeing execution of that model and them pumping DLC based strictly on the business model vs based off demand.

 

No-one buying the DLC but rather than give up, they just keep pouring money down a hole? I guess that's a possibility. I suppose in this case Sony would just like MM where they didn't like Factor 5, and are happy to keep MM afloat as a lossy concern whereas they cut ties with Factor 5.

 

Not "no one" buying DLC but the more like they wanted to execute a DLC model then sit back to see how consumers react to it. A trial for Sony and MM to see how buyers respond to a DLC model. I can see the heavy discounts for retail attributed to this model. Get the games in home first. Then start the DLC train and see how people respond. If they can make a successful model of it, it's certainly a great breakthrough.

Factor 5 had a stand alone game that was not going to follow any such model. The game bombed and Sony saw nothing they had to offer going forward.

 

Just wanted to say thanks for the answer. I wrote a lengthy reply but something screw up when I posted it. Nevertheless I found out most of my points been covered meanwhile.

Perhaps not this one about Sony funding PSN titles. I actually believe those can be pretty cost effective since Sony is in charge of the ads, trailers and demos published on PSN. I can also see that companies are started around such IPs and live through the projects and those small projects are easier to stop when milestones starts to fail or the quality doesn´t meet expectation. Larger multi-million $ projects are probably harder to deal with when they are half done.

 

As far as MediaMolecule and LBP goes, the nature of the game is such that the DLC it keeps spawning - whether purchased or not - requires only the most skeleton of crews to create given the modular nature of the game. I view it as super-cheap post launch content creation, with whatever uptake probably justifying the per-item creation. For my part I certainly imagine that LBP was/is a success for SCE, however short it fell of its original lofty aspirations.

I think the bottom line was people figured out if you let creation be truly freeform, it would just turn into a bunch of xxx-rated stickers thrown up on everything.

 

In your case, I could believe that your concern is genuine. But as you acknowledged, there are many unknown variables. Does it simply take the wild guesses (genuine or otherwise) of a random gamer to override the statements of a game developer himself? Does it simply take that, to allow unfounded assertions about the profitability of a publisher?

No one can make assertions either way. The only thing we know for sure is that the games have been great, and the sales figures are in the millions for each of the mentioned titles, and that the sequels are coming. It would take a real pessimist to find discomfort in that.

 

Public expectations were varied, but obviously optimistic from PS3 fans and pessimistic from 360 fans. You could use a PS3 fanboy's expectations, and call the games absolute failures. Then again, you could use a 360 fanboy's expectations, and those same games would be brilliant successes. You may have been selective in what you call "general expectations".

Ultimately, I am not sure how you can perceive the eventual sales of those mentioned titles in the millions to be anything other than positive. Please enlighten me on that.

 

i find that hard to believe. Sell far better than what?

You don't have to. My point still stands.

 

Yea i agree, id guess most people on here and other gameing forums expected KZ2 to do better than it did. Obviously peoples expectations were too high.

I dont think meeting expectations of us gamers makes a game successful or not though. LBP didnt sell as much as many of us expected, yet i would class it as a success still and im sure Sony would too. Our expectations for it were ill judged, i dont thing the game should look at it negatively because of our failures as armchair analysts

On another note, dont publishers release sales expectations for games? I know dark void was mentioned as having its sales expectations halved recently and figures were given, do we get this sort of info from Sony/MS also?

 

All these points have been made enough times in this thread already, so I'll keep 'em brief:

- Sony was hoping for more from their first party titles.
- Some of their first party titles may not even have paid for themselves.
- "Eventually" selling "millions" does not necessarily mean a game has been successful, or that funding its development has been the best use of finite resources.

 

If "most" people expected KZ2 to do better on this forum, it certainly was not the 360 camp - not *publicly*. Retrospectively, perhaps, as Laa-Yosh is doing now.

I think we need to clearly identify the basis for calling the PS3 titles failures.

There are public expectations which, apart from being diverse and unquantifiable, are subject to personal tendencies, media influences and can be ill judged, as you have put it. It is insincere then, with such understanding, to use public expectations as a benchmark to call those titles failures.

Then there are publisher expectations which (affording them the same benefit of doubt as you would a non-PS3 publisher) should be given a more serious consideration. If they say they are satisfied with the performance of a title, and are making a sequel, then should the natural response be to disbelieve them?

Finally, there are traditional expectations on what constitutes a successful title. I would have thought that a title that goes on to sell in the millions would, by any metric, be considered a sale/consumer success. Whether it is profitable is another issue, and entirely dependent on production cost - but I can only see wild guesses abound.

 

No we don't (under normal circumstances), primarily because a single title would not be considered material enough to the earnings of the respective companies to warrant a statement (talking MS and Sony).

But yes - I like what you were saying about armchair analyzing; no reason to get down on certain sales figures after the fact when it was the analysis that was obviously flawed going into it. And I say that comfortably knowing that I called "low" sales for both Killzone 2 and LBP well in advance.

This whole "Sony fan"/"Xbox fan" thing has to stop as well I would hope that most people on this forum give opinions based on what they think is actually reflected in reality, not by what system they would prefer etc etc. The latter would be fanboyism, and we won't be having that.

 

Indeed,
1. How much was Sony hoping for?
2. May not have? Maybe they have?
3. Why does selling millions not constitute success? How many more millions do you think constitute success, relative to funding?
If these points have been made, they have not been made with sufficient clarity.

 

We can't call 1M in sales an unqualified success - *everything* has to be qualified when we're dealing with this topic. As I pointed out before, 2.5M for KZ2 and 2.5M for LBP means worlds of difference in terms of 'success.' I think people are too eager to generalize everything and fit it all into a nice little box via which the entire industry can be explained away. For Killzone 2 for example, my own take would be that:

1) The game was the answer to a challenge Sony themselves inadvertently issued - its price was partly that of picking up said gauntlet. They should never have issued the challenge to begin with, but stepping up to it after the fact probably cost less on a macro level than had they not in terms of backlash effects.

2) It was a decent technology demonstrator, and had some back-end benefits amongst 'core' studio interaction.

3) Financially, I would be surprised if it turned a profit. BUT, perhaps the franchise itself is viewed as a viable endeavor going forward, and it might be a wash to slight positive at the end of a scenario which was more colored by #'s 1and 2 than anything else.

I would rate KZ2 inclusive franchise potential as a C+/B- at the end of the day in terms of 'success,' by these somewhat nebulous and additional criteria. KZ2 more than most was a game that had to be over funded to avoid a public black eye, and so a lot of strange things played into it.

To say again, 1M in sales in the present gen is not a success per se. But I do think insofar as franchises with probable sequels are generated, nor are they failures.

 

Carl B,

I would agree that KZ2 is an interesting case, as one other poster has also commented. Even your conservative view on KZ2's non-profitability, while a safe and sensible estimate, is still an estimate. Could our collective pessimism be fueled by widespread speculations about its production costs, for which there are no published figures?

To answer the latter aspect of the thread title "are exclusives worth it?", is there any doubt as to the technological investment of KZ2? For that purpose, KZ2 is not overfunded by definition. It achieved the visuals it set out to achieve for itself and future titles, with the resources it needed to do just that. Even if it just broke even, Sony would have funded the development of a graphics engine that I hold in higher regard than Epic's - for free. One could argue that the eventual benefit is only for the graphics-whore's selfish enjoyment, but I think it was a necessary endeavour for PS3 to differentiate itself graphically, just as it is working to differentiate itself in all other aspects of the business.

 

Still speaking strictly to the case of Killzone 2, I don't know that I would call the idea of it not being profitable pessimism... for me it would be more like, guarded realism. That said, it might have made a profit on its own terms. If so, I would raise its final grade to a B. (Always best to err on the conservative side though!)

As for the technology, well for me they simply had to get the game done after that E3 demo. They painted themselves into an extreme corner, and if they hadn't met the challenge, as I mentioned in point #1, I think it would have been some big time ridicule/brand damage tossed their way. And the technology is certainly awesome in its own right. Still, I think on the technology side the strengthening of the first-party sharing and the continued coordinated flesh-out of tools/libraries may have been the greatest achievement. In their own right the KZ2 rendering methods are also impressive, as you mentioned, but I honestly do not think they will find widespread use beyond KZ3, though I'd be happy to see otherwise. I think the animation advancements have more legs to them coming out of that project actually in terms of cross-studio applicability.

 

Carl,

One could also propose that they were confident in achieving those visuals back then, and executed their plan accordingly. Why must it be something that they "asked" for?

Nevertheless, it is a minor point without real consequence. The final result is for all to see. But I must say yours is a sensible scenario too.

 

Personally, I had no good expectations for LBP. I did not like it from the beginning and I could no see what the appeal could be. It seems that this was the general feeling.
I had no great expectations for KZ2 either, not because it would not be a great game - I was sure that it would be great - but because the first game, KZ1 (which was one of my favorites on PS2) was very poorly received by the public and media. That left an "tainted image" for the francise.
To replicate a Halo, you need a tremendous first iteration. Like MSG for PS1. Or FF. Or GT, GTA, GOW, GoW etc.

If the first game is not stellar, no matter how good sequels are, they will probably not become blockbusters.

 

We have safe and sensible estimates, as you say. We know there were 100 people for 3 years or whatever it was. If that's not enough to be forming opinions on, then this thread is pointless (and most others on B3D) as the conosle companies don't supply us with all the statistics we need.

Whether you agree with the view KZ2 was a poor investment or not, you can't claim they are poor, unfounded arguments.