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

[dobwal]

Where has Sony ever said Killzone is intended to rival Halo?. To get 10million+ sales takes more than a quality game, marketing, it needs to seep into mainstream culture and become an iconic game. A good example is Microsoft putting huge resources into the Forza franchise so it rivals Gran Turismo. What have they got to show for it?. Zilch is the answer. How many franchises in the industry are capable of these type of sales?. Halo, Gran Turimo, GTA and now Call of Duty is all.

Also costs to develop Killzone 2 was pretty much on par with other bigger titles from Sony at 27 million Euros.

Name a market where competitors don't naturally create rival products? You think Verizon and T-Mobile are going around calling their Andriod based phones, the "Iphone killer"?

Were you not around in 2005? How many Sony published PS3 titles got as much exposure as KZ2 from Sony over the years. The only ones I can think of is GT and LBP. KZ2 was shown by Sony in 3 out 4 E3 before release. In contrast, UC never received anywhere near that kind of push. TV and print commericals aren't the primary marketing tools for games, its widely followed events like E3 and sites like Gamespot that generate the most hype and the most efficient way to market to core gamers. Heavy TV and commerical marketing blitz are very expensive and are only used by titles that have already reached blockbuster status. Halo1 and Gears were able to achieve 5 million+ in sales with way less exposure and smaller userbases.

You don't need to do 8 million in sales to rival Halo on the PS3 platform, you just need a iconic exclusive FPS title that can rival for the top podium of the PS3 library based on sales and critical acclaim, which from all the evidence out there is what Sony was attempting with KZ2. How many companies have pump 27 Euros (whats that like 40 million dollars?) into a title with the intent of something other than blockbuster status.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Yeah, an E3 demo can easily cost up to a million dollars, both because of the time it takes to make one, and because it delays the entire game's release. It's usually because most games aren't that close to release at E3, so part of the codebase and assets have to be separated from the main project and then can't just be simply re-used for the final release.

 

[obonicus]

@totalcluedo
Except that we don't know Killzone 2's budget, we don't know how much money Sony (or anyone) makes per game, we don't have LTDs for most of these games (much less LTD per price-point). And even more crucially, we don't know whether Sony intended to actually make money on the title or not. Other than outright bombs and huge successes it doesn't seem like we're qualified to talk financial success of titles.

 

[dobwal]

The whole basis of this thread seems to be that Sony 1st party games dont sell 10million like Halo (until GT5 most probably) so all there games are struggling in sales. Games that sell like that are like gold dust. To suggest that Sony 1st party games that routinely sell 2, 3, 4 million units are failing on what was a $400 system is absurd no other word for it. All that with an emphasis on new ip's which makes it even more impressive.

No one here thinks that simplistically.

In isolation one can say that any one particular PS3 title did well if it moved 2-4 million copies. But we are talking in relation to 360 sales. And the fact remains that the 360 exclusives routinely do better than PS3 exclusives. This shouldn't be a simple PS3 versus 360 thread but rather using 360 data as a baseline to highlight of a phenomenom that exist despite great effort by Sony to produce stellar first party titles.

The 360's top tier 1st party franchises have moved between 5-10 million units a piece, while only GT has achieved the lower limit of that range. I don't think this would even warrant a discussion if PS3 titles like UC2 or KZ2 were a bunch of crap, but the level of quality and critically acclaim of these titles rival or surpass the 360 top offerings. Nor is it a question of userbase as Gears 1 produced a high level of sales with 1/3 the PS3 current userbase.

It may be a question of what you brought up with those titles being new IPs. But whats different about Gears and LFD? Is it a question of offering something new and those PS3 exclusive come off as simply more of the same but prettier? Is there something different about the userbase of the PS3, like the thought that while older and more tech savvy, a lot of PS3 owners are just casual gamers? Is this the reason that multiplats do better because since they target 2 userbases and are able to generate more noise that can influence these casual PS3 gamers?

I think this topic is the most interesting to discuss but an aspect not highly dissected because its one of the easiest to derail. Often moving nowhere because we push this either into a simple PS3 versus 360 topic or a denial that this phenomenom even exists.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Another post with little basis in reality. You people just make this stuff up as you go along dont you?. Wheres the evidence the PS3 sells less software comparative with install base?.
...
This whole thread is a pile of poo/misinformation/agendas/FUD.

How's about instead of ranting about how wrong this thread is, you actually address the points already made that address numbers and present your own informed evidence to the contrary?

 

[totalcluedo]

@totalcluedo
Except that we don't know Killzone 2's budget, we don't know how much money Sony (or anyone) makes per game, we don't have LTDs for most of these games (much less LTD per price-point). And even more crucially, we don't know whether Sony intended to actually make money on the title or not. Other than outright bombs and huge successes it doesn't seem like we're qualified to talk financial success of titles.

27 million Euros is what i've been told. Mentioned it to counter the silly numbers that have been made up in the past by various websites.

Killzone 2 has 2million+ sales. With Sony being 1st party and hence alot of the middleman/3rd party costs not being applicable what do Sony make per sale $30 to $40?.

With the pooling of tech etc Sony have been very efficient at keeping the costs of most of their titles down. Shame we dont get a better breakdown of stuff as we get with game developer/publisher only companies.

Killzone2 was a punt at the next blockbuster shooter nothing more from the headsheds as they saw they had a $400 console that lacked the hardcore shooter fans, and also shooting down the naysayers on a technical level. Same with Resistance, MAG. Could happen with MAG or the shooter after that, eventually one will drive the masses crazy. The biggest reason Sony have strived for technical excellence is brand recognition of Sony games which is starting to become more important this year with the lower priced PS3.

I

 

[Carl B]

Totalcluedo, firstly please ramp down the fanboyism... yes technical excellence, yes brand recognition, etc etc. I am going to assume you have not read through the existing 12 pages of the thread, because... well it would seem the norm for people to read some posts, get fired up, and jump right in. But if you had, then you would probably already know that some of the points you are making have already been addressed.

No, Sony did not likely make $30 to $40 per KZ2 sale, especially considering the bundling and near-launch deals which took place, and no 27M Euros is probably way too low in terms of Killzone's total budget. If you want to dispute it, if you want to discuss it, that is fine - you can make points and provide supporting evidence, that's what it's about in here of course. But just saying "you guys are pessimists and your facts are wrong...," well, it doesn't advance your position I'll just say that.

And certainly I'd like to remind everyone that this isn't a Sony-centric thread alone, and not a Killzone 2 thread in particular!

 

[totalcluedo]

No one here thinks that simplistically.

In isolation one can say that any one particular PS3 title did well if it moved 2-4 million copies. But we are talking in relation to 360 sales. And the fact remains that the 360 exclusives routinely do better than PS3 exclusives. This shouldn't be a simple PS3 versus 360 thread but rather using 360 data as a baseline to highlight of a phenomenom that exist despite great effort by Sony to produce stellar first party titles.

The 360's top tier 1st party franchises have moved between 5-10 million units a piece, while only GT has achieved the lower limit of that range. I don't think this would even warrant a discussion if PS3 titles like UC2 or KZ2 were a bunch of crap, but the level of quality and critically acclaim of these titles rival or surpass the 360 top offerings. Nor is it a question of userbase as Gears 1 produced a high level of sales with 1/3 the PS3 current userbase.
.

Well i never where did this evidence come from?. Misinformation?. Outside the 2 shooters sales of most other MS games are average?. Forza 3 the Gran Turismo killer fails with 2 million sales?. If Gran Turismo sells 10million+, GOW3 5 million wont MS be reeling from most Sony games over the past 3 years outselling MS games?.

 

[Carl B]

I don't think anyone can deny that a very large majority of PS3 owners where not typical gamers upon the release of KZ2.

Well, I think *I* can deny it, I'll say that much!

AVSForums is no more indicative of what the PS3-owning public is divided into than is B3D representative of a 'normal' console forum. Many people did certainly purchase the PS3 as the premier BD player, but definitely definitely it was a minority of the ownership, with a larger percentage probably being folk like myself that were interested in both games and Blu-ray, and a larger percentage yet still probably just interested in games.

And you needn't look at the low sales of games (which isn't even true) throughout the PS3's early years to get the sense, but rather the much lower sales of BD's on an install base basis. Back during the BD v HD DVD battle, BD was outselling HD DVD maybe 2:1 on average, with a PS3-inclusive install base that was much much larger. If the *majority* of said owners were owners of the system for the BD's primarily, you can believe that the sales of Blu-ray's to HD DVD would have been more like 5:1 or greater.

But I digress...

 

[Carl B]

Well i never where did this evidence come from?. Misinformation?. Outside the 2 shooters sales of most other MS games are average?. Forza 3 the Gran Turismo killer fails with 2 million sales?. If Gran Turismo sells 10million+, GOW3 5 million wont MS be reeling from most Sony games over the past 3 years outselling MS games?.

Dobwal took things in a bit of a different direction by saying the thread is about how 1st party titles cross-system have done relative to each other... it's more like, have the financial investments been worth it.

Success can be judged across any number of criteria. Here in this thread, whether they are adding to the bottom line is the focus. Now that is not a black-and-white thing meaning 'did-x-game-turn-a-profit-end-of-story,' which is why there are several aspects to discuss. But it is also not a Sony vs Microsoft thread, should you confuse it as such.

 

[totalcluedo]

Totalcluedo, firstly please ramp down the fanboyism... yes technical excellence, yes brand recognition, etc etc. I am going to assume you have not read through the existing 12 pages of the thread, because... well it would seem the norm for people to read some posts, get fired up, and jump right in. But if you had, then you would probably already know that some of the points you are making have already been addressed.

No, Sony did not likely make $30 to $40 per KZ2 sale, especially considering the bundling and near-launch deals which took place, and no 27M Euros is probably way too low in terms of Killzone's total budget. If you want to dispute it, if you want to discuss it, that is fine - you can make points and provide supporting evidence, that's what it's about in here of course. But just saying "you guys are pessimists and your facts are wrong...," well, it doesn't advance your position I'll just say that.

And certainly I'd like to remind everyone that this isn't a Sony-centric thread alone, and not a Killzone 2 thread in particular!

Fanboyism. Reading the thread it's one long list of agendas. Very little to do with reality.

 

[Carl B]

Fanboyism. Reading the thread it's one long list of agendas. Very little to do with reality.

What are the agendas?

 

[totalcluedo]

What are the agendas?

27m Euro cost of Killzone2 is probably far to low.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

27m Euro cost of Killzone2 is probably far to low.

I seriously suggest you start quoting facts and sources, because at the moment you're just being contentious and not constructive, and it's getting my back up. If you have a real argument, present it. eg.

"These are my sources that say KZ2 cost this much yadayada"

 

[Carl B]

27m Euro cost of Killzone2 is probably far to low.

I almost want to repeat my question after receiving this answer.

 

[dobwal]

Well i never where did this evidence come from?. Misinformation?. Outside the 2 shooters sales of most other MS games are average?. Forza 3 the Gran Turismo killer fails with 2 million sales?. If Gran Turismo sells 10million+, GOW3 5 million wont MS be reeling from most Sony games over the past 3 years outselling MS games?.

Well maybe you should go back and survey some of topics and posts on here. Regular supporters have seen similar figures a bunch of times and if I had post something that seriously conflicted with the collective knowledge of the board, someone here would of disputed my postings with more than just "misinformation?". No one is here is going to educate you and we are not about posts links on figures we all seen dozens upon dozens of times especially with your confrontational approach.

This is not a fanboy board and even if alot of us are maybe biased by our affinity for one console or another, we all try to make arguments and counter arguments that based in logical and constructive thinking. Our agenda here is discussing our hobby with fellow gamers and not "How can I make the PS3 or Xbox 360 look bad, today?".

Forza is a quality title and it may rival GT to many of the hardcore racing gamers, but the fact is that it sales fail to come anywhere near what has been possible with the GT franchise. Meaning that for most mainstream gamers who are more fans of GT than racing games in general, Forza doesn't serve as a rival.

If GOW3 and GT and other titles go on to sell 5-10 million+ than we can discuss the situation on more knowledeable terms and know that the low sales have nothing to do with being first party in general but that the first party PS3 titles up to this point failed to endear themselves to the PS3 userbase.

 

[Crossbar]

I know amazon isn´t the best source for sales information, but right now of amazon.com´s top 10 best-selling PS3 games are 7 PS3 exclusive titles and it may give some indications. LBP honking on at place 9 at $56.99, not that bad for a year old title if you ask me.

I think the exclusive titles are important for the different console manufacturers to build their brand. How they do it may differ though, some may go for few titles with large marketing budget, while others go for a wide spread with less marketing spend on each title.

As for the number being thrown around in the posts above, is it just the development costs?

 

[Squilliam]

The 360's top tier 1st party franchises have moved between 5-10 million units a piece, while only GT has achieved the lower limit of that range. I don't think this would even warrant a discussion if PS3 titles like UC2 or KZ2 were a bunch of crap, but the level of quality and critically acclaim of these titles rival or surpass the 360 top offerings. Nor is it a question of userbase as Gears 1 produced a high level of sales with 1/3 the PS3 current userbase.

Is not the level of critical acclaim sharing very little causation to the sales of a game? Nintendo games tend to get a lot less critical acclaim but high sales whilst Sony games tend to get a lot of critical acclaim but lower sales than you would expect and Microsoft games tend to vary.

 

[baten]

KZ2 has been in production for about 4 years, with a team of over 100 people.
Let's asume an average wage cost of 5000 Euro x 48 months x 100 people = 24.000.000 Eur. I think it's safe to assume - if you take into account that there are many other associated costs - that 27 mil Eur is too low.

 

[corduroygt]

I doubt there was an average of 100 employees working on KZ2 for 4 years. It was probably much less in the first 2 years than the last 2. Still I have no idea how much it cost, but what about the "propaganda value" of showing what the PS3 can do and gain a foothold in the hardcore gamer crowd?