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

[ShadowRunner]

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.

Im saying those games were not so successful because they were fun to play alone, they were genre defining experiences. KZ2s problem wasnt that it wasnt fun to play, it was fun and was critically acclaimed, its problem was that it didnt bring much new to the table that hadnt been seen before. Generaly there are two types of successfull franchises, you have the ones that build their fanbase over multiple releases of very high quality games but are not so original (KZ/Uncharted, i fully expect these to become huge franchises through consistant quality iterations.) then you have the ones that become a hit overnight on the back of bringing something new and significant to the table.

As for the buzz, it would have mostly been created by the 2.5mil people that bought it, and sony themselves (its there job!). Amount of buzz isnt a realy reliable way to judge how well a game should have done.

 

[baten]

MGS was a first, t here were no MGS before, just MG, completely different games.
The same goes for GTA - you cant really consider GTA1 and 2 as precursors, or GTA3 a sequel to these games.
So I think my point stands - you really need a stellar first start a great francise, like Halo. And no, I am not an Xbox guy, never had an Xbox. Another exemple can be Mario. It is beyond my understanding how they can sell basically the same game for over 20 years.

 

[Carl B]

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?

One could propose that, but I think one would be going out of their way to paint a prettier picture for Sony in that instance. The E3 Killzone demo was a debacle of expectation; everything about the game from then forward IMO was done to match the atmospherics of what was originally just intended to be an awesome teaser.

Anyway for employee numbers, what we know is that they're presently at 130:

http://www.linkedin.com/companies/guerrilla-games

Beyond their own employee count though, they of course had become a huge focus for resources from elsewhere within Sony. Which dovetails along with what I think one of their actual spinoff benefits actually was.

As for the game itself I find it amusing that people who have played it in this very thread are essentially talking past each other to the effect of: "people played it and didn't like it, that's why it didn't sell..." and "people played it and loved it." Some people bought it, played it, liked it. Others bought it, played it, didn't. It doesn't have to be all things to all people. But in KZ2's case, it may have sold better if it was.

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!

Killzone 2 sold 'well enough' to have a Killzone 3, that's my take. I don't think we need to read into it beyond that. Certainly Killzone 2 didn't bring in enormous money relative to its costs... but the development costs of Killzone 3 should be so much lower in comparison, that I think Sony would have reasonable expectations of profit there. That in my mind paints the reasoning for a KZ3 than does retroactive 'success' attributed to KZ2. Not that I didn't already give my own expanded criteria for that title though, because it really was about more than sales with that game.

 

[DrJay24]

The E3 Killzone demo was a debacle of expectation; everything about the game from then forward IMO was done to match the atmospherics of what was originally just intended to be an awesome teaser.

I thought the whole point of those trailers was to show what they were aiming for. You make it sound like they decided to match the trailers (Motorstorm had one too) after they were released. The fact remains that they match those trailers very well, considering how high they set the bar.

 

[dobwal]

MGS was a first, t here were no MGS before, just MG, completely different games.
The same goes for GTA - you cant really consider GTA1 and 2 as precursors, or GTA3 a sequel to these games.
So I think my point stands - you really need a stellar first start a great francise, like Halo. And no, I am not an Xbox guy, never had an Xbox. Another exemple can be Mario. It is beyond my understanding how they can sell basically the same game for over 20 years.

Why not? It like saying FF 1-6 nor COD 1-3 didn't matter. Those before mentioned precursors provided those blockbusters with an existing fanbase. Fanbases based on past experience and not around mass hype and hope. Not only that those precursors provided the framework which the developer used to build upon to produce those blockbusters.

Even Halo, which to non PC or Mac gamers, looks like a xbox title that came out of nowhere. Halo came with a built in fanbase of those who respected bungie for their work with Marathon, which was a pretty good FPS trilogy and had a pretty advanced multiplayer at the time with voice chat and came with a map editor that included physics manipulation.

Most blockbuster don't come out the gate with massive sales and the ones that do weren't usually built with massive budgets. And before they were super mario bros with 40 million in sales they were just mario bros with a much lower sales number.

Blockbusting AAA aren't normally created from garbage but outside GT and may a few other titles, most AAA titles have grown from more humble beginnings.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then is it not pointless?

No. We can take evidence and make informed speculations. As the level of accuracy only needs cover the range enthusaistic novice interest and not be the basis of massive financial decision making, we don't really need to sweat super-accuracy.

I did miss that information.

I'm surprised! KZ2 is one of the most taled about titles on this board. A link I just Googled for you, which as I expected was a Gamasutra retrospective (they're good for this sort of thing!) -

About how many people did you have on the team working behind the production?
HH: We peaked I believe for a very brief period at about 190, but much more sort of steady, we were at about 140.
Wow. That's still a huge number.
HH: It is a big team, yeah. It's a big single-player campaign and it's a big multiplayer online experience. And that was at the end. Of course, we started with about 55 people. We scaled it up over the years.

So between 50 and 190 people over the years, averaging about 100 (Hulst says steady at 140).

 

[Carl B]

You make it sound like they decided to match the trailers (Motorstorm had one too) after they were released.

Absolutely, that is in fact what I think. Look at the drama post E3 after the Killzone demo... it was like riots across forums. And then all the embarrassment about 'was it realtime' or not (when it clearly wasn't). I truly do believe that Sony basically was *forced* to match those visuals with the title, and that had they not have had that demo air, KZ2 probably would have released earlier without as much outright focus on visual fidelity, fluidity, and lighting.

The discussion is not about Killzone 2 the game, so I don't want to discuss any of the merits of the above technical achievements right now. But I am saying that without that demo and the drama it caused, I really do not think Sony would have poured the resources into the game that they did. They issued a challenge, unwittingly, to themselves. They met the challenge, which is good; failure would have cost more than the cost of success in this case, I feel. But it was an expensive journey.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

One could propose that, but I think one would be going out of their way to paint a prettier picture for Sony in that instance. The E3 Killzone demo was a debacle of expectation; everything about the game from then forward IMO was done to match the atmospherics of what was originally just intended to be an awesome teaser.

Exactly. There was no word about it being anything else, and Sony has probably only changed their mind after the press conference and the reactions of the public (and maybe the fact that MS had Gears running on prototype hardware IIRC).

The sh*t only hit the fan when Sony started to claim that it was real gameplay running on PS3 hardware... their only way out of this corner was to say that it's a 'target render' and they will deliver on this promise.

Oh and see the polygon count thread on the technical subforum about details on the outsourcing involved with the production, it was quite massive.

Edit

I thought the whole point of those trailers was to show what they were aiming for. You make it sound like they decided to match the trailers (Motorstorm had one too) after they were released.

I only had a friend working on the KZ2 one, but he sure have never heard about them working on a target render... And they were on a very tight schedule anyway; although it's pretty common to start the outsourcing on E3 CG trailers at the very last minute even today.

 

[Squilliam]

Sony as a Japanese console manufacturer still tends to design its console for their own purposes. The idea that the graphics achieved by first party games would be noticeably better than the third party efforts seems to be a matter of course for them. Along this vein, did they deliberately include Blu Ray partially because they intended to overfund their games relative to their 3rd party competition so they would stand out?

On the one hand we have a lot of games which look great from third parties, however it seems that content creation has taken to another level with Sony and they have had a field day with a huge variety of texture work and environments. Without the extra space on disc they would not have a way to express their intention to fund expensive games which stood out above and beyond the third party software.

If Sony was going to be the number one console manufacturer, then perhaps they saw the inclusion of Blu Ray as a means for them to be the number one publisher for their own console and reap both sides with expensive compelling cinematic games. They are a content producer for movies as well as games and they would have seen the profit margins being made on Blockbuster movies.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

So between 50 and 190 people over the years, averaging about 100 (Hulst says steady at 140).

That 190 might include Massive Black's Shanghai team, who are probably working at a fraction of the GG salaries just because they're in China...

 

[Carl B]

Squilliam I think you're going out to left field - Blu-ray was included for one purpose at the end of the day and one alone - to triumph over HD DVD. Forget about all those slides and such that you saw presented back in the day; in game fidelity is not aided by BD as a storage medium.

 

[Crossbar]

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.

As for "Resistance as a possible Halo Killer", some people pointed out some resemblance between the games, I don´t have an opinion in the matter other than that Resistance as a name has a broader appeal.

As for KZ2 targeted as a blockbuster, sure, but not at a Halo level, because it´s just too hard core, grim environments, blood splatter, dirty language etc. which excludes the important young audience.

 

[dobwal]

As for KZ2 targeted as a blockbuster, sure, but not at a Halo level, because it´s just too hard core, grim environments, blood splatter, dirty language etc. which excludes the important young audience.

Please explain how being more mature is a detriment to KZ2 and not a detriment to franchises like GTA, COD MW2 or Gears of War?

GTA is the ultimate violent simulator where civilians are easily targetted and the player is rewarded for such actions. Nothing in KZ2 compares to the COD MW2 airport scene or the ability to honk a horn, let a pros get into your car, do your thing and then break out your bat to get your money back. Also, there is no curb stomping or chain sawing through your opponents midsection in KZ2.

The 360 top five selling titles are all violent based titles and there is nothing in KZ2 that can't be found somewhere in one of those five titles, which all produced 5 million+ unit sales for the platform.

 

[Crossbar]

Please explain how being more mature is a detriment to KZ2 and not a detriment to franchises like GTA, COD MW2 or Gears of War?

Has any of those titles reached Halo3´s number of sales on the 360?

 

[obonicus]

Isn't MW2 on track to surpass it?

 

[specwarGP2]

Im saying those games were not so successful because they were fun to play alone, they were genre defining experiences. KZ2s problem wasnt that it wasnt fun to play, it was fun and was critically acclaimed, its problem was that it didnt bring much new to the table that hadnt been seen before. Generaly there are two types of successfull franchises, you have the ones that build their fanbase over multiple releases of very high quality games but are not so original (KZ/Uncharted, i fully expect these to become huge franchises through consistant quality iterations.) then you have the ones that become a hit overnight on the back of bringing something new and significant to the table.

COD4 wasn't a genre defining experience, and it's one of the best selling games on this generation. Its not like the COD name was so revered that it could sell on name alone, and it wasn't advertised much when it launched either. The reason it was so popular was because its just a very fun game to play.

 

[obonicus]

CoD 4 also had a tremendously successful beta/demo, didn't it?

 

[ShadowRunner]

COD4 wasn't a genre defining experience, and it's one of the best selling games on this generation. Its not like the COD name was so revered that it could sell on name alone, and it wasn't advertised much when it launched either. The reason it was so popular was because its just a very fun game to play.

COD was a franchise built on the first type i mentioned (you did read my post rite?), consistent release of top quality product. Also COD4 was a turning point for the franchise also due to its inovations in the MP space and also was the first great console FPS in the mordern battlefield setting to my knowledge, so is partly type 2 also. I cannot think of a single huge selling franchise that doesnt fit with the 2 types i defined earlier.

 

[specwarGP2]

COD was a franchise built on the first type i mentioned (you did read my post rite?), consistent release of top quality product. Also COD4 was a turning point for the franchise also due to its inovations in the MP space and also was the first great console FPS in the mordern battlefield setting to my knowledge, so is partly type 2 also. I cannot think of a single huge selling franchise that doesnt fit with the 2 types i defined earlier.

Halo. It's not a genre defining game, and the first one sold 5m+ copies so your theory about how great selling franchises need to have a series of good predecessors doesn't apply either.

The COD series wasn't hugely successful on consoles until COD4 came along. COD4 was NOT genre defining. Sure it did some things differently, but the reason why it did so well is because its a highly entertaining game. If you're trying to attribute its success to something else other than that, than we'll just have to agree to disgaree.

Oh and goldeneye was the first huge selling console fps in a modern setting FYI, so COD4 isnt breaking any new ground there either.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

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?

It's quite obvious Sony's expectations of KZ2 were also far higher. You don't dump blockbuster developement funding on a game with expectations that it'll sell an average number of games. Likewise you don't dump blockbuster marketing funding for a game you don't expect to sell in blockbuster numbers.

Espectations of Sony for something other than blockbuster sales means Sony planned to make a loss on KZ2 from the moment they earmarked developement funds for it.

This isn't to say Sony can't take some positives from it after the fact. But it doesn't in anyway reduce what Sony's expectations were prior to release.

Regards,
SB