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

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).

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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