how do you determine if a game is financially successful?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Now, obviously this is very relative to the budget of a game, but is there sort of a hard and fast rule in determining this? I was always under the impression that over 1 mil was good for most games, but you see capcom complaining about a "measly" 2.5 mil for DMC4 (old example, I know, but it always stuck with me). I mean, people often bring up sales figures, but what's the point when the "success" of a game seems to depend on a lot more than just the number of copies moved. Anybody have some insight on how to calculate this easily? Or must one do their homework every time? If that's the case, is there an easy place to find out things like a game's budget and other relevant info?

The only people who really know how well game sold are the publishers even though they could be lying. Other sales figures are usually extrapolated from a small data set and are unreliable. And game budgets are often not released.

So if a game company tells you how well something did you usually have to take their word on it.

Logically? Profit > 1.5 x Production

Realistically? Publishers have these market analysis guys who predict how well a title will sell once it hits shelves. If they project it to sell say, 2m copies in the first month and it does, the publisher considers it a success. Anything less than what is projected is treated as a failure. It is a retarded system that allows publishers to hide their real profits from the public. They don't really weigh it against the production cost unless it benefits them to do so. If a game costs 1m to make and is projected to sell 3m copies in the first month but sells 2m and pulls in $30m they would call it a failure. Then seize the opportunity to chastise piracy and used game sales while they count their money.

You pretty much have to do your homework every time, and coming from someone who does (or tries) everytime, it is HARD to find that info and very few sources are very credible. There is no good resource like Boxofficemojo.com for movies. There should be, but then publisher's wouldn't have the kind of market control they do now because consumers would know when they are being greedy. Considering they hide this, odds are high they are greedy often.

Fact check as best you can when a publisher acts poor from a title. One key thing to remember is that the average AAA game costs ~$20-30m. Publishers (who pay for the production) get ~60% of retail sales. So $60 x 1m copies = $36m to publishers. 2m copies sold, will cover the cost of 90% of games being produced today and break into profit.

That sales are continuing at a high level 3-4 months after launch

e.g Minecraft

Savagezion:
Logically? Profit > 1.5 x Production

Realistically? Publishers have these market analysis guys who predict how well a title will sell once it hits shelves. If they project it to sell say, 2m copies in the first month and it does, the publisher considers it a success. Anything less than what is projected is treated as a failure. It is a retarded system that allows publishers to hide their real profits from the public. They don't really weigh it against the production cost unless it benefits them to do so. If a game costs 1m to make and is projected to sell 3m copies in the first month but sells 2m and pulls in $30m they would call it a failure. Then seize the opportunity to chastise piracy and used game sales while they count their money.

You pretty much have to do your homework every time, and coming from someone who does (or tries) everytime, it is HARD to find that info and very few sources are very credible. There is no good resource like Boxofficemojo.com for movies. There should be, but then publisher's wouldn't have the kind of market control they do now because consumers would know when they are being greedy. Considering they hide this, odds are high they are greedy often.

Fact check as best you can when a publisher acts poor from a title. One key thing to remember is that the average AAA game costs ~$20-30m. Publishers (who pay for the production) get ~60% of retail sales. So $60 x 1m copies = $36m to publishers. 2m copies sold, will cover the cost of 90% of games being produced today and break into profit.

Good info and good to know. The market analysis BS comes as little shock, given, from my own experience, things work very similarly in the retail and business world in terms of relating actual profit margins to projected sales and company goals. It's generally an excuse for cooperate scumbags to layer their wallets and sink excessive funds (large portions of which likely go back into their own pockets) into hair-brained schemes while punishing middle management for not meeting entirely unrealistic sales goals (often egregiously inflated from the previous year's numbers). Best part is when they restructure or have layoffs due to "poor profits" (which can often be attributed the failure of the very stupid ideas they green-lit), all while laying the blame on the aforementioned middle management that they're currently screwing over in the restructuring, which once again proves lucrative to their own personal finances (hey look, profits are back up, let's all buy jets). Sorry for that little treatise, but yeah, I know where you're coming from. Too bad there's not an easier way to figure out a game's profitability.

flames09:
That sales are continuing at a high level 3-4 months after launch

e.g Minecraft

A game's "legs" as it were, isn't necessarily a determinant factor in how financially successful a game will be. Some games (like most of the FF series) will see a sharp drop off after the initial launch week, but the numbers during that time are usually very high and will potentially make or break the game as a whole. You see that more with sequels and series with dedicated a fanbase.

Ah, well... That is to say... Strictly speaking...I don't.

Financial doings of a game are not what I look for in the entertainment industry. My question is "Will I enjoy it?". And if the answer's no, then no sale. How is it that gamers now take into account the effect of longterm economics in the gaming world?

FalloutJack:
How is it that gamers now take into account the effect of longterm economics in the gaming world?

Stupid arguments about how used games are "killing the industry" made too many times by publishers. A little fact checking and you find out that it's all a ruse where they take 1 small case and blow it up into ridiculous proportions. Most games turn a profit, even the crappy ones. (Hence, all the shovelware today.) If shovelware didn't make money, people would stop producing it - it's only logical.

Publishers are outright lying to the public these days about how much money they are making. Claiming losses on profit and such. They are learning from Hollywood who claims Forrest Gump didn't make any money, it actually took a loss so they didn't have to play royalties to the creator. It is actually the reason there is no sequel. (Not that I want one.) A movie that made $670m didn't turn profit according to Paramount.

Savagezion:

FalloutJack:
How is it that gamers now take into account the effect of longterm economics in the gaming world?

Stupid arguments about how used games are "killing the industry" made too many times by publishers. A little fact checking and you find out that it's all a ruse where they take 1 small case and blow it up into ridiculous proportions. Most games turn a profit, even the crappy ones. (Hence, all the shovelware today.) If shovelware didn't make money, people would stop producing it - it's only logical.

Publishers are outright lying to the public these days about how much money they are making. Claiming losses on profit and such. They are learning from Hollywood who claims Forrest Gump didn't make any money, it actually took a loss so they didn't have to play royalties to the creator. It is actually the reason there is no sequel. (Not that I want one.) A movie that made $670m didn't turn profit according to Paramount.

Let's leave the discussion of shit business practices for another time. It's a bit off topic.

So, in short, you're saying that this is a case of wanting to look clever and being guilty of Did Not Do The Research and still yet the Unpleasable Fanbase goes on despite the fact that they don't actually KNOW anything.

FalloutJack:
Ah, well... That is to say... Strictly speaking...I don't.

Financial doings of a game are not what I look for in the entertainment industry. My question is "Will I enjoy it?". And if the answer's no, then no sale. How is it that gamers now take into account the effect of longterm economics in the gaming world?

"How" is it? Well, for the average gaming, in terms of "taking into account the effects long term economics", it wouldn't be that hard if you could get some reliable budget and sales figures to work from (along with the companies total current worth, misc. expenditures, etc.). Weighing that against trends in the industry and myriad other economic and social factors ranging from within the company to international (both past and present) could give us the ability to form decent projections. Currently, it would seem, gamers don't because we're presented with limited information that severely hinders our ability to properly speculate and it would appear there's no easy method of calculation I'm overlooking(reinforcing my initial notion that a lot of people are talking out their ass when attempting to speak about the financial intricacies of less publicized games). Also, we're not all business or finance majors so that throws in another monkey wrench. Obviously some still do, but I imagine whatever most are currently projecting is based on general observation, media outlets and grapevine chatter within the industry (plus whatever information we are privy to).

If you're asking "why" the average gamer would do this, well, it's interesting and it's enjoyable to have some idea where some of my favorite companies are going financially. It's also helpful in certain discussions. Why didn't X get a sequel? Where do you predict X will be going with their development? Why is X having layoffs? etc.

Also, buying stock (though I personally wouldn't really mess with that in regards to the gaming industry).

Honestly, your question is phrased a bit oddly so I'm not entirely sure what you were asking.

axlryder:
Now, obviously this is very relative to the budget of a game, but is there sort of a hard and fast rule in determining this? I was always under the impression that over 1 mil was good for most games, but you see capcom complaining about a "measly" 2.5 mil for DMC4 (old example, I know, but it always stuck with me). I mean, people often bring up sales figures, but what's the point when the "success" of a game seems to depend on a lot more than just the number of copies moved. Anybody have some insight on how to calculate this easily? Or must one do their homework every time? If that's the case, is there an easy place to find out things like a game's budget and other relevant info?

You mean something like this but for video games?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5341-Broken-Biz

Especially the part where only the first week counts

Also keep in mind that the video game industry is not as mainstream as you will like to believe. For example lets say that a movie showing in the theater cost 5$ dollars to see it and 500.000 people see it, that would be 2.500.000 dollars just as the measly 2.5 of DMC4, right?

So lets suppose that DMC4 cost 60$ per copy when it came out, and since 2.500.000 its apparently a "measly" number we could figure out how many people actually bought the game: 41.666 (rounded up). The failure (i assume) is that since they switched up the main character of Dante to a new guy named Nero they thought it will appeal to a new audience by starting from zero with a new character without worrying about continuity of the other characters (sort off like the Marvel Comics approach when doing the Ultimate universe but i am just guessing)

DioWallachia:

axlryder:
Now, obviously this is very relative to the budget of a game, but is there sort of a hard and fast rule in determining this? I was always under the impression that over 1 mil was good for most games, but you see capcom complaining about a "measly" 2.5 mil for DMC4 (old example, I know, but it always stuck with me). I mean, people often bring up sales figures, but what's the point when the "success" of a game seems to depend on a lot more than just the number of copies moved. Anybody have some insight on how to calculate this easily? Or must one do their homework every time? If that's the case, is there an easy place to find out things like a game's budget and other relevant info?

You mean something like this but for video games?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5341-Broken-Biz

Especially the part where only the first week counts

Also keep in mind that the video game industry is not as mainstream as you will like to believe. For example lets say that a movie showing in the theater cost 5$ dollars to see it and 500.000 people see it, that would be 2.500.000 dollars just as the measly 2.5 of DMC4, right?

So lets suppose that DMC4 cost 60$ per copy when it came out, and since 2.500.000 its apparently a "measly" number we could figure out how many people actually bought the game: 41.666 (rounded up). The failure (i assume) is that since they switched up the main character of Dante to a new guy named Nero they thought it will appeal to a new audience by starting from zero with a new character without worrying about continuity of the other characters (sort off like the Marvel Comics approach when doing the Ultimate universe but i am just guessing)

That's (now) 2.68 million copies sold, not dollars made. We're looking at about 100-150 million dollars in terms of total sales (accounting for price drop). This is why I put measly in scare quotes. I'm sure they enjoyed a significant profit when all was said and done even if the game was expensive to produce. I suppose I should have specified, it's just that most people talk about the number of copies sold with games, not so much dollars made. I think you might be underestimating how mainstream games are now.

axlryder:
-Heh, nice last-minute edit you got there.-

Oh, I phrased that one that way for a particular reason. The other guy got it. The question sounds odd, but when you realize that it's short-form for "How did this happen?", you begin to understand that it's a question of joining the dots that went from people not caring to people largely obsessed. What is the reason for it, the progression? I am satisfied with the other guy's answer in that it makes sense. People on the internet behave this way.

I'm afraid I find the 'why' that you gave to be a little weak. Trivia is interesting, but it's just trivia. And sucky games have gotten sequels while good games have not. Many people want to know why some games DID get sequels even more, and the discussions aren't always about finances.

FalloutJack:

axlryder:
-Heh, nice last-minute edit you got there.-

Oh, I phrased that one that way for a particular reason. The other guy got it. The question sounds odd, but when you realize that it's short-form for "How did this happen?", you begin to understand that it's a question of joining the dots that went from people not caring to people largely obsessed. What is the reason for it, the progression? I am satisfied with the other guy's answer in that it makes sense. People on the internet behave this way.

I'm afraid I find the 'why' that you gave to be a little weak. Trivia is interesting, but it's just trivia. And sucky games have gotten sequels while good games have not. Many people want to know why some games DID get sequels even more, and the discussions aren't always about finances.

I see where you were going with that now. It just sounded awkward in my head (but my head is also full of sinus pressure so I'm sure that's a factor.

I'm afraid you're woefully underestimating how interested some people are in these sorts of things purely because they're interested. I follow box office numbers and, as opposed to actually watching the films, I find it eminently more enjoyable to see how some movies did well and weighing that against other potential factors that influenced that movies profits, etc. There's an entire subculture dedicated to it, really. It's not just trivia. Also, again, there's a legitimate financial aspect to it for the parties interested in investing and such. Also, there's undoubtedly politics involved and such, but finances are one significant factor. I'd say far and away the biggest factor in terms of green-lighting a sequel.

axlryder:

FalloutJack:

axlryder:
-Heh, nice last-minute edit you got there.-

Oh, I phrased that one that way for a particular reason. The other guy got it. The question sounds odd, but when you realize that it's short-form for "How did this happen?", you begin to understand that it's a question of joining the dots that went from people not caring to people largely obsessed. What is the reason for it, the progression? I am satisfied with the other guy's answer in that it makes sense. People on the internet behave this way.

I'm afraid I find the 'why' that you gave to be a little weak. Trivia is interesting, but it's just trivia. And sucky games have gotten sequels while good games have not. Many people want to know why some games DID get sequels even more, and the discussions aren't always about finances.

I'm afraid you're woefully underestimating how interested some people are in these sorts of things purely because they're interested. I follow box office numbers and find it eminently enjoyable to see how some movies did well and weighing that against other potential factors that influenced that movies profits, etc. There's an entire subculture dedicated to it, really. It's not just trivia. Also, again, there's a legitimate financial aspect to it.

That may be your belief and you're welcome to it, but what you have said to me doesn't reinforce your opinion to me, but rather it seems to confer to me about mine. You understand, not all messages have their intended effect. Lewis Carol supposedly wished to deconstruct literature and was also supposedly fuming that the work done was well-received as a story for entertainment.

FalloutJack:

axlryder:

FalloutJack:

Oh, I phrased that one that way for a particular reason. The other guy got it. The question sounds odd, but when you realize that it's short-form for "How did this happen?", you begin to understand that it's a question of joining the dots that went from people not caring to people largely obsessed. What is the reason for it, the progression? I am satisfied with the other guy's answer in that it makes sense. People on the internet behave this way.

I'm afraid I find the 'why' that you gave to be a little weak. Trivia is interesting, but it's just trivia. And sucky games have gotten sequels while good games have not. Many people want to know why some games DID get sequels even more, and the discussions aren't always about finances.

I'm afraid you're woefully underestimating how interested some people are in these sorts of things purely because they're interested. I follow box office numbers and find it eminently enjoyable to see how some movies did well and weighing that against other potential factors that influenced that movies profits, etc. There's an entire subculture dedicated to it, really. It's not just trivia. Also, again, there's a legitimate financial aspect to it.

That may be your belief and you're welcome to it, but what you have said to me doesn't reinforce your opinion to me, but rather it seems to confer to me about mine. You understand, not all messages have their intended effect. Lewis Carol supposedly wished to deconstruct literature and was supposedly fuming that the work done was well-received as a story for entertainment.

You can feel it confers whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. You presume that there's whining involved (based on your response to the other chap) when I've yet to complain about used game sales and various other topical "ails of the industry" (my lack of shock at the potentially corrupt practices is merely based in previous experience), nor do I wish to impress others with my vast, fabricated knowledge. I'm merely interested and wish to add some credibility to my own speculations and the conversations I have with others. My friend is an industrial engineer and specializes in probabilities. I swear he practically gets off on this stuff just for the sake of it. Really, you're just coming off as presumptuous if you're inferring that people can't simply enjoy this stuff for enjoyments sake. Though, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that do fit the bill you mentioned earlier, but that doesn't encompass the community as a whole. If you're just speaking about the trivia aspect, information is a valuable thing, which is why I personally wouldn't be so quick to relegate financial information to trivia, though I'd agree I was hasty in saying it shouldn't be classified as such (just not necessarily so). If you wish to call it that, I'm really pretty indifferent.

axlryder:

FalloutJack:

axlryder:

I'm afraid you're woefully underestimating how interested some people are in these sorts of things purely because they're interested. I follow box office numbers and find it eminently enjoyable to see how some movies did well and weighing that against other potential factors that influenced that movies profits, etc. There's an entire subculture dedicated to it, really. It's not just trivia. Also, again, there's a legitimate financial aspect to it.

That may be your belief and you're welcome to it, but what you have said to me doesn't reinforce your opinion to me, but rather it seems to confer to me about mine. You understand, not all messages have their intended effect. Lewis Carol supposedly wished to deconstruct literature and was supposedly fuming that the work done was well-received as a story for entertainment.

You can feel it confers whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. You presume that there's whining involved (based on your response to the other chap) when I've yet to complain about used game sales and various other ails of the industry (my lack of shock at the potentially corrupt practices is merely based in previous experience), nor do I wish to impress others with my vast, fabricated knowledge. I'm merely interested and wish to add some credibility to my own speculations and the conversations I have with others. Really, you're just coming off as presumptuous if that's what you're referring to. Though, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that do fit the bill you mentioned earlier, but that doesn't encompass the community as a whole. If you're just speaking about the trivia aspect, information is a valuable thing, which is why I wouldn't be so quick to relegate financial information to trivia, though I'd agree I was hasty in saying it shouldn't be classified as such (just not necessarily so). If you wish to call it that, I'm really indifferent.

I do believe I've met the prodigal anti-cynic. Welcome to the Escapist. I hope it doesn't hurt that much.

FalloutJack:

axlryder:

FalloutJack:

That may be your belief and you're welcome to it, but what you have said to me doesn't reinforce your opinion to me, but rather it seems to confer to me about mine. You understand, not all messages have their intended effect. Lewis Carol supposedly wished to deconstruct literature and was supposedly fuming that the work done was well-received as a story for entertainment.

You can feel it confers whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. You presume that there's whining involved (based on your response to the other chap) when I've yet to complain about used game sales and various other ails of the industry (my lack of shock at the potentially corrupt practices is merely based in previous experience), nor do I wish to impress others with my vast, fabricated knowledge. I'm merely interested and wish to add some credibility to my own speculations and the conversations I have with others. Really, you're just coming off as presumptuous if that's what you're referring to. Though, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that do fit the bill you mentioned earlier, but that doesn't encompass the community as a whole. If you're just speaking about the trivia aspect, information is a valuable thing, which is why I wouldn't be so quick to relegate financial information to trivia, though I'd agree I was hasty in saying it shouldn't be classified as such (just not necessarily so). If you wish to call it that, I'm really indifferent.

I do believe I've met the prodigal anti-cynic. Welcome to the Escapist. I hope it doesn't hurt that much.

Oh-ho-ho, I'm sure upon delving into the belly of this beast, my tragically optimistic perceptions will be shattered like a mirror against the cold, unforgiving ground.

FalloutJack:

Savagezion:

FalloutJack:
How is it that gamers now take into account the effect of longterm economics in the gaming world?

Stupid arguments about how used games are "killing the industry" made too many times by publishers. A little fact checking and you find out that it's all a ruse where they take 1 small case and blow it up into ridiculous proportions. Most games turn a profit, even the crappy ones. (Hence, all the shovelware today.) If shovelware didn't make money, people would stop producing it - it's only logical.

Publishers are outright lying to the public these days about how much money they are making. Claiming losses on profit and such. They are learning from Hollywood who claims Forrest Gump didn't make any money, it actually took a loss so they didn't have to play royalties to the creator. It is actually the reason there is no sequel. (Not that I want one.) A movie that made $670m didn't turn profit according to Paramount.

Let's leave the discussion of shit business practices for another time. It's a bit off topic.

So, in short, you're saying that this is a case of wanting to look clever and being guilty of Did Not Do The Research and still yet the Unpleasable Fanbase goes on despite the fact that they don't actually KNOW anything.

No, that's just wrong and has a bit of hypocrisy in it. My research isn't discredited because YOU didn't do my research or your research. Fact check me. If you have some sort of knowledge about the stuff behind the veil by all means put it out there.
You also completely sidestepped one of my points, that the research is barely even out there for consumers to do. It is mostly cross referencing multiple articles and adding up facts that are out there. Articles with direct information from the source and from industry sources is where I got this information. I have 1 article about the breakdown of a retail copy that says that ~60% of money from a sale goes to the publisher. That information is available to the public and is what the entire article was about. It was a full breakdown of how the money of a title is distributed to show that developers see a very small (if any) fraction of it. Another interview that claims that the average AAA game costs between $20-30m. Then, because I know math, I could put 2 and 2 together. I even stated that it takes 2m sales to pretty much guarantee profit, which is $72m. Why would I not claim 1m sales ($36m) is enough then?** It lines up with market consistencies too. Just pay attention and you'll see a game that sells over 2m copies is usually warranted a sequel. (Even if they claim the first one did poorly in sales.)

This is how I have done my research because that is all we have and it doesn't take a genius to grasp that it is for market control considering all the people out there like yourself who will blindly stand in the corner of publishers and lash out at fellow gamers because YOU didn't do YOUR research. You are ready to just back the industry PR guys over taking an active interest and dismiss any claims they are lying. As I said, market control.

I haven't went into the small details because at that point my best guess may be wrong on some things, plus that was a bit off topic. I was purposefully keeping my post to the basics as a jumping off point for any other gamers interested having somewhere to start. It only gets more cloudy from here.

**Answer: Because that is an average.

Question - did it make more money than it cost to create?

/thread

NPV analysis will tell you if it's a success or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

The heading: NPV in decision making is worth reading.

In basic terms: sum up all the cash flows (in and out), determine if it's greater than the industry/investor expectation. If it is, you win, if not, it is not a financial success.

Very basic example.

Your game cost $100,000,000 in today's terms of money to build and market. It returned $107,000,000 in present day's money. If the investor expectation is >7%, then this was a financial failure. It's important to note that the monies need to be converted to a fixed date else the maths doesn't work, and that means that your investment costs of making / marketting the game are going to be more valuable dollar for dollar than your profits dollar for dollar. Essentially money now is worth more than money later due to inflation & opportunity cost of holding the money.

Currently doing a double major in Finance & Economics.

Zen Toombs:
Question - did it make more money than it cost to create?

/thread

Not correct. See my post above.

For a more articulate answer (I feel I should edit this to include it), consider this. Investors have a certain expectation on return of the money. If one company makes 4% profit (so it is profitable in this sense) but the industry standard is 7%, then it is simply going to lose investors and capital and may not be financially successful.

The answer of "does it make money" is also simply displayed as incorrect when you consider two bank accounts. One pays 4%, the other pays 7%. It is clear the 4% is inferior, and there are great ramifications if your investors leave you for greener pastures.

Halo Fanboy:
The only people who really know how well game sold are the publishers even though they could be lying. Other sales figures are usually extrapolated from a small data set and are unreliable. And game budgets are often not released.

So if a game company tells you how well something did you usually have to take their word on it.

Unfortunate but true. Since developments are not static, we have no idea what the break-even point is. Since sales figures aren't made public, we can at best guess how a game sold based on limited estimates.

And let's not forget promotion. Some of these games see serious money pumped into making sure everyone wants them.

When the sequel is announced.

DVS BSTrD:
When the sequel is announced.

Kane and Lynch was successful?

Indecipherable:

Zen Toombs:
Question - did it make more money than it cost to create?

/thread

Not correct. See my post above.
[snip]
The answer of "does it make money" is also simply displayed as incorrect when you consider two bank accounts. One pays 4%, the other pays 7%. It is clear the 4% is inferior.

I was making an extremely simplified point, and I was also providing my opinion. [insert sarcastic statement here, likely involving your mother]

Besides, while the 4% account isn't as good as the 7% account, it's still money.[1] The question at hand is "how do you determine if a game is financially successful", and in my opinion anything is successful if it makes more money than it cost.[2]

Yes, it could be better. But you always could have made more money. However, that does not invalidate the money that you *have* made.

[1] You can buy things with it and stuff!
[2] Fun fact - you can include expected returns in "cost" as well, if you do an odd interpretation of it.

Zen Toombs:

Indecipherable:

Zen Toombs:
Question - did it make more money than it cost to create?

/thread

Not correct. See my post above.
[snip]
The answer of "does it make money" is also simply displayed as incorrect when you consider two bank accounts. One pays 4%, the other pays 7%. It is clear the 4% is inferior.

I was making an extremely simplified point, and I was also providing my opinion. [insert sarcastic statement here, likely involving your mother]

Besides, while the 4% account isn't as good as the 7% account, it's still money.[1] The question at hand is "how do you determine if a game is financially successful", and in my opinion anything is successful if it makes more money than it cost.[2]

Yes, it could be better. But you always could have made more money. However, that does not invalidate the money that you *have* made.

I would consider you losing your job because you no longer have investors to be a pretty good sign you are not financially successful. I'd argue further, but frankly internet arguing is quite pointless, especially when I've studied this for 3 years so far and have provided a link with both the maths and the explanation why. I'll leave you to it.

[1] You can buy things with it and stuff!
[2] Fun fact - you can include expected returns in "cost" as well, if you do an odd interpretation of it.

FalloutJack:
Ah, well... That is to say... Strictly speaking...I don't.

Financial doings of a game are not what I look for in the entertainment industry. My question is "Will I enjoy it?". And if the answer's no, then no sale. How is it that gamers now take into account the effect of longterm economics in the gaming world?

I guess for the same reason that I like to find out which films were financially successful. I'm just interested. Trends in popular culture of all kinds are interesting. For one thing, they give hints about what is likely to attract investment in the future. If shooters are earning a lot of money, then there's a greater chance of more shooters being published, etc.

Zachary Amaranth:

DVS BSTrD:
When the sequel is announced.

Kane and Lynch was successful?

Successful at getting a sequel.

Profit. That's the only way to judge any venture successful from a financial standpoint.

Everybody gets paid. Anything after that is just gravy on top.
You don't need to be huge to be successful.

use this
http://www.vgchartz.com/

this can help you

Indecipherable:
I would consider you losing your job because you no longer have investors to be a pretty good sign you are not financially successful. I'd argue further, but frankly internet arguing is quite pointless, especially when I've studied this for 3 years so far and have provided a link with both the maths and the explanation why. I'll leave you to it.

Lookit, I understand the maths and where you're coming from. All I was trying to do was tell my opinion and say something pithy and mildly amusing.

Once again, the question is "how do YOU", not "how does the industry". I think something was profitable if you make back the money it cost to make the game (including paying people for their time, and could easily include paying back investors) and get a little something extra.

And while I wish you hadn't framed your post as a "YOUR OPINION IS WRONG" response, I do appreciate the information on how the industry works.

Savagezion:

FalloutJack:

Savagezion:

Stupid arguments about how used games are "killing the industry" made too many times by publishers. A little fact checking and you find out that it's all a ruse where they take 1 small case and blow it up into ridiculous proportions. Most games turn a profit, even the crappy ones. (Hence, all the shovelware today.) If shovelware didn't make money, people would stop producing it - it's only logical.

Publishers are outright lying to the public these days about how much money they are making. Claiming losses on profit and such. They are learning from Hollywood who claims Forrest Gump didn't make any money, it actually took a loss so they didn't have to play royalties to the creator. It is actually the reason there is no sequel. (Not that I want one.) A movie that made $670m didn't turn profit according to Paramount.

Let's leave the discussion of shit business practices for another time. It's a bit off topic.

So, in short, you're saying that this is a case of wanting to look clever and being guilty of Did Not Do The Research and still yet the Unpleasable Fanbase goes on despite the fact that they don't actually KNOW anything.

No, that's just wrong and has a bit of hypocrisy in it. My research isn't discredited because YOU didn't do my research or your research. Fact check me. If you have some sort of knowledge about the stuff behind the veil by all means put it out there.
You also completely sidestepped one of my points, that the research is barely even out there for consumers to do. It is mostly cross referencing multiple articles and adding up facts that are out there. Articles with direct information from the source and from industry sources is where I got this information. I have 1 article about the breakdown of a retail copy that says that ~60% of money from a sale goes to the publisher. That information is available to the public and is what the entire article was about. It was a full breakdown of how the money of a title is distributed to show that developers see a very small (if any) fraction of it. Another interview that claims that the average AAA game costs between $20-30m. Then, because I know math, I could put 2 and 2 together. I even stated that it takes 2m sales to pretty much guarantee profit, which is $72m. Why would I not claim 1m sales ($36m) is enough then?** It lines up with market consistencies too. Just pay attention and you'll see a game that sells over 2m copies is usually warranted a sequel. (Even if they claim the first one did poorly in sales.)

This is how I have done my research because that is all we have and it doesn't take a genius to grasp that it is for market control considering all the people out there like yourself who will blindly stand in the corner of publishers and lash out at fellow gamers because YOU didn't do YOUR research. You are ready to just back the industry PR guys over taking an active interest and dismiss any claims they are lying. As I said, market control.

I haven't went into the small details because at that point my best guess may be wrong on some things, plus that was a bit off topic. I was purposefully keeping my post to the basics as a jumping off point for any other gamers interested having somewhere to start. It only gets more cloudy from here.

**Answer: Because that is an average.

I don't think he was disagreeing with you about your assessment of the industry, I believe he was referring to the average gamer. That is to say, they persistently bandwagon based on whatever little information they're fed in order to appear knowledgeable about the economic status of their industry without actually taking the time to fact check and understand the reality of things. Thus their interest is mostly superficial.

Though, I could be wrong, it seems his writing style is intentionally obfuscatory.

By how many yachts furnished with 'caine and hoes the shareholders got to buy.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked