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

[aselto]

You people want me to believe that eventhough Killzone 2 failed to sell itself for $60, it managed to sell PS3s for $300 (actually $400 at the time) on the abstract concept of superior computing power? That's preposterous.

As a first available shooter. What are the chances of any future Sony-developed shooters selling gangbusters?

Slim to none, but that's because of competition from 3rd parties rather than the userbase itself. EA has just released solid Ao2, Bioshock 2 is next month, later this year you have BC2, MOH, COD etc. That's a very competetive environment and just putting out a solid game won't cut it.

 

[DrJay24]

inFamous was a disappointment? To who? A new IP from a small developer and it sold well, it probably exceeded expectations. It was my 2009 GOTY and is one of my favorite games this gen.

Sometimes lowest denominator stuff sells, same goes with movies and books. I enjoy the new IPs, new ideas and investment in developers. Maybe it is not working out in the short run for Sony, but as a gamer I am benefiting with a great library.

I'd rather play Demon's souls which might sell 500k than play MW2. Maybe a follow up thread should be why do the masses buy "the next big game" like sheep?

 

[Carl B]

For PS3 I think a lot of its recent sales bump has come as much from the fact that Sony is *finally* pushing the message that this thing is more than a gaming machine as it has a good year of games. It's 'cool' to own again, after two years in the corner, and I think Sony is finally marketing the package the way they should. This year finally saw a good ad campaign for the thing!

 

[Carl B]

I'd rather play Demon's souls which might sell 500k than play MW2. Maybe a follow up thread should be why do the masses buy "the next big game" like sheep?

But would you rather play R2 than MW2, that would be a more direct comparison. Don't be a multi-plat hater! Sometimes the big titles *are* worth the hype, even if equally deserving titles get no love for no good reason. Again I'm almost all-exclusives, all-the-time, but do I have time for all of these games anyway? If someone buys MW2 vs KZ2, in my mind they're not being sheep or anything else - they're just buying one great game vs another. Call of Duty is of course a larger franchise, but there is room for both.

(I rather play Demon's Souls too btw)

 

[DrJay24]

Second is the 360 who went with various different tactics. They spent money to support devs

They didn't spend time or money on hardware QA, was that a tactic? So their rush to be first cost them over a billion dollars. Everything is not as rosy as you paint it for the 360. They got lucky to an extent, Sony handed them the first couple of years, MS just trudged along benefiting.

 

[Dregun]

You don't need to fund multi million dollar games all over the world to do that. Look at the lessons learned this gen. First and foremost the Wii, it's #1 because it totally differentiated itself from the other two with entirely new controls that went after an entirely different demographic. They even managed to do that using hardware that predates the cretaceous period. They of course still make their own games, but their costs aren't out of control as they are at some of Sony's studios.

You point to the Wii and then totally miss the point that its best games are the first party games. Yeah Nintendo is making money like crazy on this machine, but look at the cost of it...poor quality games and a market barely interested in buying anything other than Fitness games or the latest Wii sport addition. The Wii is a horrible example of the way console manufacturers should proceede because the path it is down now has a very bleek future. The Wii has little to no quality control; anyone that wants to release a game for it can and by the look of 90% of the games available for it we have 8th graders using it as extra credit work for thier science classes.

I haven't seen this amount of bad software for gaming system since....the NDS! Nintendo used to have good Quality control; even to the point it cost them a lawsuit. They have since given up the idea of quality or "pushing" the industry and instead have relied on using a gimmick to sell an underpowered console. Nobody can deny that if it wasn't for the motion controls the Wii wouldn't sell ANYTHING and the motion controls are not that great to begin with. The PS3 and 360 are doing well enough without motion controls as it is now and the amount of chatter about PS3 games or 360 games eclipses any talk about Wii games...that says a lot considering the massive amount of Wii owners.

I might be one of the very few but I view everything about the Wii as the anti-christ of video gaming.

Better graphics = Not if we follow the Wii
Innovative games = Not if we follow the Wii
More features = Not if we follow the Wii
AAA + AA titles a 1 to 1 ratio with B titles = Not if we follow the Wii

My biggest gripe, is that while Sony and MS are battling out trying to Raise the bar of what we should expect from our Consoles, the Wii lowers it and gets just as much positive press.

 

[Carl B]

Dregun, being an 'out of the closet' Wii hater is not any more tenable a position on this site than is being a stated adversary of either of the other two.

The Wii has made gaming 'mainstream' in ways the PS2 never did, and on top of that, I honestly feel has given a positive halo image to what games can be vs the GTA-type association that was becoming ingrained in parents and non-gamers heads. To top this off, Nintendo themselves does make quality titles. Wii Fit is innovative. The motion controls are innovative. Do I own a Wii? I do not. But I have spent hours playing Wii Sports, completely respect the Wii Fit effort, and can see where here in virtual format a console has replaced the board game as a family activity. One day I will pick it up; I already know the virtual console games I will purchase, and I'll add the New Super Mario Bros on top of those. Maybe a game or two extra as well.

Wii has plenty of features, plenty of innovative games, and the other two categories are irrelevant. Graphics will follow their own arc - for Nintendo it was the reverse: profitable console? Not if we follow the 360/PS3. And that decision mattered to them, as it *is* going to matter to MS and Sony this next go around, and that is no fault of Nintendo's.

 

[deepbrown]

Moreover, what's to say that U2 won't sell 4 million in its life time?

Remember UDF? What did it sell in its first 2 months? Around 1 million or less...yet in its lifetime it sold 2.5 million. It was famously a slow burner that continued to grow more than other titles due to word of mouth.

With UC2 already at 2.5 million, it'll no doubt reach near 4 million.

Why does a game have to sell 4 million in one month like MW or Halo to be considered a success? What about the games that continue to sell healthfully?

 

[SG79]

For PS3 I think a lot of its recent sales bump has come as much from the fact that Sony is *finally* pushing the message that this thing is more than a gaming machine as it has a good year of games. It's 'cool' to own again, after two years in the corner, and I think Sony is finally marketing the package the way they should. This year finally saw a good ad campaign for the thing!

Exactly. Their marketing turnaround particularly with the slim design has been excellent, and is reminiscent of their PS2 days. Difference is that they're finally pushing the thing as a multimedia machine while maintaining the core idea that it's a game machine.

If you compare the mere designs of the PS line over the years, the original fat PS3 stands out as the odd man. The slim looks like a game console with a much more practical design (the matte finish being the main thing).

BTW I'd call KZ2 a failure. Went into HMV...and not only is it a £15 platinum, but the Used section was full of the game.

It's been out for so long and it's not uncommon to see games to see price reductions after a few months, let alone nearly a year.

On the other hand, something like Heavenly Sword or Folklore were obviously not hot sellers, but most places in the US didn't even have them discounted until fairly recently.

 

[tha_con]

BTW I'd call KZ2 a failure. Went into HMV...and not only is it a £15 platinum, but the Used section was full of the game.

This is a bad way to call a title a failure. If it's platfinum, and the used section is full of it, then it mostl likely sold well enough for a lot of people to trade it back in. Plus, KZ2, IMO, was more of a "research project" for PS3 development, with a game piggy backing on top of it.

Successful, IMO, is just making good profit for the Developer and Publisher. Anything else, to me, just comes off as Fanboy flag waving.

 

[joker454]

Hang on. I know VGChartz numbers are seriously dodgy but from their data gathering from real sources, isn't it the case that XB360 had a lead of ~5 million when PS3 launched, and has a lead of ~5 million now? So at the end of the day, the only tactic that has led to XB360 outselling PS3 is launching first. Being cheaper, better, offering developer support etc. has resulted in no more appeal for XB360 than PS3, and the only tactic that really matters is being first out the gate (as long as the rest is 'good enough'). Sony's investment decisions have produced no worse sales than XB360, and at a higher price, which doesn't really scream 'bad investment' to me (whereas losing lots of money does!).

MS had significantly more to overcome. They are not very well liked as a company. Sony has it's share of haters also, but not like Microsoft does, the Sony brand is much more liked. The Xbox brand as well was largely a joke last gen, whereas Playstation was synonymous with gaming. Plus MS knew they would never win in Japan irregardless of what they did, so they had to really perform well in the USA and Europe. If MS just came out first and cheaper, I personally don't think that would have been enough for them to have done as well as they did. They really needed developer support, better multi plats, better online, etc, they needed the whole package to get word of mouth going that they are the better place to both game on and dev on. I can tell you first hand that the plan was to start with the 360 since it was first, then we were all supposed to transition to the PS3 as the main money making platform. That change never occurred because of all the pieces Microsoft got right.

What throws off all the numbers is RROD. The only reason the PS3 is still in the game is because the 360's broke down and it will never shake that imagine. Without that this gen would have been far more brutal for the PS3, but RROD served as the great equalizer this gen. Incidentally, I'd say that the RROD image will probably also affect MS next gen as well.

They didn't spend time or money on hardware QA, was that a tactic? So their rush to be first cost them over a billion dollars. Everything is not as rosy as you paint it for the 360. They got lucky to an extent, Sony handed them the first couple of years, MS just trudged along benefiting.

RROD was clearly a blunder that cost them dearly this gen, but in spite of that they still have done amazingly well. I can safely say I know of no one that predicted how this gen would have turned out. PS3 has a high failure rate as well, the only reason it's not a huge issue is because launch 360's effectively had a 100% failure rate. Still though, looking at both MS and Sony it's pretty clear which one is the hardware company and which one is the software company. I agree that Sony was complacent and handed a lot to Microsoft, but I still firmly believe multi plats, Live, dev support, etc, had more to do with the 360's success.

My biggest gripe, is that while Sony and MS are battling out trying to Raise the bar of what we should expect from our Consoles, the Wii lowers it and gets just as much positive press.

I'd don't care for the Wii much myself (don't even have one) but I really appreciate what it's done for the industry. I love what MS and Sony do as well, but they are helping no one if they are bleeding themselves dry in the process and/or causing an unstable industry.

 

[Dregun]

You people want me to believe that eventhough Killzone 2 failed to sell itself for $60, it managed to sell PS3s for $300 (actually $400 at the time) on the abstract concept of superior computing power? That's preposterous.

Ok, but what if it was phrased differently, like

KZ2 although it failed to sell itself for $60; managed to keep the hype about the systems capability high enough that potential buyers were not offput by its previous lack of demonstrated computing power.

What I'm getting at is if you go back on this board PRE KZ2 and read the comments you will see many negatives concerning the PS3 and its inablity to produce games that rival or exceede offerings by the 360. Then if you look at the posts and threads immediately following KZ2 footage releases you will see a sudden shift, at that point people supported the PS3. I don't remember the last time I saw so many animated Gif's as examples of how "powerful" or "realistic" a game was before that moment.

To say KZ2 had no affect outside of game sales is absurd; it was worth all of the money Sony poured into it simply due to the fact that because of it the PS3 was no longer considered Sony Hype3.

 

[AmFreak]

Whereas MS has Forza, two Gears, two Halos - almost all of these released to a much smaller user base; and their combined sales are ~30 million units, more then the top 10 PS3 games.

What's the source for this ?

And what comes after the Halo's and the Gow's ?
Forza3, Rare games, Too Human, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Ninety Nine Nights, Halo Wars, Project Gotham Racing, etc .. aren't doing better than the Sony games. It's these two series that are selling exceptionally well. You can also interchange it and ask why Forza 3 didn't even reach GT5P sales.

 

[aselto]

Ok, but what if it was phrased differently, like

Still sounds absurd, because most people don't care about the slight difference between 360 and PS3 games.

 

[deepbrown]

This is a bad way to call a title a failure. If it's platfinum, and the used section is full of it, then it mostl likely sold well enough for a lot of people to trade it back in. Plus, KZ2, IMO, was more of a "research project" for PS3 development, with a game piggy backing on top of it.

Successful, IMO, is just making good profit for the Developer and Publisher. Anything else, to me, just comes off as Fanboy flag waving.

Well I still believe that it didn't sell anywhere near what it should have, and is consistently returned and doesn't sell even at £15.

Anyway, I've removed that, since it's making people not read the majority of my post...which Laa-Yosh should really take notice of.

 

[Squilliam]

Hang on. I know VGChartz numbers are seriously dodgy but from their data gathering from real sources, isn't it the case that XB360 had a lead of ~5 million when PS3 launched, and has a lead of ~5 million now? So at the end of the day, the only tactic that has led to XB360 outselling PS3 is launching first. Being cheaper, better, offering developer support etc. has resulted in no more appeal for XB360 than PS3, and the only tactic that really matters is being first out the gate (as long as the rest is 'good enough'). Sony's investment decisions have produced no worse sales than XB360, and at a higher price, which doesn't really scream 'bad investment' to me (whereas losing lots of money does!).

If you take the rest of the world where they can compete on a more even basis the gap is still 8M. I know it sounds a little dodgy saying that 'Japan doesn't count'. But in terms of market penetration they were almost always going to be hitting a brick wall with Japan effectively giving Sony a free pass over Microsoft. Its the rest of the world where you could say that anyone could have won.

Being the cheapest doesn't help you if your console isn't as desireable, see Gamecube or Dreamcast for comparison. Being the most expensive doesn't hurt you as much if your console or brand is desirable. People will generally buy the console they want and they will only pick a cheaper substitute if its considered as good as the console they would have bought instead. Considering the target demographic is people in their twenties and thirties with disposable income, coming in on the cheaper side by 25-33% isn't always going to make you a winner.

As far as launching first is considered, its actually very hard to launch first and 'be good enough because the developers and consumers are still going to wait for the PS3 to come out, see Dreamcast for comparison. The Xbox 360 had a very steep uphill climb to even reach the point of parity and it took good work during 2006 and 2007 between development tools and developer support as well as some key exclusives to sway the market and give the 360 momentum to still be selling in range of the PS3 at this point.

 

[deepbrown]

If you take the rest of the world where they can compete on a more even basis the gap is still 8M. I know it sounds a little dodgy saying that 'Japan doesn't count'. But in terms of market penetration they were almost always going to be hitting a brick wall with Japan effectively giving Sony a free pass over Microsoft. Its the rest of the world where you could say that anyone could have won.

Being the cheapest doesn't help you if your console isn't as desireable, see Gamecube or Dreamcast for comparison. Being the most expensive doesn't hurt you as much if your console or brand is desirable. People will generally buy the console they want and they will only pick a cheaper substitute if its considered as good as the console they would have bought instead. Considering the target demographic is people in their twenties and thirties with disposable income, coming in on the cheaper side by 25-33% isn't always going to make you a winner.

As far as launching first is considered, its actually very hard to launch first and 'be good enough because the developers and consumers are still going to wait for the PS3 to come out, see Dreamcast for comparison. The Xbox 360 had a very steep uphill climb to even reach the point of parity and it took good work during 2006 and 2007 between development tools and developer support as well as some key exclusives to sway the market and give the 360 momentum to still be selling in range of the PS3 at this point.

When the PS3 launched the Xbox 360 was reportedly almost 10 million ahead. That then went to 8 million and fluctuated around there. In 2009 the PS3 sold around 2 million more, bringing that closer to 6 million - it'll most likely be 5 million when we take December into account.

 

[Carl B]

Plus MS knew they would never win in Japan irregardless of what they did

Don't know about that, even though certainly many called that conclusion in advance. But MS at 360's launch definitely poured a lot of time, money, and resources into trying to secure a foothold in the Japanese market.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Doesn't U2 has a high chance of selling near 4 million over it's lifetime. Need a game sell 4 million in its first month to be considered successful?

As discussed before - there's quite a financial difference between the sales of the first few months, where the game is going for its full price; and the years after it, when it's at an up to 60-80% discount.

UC2 is probably going to make a steady profit, but being what it is, one would expect better sales. In this case it's not really the developer's fault IMHO, unlike some other exclusive titles. Nevertheless, expectations were a lot higher after seeing the game and its review scores.

(And let's not bring ICO and its cousins in here, as those games were clearly aiming at a niche market, unlike UC2).

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Let alone the most obvious fact - a first party video game doing relatively well, makes far more money for Sony than a third party game doing very well. Overlooking that seems a little mad to me.

Relatively well and very well is somewhat a non exact figure, and we don't really have exact figures anyways, but I have a feeling that Sony actually makes more money from 3rd party games that do very well than those first party games doing relatively well. Yes the cut is bigger from the latter, but you also pay for everything.

I agree that lately Sonys first party lineup of games with strong and impressive technology has served well as an important piece of the bigger picture for Sony. Considering the higher price of the system and on overall PS3 lacking little bit in the multiplatform games front, it's good to have strong and large first party lineup. As far as making money per individual title I'm not so sure. The first party games has had to have been quite expensive and yet the sales numbers aren't that great.