Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[DieH@rd]

A good post and POV. I'll just take you up on this statement. We don't expect TR to justify expense based on critical acclaim alone. It's expense is justified by selling 6.5 million units. If it broke even at 3.5 million as per reports, that's 3 million lots of $20 (at least) to SE. They made $600 million profit from TR. Okay, maybe we need to factor in discounted pricing into some of that. Still, they must have made some hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. If they can't make serious profits on >6 million units sold, they probably should get out of the video game business. Either that of the video game business is about to collapse in on itself because it literally can't afford to exist.

Their expectations were simply too high, especially after they fumbled Hitman [watered down] and got meh sales from Sleeping Dogs [good game, got lost in the crowd]. I shudder to think how much money they dropped into Versus XIII [announced in 2006, still not done] and FF14 [which received very pricey reboot/relaunch].

 

[Cjail]

The reality is that this provided accessibility to a tier that wouldn't have bought it, and they indirectly improved the sales by spreading great word of mouth. The London School of Economics had a study about this phenomenon (music and film piracy actually increase sales).

How did they determine that the increase sales are thanks to piracy?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I didn't do a scientific study on it, It's a number told to me by a Gamestop employee when I asked out of curiosity. Sometimes its less because the disc goes bad, but they expect to recycle games quite a number of times. It's good profit for them apparently. Given how vehemently people argue to retain the ability to resell their old games on a gamers forum like this I'd say I'm inclined to believe her number.

That may be how many times a disc passes through a GameStop store, but that's not the slightest bit representative of the industry with sales via online retailers etc. Just a simple observation of the gamers one knows shows this. If what you say is true, one would expect 9/10ths of the games in anyone's possession to be second hand. 3 years after a game has been released, some kid may be picking it up in GameStop for ten bucks only to return it a week later, but those sorts of customers were never going to buy the game full price anyway.

Those arguing adamantly on the forums are, as ever, the loud and vocal minority. It's never a good source to base one evaluations on.

It's a statement of fact how many units were sold, and on console we know it's $20+ per disc to the publisher. On Steam, we have 70% to the publisher apparently. For a sale on PC to make as much money ($20) as a sale on console, it'd have to sell for $28. What's the typical selling price on Steam? Especially when you mention Steam's famous sales. You really think 1 million copies of TR at $5 made SE more money than 5 million console sales at $20?? Or did only 1 million buy it on consoles and just shared the discs around, while PC sold 5 million copies? How does that relate to profit earnings reports from EA and Ubisoft et al that point to something like 20-25% revenues coming from PC?

 

[joker454]

That may be how many times a disc passes through a GameStop store, but that's not the slightest bit representative of the industry with sales via online retailers etc. Just a simple observation of the gamers one knows shows this. If what you say is true, one would expect 9/10ths of the games in anyone's possession to be second hand. 3 years after a game has been released, some kid may be picking it up in GameStop for ten bucks only to return it a week later, but those sorts of customers were never going to buy the game full price anyway.

You wouldn't expect 9/10ths of games on someones shelf to be used games because it's not a linear problem. Day one game buyers will have no used games on their shelves at all because they buy new on day one then sell quickly to go on to the next, whereas other gamers will literally have only used games on their shelf and not one new title there at all.

It's a statement of fact how many units were sold, and on console we know it's $20+ per disc to the publisher. On Steam, we have 70% to the publisher apparently. For a sale on PC to make as much money ($20) as a sale on console, it'd have to sell for $28. What's the typical selling price on Steam? Especially when you mention Steam's famous sales. You really think 1 million copies of TR at $5 made SE more money than 5 million console sales at $20?? Or did only 1 million buy it on consoles and just shared the discs around, while PC sold 5 million copies? How does that relate to profit earnings reports from EA and Ubisoft et al that point to something like 20-25% revenues coming from PC?

We don't have that data to make any determination, but one would have to assume they are doing well on Steam given how most all games are on that platform now. I don't think it's fair to compare 1 million Steam sales at $5 to console sales either because Steam appeals to all price points. New games are sold at full price (or discounted for pre-orders) and they too make it to the top sellers list, so presumably good money is being collected there as well for those that don't want to wait. That another million will get sold at $5, or on impulse buy sales is a bonus that the Steam platform brings to the publisher, and one made possible only on Steam because that price point doesn't exist on console anywhere other than the used market, which is zero revenue for the publisher. So the publisher gets the best of all worlds on Steam by being allowed to earn money on every possible price point and sale. It's unfortunate that we don't have sales data to do direct comparisons. But when games like Metal Gear, etc are starting to launch on Steam you have to ask yourself how financially profitable Steam must be for these publishers.

 

[MrFox]

You wouldn't expect 9/10ths of games on someones shelf to be used games because it's not a linear problem. Day one game buyers will have no used games on their shelves at all because they buy new on day one then sell quickly to go on to the next, whereas other gamers will literally have only used games on their shelf and not one new title there at all.

Heavy Rain producer said 2 million copies sold and 3 million players played it. This is a fact.
That includes other family members because it was counting the accounts, it's a typical game that's finished quickly, and doesn't have a lot of replay value.

 

[joker454]

Heavy Rain producer said 2 million copies sold and 3 million players played it. This is a fact.

...for one game. It doesn't reflect the gaming industry as a whole. Likewise it doesn't account for those that played the game with no online connection, for which no data could be tracked. Unless they have some magical way to determine if ps3's not connected to the internet have played the game then it's also possible that his data is way off.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It's a statement of fact how many units were sold, and on console we know it's $20+ per disc to the publisher. On Steam, we have 70% to the publisher apparently. For a sale on PC to make as much money ($20) as a sale on console, it'd have to sell for $28. What's the typical selling price on Steam? Especially when you mention Steam's famous sales. You really think 1 million copies of TR at $5 made SE more money than 5 million console sales at $20?? Or did only 1 million buy it on consoles and just shared the discs around, while PC sold 5 million copies? How does that relate to profit earnings reports from EA and Ubisoft et al that point to something like 20-25% revenues coming from PC?

Assuming the we go with the 20 USD figure. On a per unit basis that would roughly hold true.

But a 28 USD game is likely to sell in greater volumes than a 60 USD game. If we assume the same profit dollar value, the 28 USD game should be more profitable. Ah but what if the 60 USD game was only 30 USD. But then the DD game would only have to be ~14 USD. Again, 14 USD is likely to move more units.

Unfortunately, Steam and other DD marketplaces don't release numbers. So there's no real way to get a quantifiable number.

But it is interesting that for some publishers, despite DD revenue historically being significantly lower than Physical distribution revenue, the profits are fairly close.

What is interesting is that for some publishers the transformation from physical to digital is accelerating. FY 2014 marks the first fiscal year where Digital revenue surpassed Physical product revenue for Electronic Arts. Keep in mind this isn't just DD software, but includes DLC as well as mobile games. So we can't yet make a meaningful comparison between digital versus physical distribution or PC versus console.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You wouldn't expect 9/10ths of games on someones shelf to be used games because it's not a linear problem. Day one game buyers will have no used games on their shelves at all because they buy new on day one then sell quickly to go on to the next, whereas other gamers will literally have only used games on their shelf and not one new title there at all.

So 1/10th of console owners have 100% new discs and 9/10ths of console gamers have 100% 2nd hand discs...

Also, why do you reduce the value of a console sale based on it being shared, but not discount a PC sale on the fact that 9/10ths of PC games are pirated?

That another million will get sold at $5, or on impulse buy sales is a bonus that the Steam platform brings to the publisher, and one made possible only on Steam because that price point doesn't exist on console anywhere other than the used market

PSN Summer Sale. Xbox Live Sales

I don't know what the console owners cut is on their download stores, but there's no minimum price and publisher get to decide it based of what I've seen on the internet. If SE want to sell TR for $5 on consoles, they can.

But when games like Metal Gear, etc are starting to launch on Steam you have to ask yourself how financially profitable Steam must be for these publishers.

Revenue from PC accounted for 20-25% for the publishers who have broken down their revenues.

 

[MrFox]

...for one game. It doesn't reflect the gaming industry as a whole. Likewise it doesn't account for those that played the game with no online connection, for which no data could be tracked. Unless they have some magical way to determine if ps3's not connected to the internet have played the game then it's also possible that his data is way off.

78% of PS3 were connected online around the time of Heavy Rain release.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/119001/Study_PS3_Has_Highest_Percentage_Of_Connected_Consoles.php

The trophies are stored locally, and synced when the person connects, that's why they know how many people played the game, and that number is skewed upwards by the multiple family accounts, and downward by the not-connected-ever. It can only be off be a few percent either way.

 

[joker454]

78% of PS3 were connected online around the time of Heavy Rain release.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/119001/Study_PS3_Has_Highest_Percentage_Of_Connected_Consoles.php

Those are USA only stats, so it still doesn't tell us anything.

So 1/10th of console owners have 100% new discs and 9/10ths of console gamers have 100% 2nd hand discs...

Also, why do you reduce the value of a console sale based on it being shared, but not discount a PC sale on the fact that 9/10ths of PC games are pirated?

They both get compromised by piracy, especially when in the $60 range and especially on old console gen which is pirated to high hell now. PC is obviously more compromised than current gen but then again the buying pc audience is also larger than the current gen console audience. Arguments have also been made that there are more females that play on pc and they are more likely to buy than pirate compared to male players, so one can get links and articles to argue lots of possible cases. My ultimate point was that you don't limit your data of a Steam game to the $5 sale range because games on that platform sell at all price points, and they also have a far longer shelf life to keep earning revenue there.

PSN Summer Sale. Xbox Live Sales

I don't know what the console owners cut is on their download stores, but there's no minimum price and publisher get to decide it based of what I've seen on the internet. If SE want to sell TR for $5 on consoles, they can.

I know they can do sales on Live and PSN, but you know those sales don't compare to Steam. Maybe they can sell their games for $5 there but AAA games for $5 on Steam is relatively common, whereas it's relatively rare on console digital download stores. You guys know this, digital download pricing on console isn't that great.

Revenue from PC accounted for 20-25% for the publishers who have broken down their revenues.

That's pretty good considering it's competing currently against the 360/XB1, PS3/PS4, Wii U, phones, tablets and so on.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Revenue from PC accounted for 20-25% for the publishers who have broken down their revenues.

Even going by those numbers. A console title at 60 USD would net ~20 USD while a PC DD title at 60 USD would net ~42 USD (or in EA's case 60 USD when bought through Origin). Obviously still doesn't make up the discrepency, but revenue is not terribly useful when comparing consoles (mostly physical distribution) to PC (mostly digital distribution). And even less useful when trying to determine how many people have bought a title on PC versus console. That said, combined console software profit still likely produce more profit than the single PC platform.

And depending on the publisher the amount of revenue accounted for by PC DD varies, some being more and some being less.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This has suddenly gone very silly. No-one's providing any actual numbers to present an argument that's basically 'PC makes more money than consoles' which isn't really anything much to do with the topic.

Let's end this little distraction here. Joker's theory, "maybe Steam has helped to them profit?" can be confidently answered as, "Yes, sales on Steam would have contributed to the revenues and ultimately profit generated from Tomb Raider."

 

[Silent_Buddha]

This has suddenly gone very silly. No-one's providing any actual numbers to present an argument that's basically 'PC makes more money than consoles' which isn't really anything much to do with the topic.

Let's end this little distraction here. Joker's theory, "maybe Steam has helped to them profit?" can be confidently answered as, "Yes, sales on Steam would have contributed to the revenues and ultimately profit generated from Tomb Raider."

Last one then if you want some sort of proof.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...now-brings-in-more-money-than-console-gaming/

It's still analyst reports, however, but matches the trends in financial reports from the large publishers.

Regards,
SB

 

[MrFox]

Those are USA only stats, so it still doesn't tell us anything.

It's almost half the market. Europe would need to have something like a minus 500 percent broadband for you to arrive at 10x. (I'll give you Australia, it's normal that their percentages are inverted, they live upside down)

I didn't do a scientific study on it, It's a number told to me by a Gamestop employee when I asked out of curiosity. Sometimes its less because the disc goes bad, but they expect to recycle games quite a number of times. It's good profit for them apparently. Given how vehemently people argue to retain the ability to resell their old games on a gamers forum like this I'd say I'm inclined to believe her number.

If that's all you have, I think I'll go with Occam's Razor on this one.

 

[djskribbles]

http://tombraider.tumblr.com/post/95495143805/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-faq

Does the exclusive to Xbox have a duration? Is it timed? How long is the duration? Can we expect a PlayStation 4 or PC release in the future?

Yes, our deal with Microsoft has a duration. We aren’t discussing details of the deal, and are focused on delivering a great game on Xbox One and Xbox 360.

Why didn’t Microsoft, Square Enix or Crystal Dynamics say upfront it was a timed exclusive? Why all the indirect language?

We certainly didn’t intend to cause any confusion with the announcement. The Microsoft Gamescom stage was a great place to make the initial announcement, but not necessarily to go into details.

 

[BRiT]

I would be surprised it the duration is anywhere over 3 months.

 

[MrFox]

We certainly didn’t intend to cause any confusion with the announcement.

Of course, of course you didn't. No one ever means for these things to happen.

 

[DieH@rd]

I think Sony/PC versions will come out between February and May. Square will maybe want to place all release dates inside their FY, so before March 31.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's smart thinking. Unless, I suppose, they want the PS4 + PC sales to prop up the next FY? There must be a certain amount of lead time that they can't make that choice too late. However, if there's going to be specific result this year regardless of TR on PCS4, they may want to postpone it. eg. Let's say this year is going to be in the red, and predicted sales for PCS4 won't push them over. Maybe it'd be better to wait until the next FY to help get into the black?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Why didn’t Microsoft, Square Enix or Crystal Dynamics say upfront it was a timed exclusive? Why all the indirect language?
We certainly didn’t intend to cause any confusion with the announcement. The Microsoft Gamescom stage was a great place to make the initial announcement, but not necessarily to go into details.

Fantastic. They managed to make up a question for themselves about using indirect language and they answered it by not answering the question, using indirect language.

What the hell is wrong with these people?