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

[Silent_Buddha]

As for game franchises, they have to have that one breakout title that resonates with everyone. It usually snowballs from that point and the sequels are massively popular even if they aren't anything special anymore (doesn't stand out from other AAA releases as much as it used to). The fact that Modern Warfare managed to pick up steam even though the previous games were selling decently shows that quality and appeal are more important than marketing at the end of the day.

Definitely and lest we put all new sales of a sequel purely on the reputation of the franchise, it's not uncommon for a developer/publisher to screw up a franchise and drive it back into the ground by not continuing to release high quality titles. Just look at Tomb Raider which had a meteoric rise and a couple sequels later take a dive back into mediocrity.

Regards,
SB

 

[Crossbar]

Would Warner have made a movie about a book noone really knows about?

Many movies are not based on books at all or on novels that hardly noone knows about.

Sometimes the film rights of books are sold even before the book has been released and that also happens to first time writers.

Famous actors are often used marketing of films, sometimes the name of the actors or the director are written in the same font size as the name of the movie. There are many ways to base marketing on well known brands.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That isn't necessarily the case though. Halo 3 was so well loved that ridiculous sales for Halo Reach are all but assured. MW was so popular as well that sales for MW2 were also expected to be huge. It's not marketing that did the trick there...

Marketing is spreading awareness of the product. I think successful prequels count as pretty good advertising! Now how well would the original Halo have done if it had a miniscule marketing budget?

Actually HP was a rather huge book phenomenon for years prior to the movies being made. Thus why WB earmarked a rather large budget for it.

In the US. In the UK it pottered along, growing as a good title does, but not exploding. Then when the film was announced, it blew up over the rest of the world. This is an example of a book everyone would like to read but no-one cared to buy until the marketing push by WB brought the book to their attention.

Again, key point is there's no magic bullet. You cannot create a good game and expect it to sell on the merits of being a good game - you need to tell people it's a good game and get enough to try it who'll then spread the word. And you cannot create a pile of poo and market it to a huge success, because after the initial million try it, they are saying such bad things about it no-one else follows. Is anyone in this discussion actually in disagreement with this? I feel we're all just reading different parts of the same page.

 

[AmFreak]

NPD adjusts their data, that doesn't make them a bad source does it?

To what ? - NPD is the Data. They doesn't look at anyone else and adjust their data accordingly.

NPD 2008, numbers are within 10% of NPD aside from the Wii, and thats an educated guess?

Considering that both NPD and them have a margin of error, thats pretty close. How many analysts do you know of that get within 10% for 5/6 for NPD?

As for their methods being proprietary, do you see NPD discussing their methods?

Aside from Wii seeing a huge difference and hardware being the easiest to predict, you also get results like this that are clearly showing they have no data:

April 08

_____________NPD_VGChartz__Difference
_PlayStation 2 124.4K 168,994 ~ 36 %
_PlayStation 3 187.1K 366,470 ~ 96 %
________PSP 192.7K 308,173 ~ 60 %
____Xbox 360 188.0K 309,924 ~ 65 %
_________Wii 714.2K 760,944 ~ 6,5%
_Nintendo DS 414.8K 601,798 ~ 45 %

So what happened here ? GTA4 came out and VGChartz like all other analysts thought it would move hardware. Didn't happen and the only useful number here is the Wii one. So much for being in a 10 % range 5/6 at the time and software predictions can even be worse.

The fact that they adjust the data actually makes them more usable. Their initial predictions are sometimes way off, and I don't pay any attention to them, but info that is a bit older is imo usable.

As i said earlier - they can only adjust the data they have data for, meaning Hardware sales and the montly Top 10 software sales.

 

[obonicus]

Er, actually, there's been at least two COD games from Infinity Ward before MW1 and both have delivered similar experiences. People who liked COD1 and COD2 were probably also MW1 customers.

CoD1 wasn't out on console. CoD2 did okay, as did CoD3. But MW1's was far beyond that, and mostly on word of mouth. Don't kid yourself, the real start of that franchise's success was MW1. At best, you can say that the very successful beta told people what they'd be getting.

 

[assen]

CoD1 wasn't out on console. CoD2 did okay, as did CoD3. But MW1's was far beyond that, and mostly on word of mouth. Don't kid yourself, the real start of that franchise's success was MW1. At best, you can say that the very successful beta told people what they'd be getting.

CoD2 didn't do "okay"; at some point about six months after the launch of the Xbox 360, I read somewhere that it had 66% attach rate with the new console. This is absolutely out of the norm, maybe only Wii Sports / Wii Fit can claim something like that, and they were bundled in some territories.

 

[obonicus]

CoD2 didn't do "okay"; at some point about six months after the launch of the Xbox 360, I read somewhere that it had 66% attach rate with the new console. This is absolutely out of the norm, maybe only Wii Sports / Wii Fit can claim something like that, and they were bundled in some territories.

And how many copies is that? It's surprising that you're talking about attach rate in lieu of actual game sales. 360 gamers buy tons of games, we all know that, and CoD2 was possibly the best launch title. It's still not a drop on MW -- which started off pretty strong but had surprising legs as well.

 

[assen]

And how many copies is that? It's surprising that you're talking about attach rate in lieu of actual game sales. 360 gamers buy tons of games, we all know that, and CoD2 was possibly the best launch title. It's still not a drop on MW -- which started off pretty strong but had surprising legs as well.

Agreed, but here we're talking of preparing the waters for MW - for which context the CoD2 sales were impressive.

 

[zed]

So what happened here ? GTA4 came out and VGChartz like all other analysts thought it would move hardware. Didn't happen and the only useful number here is the Wii one. So much for being in a 10 % range 5/6 at the time and software predictions can even be worse.

their worse 'result' (not prediction as they say their numbers are based on tracking) was dec 2008
nov2008 wii sold 2million NPD/vgchartz ok no probs.

thus vgchartz had dec2008 at 3+million (which is a reasonable guess) but the NPD numbers came out and it was ~2.1million, which was a unexpected result by everyone.
So what does vgchartz do?, they say NPD had serverely undertracked the data! a few months later nintendo comes out with the shipped numbers to the US and they were similar to NPDs, to rub salt into the wounds vgchartz had said the wii had sold 1million consoles more than nintendo had made.
I notice they did change their numbers to match NPD later on

 

[specwarGP2]

Agreed, but here we're talking of preparing the waters for MW - for which context the CoD2 sales were impressive.

COD2 was never sold as a retail product on PS3. COD3 did ok, dont think it cracked 1m sales. So I doubt the COD lineage had much to do with the success of MW1 on PS3. Like obonicus said, it sold primarily on word of mouth (at least on PS3).

 

[(((interference)))]

In that Seattle Times interview the release date is looking like 2012, so probably next gen.
Which makes sense seeing as they'll have to build a new multiplatform engine.

But MS really has lost all its 1st & 2nd party studios now, Bizarre, Bioware, Ensemble, FASA, ACES, Digital Anvil. Only Rare, Turn 10 and Lionhead are left and Rare is really the only one of them that can push the hardware.

MS should go buy Remedy or Epic cause it's pretty ridiculous being the largest software company in the world and having less game studios and platform exclusives than Nintendo or Sony.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

But is it really that necessary to have a lot of strong first party devs? The way I see it, MS is doing pretty well with their current approach.

Just look at this year: Mass Effect 2 was a very high quality release, Alan Wake is quite promising, Splinter Cell is maybe the only one not living up to expectations. Fable 3 is almost guaranteed to be good, and then we have the heavyweights: Halo Reach is quite probably going to surpass H3 and ODST in sales, and we all know Gears 3 will deliver just as well (although it's for next year, yeah).

Would any of these titles really benefit that much from closer ties to MS? Does it really matter if they're not pushing the hardware as seriously as Uncharted 2 or God of War 3? Those are the biggest PS3 1st party exclusives in the past year or so, and while both are selling pretty well, they aren't as big as Gears or Halo. In fact they're closer to Forza 2 and Fable 2, and I'm not convinced that they'd play such a big role in building the platform's image for the majority of the audience. Sure, us tech enthusiasts like to discuss them to no end, but does average Joe really care about them?
Then there are the monetary issues; I'm almost 100% sure that MS is getting a far better return of their investment this way, compared to Sony pouring colossal amounts of money into their exclusives so far. And MS is particularly interested in good profitability, especially after all the money they've spent on the Xbox in the past decade.

I also don't think that those studios are that important, just look at what Bizarre has done recently: far from impressive. Digital Anvil and FASA were just the same, I wouldn't cry for them. Ensemble might have been a loss, but it sounds like their entire company culture was a big hindrance in actually delivering games. Bioware might be the only big thing here, but as good as their games are, you still can't say that they'd sell that well.

Epic has never been an exclusive developer and they're doing far too well in their current status - it would take an unimaginable amount of money to buy the entire studio, especially because of the engine development business. I don't see them creating a separate company for that, and the combined worth is just too much - and MS doesn't need to own the UE3/4 business at all (not to mention how lincensing would go if it belonged to MS).


But on the other hand, MS has an apparently very large push behind Natal, they concentrate most of their own resources on research and development there. I'm not saying it's more clever or enjoyable then the Wiimote (because obviously we can't tell it yet) - but it's definitely a lot more advanced technology, one that can move even the entire consumer electronics industry a large step forward in the near future.

Oh, and let's not forget 343 industries, the guys who are going to take over the Halo franchise from Bungie. They do have some great talent ther, Sparth (Rage concept artist) and Kenneth Scott (art director) from id Software, Ken's wife on the tech side (forgot her name), the community guy Frankie from Bungie, and who knows how many other good people. So they don't give up first party completely, they just concentrate their efforts on the most important, platform defining elements - their biggest IP and the most advanced input scheme.


So what about Bungie then? They have 180 people on board, which is in my opinion far too much for a single project (and as far as I know they are outsourcing game related stuff from time to time, too). It isn't unreasonable to assume that eventually they will have two games in development and one might still be an MS exclusive, just for the benefits and the safety. But it's more likely that they're going to develop for the next Xbox, and probably not even for the launch. 343 is going to have to take care of that - we'll see if it all works out better then the whole IW/Activision deal.

 

[green.pixel]

@(((interference))) Yeah, I've wondered too why don't they invest more in their 1st/2nd party efforts. Sony is destroying them in the exclusives department.

Since the 2005 launch, it's been basically like this:

2006: Gears
2007: Halo
2008: Gears
2009: Halo
2010: Halo
2011: Gears


Without Halo, they would've lost a large portion of sales IMO.


MS's lineup has been much stronger previous gen. Why not at least do sequels to/new games based on:

• Crimson Skies
• Rallisport Challenge
• Midtown Madness

Those are great games, and would add much needed diversity to their lineup, but looks like this gen is all about "let's shoot, shoot! something".


MS need exclusives badly. What is the reason for this situation? Is it because they want to cut the costs at every corner possible because they've invested so much and therefore no more "radical" investments until next gen?

 

[green.pixel]

I'm almost 100% sure that MS is getting a far better return of their investment this way, compared to Sony pouring colossal amounts of money into their exclusives so far.

I'm perplexed why does this matter to a gamer? Why would one care how much does the company is spending money to improve the experience of their audience if they are getting the games they want?

This is why mass majority of games we have today are just nicely packaged rubbish. The industry is not about making "good games" anymore, but about making products that people will buy. Just look at what Cocktick is doing.

You don't need to sell good products to make money, you just need know how to market them.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

First of all, they do have more exclusives (RPGs and racing games, also Splinter Cell), and in general they have very good sales for them too. Sony has more titles with more media coverage - but less impressive sales, and no proven effect on the PS3's general success. I wouldn't call that destroying.

Also, Natal looks like it's going to be kinda unmatched by anything from Sony. Not all exclusives have to be hardcore, AAA games, just look at Wii software sales.

So I ask again: does Ms really need that many exclusives of the kind that you suggest? And why would that be in your opinion?

 

[green.pixel]

Not all exclusives have to be hardcore, AAA games, just look at Wii software sales.

Excatly! This is what I'm talking about. Nintendo is managing to sell games, whose main concept hasn't changed for 20 years, in a new package. And they are not just having "good sales", they are printing money FFS!

On the topic of Nintedo-ish/casual games and dumb downed games in general, I and I think most of the B3Ders here agree with this, but are "afraid" or something like that to speak about it in public:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/non-games_are_for_retards/
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/mini-games_are_for_morons/
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/casual_reviews_are_for_no_one/

So I ask again: does Ms really need that many exclusives of the kind that you suggest? And why would that be in your opinion?

To differentiate from their competitors? If you have multiplatforms on HD twins, what's left? Exclusives.

Also, I wouldn't call Mass Effect, Splinter Cell or any other game that is avaliable on PC but not on PS3/Wii an exlusive. Sure, it's a console exclusive. And SC is a flop IMO. They've dumbed down the fuck of it in order to reach the maximum possible audience for profits. In a recent interview, they've said that SC was too hardcore! LMAO is all I have to say to that.

If this trend continues and unfortunately I think it will, it will be sad path downhill for the industry IMO. The industry if full of clowns that really don't know gamers, bunch of suits and managers, like this f*tard Cokctick.

In the end, it is all the consumers' fault, the majority of them. They have the power to change things by voting with their wallets, but they are not doing anything. They continue to buy this kind of games and sending pubs a mesage that they can continue to develop horrible titles, because people will still buy 'em no matter what!


The reality unfortunately is that you really can't fight the masses. As the quote from that Insomnia article says:

This is essentially the same sentiment that Pauline Kael expressed in one of her essays, circa 1969 -- only in respect to movies:

When you're young the odds are very good that you'll find something to enjoy in almost any movie. But as you grow more experienced, the odds change. I saw a picture a few years ago that was the sixth version of material that wasn't much to start with. Unless you're feebleminded, the odds get worse and worse. We don't go on reading the same kind of manufactured novels -- pulp Westerns or detective thrillers, say -- all of our lives, and we don't want to go on and on looking at movies about cute heists by comically assorted gangs. The problem with a popular art form is that those who want something more are in a hopeless minority compared with the millions who are always seeing it for the first time, or for the reassurance and gratification of seeing the conventions fulfilled again.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I'm perplexed why does this matter to a gamer?

As a gamer, I see far more great games than I could buy or play. Especially if I'll get a PS3 eventually. But we weren't discussing whether gamers need more exclusives, you were saying that MS needs them - and I disagree with that part.

Why would one care how much does the company is spending money to improve the experience of their audience if they are getting the games they want?

Because if the company spends more then they should, they'll eventually have to pay for that - usually leading to fewer great games...

 

[green.pixel]

But we weren't discussing whether gamers need more exclusives, you were saying that MS needs them - and I disagree with that part.

This is why I wrote all of the above.

You are commenting from an economics PoV, not from a gamer's one. What you are saying, is that MS or any other game company should make games at the lowest possible cost to the company. A good ol' fashioned american capitalist way. Everything else doesn't matter, including providing gamers diverse lineup of games. Correct me if I'm wrong please.


It is, as we all know it, all about the money today, right? The major problem we have nowadays is that the games industry has gone the way of Hollywood with massive marketing budgets and less quality and support. The shareholders are holding by the balls the games companies' board of directors and want the biggest return on the smallest investment. And as I've already said, making good and innovative games isn't a priority at all, priority is making a product that people, vast majority of them, will want to buy. The majority of consumer population are 'tards, uninformed and ignorant, they will buy whatever you sell, as long you advertise ti hard enough. MS's demographic and the general "hardcore" audience of both MS&Sony consoles are shooter oriented. this is why I've said "but looks like this gen is all about "let's shoot, shoot! something". The audience doesn't seem interested in anything else. MS were/are doing that with Halo, they've found the formula that works with their demographic. Halo is their mine of gold. And they've run it to the ground this gen. This is exactly what Nintendo were doing all along this gen and is starting to have a harmful (for the gamers audience wanting something more) effect on MS & Sony as well, by showing them the way to make the biggest ammount of money with the smallest ammount of effort compared with their core titles.


I can only sympathise with developers who work their gets out to make amazing games, no matter the platform, and then get to see their work got beaten tenfold in sales by a collection of mini games. Why innovate and try to bring some new gameplay ideas, when you can make bajillion of retarded collections of mini games and call it a day.

Because if the company spends more then they should, they'll eventually have to pay for that - usually leading to fewer great games...

How do you know that they are spending more than they should? Sure, it's a matter of preference, but I would much rather see few great games than more average/above average ones. But it's down to one's POV, as I've said.

 

[aselto]

You are being ridiculous.

Games are entertainment and if people consider Call of Duty or Wii Sports fun why deny it to them? If they believed they'd have more fun with Sony superexclusive #43, they'd buy it instead. AAA games cost a lot of money and it would be irresponsible to bank these companies' existence by trying to be totally artistic and innovative with them, rather then working on proven formulas. There is actually plenty of innovation going on in the indie scene, where game developers try to work with unknown mechanics and concepts. But these games, due to nature of the risk, will be small and their ideas may be exploited later in bigger production if they prove successful.

Your Nintendo and Microsoft bashing is childish, not from economical point of view but from gamers; point of view as well.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

@(((interference))) Yeah, I've wondered too why don't they invest more in their 1st/2nd party efforts. Sony is destroying them in the exclusives department...MS need exclusives badly.
...
You don't need to sell good products to make money, you just need know how to market them.
...
To differentiate from their competitors? If you have multiplatforms on HD twins, what's left? Exclusives.
...
This is why I wrote all of the above.

You are commenting from an economics PoV, not from a gamer's one. What you are saying, is that MS or any other game company should make games at the lowest possible cost to the company. A good ol' fashioned american capitalist way. Everything else doesn't matter, including providing gamers diverse lineup of games. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Your point is sadly irrelevant. The fact you want better games is neither here nor there, as MS is not in the business of pleasing you, but in the business of making money. Like every other industry. So why does MS need to invest in exclusives? Is XB360 struggling to attract attention with PS3 completely outselling on account of it's exclusive line-up? No. Your point that exclusives are the only differentiating factor is short-sighted. There's price, popularity, other services, and so forth. And as you say, it doesn't matter what the exclusives are, sales come from marketing, so why bother investing in quality titles when that money could be spent marketing the console?

The answer here is, you just avoid MS and Nintendo consoles because they are in your eyes artistical barren. MS and every other publisher will continue to invest in studios and contracts in ways that they hope will maximise returns on their investment. There's no argument against that as it's the nature of the beast, and discussion about whether that's right or not belongs in the RSPCA forum.