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

[onanie]

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.

Then is it not pointless?

I did miss that information. Was that 100 people for the full duration of 3 years? How much was each of them paid? Maybe a thread link if you have it handy, or I can search for it myself.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

We have safe and sensible estimates, as you say. We know there were 100 people for 3 years or whatever it was.

We also know stuff like 90% of the characters were outsourced... so their cost isn't even included in the salaries of those 100 guys.

 

[onanie]

We also know stuff like 90% of the characters were outsourced... so their cost isn't even included in the salaries of those 100 guys.

Is there actually a source for the 90% character outsourcing bit?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Yes, here, printed on my desk, it's called D'Artiste Character Modeling vol. 3.

We're not pulling these things out of thin air, you know.

 

[specwarGP2]

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.

I don't agree. Some of the most well known games such as GTA3, MGS and SF2 had predecessors that weren't anything special. The reason those sequels did so well is because they were incredibly fun games.

KZ2 on the other hand, it wasn't that fun when you compared it to other shooters. IMO, the strange controls really killed that game.

 

[ShadowRunner]

The whole issue of a single games budget gets complicated in many ways. Take for instance the R&D cost of building the new engine, this cost will potentially end up being spread across multiple games, KZ3 may be cheaper to make so the investment in KZ2 while steep will be offset the more they make use of the tech they developed. A lot of investment descisions made today will not play out until way in the future, what seems like a bad descision to some today may turn out to be a great one in the future.

 

[ShadowRunner]

I don't agree. Some of the most well known games such as GTA3, MGS and SF2 had predecessors that weren't anything special. The reason those sequels did so well is because they were incredibly fun games.

KZ2 on the other hand, it wasn't that fun when you compared it to other shooters. IMO, the strange controls really killed that game.

Being an incredibly fun game doesnt mean it will sell at huge levels there is more to it than that. If you look at the games franchises you mentioned they were all a step forward in thier respective genre, if not creating it. A franchise can end up being hugely succesfull by not bringing anything entirely new but being outstanding implimentations on it (Uncharted sieries is going that way) but to do it this way generally relies on itteration and building a fanbase over time and several releases.

 

[Crossbar]

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.

I know you are not using the term Halo-killer, a term created by the media. But to anyone who believed Sony was trying to create a Halo-killer don´t you think Sony should have chosen a title with a slightly broader appeal than "Killzone" and chosen different slogans on the posters than "Their home, your hell"? Might be tricky to fool your mother to buy that one for you.

Resistance may be a different matter, but Killzone no.

 

[Billy Idol]

If Killzone 2 was such a huge (financial) flop for GG and Sony, we will either see that they move to an other franchise (flops don't have successors) or, according to some posters here, Sony gets rid off GG.

It seems to me that first, GG is still in business and second, that GG is still affiliated to Sony. Additionally, if we dare to listen to rumors, everything points to Killzone 3.

Concluding (seems rather logic to me), this does not point to the assumption that Killzone 2 was a flop...at least it seems to me that some posters here have an other definition of success compared to Sony and GG!

(Of course: everyone wants to sell more games...this is obvious; I bet even MS/Bungie wanted to sell more HALO 3 games after all the money spend in its advertisement!)

 

[specwarGP2]

Being an incredibly fun game doesnt mean it will sell at huge levels there is more to it than that. If you look at the games franchises you mentioned they were all a step forward in thier respective genre, if not creating it. A franchise can end up being hugely succesfull by not bringing anything entirely new but being outstanding implimentations on it (Uncharted sieries is going that way) but to do it this way generally relies on itteration and building a fanbase over time and several releases.

Later on when a franchise is well established, fun factor isn't as important (hello madden!) to generate big numbers. But in order to get there a franchise's reputation has to be built, and that's done by having games early on that are very fun to play.

I think gamers in general are very forgiving even if a game isn't outstanding they are willing to give the sequel a chance if it had some good ideas, so that's why the first game in a franchise doesn't have to knock your socks off.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Later on when a franchise is well established, fun factor isn't as important (hello madden!) to generate big numbers. But in order to get there a franchise's reputation has to be built, and that's done by having games early on that are very fun to play.

I think gamers in general are very forgiving even if a game isn't outstanding they are willing to give the sequel a chance if it had some good ideas, so that's why the first game in a franchise doesn't have to knock your socks off.

Im not sure how this fits in to your post and my reply. My point was that having an incredibly fun game doesnt guarantee success and that a game not being hugely successfull doesnt mean its evidence that it isnt a great or fun game. There is more at play in a games success than how good or fun it is. U2 holds up well against Gears for example, few would dissagree with this, but the sales do not reflect this. It sounded like you were using the sales of KZ2 as evidence to it not being a fun game compared to its peers, i dont think sales can be used in this way.

 

[Crossbar]

Yes, here, printed on my desk, it's called D'Artiste Character Modeling vol. 3.

We're not pulling these things out of thin air, you know.

There are a lot make-believe numbers floating around this thread so asking for a source should not be taken as an insult. Adding a source (link when possible) surely adds credibility to posts.

And your use of the word "we", uhm yeah, I will not go on about it.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Im not sure how this fits in to your post and my reply. My point was that having an incredibly fun game doesnt guarantee success and that a game not being hugely successfull doesnt mean its evidence that it isnt a great or fun game. There is more at play in a games success than how good or fun it is. U2 holds up well against Gears for example, few would dissagree with this, but the sales do not reflect this. It sounded like you were using the sales of KZ2 as evidence to it not being a fun game compared to its peers, i dont think sales can be used in this way.

I'd also like to add that i feel KZ2 was a very fun and enjoyable game to play. So obviously did the 2.5 million other people that went out and bought the game.

Where KZ2 fell down for me was in holding it's MP community together. FPS' this gen post-MW1 are largely expected to have excellent MP components with a rich suite of community features. While there's no denying KZ2 had this, some bad desing choices resulted in a game that lost a lot of it's appeal in the minds of the more casual MW-loving crowd. KZ2's MP is not all that accessible. The single player campaign was phenominal.

 

[corduroygt]

bad desing choices resulted in a game that lost a lot of it's appeal in the minds of the more casual MW-loving crowd. KZ2's MP is not all that accessible. The single player campaign was phenominal.

This...KZ2 is like a super fast and sexy looking car that doesn't have a stereo, windscreen, doors, or a/c. I'm so baffled that they can make a game looking that good, but skimp on the easier to implement features. I mean it takes skill and lots of analysis, programming hours to get good performance out of SPU, but implementing a party system when playing online where you and your buddies will always be on the same team should not be so difficult to accomplish.
This is Sony's problem this gen, they sweat the hard stuff, but overlook the easy stuff that makes a HUGE difference, like party chat.

 

[nightshade]

but implementing a party system when playing online where you and your buddies will always be on the same team should not be so difficult to accomplish.

What are you talking about ?
If you join a friend's game in KZ2 you always join his/her side, even if faction balancing is turned ON.
And you even get to join your friend's squad, if they are not in a squad then the game automatically puts the two of you in one.I donno what can be more accessible than this.
Even MW2 doesn't allows for this ie. just press the join button over your friend's name & play with him in them in the match, the only way to be in your friend's team in MW2 is if you search for matches together from lobby.

I'd say one of the main complains of KZ2 is also one of the several reasons why its fans love this game, yes I'm talking about controls & pacing...another thing to note is KZ2 is a bit too hardcore for newcomers as its not an easy game to play or learn, this explains why most of the COD centric crowd didnt preferred this game.

 

[ShadowRunner]

To me KZs MP is one of the best things about it. Im quite suprised people feel like this. Its not MW2, but to many id think that would be a good thing...

 

[corduroygt]

What are you talking about ?
If you join a friend's game in KZ2 you always join his/her side, even if faction balancing is turned ON.
And you even get to join your friend's squad, if they are not in a squad then the game automatically puts the two of you in one.I donno what can be more accessible than this.

Maybe this was patched in later, but my experience in March was that when I was in a game with my friend, when that game finished and a new one began, we'd randomly be assigned teams and sometimes be on the opposite teams, which meant we couldn't voice chat anymore! This immediately turned off both of us, such features need to be standard from DAY ONE.

 

[ShadowRunner]

We are getting very off topic, maybe move KZ2 discussion to the thread.

 

[specwarGP2]

Im not sure how this fits in to your post and my reply. My point was that having an incredibly fun game doesnt guarantee success and that a game not being hugely successfull doesnt mean its evidence that it isnt a great or fun game. There is more at play in a games success than how good or fun it is. U2 holds up well against Gears for example, few would dissagree with this, but the sales do not reflect this. It sounded like you were using the sales of KZ2 as evidence to it not being a fun game compared to its peers, i dont think sales can be used in this way.

I think there's a misunderstanding going on. The argument I replied to was that a franchise needs to have a very successful first game to make a good impression otherwise the rest in the series won't be as fun. I disagreed and pointed out GTA3, MGS and SF2. Those games were very successful despite their just ok predecessors, and the reason why those particular games succeeded were because they were very fun to play. Thats not saying that EVERY game that is very fun to play will be successful. I agreed with your point, and even gave an example (madden).

KZ2 had a lot of buzz going for it and had every chance to be a huge hit IMO. The problem was that it just wasnt very fun to play, and that's why it didnt sell so well. Not because gamers remembered that KZ1 wasnt particularly fun. Gamers forget about that stuff pretty quick.

I'd say one of the main complains of KZ2 is also one of the several reasons why its fans love this game, yes I'm talking about controls & pacing...another thing to note is KZ2 is a bit too hardcore for newcomers as its not an easy game to play or learn, this explains why most of the COD centric crowd didnt preferred this game.

Thats exactly it. If KZ2 controls weren't so strange feeling then it totally could have stolen a good portion of the COD4 userbase since the games were very similar stylistically. I remember having really high hopes for KZ2 because I wanted to change over to something different since I'd been playing COD4 for a while.

 

[dobwal]

I know you are not using the term Halo-killer, a term created by the media. But to anyone who believed Sony was trying to create a Halo-killer don´t you think Sony should have chosen a title with a slightly broader appeal than "Killzone" and chosen different slogans on the posters than "Their home, your hell"? Might be tricky to fool your mother to buy that one for you.

Resistance may be a different matter, but Killzone no.

Given the level of disparity in terms of investment, why would Sony annoint Resistance as a possible Halo Killer. Sony chose to invest in the purchase of GG as well as invest heavily into the development of the KZ2 itself. There is no way, Sony wasn't trying to replicate the success of Halo with the KZ franchise especially considering they used a KZ2 target render as the showcase for Sony for E3 2005 on whats was possible on its upcoming console. You don't pour that amount of time, effort and dollars to move 2 million units.

Sony grew the industry by appealing to the more mature gaming audience, so it doesn't seem like a stretch for them to target a mature themed game for blockbuster status.