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

[Silent_Buddha]

edit: i just wanted to highlight additionally that while we have all been talking about "financial success", all those PS3 games that Laa-Yosh mentioned are inarguably creative successes that are almost universally acclaimed. In the spirit of gaming, really, shouldn't that be something?

As a gamer living in the here and now it doesn't matter as long as they like the game. However, the future impact on developement is a huge concern.

Why do I mention that? I've gone through it time and time again with devs of some of my all time favorite games no longer existing because even though they had good (sometimes excellant) sales, they failed to make profit (as a company) even though individual titles made a small profit.

Black Isle studios is no more, despite making some of the best and most memorable games ever made. Take a look at the list of games they made, many titles of which are considered among the best or THE best RPGs of all time. And if you are a fan of RPGs, you'll cry over the loss of the studio.

And that's only one out of many MANY studios that have failed despite making creative, excellant, and critically acclaimed games. Looking Glass studios is another of my favorites I'll throw out.

Artistic and creative success only carries you so far. Critical acclaim means next to nothing if you can't make a substantial enough profit that you can keep the rest of your company afloat (IE - pay for all other non-game related operating costs in addition to developement costs).

At the end of the day I'll applaud any game that is good. And at the end of the day I'll mourn the studios that couldn't keep their studios alive with those same games.

Thus for me, it's almost impossible for me to seperate profit from determining success. Because I want studios that make games I like to continue making games.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Got it. So if you don´t know all the parameters that you list above it makes sense to assume that a game selling 2.5 million is a failure. Per se we should assume that all games selling 2.5 million are failures.

By the way, you missed payed DLC in your list of unknown parameters.

You really didn't bother reading anything of what I posted did you? Or are you just belligerantly ignoring everything that doesn't prove your point?

As I went into quite some depth pointing out that success is a moving target. Showing that depending on circumstances a title does NOT have to sell a million or more units to show a profit.

But no, you'd rather extrapolate that if I point out that a title that costs 20-40 million USD to develope with an additional 5-10 million USD (or more) in marketing from a publisher which has had no breakout titles will probably need to sell more than 2-4 million units to not just break even on a game but attempt to keep up with operating costs unrelated to the game (/me pauses to take a breath)...

You'd rather take that one example and then claim I'm somehow applying that to ALL games?

Absolutely amazing how some people think.

Regards,
SB

 

[Billy Idol]

Is it a valuable benefit for Sony that the first party studios develop tools applicable for third party studios during the develpment of their exclusive titles (and thus help to make PS3 dev more friendly)?
Or is this something which does not count in the grand scheme of things (maybe because it is very difficult to determine the actual value of the tools in cash??)

 

[BadTB25]

Your not alone in your memory Laa-Yosh. I vividly remember the same thing--it's not about what the sales were, but how the sales did not meet the pre-release hype/expectations by both Sony and the fans. I believe that there is even a topic discussing this exact subject.

There is no denying that some of the releases were excellent titles like Motorstorm, UC2, LBP, KZ2, Resistance 2 and Infamous although I only own a few of those mentioned (LBP, Motorstorm, Resistance) and none at the time of release. I can't figure out why they don't sell better.

 

[function]

As a Dreamcast fanboy, I'd like to briefly dip into history to mention Shenmue. It sold over a million units to a userbase of (at the time) around 7 million, despite it being an untried type of game and a new IP that had almost all its Western marketing pulled. It was also a technological, artistic and game design showcase in a way that games like KZ2 and UC2 aren't really intended to be. It was also developed along side the Dreamcast SDK, iirc, sharing some costs.

It was still considered a failure, because it failed to have the impact on hardware sales and brand image that it was intended to.

Given the likely budgets of Sony's first party titles, the size of the userbase, the size of 3rd party sales of games like MW2, GTA 4 and MGS4, and given how much effort Sony has put into hyping these games (KZ2 with it's million $ CGI demo, "PS3 is the only console powerful enough to do these games", "Cell processor makes Heavenly Sword AI smarter than possible before" etc) I don't think it's realistic to suggest Sony would be happy with only small profits from these games.

Sony invested hundreds of millions of dollars in their first party games because they expected a large return. They were investing in the Playstation 3 platform, not in individual titles, and in these terms their games have mostly failed, just like Shenmue did.

Yu Suzuki - one of the greatest game developers of all time - was effectively sh*tcanned by Sega after Shenmue. Even if you don't care about about first party PS3 games leading the PS3 to success, you should hope that Sony judges their investments worthwhile *on their terms* or else you may lose some of your favourite games and studios, and see the money thrown into third parties instead.

At the end of the day I'll applaud any game that is good. And at the end of the day I'll mourn the studios that couldn't keep their studios alive with those same games.

Thus for me, it's almost impossible for me to seperate profit from determining success. Because I want studios that make games I like to continue making games.

Absolutely.

 

[ShadowRunner]

All I've been talking about is general expectations and not just mine. In the months before the release of practically any PS3 exclusive, all the sales and games related threads even on this forum were full of how KZ2 / UC2 / MGS4 / whatever is going to be the next big thing, dominating sales charts and moving mountains of PS3s, and sometimes with how the current or upcoming big X360 title is going to be nothing.

Then the monthly NPD results were published and the highly expected PS3 titles were on the bottom end of the sales charts (with Nintendo and MS taking turns in dominating the top). So the people praising Sony's exclusives in advance have - in a nice display of cognitive dissonance - moved on to talk about the next upcoming PS3 exclusive. This has happened several times and the only exception was MGS4.
(Oh, and in some cases everyone was expecting some games to come up at the top of the monthly charts, like with KZ2...)

This is what I've made the apparently fatal mistake of calling attention to. Obviously, I should have expected the very same people to vehemently deny this phenomenon in retrospect.

I think its fare to say that some fans of each of those games expected more sales in general yes. It doesnt really say much though, fans will generaly have higher expectations than reasonable anyhow, so is it a case of some fans expecting too much or is it games not performing? Bit of both maybe?

 

[Crossbar]

Would you please stop twisting around what we say?

The argument is that most Sony exclusive titles have failed to meet sales expectations, to variable degrees. Don't try to put anything else behind it.

Well if you don´t know Sonys sales expectations you don´t really have an argument to start with. You and Silent Buddha are arguing like you know them and so far I have not seen any evidence that you know what sales Sony were expecting for LBP or any other titles as far as I can tell.

So I suggest that you hence on use "my expectations" instead of "expectations" which embodies everyones expectations if you want to avoid these replies to your posts. In case you are Margret Thatcher or the Queen of England "our expectations" is acceptable as well, but then you would have to prove your identity.

 

[Crossbar]

But no, you'd rather extrapolate that if I point out that a title that costs 20-40 million USD to develope with an additional 5-10 million USD (or more) in marketing from a publisher which has had no breakout titles will probably need to sell more than 2-4 million units to not just break even on a game but attempt to keep up with operating costs unrelated to the game (/me pauses to take a breath)...

You'd rather take that one example and then claim I'm somehow applying that to ALL games?

Absolutely amazing how some people think.

Eh? So what game are you talking about?

I was talking about LBP, why did reply to my post?

 

[deepbrown]

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.

How in the hell is a new IP launched 2 years ago, going to compete with one of the biggest gaming series of all time - that defined the original PlayStation, defined the PlayStation 2?

If those are the expectations you are comparing it you...those expectations are absurd.

Expecting titles on PS3 to sell in Xbox numbers is a questionable expectation - and though I'm sure Sony would love that to happen, they've built the PlayStation for a wide demographic of audiences (that's their tactic - Buzz and SingStar sell in huge volumes in Europe) and I doubt they'd have expectations anywhere near the Halo's.

Both were working on PS3 exclusives that have so obviously failed to meet even Sony's expectations that there were immediate consequences. Neither were contracted for any other exclusive titles and F5 wasn't even able to get funding for a next HD title (but Ninja Theory did).

That was due to LAIR being a huge critical failure (4/10 scores) meaning Sony would unlikely want to take the risk again. Ninja Theory moved to multiplatform as they were upset with the fanboy wars and felt this resulted in lower critical acclaim (it got bundled in with LAIR) and so they felt they would try multiplatform.

Neither were due to Sony not having money to spend on studios. Eg. Media Molecule is still on board. Insomniac is still on board - the ones who make the best critical games (not necessarily selling). Sony care just as much about critical success as sales - eg. ICO, SOTC. That's a good thing for us gamers.

All I've been talking about is general expectations and not just mine. In the months before the release of practically any PS3 exclusive, all the sales and games related threads even on this forum were full of how KZ2 / UC2 / MGS4 / whatever is going to be the next big thing, dominating sales charts and moving mountains of PS3s, and sometimes with how the current or upcoming big X360 title is going to be nothing.

Then the monthly NPD results were published and the highly expected PS3 titles were on the bottom end of the sales charts (with Nintendo and MS taking turns in dominating the top). So the people praising Sony's exclusives in advance have - in a nice display of cognitive dissonance - moved on to talk about the next upcoming PS3 exclusive. This has happened several times and the only exception was MGS4.
(Oh, and in some cases everyone was expecting some games to come up at the top of the monthly charts, like with KZ2...)

This is what I've made the apparently fatal mistake of calling attention to. Obviously, I should have expected the very same people to vehemently deny this phenomenon in retrospect.

Your basing expectations on forum posters? Shouldn't expectations be based on something a little more substantial than that. And U2 was at the top of the monthly NPD charts...

 

[function]

We know that Sony were hoping (at the least, if not planning) for some killer apps in amongst their portfolio of first party titles. We know this because of the way they were used (repeatedly, and sometimes in expensive marking campaigns) to represent the system. You don't spend huge sums of cash developing software, and then publicly tying this software to your hardware, if you don't want the software to shift the hardware.

Frankly, if Sony's gaming division were developing hugely expensive games and not intending for them to help move and market their HUGELY expensive console then they would be idiots of the highest order.

That was due to LAIR being a huge critical failure (4/10 scores) meaning Sony would unlikely want to take the risk again. Ninja Theory moved to multiplatform as they were upset with the fanboy wars and felt this resulted in lower critical acclaim (it got bundled in with LAIR) and so they felt they would try multiplatform.

No developer gives up a generous publisher like Sony (that has just showered them with cash to make a scrolling beat 'em up) because they are upset about fanboy wars. They do it because either the business doesn't make sense any more, or because they get the boot.

Neither were due to Sony not having money to spend on studios. Eg. Media Molecule is still on board. Insomniac is still on board - the ones who make the best critical games (not necessarily selling). Sony care just as much about critical success as sales - eg. ICO, SOTC. That's a good thing for us gamers.

No, Sony don't care just as much about critical success as sales. They would be a terrible company if they did. If making high quality games is the way to make money, they hire people who will make high quality games. If it isn't, Sony as a company couldn't care less about critical success.

Currently Sony are making high quality games - how long this continues depends on whether they will get a better return on their investment by putting their money elsewhere.

 

[Crossbar]

Both were working on PS3 exclusives that have so obviously failed to meet even Sony's expectations that there were immediate consequences. Neither were contracted for any other exclusive titles and F5 wasn't even able to get funding for a next HD title (but Ninja Theory did).

And my argument was that Sony hasn´t closed one single one of their internal game studios (at least not the last 3-4 years), even in hardest of times and that shows Sony is pretty commited to keep having exclusives. Obviously they see some long term economics in it contrary to what some people here suggests.

Not ordering a sequel of a non-stellar new IP hardly compares to closing down an internal studio in my opinion.

 

[ShadowRunner]

How do we know that the reason the PS3 is holding its own against the 360 isnt partly due to the exclusives that have been released for it? How would the PS3 be faring now if it didnt have a single exclusive title over 360? Because PS3s havent sold at Wii levels doesnt mean the exclusives havent done a lot to shift hardware, we have no idea how much units would have sold without these exclusives outside of random guesses.

If having exclusives was not an important part of the buisness and add significantly to the platform in question then both MS and Sony would make all there games multi-platform.

 

[Semitope2]

Your not alone in your memory Laa-Yosh. I vividly remember the same thing--it's not about what the sales were, but how the sales did not meet the pre-release hype/expectations by both Sony and the fans. I believe that there is even a topic discussing this exact subject.

There is no denying that some of the releases were excellent titles like Motorstorm, UC2, LBP, KZ2, Resistance 2 and Infamous although I only own a few of those mentioned (LBP, Motorstorm, Resistance) and none at the time of release. I can't figure out why they don't sell better.

Its not about quality but about the percentage of the user base that is interested in that type of game. I think the sales we see with these exclusives are similar to what was seen with the ps2 games of the past. Those were some quality varied games but they don't quite appeal to the largest market who favor sports games and shooters (that play a certain way). Its not about quality once a game exceeds a certain mediocre to good quality range. Then its about how many of the target consumers are in the market and how well the game is presented to them.

How do we know that the reason the PS3 is holding its own against the 360 isnt down to the exclusives that have been released for it? How would the PS3 be faring now if it didnt have a single exclusive title over 360? Because PS3s havent sold at Wii levels doesnt mean the exclusives havent done a lot to shift hardware, we have no idea how much units would have sold without these exclusives outside of random guesses.

If having exclusives was not an important part of the buisness and add significantly to the platform in question then both MS and Sony would make all there games multi-platform.

Good point. IMO the ps3 would be dead without its exclusives. For a system manufacturer, multiplats do nothing for hardware sales unless they can somehow convince ppl that a multiplat game runs only on their console (some gamers actually think multiplats on the 360 are only available on the 360... sony PR fails again). If another console takes the sales lead from you, you will forever be down unless you have the unique games along with other features to back you up.

 

[function]

How do we know that the reason the PS3 is holding its own against the 360 isnt partly due to the exclusives that have been released for it? How would the PS3 be faring now if it didnt have a single exclusive title over 360? Because PS3s havent sold at Wii levels doesnt mean the exclusives havent done a lot to shift hardware, we have no idea how much units would have sold without these exclusives outside of random guesses.

You can take a less-than-totally-random guess by looking at how well those exclusives have sold. If your exclusives aren't selling so well despite heavy marketing, and are being greatly outsold by multiplatform games, chances are they aren't doing what you really want them to.

If having exclusives was not an important part of the buisness and add significantly to the platform in question then both MS and Sony would make all there games multi-platform.

Having exclusives that people want - and that they want so much it will sway their console purchasing decisions - is absolutely an important part of the business. Having exclusives that relatively few people want and that sap resources that could be doing far more to help you elsewhere ... not so much.

 

[Carl B]

I am 100% sure Microsoft will win this war with huge profit

That implies that Microsoft will *make* a profit on the gen; that is far from a certainty. And if it's like that, well then Nintendo is going to "win this war" and there's never been a question.

If Sony didn´t see the internal and first part studios as good investments they wouldn´t keep them.

Correlation, causation, all that...

I wouldn't take the continued operation of Sony's 1st party studios as a sign of profitability, that's for sure, even though I personally do think the 1st party efforts are worth it. It would be drawing weak conclusions to think that continued operations were *obviously* a sign of profitability. By the same logic one would say that Playstation 3 must be a profitable console... after all, they're still selling it right?

The 2.5M figure as it applies to LBP has to absolutely be qualified IMO. The game had a team of... was it 30 people...? Whereas say KZ2, which we're using as the flip on the 2.5M figure, had a team and total resource load much much greater in number. So 2.5M in sales means totally different things for each of these titles.

The argument is that most Sony exclusive titles have failed to meet sales expectations, to variable degrees. Don't try to put anything else behind it.

That's your argument Laa-Yosh, but it's not the thread argument. The thread is dealing with monetary/platform considerations and not sales expectations (save for where they apply to the former).

edit: i just wanted to highlight additionally that while we have all been talking about "financial success", all those PS3 games that Laa-Yosh mentioned are inarguably creative successes that are almost universally acclaimed. In the spirit of gaming, really, shouldn't that be something?

Yes but in the spirit of the thread, leave those thoughts at the door.

People this thread is not about gaming altruism or what people *should* be playing or how noble one game publisher is vs another... it's simply about the bottom line. Stick to the core.

 

[assen]

For a system manufacturer, multiplats do nothing for hardware sales unless they can somehow convince ppl that a multiplat game runs only on their console

No.

If you have two consoles, one at $200, the other at $300, and multiplatform titles look and feel identical on both, they don't "do nothing for hardware sales". They help the sales of the cheaper console. This is the explanation for the "exclusives don't sell consoles, price drops sell consoles" phenomenon.

 

[Semitope2]

True, that would be the case if the value difference was clear cut. I'd buy a 300$ ps3 over an arcade system any day, someone else might buy the arcade now and continue funneling cash into it over time instead. It gets even muddier when you consider bundles for 300$ compared to the 200$ option. Either way multiplats arent going to tip the favor to one particular console by themselves and thats what I meant. Its like putting water in a baking pan. It goes neither way while the surface is flat but if something else tilts it the pan. Its definitely not what sony needs right now considering what being late has cost them.

 

[obonicus]

Just to take a step back, on Heavenly Sword, a couple of years ago Gamespot reported that Ninja Theory was offered HS2 but turned it down, in response to a rumor about bad blood between Ninja Theory and Sony.

Factor 5 is probably a better example of that. In that case we 'knew' about a 3-game deal that Sony apparently decided not to go ahead with.

Also, while no doubt it's disappointing for Sony not to have any of their titles strike Halo-type success, it'd be stupid of them to even expect that. The whole point of 'sales' disappointment, as opposed to profitability or increasing platform appeal is pointless. NSMB Wii will probably outsell any of the titles we're talking about. Should Microsoft be disappointed about their doubtless much more costly titles?

 

[assen]

NSMB Wii will probably outsell any of the titles we're talking about. Should Microsoft be disappointed about their doubtless much more costly titles?

Sure, they should. Somebody at Microsoft should lose their sleep day and night about the ability of Nintendo to sell zillions of retro remakes and exercise games, and come up with all sorts of weird and core-gamer-offending peripherals to attempt to counter them

 

[ShadowRunner]

Having exclusives that people want - and that they want so much it will sway their console purchasing decisions - is absolutely an important part of the business. Having exclusives that relatively few people want and that sap resources that could be doing far more to help you elsewhere ... not so much.

They dont plan to make exclusives that people dont want, obviously the idea is to create games that attract as many people as possible. Its irrelevant to wether exclusives are worth it or not though, you have to make the games in order to find out how well it does! The reason sony are making these games is because they know exclusives are needed.

"Are exclusives worth it?" is totally different question to "Have the PS3 exclusives so far this gen had a significant impact on console purchasing descisions?"

Take a game like Lair, no it didnt have an impact on PS3 sales but it was definately worth a crack!

We also have no idea what impact the exclusive franchises will have in the future. Uncharted franchise could end up producing 10 million sellers in future iterations, and it would be on the back of the predecessors that it got there.