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

[Richard]

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?

If the discussion is on absolute numbers then no. If the discussion is around cost/benefit then it matters because x months after release date the retail price won't be the same.

Another thing to bear in mind is that publishers aren't interested in games that turn a profit as crazy as that sounds. They are interested in publishing games that turn a LOT of profit.

They don't view a game that turned in 1 million in pure profit as an extra 1 million on their bank account, they view it as a game that failed to provide 10, 20, 50 million in pure profit.*

Of course, whether or not this has any bearing on U3, or any other game, depends on the budget for the game, how the dev/publisher contract is setup and if there are other more promising games that developer ought to be working on (in the eyes of the publisher).


* And btw, these values are completely arbitrary, any game that fails to turn in enough profit to pay for the *next* game in development could, in theory, be considered a commercial disappointment. With budgets between 18-20 something million like the recent article pointed out even a successful game from a gamer's point of view might not wield any more sequels because someone decided the IP didn't have potential for the Mega-Profit (tm).

 

[woundingchaney]

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.

You are mixing sell through and sold to retail numbers. Upon launch of the PS3 MS had sold to consumers approximately 5.5 million units world wide (which is just about the current sales gap now give or take). This is also around the time of the infamous "channel stuffing" MS did to hit their sales estimate (which is a sold to retail number). The high gap for Sony and MS so far this gen is around 8 million difference in sold to consumer which would of been early to mid 2009 prior to Sony's remarkable ability to reinvigorate their brand.

 

[aselto]

When the PS3 launched the Xbox 360 was reportedly almost 10 million ahead.

It was not. Microsoft had shipped 10M consoles by the end of 2006 (ie. 2 months after PS3's launch), but that was because they forced retailers to get too many of them and they shipped only 1M in the following 6 months. By April 2007, MS shipped 11M 360s and Sony shipped 5.5M PS3s. The difference fluctuates around the same value since then.edit: beaten

 

[deepbrown]

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).

It's already made a considerable profit...not a steady profit. And it's outstripped it's older brother in two months. It's a success and even a considerable success, owing to the amount of money spent on it (nowhere near Killzone 2).

And UDF continued selling at a near full price - it was a year before it was made platinum.

I think you need to get this idea of "lower than 4 million is not a success". Selling 1 million or more is a success. Selling 4 million is a huge success.

It was not. Microsoft had shipped 10M consoles by the end of 2006 (ie. 2 months after PS3's launch), but that was because they forced retailers to get too many of them and they shipped only 1M in the following 6 months. By April 2007, MS shipped 11M 360s and Sony shipped 5.5M PS3s. The difference fluctuates around the same value since then.edit: beaten

I said "reportedly" and "almost". I am very aware of sell-through and the exaggerated reports. We're talking from day-one to now. The gap has for the majority of their time on sale been 8 million, not 6 million. The PS3 has clawed back that 2 million in 2009.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Stop bickering about exact numbers please. With regards to UC2's sales, it's the general thoughts that we should talk about and not how/where the exact point of division lies.

 

[Carl B]

With regards to UC2's sales, it's the general thoughts that we should talk about and not how/where the exact point of division lies.

It has to be more than "Uncharted 2 should have sold more" at some level, however. At some point a game does have to get a pass on the fact that it was a financially sound decision, and has spawned a successful IP. I don't see how we *can't* consider its production costs in the thinking, and if we believe that it has already recouped those and potentially a good deal more - shouldn't that factor in somewhere in the 'success' discussion? Which by its very nature is a de facto discussion on 'failure' as well.

Personally I'd like to explore more of the ideas that Richard raised in terms of what publishers are after and how we qualify financial success on its most basic levels.

In my mind, UC2 is a success for the Sony 1st parties across almost all criteria save ostensibly the goal of having been more 'blockbuster.' Killzone 2 in my mind makes for a more interesting discussion topic since there are so many variables at play, and we remain unsure of its "box office take" vs the production costs.

 

[AlNom]

Hum... I thought recall something about that with Tomb Raider: Underworld, at least something ShootMyMonkey had posted. The game sold a couple million, but was still a "failure"...

edit: Oh right... in the previous thread of a similar topic ha ha...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

It's not about success, but about expectations. See my first post for the original statement that has caused all this trouble - that Sony's exclusives are not selling as well as expected.

Now getting stuck on UC2 and massaging numbers and criteria in any way isn't going to change that considering the entire AA lineup from Lair and Heavenly Sword through Motorstorm2 and Resistance2 to Killzone2 and UC2, Sony hasn't really lived up to the sales numbers one would expect, especially after <insert half my posts in the thread>.

We can argue about what is success and how the math should look like, but it's another discussion - which I'm not as interested in as defending my first statement.

 

[Richard]

It's not about success, but about expectations. See my first post for the original statement that has caused all this trouble - that Sony's exclusives are not selling as well as expected.

Now getting stuck on UC2 and massaging numbers and criteria in any way isn't going to change that considering the entire AA lineup from Lair and Heavenly Sword through Motorstorm2 and Resistance2 to Killzone2 and UC2, Sony hasn't really lived up to the sales numbers one would expect, especially after <insert half my posts in the thread>.

We can argue about what is success and how the math should look like, but it's another discussion - which I'm not as interested in as defending my first statement.

Well, seems you're following a bit of circular reasoning. You say the point isn't about success but expectations, and yet point out U2 didn't meet expectations after selling a heck of a lot more than that string of other PS3 exclusives.

Seems to me that, if we're just talking about expectations (i.e. my absolute numbers remark to deepbrown) and not revenue versus costs then U2 is a success AND exceeded expectations - which were low exactly because of "Lair and Heavenly Sword through Motorstorm2 and Resistance2 to Killzone2" 's low sales volume.

On the second question ("are exclusives worth it"?) with the implicit context of PS3 exclusives I suppose the answer is probably no - Killzone 2 especially would have sold a lot more on the FPS-friendly XBOX but, and we're back to financial success, could KZ2 have been made for the same money without the heavy Sony investment in technology sharing? :shrug:

 

[onanie]

Not to mention that practically every PS3 exclusive has failed to reach sales expectations

Your expectation, perhaps.

It has probably been pointed out before that the PS3 demographic is diverse, and expect diversity themselves. There is not one title that defines the PS3 experience - rather, it is the sum of the exclusive experience. I would not expect a single title or genre to appeal to the entire PS3 fanbase, unlike the 360 fanbase. Hence, the sales disparity.

But I see you don't mention the fact that the diversity in gaming experience is very well accepted by both the media and the PS3 community (and understandably not the 360 community), irrespective of sales "achievement".

From a third party developer viewpoint, the PS3 has enough critical mass to warrant indefinite support now (outside of exclusivity arrangements). It doesn't matter how much you want to throw "attach rates" into the equation - those pesky PS3 users are still getting their third party games. There is one caveat though. For those developers motivated to deliver visuals beyond the "norm", the PS3 as an exclusive platform IS an interesting proposition.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

You say the point isn't about success but expectations, and yet point out U2 didn't meet expectations after selling a heck of a lot more than that string of other PS3 exclusives.

Well here's the definitive summary of my opinion on UC2 sales:

It should move about as many units as MGS4 because it is considered to be the best PS3 title yet, because it had a lot of hype, received a lot of awards and other publicity, and is not even a new IP.

But it's barely above half of MGS4's sales, and still below UC1, which is definitely not meeting those expectations.

That's it, I don't wish to elaborate on this issue any more.

 

[onanie]

Well here's the definitive summary of my opinion on UC2 sales:

It should move about as many units as MGS4 because it is considered to be the best PS3 title yet, because it had a lot of hype, received a lot of awards and other publicity, and is not even a new IP.

It is new-er, since UC is in its second iteration and MGS4 is in its fourth, to give you the simple maths (let alone the fact that the MGS series has been in recognition for significantly more years over three generations of hardware).

Achieving even half the sales is within expectations.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If the discussion is on absolute numbers then no. If the discussion is around cost/benefit then it matters because x months after release date the retail price won't be the same.

Another thing to bear in mind is that publishers aren't interested in games that turn a profit as crazy as that sounds. They are interested in publishing games that turn a LOT of profit.

They don't view a game that turned in 1 million in pure profit as an extra 1 million on their bank account, they view it as a game that failed to provide 10, 20, 50 million in pure profit.*

Of course, whether or not this has any bearing on U3, or any other game, depends on the budget for the game, how the dev/publisher contract is setup and if there are other more promising games that developer ought to be working on (in the eyes of the publisher).


* And btw, these values are completely arbitrary, any game that fails to turn in enough profit to pay for the *next* game in development could, in theory, be considered a commercial disappointment. With budgets between 18-20 something million like the recent article pointed out even a successful game from a gamer's point of view might not wield any more sequels because someone decided the IP didn't have potential for the Mega-Profit (tm).

Agreed, a publisher NEEDS titles that make 20, 30, 50, whatever high number of millions in USD profit to balance titles that break even or lose money. Not only to fund future games, but also to pay for it's workforce that does all the boring stuff like accounting, marketing, management, etc. among other operating costs.

A game that makes a small profit (say 1 million USD for arguments sake) isn't helping the company as that will be more than eaten up by daily operating costs and marketing. Possibly even leading to an overall loss in the division even though it's games turned a small profit.

That's why it's so difficult to determine just how much of a particular game needs to sell to make a profit. As not only don't we have solid numbers for the cost to develope, but we have even less of an idea of all the ancilliary costs that are involved.

As odd as it sounds to a person not in business, a small profit for a game title could actually lead to you losing money as a company.

Regards,
SB

 

[onanie]

Agreed, a publisher NEEDS titles that make 20, 30, 50, whatever high number of millions in USD profit to balance titles that break even or lose money. Not only to fund future games, but also to pay for it's workforce that does all the boring stuff like accounting, marketing, management, etc. among other operating costs.

A game that makes a small profit (say 1 million USD for arguments sake) isn't helping the company as that will be more than eaten up by daily operating costs and marketing. Possibly even leading to an overall loss in the division even though it's games turned a small profit.

That's why it's so difficult to determine just how much of a particular game needs to sell to make a profit. As not only don't we have solid numbers for the cost to develope, but we have even less of an idea of all the ancilliary costs that are involved.

As odd as it sounds to a person not in business, a small profit for a game title could actually lead to you losing money as a company.

Regards,
SB

With that, I think it is reasonable to think that a title that has produced sequels (especially one that will be in its third iteration or beyond) would have been profitable enough to be considered a "success", regardless of costs.

 

[DrJay24]

But it's barely above half of MGS4's sales, and still below UC1, which is definitely not meeting those expectations.

Both games have been out for 18-24 months, UC2 is supposed to outsell them in 2 months?

So I guess ODST is a failure, it did not outsell Halo 3...

 

[Squilliam]

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.

Those are consoles shipped. Its reasonably well known that Microsoft stuffed the channels towards the end of 2006 I believe to make themselves look better and to stop and try to fix the RROD issues.

 

[JPT]

Is not the question basically, what does Sony define as success when it comes to its titles?

We know that every title can not be a Halo or COD:MW or GTA and most likely MS & Sony knows this to
So whatever expectations we have, its MS/Sony's expectations that counts when it comes to what is a success.
And I assume we really have no idea what that is and most likely its different for every title, since the investments are different.

I remember this interview with Guillaume de Fondaumiere about making Heavy Rain and tax breaks etc.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/catching-the-rain?page=2

Q: Do you look back at releases like LittleBigPlanet and try to learn lessons? I know they have a consistent long tail on that game, so do you see Heavy Rain as a big bang or slow burn?
Guillaume de Fondaumiere: I think it's a game that will probably have a longer lifespan than other games, simply because - a bit like LittleBigPlanet - we're in our own area. So one shooter could shoot another shooter out of the charts to a certain degree, and that's probably why you're seeing the high number of sales for a short period in other game categories.

For innovative titles that stand out, that are different and almost have no direct competition to a certain degree, then you can see a longer lifespan. That's what makes publishing those titles very interesting - I think LBP has been hugely successful. You may not have seen it in the charts at number one everywhere during one particular week, but when it adds up you see that they've sold, I don't know the exact numbers, but around 2.5 million units worldwide. That's quite an achievement for a first game, definitely.

He probably should have an idea what is considered a success and since he is doing a game with/for Sony, it might even be similar to what Sony's expectations are.

 

[specwarGP2]

I always thought the primary goal of exclusives was about creating a halo effect for the system more than anything else.

 

[clownt33]

Id say it is 360 exclusives doing exeedingly well rather than PS3 exclusives doing poorly.

Id also say its mostly own to userbase than anything. From the PS3 owners i know most are not as clued up on whats good and whats not compared to 360 owners and dont follow gaming sites etc. 360 got the hardcore crowd early. Expectations should be adjusted according to userbase in my opinion.

This kind of follows on from the GOW3 sales talk

i definitely agree with this.. i also think the whole achievement/gamerscore thing has a lot to do with some of the 360 fanbase's obsession with buying a lot of games... at least from what i've seen from some of the kids on my forum.

 

[Lidve]

But is pure profit off of game development the only factor? Killzone 2 in my opinion did MUCH MUCH more for the PS3 than it's sales. The PS3 was under some heavy heat because the games didn't look any better and sometimes worse then what was available for the 360. Sony needed something to show consumers "Hey, look what our machine can do, we weren't lying at our conference" and that did a lot for Sony.

Also KZ2 was a major push to get developers of different houses working together and sharing information about how to get the most out of the PS3. We saw so many slides and figures from KZ development that basically showed the consumer (ok, maybe just us geeks) what is needed and how things should be done on the PS3 to get the results people expect of it. They also used that house to develop/design tools that could be shared among the Playstation community to help other developers get their games running better.

In my opinion without Sony sinking money into the development of KZ2 the level of quality of current PS3 games and those coming out in the future wouldn't be as high as it is now. KZ2 showed that the Playstation could hold its own against the 360 and in some aspects surpass the 360 when developed for properly. It was really the first time any 360 owner took notice that the PS3 could have a "Halo killer" even though KZ as a franchise will probably never reach that expectation.

Difference is, that Microsoft is in my opinion using lot smarter approach
Their developers spend less time and effort to make game and they sell more copies which might not seem important now, but in the end will make big difference

i definitely agree with this.. i also think the whole achievement/gamerscore thing has a lot to do with some of the 360 fanbase's obsession with buying a lot of games... at least from what i've seen from some of the kids on my forum.

which again proves how well Microsoft plays this game, if there is feature that will sell more copies - why not implement it?
And not to forget how much money Microsoft milks from live service etc.
I am 100% sure Microsoft will win this war with huge profit