Support NeoGAF

[FateBreaker]

Exceptionally poorly. Regardless of the absolute numbers, the game has been price-dropped either by SE or just across the board by retailers to $39.99. This represents a game that is not moving anywhere near the sort of stock they were hoping it would move.

Exceptionally poorly is all subjective. You may be right, but I just want numbers. Gimme numbers.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I have a question, if ToS2 "bombs" on Wii (sells like 30k or something) would it be considered to fall in line with the other Tales games and therefore expected, or because it was a sequel to a 400k-ish game would it considered a huge failure?

Nintendo fanboys will go the first route, MS/Sony fanboys will go the second route.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I have a question, if ToS2 "bombs" on Wii (sells like 30k or something) would it be considered to fall in line with the other Tales games and therefore expected, or because it was a sequel to a 400k-ish game would it considered a huge failure?

I'm not really equipped to give an authoritative answer on that one. It strikes me that either of the two explanations are worth exploring. Tales is a series that does awful here. ToS is a game that did exceptionally well here. Did ToS do well because of the particulars of ToS, or the situation on the GameCube, or some other reason? If ToS Wii bombs, will it be because it's not a good game, because of Wii owners, or some other reason?

I think it's fairly obvious at this point that ToS Wii is not going to do 450k. I don't see any way that could happen. Whether it does 200k or craters like Opoona did remains to be seen.

 

[charlequin]

The fact it will eventually outsell the PS2 Tales of in the States doesn't make it any less bomba. A bomba + a bunch more copies sold = still a bomba.

This is not reasonable analysis. The obsession with the "bomba"/success dichotomy, and setting arbitrary sales figures to divide the one from the other, leads to all kinds of unreasonable conclusions about the data we do receive.

There are several different factors in play with Vesperia, each of which is worth looking at in a slightly different light:

• Was developing this game for 360 a sensible decision for Tales Studio in Japan? Probably not. The platform choice drastically hurt the series' sales level in Japan; it did not, on its own, create enough sales in the west to even hit their lowered WW expectations. It's probably fair to assume that being on 360 hurt the game's sales in Japan quite a bit (though it's not like there was necessarily a much better platform available.)
• Once that decision was already made, was it worthwhile to bring the game out in the US? Almost unquestionably, yes. The game improved the series' sales and definitely improved its overall visibility; the Western releases will add 150-200k of total sales to the game, more total than the original Japanese release, which while it won't get the game to its worldwide goal will certainly help offset the overall development cost.
• Is Namco's sudden willingness to actually localize its games, rather than skimp on VA or cut content, paying off? It certainly seems like this is a possibility. Vesperia is the most full-featured package Namco has yet released; the higher production values could certainly have helped improve the game's US sales.

Calling the game a "bomba" and leaving at that suggests conclusions like "this shouldn't have come out in the US" or "Namco is stupid for giving this game a full localization" or even "future Tales games shouldn't get US releases because they'll do just as badly," none of which are reasonable conclusions to draw from this data.

I have a question, if ToS2 "bombs" on Wii (sells like 30k or something) would it be considered to fall in line with the other Tales games and therefore expected, or because it was a sequel to a 400k-ish game would it considered a huge failure?

I think Symphonia largely succeeded in building its own unique brand (the "Symphonia" brand) out of the group of Nintendo fans, rather than establishing "Tales of" as a series. Since DotNW draws on this more successful brand and appears on the followup system to GCN (where the first Symphonia succeeded) I would indeed hold dramatically higher expectations for this game (but not expect its higher sales to necessarily carry over to other Tales games.)

 

[HK-47]

Looks like someone likes calling names, and I didn't even need to dig much.
Congrats, sir. Way to respect the people you're speaking to.

:lol

Mods taking out the trash

 

[Stumpokapow]

Exceptionally poorly is all subjective. You may be right, but I just want numbers. Gimme numbers.

Well it's not subjective when you see a game drop to $39 at multiple retailers around a month after release

In general, the top ten for a given console has tended to bottom out anywhere from 20k-80k. I have no numbers for this month that are not posted in this thread. In general, number 20 on the overall list suggests anywhere from 80k to 130k.

So, you know BiA: HH is around 80-130k as well as being number 6 on the 360 list. I'd guess IU around 50-60k, but it's going to depend on the relative monthly strength of the top 20 and the 360 top 10. If anyone wants to wink-nudge confirm or wink-nudge deny this I won't complain about it.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

*Snip*

Well put. One of the biggest benefits to MS' garnering a significant amount of Japanese support this gen is that it's almost never a question of IF a game will get a localization, or even if it will land in the same year.

MS and their partnerships have made the NA and PAL communities a priority for Japanese developers, and I can't fault them for that.

Will the Tales series perform better on Wii? Undoubtedly. Namco, at the very least, is banking on that, since the next true game in the series is a Wii exclusive. This doesn't mean that Vesperia shouldn't have existed, or that it wasn't an important release for the 360 in Japan.

 

[Steiner_Zi]

Guys, you haven't considered that it's not just the franchise or the brand that matters for a game to sell but the quality as well. Since Symphonia's success, Namco has overcrowded the market with 'Tales of' titles and along with the declining JPRG genre, one doesn't need to wonder why their latest Tales games fail to sell. So, it's not necessarily 360's fault or Wii's fault, maybe it's just because the games suck, or simply do not offer anything fresh.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Guys, you haven't considered that it's not just the franchise or the brand that matters for a game to sell but the quality as well. Since Symphonia's success, Namco has overcrowded the market with 'Tales of' titles and along with the declining JPRG genre, one doesn't need to wonder why their latest Tales games fail to sell. So, it's not necessarily 360's fault or Wii's fault, maybe it's just because the games suck, or simply do not offer anything fresh.

They've definitely released a lot across many systems in Japan in the last few years, but internationally things are a lot less crowded. No PS2 Destiny, no DS Tempest or Innocence, few of the PSP ports.

 

[szaromir]

What's with some people shouting that a game bombed because of a console's audience? It's like there ever was a magical console where all criticially acclaimed but barely advertised games were huge commercial successes.

I wouldn't worry about Scamco all that much - after all, they were moneyhatted to make TOV on 360 only. In future though they should definitely make day and day multiplatform PS360 games like they did with SC4, that's twice the userbase then going for a single HD console only - more potential, less risk.

I see there's a lot of praise for Vesperia. I might buy it when/if it comes to Europe.

 

[farnham]

What's with some people shouting that a game bombed because of a console's audience? It's like there ever was a magical console where all criticially acclaimed but barely advertised games were huge commercial successes.

I wouldn't worry about Scamco all that much - after all, they were moneyhatted to make TOV on 360 only. In future though they should definitely make day and day multiplatform PS360 games like they did with SC4, that's twice the userbase then going for a single HD console only - more potential, less risk.

I see there's a lot of praise for Vesperia. I might buy it when/if it comes to Europe.

Scamco prefers moneyhats over the userbase

I mean look at SC II.. it sold millions on the GC and SC III was exclusive on the PS2 (it probably sold less then SC II because of that)

 

[jvm]

You write the Edge Online NPD article right? In January, Vesperia LTD to put this argument to rest please. If it hits 100k, I think we can safely call it a success.

Yeah, just PM me on NPD Thursday of that month, and I'll consider adding it to my list of requests.

 

[szaromir]

Scamco prefers moneyhats over the userbase

I mean look at SC II.. it sold millions on the GC and SC III was exclusive on the PS2 (it probably sold less then SC II because of that)

I think Namco will re-evaluate their strategy, if only because everyone else already is multiplatform. Heck, perhaps they already have gone completely that route as well, with Tekken coming to both PS3 and 360. I don't know about if they have announce any other games for HD console(s).

Yeah, just PM me on NPD Thursday of that month, and I'll consider adding it to my list of requests.

Thos beggin of numbers of individual games reminds me of time when bunkum was posting basically complete lists with revenues of each title on the market, even if it was 2 years old and sold like 5k copies that month.

 

[jvm]

Posted my article about the figures. Made a thread here.

Comments welcome, as always. Thanks, guys.

 

[poppabk]

Nintendo Wii
If they budget for two games at $1,000,000 in costs each for a total outlay of $2,000,000, they receive 2 x$1,142,857 = $2,285,714 in profit

Xbox 360
If they budget for $2,000,000 in costs, they receive $2,628,571 in profit.

Edited for clarity
So the 360 still wins, but the margin is not that big and by making two games on the Wii you have spread out the risk.
Wii
Now if one game bombs on Wii selling 1/10th the average = $428,550 and the other does average = $4,285,714
Total = $4,714,264/2 = $2,357,132 - $2,000,000 = $357,132 profit

360
Now if the 360 game bombs and sells 1/10th the average = $925,714
Total = $925,714/2 = $462,857 - $2,000,000 = $1,537,142 loss

Honestly, as a 3rd party which option would you choose?

 

[Shiggy]

Edited for clarity
So the 360 still wins, but the margin is not that big and by making two games on the Wii you have spread out the risk.
Wii
Now if one game bombs on Wii selling 1/10th the average = $428,550 and the other does average = $4,285,714
Total = $4,714,264/2 = $2,357,132 - $2,000,000 = $357,132 profit

360
Now if the 360 game bombs and sells 1/10th the average = $925,714
Total = $925,714/2 = $462,857 - $2,000,000 = $1,537,142 loss

Honestly, as a 3rd party which option would you choose?

For an American publisher this is an easy question: You would chose the latter option.
Don't they love to take risks? Financial crisis?

 

[travisbickle]

Looks like someone likes calling names, and I didn't even need to dig much.
Congrats, sir. Way to respect the people you're speaking to.

I don't want to grass people up but there's a poster "kinuit" or something like that who is really immature and writes like a bitter angst-ridden teenager, or is it some kind of inside joke I'm missing?

 

[Hunahan]

I see what you're saying. But two things need to be added: Development costs for the PS360 should be more than twice costs for the Wii.

Why do you assume this? Where are you getting your data for costs?

The problem with this overall argument, as was properly identified earlier, is that we do not have cost structures for either investment in order to directly compare. The funny thing about the entirety of this exchange, however, is that I'm not the one that is making an assumption in this regard, despite constant accusations to the contrary.

The only people who have made assumptions about costs are those who argue so vehemently that I am incorrect.

My argument, if you trace back through this thread, has never been about whether these costs are guaranteed to be low enough to make this model work out in 360's favor. My argument has always been that it is *possible* with higher revenue that you can double, or greater, your budget or costs, and still retain higher earnings. This was made to combat the wild-swinging, generalized accusation that development costs will always negate the increase in revenue. And I've attempted to show why.

I asserted that both of the factors (revenue increase per unit and quantity of software division) that I identified were *relevant* to the analysis. I still believe that they are.

The first one I showed with concrete numbers. There are nearly double the number of Nintendo Wii games comprising that cumulative whole than their are by the (launch aligned) 360 lineup (the nearest competitor).

The second one I showed with a model to illustrate that it will have an impact on developer profit, regardless of budgetary increase. Many people seem to have a problem with this, so I'll explain more carefully.

Look, those numbers I posted are just a model to illustrate a concept. Like I said, feel free to adjust them how you see fit. What is the average budget increase? 3x? 4x? No matter how high you post the goal, there will still be a point at which the revenue increase outstrips cost increase, since development budget will be fixed while unit sales will be variable. It will always work out into a linear algebra formula. There will always be a solution. This is just basic math. There's nothing really to argue.

And just to reiterate - I'm not saying that Xbox360 games are guaranteed to be more profitable, which seems to be what so many are inferring, and why so many are acting so outrageously offended by my statements.

My objection is that the statistic that Nintendo provided does not address the fundamental issue. The model was used to illustrate why this may or may not be true. Hence my use of emphasized words like "possibly" that people willfully continue to ignore.

Since everyone seems to be missing the revenue point, I'll reiterate. Here's my objection:

1) The chart infers that the *average* sales for Nintendo Wii games are roughly 1/2 of that for the average 360 game, due to similar cumulative sales divided by a larger number of units. This is the unspoken truth of this statistic. I find this relevant. Regardless, even assuming an equal distribution of opportunity, further considerations must be applied.

2) There is a 20% higher revenue stream for the average 360 video game. This is a factor which will have a bearing on profit. I find this relevant.

3) Multiplying quantity sold times revenue per unit equals gross revenue (at a basic level).

4) The company will receive a percentage of this gross revenue as cash inflow. It is an assumption of my model that this percentage (or variable costs) should not fluctuate between manufacturer options. I have heard no objections to this assumption. I do not personally see why this would be incorrect.

5) It is therefor possible, although not guaranteed, that the profits can still be greater for the 360 game, even with a substantially higher budget, as long as the growth rate of revenue x units sold is larger than the increase in budget required to produce said project's fixed costs.

Since people seem to have a trouble abstracting the numbers into variables. Perhaps a graph to illustrate the concept would be more successful:

At "x+1" number of sales and greater, profit for investment A outreaches profit for investment B, even though the cost for investment A is higher than that for investment B.

Cost A or Cost B can be whatever you wish them to be. A greater Cost A and a smaller Cost B will move point x, but it will not erase it. Revenue A outgrows Revenue B on a percentage-based rate. Cost A does not outgrow Cost B as they are fixed costs. This will never change. The fundamental logic is intact.

And this is, basically, the way companies are run these days. You do sales forecasts to estimate revenue, subtract the profit margin that you wish to maintain, and are left with a budget that is either feasible or not feasible. The project either gets the green light if these numbers work out, or denied if they don't. Sometimes bad decisions are made, but that won't change the truths of the model.

My entire string of replies, initial objection, and subsequent attempts at explanation have all been based around one thing - that the missing data is highly relevant to discussion, and by failing to provide that information, Nintendo has not answered the fundamental question being posed. My model illustrates how Nintendo's statistic could be both numerically correct, and conceptually incorrect simultaneously.

Nothing more.

I don't see how a chart showing third parties selling more on the Wii can constitute as "lies". You can complain as much as you want, but you can't prove anything.

In case this is a language/cultural issue, it's just a famous John Bibby quote about statistics. Don't worry about it.

Edited for clarity
So the 360 still wins, but the margin is not that big and by making two games on the Wii you have spread out the risk.
Wii
Now if one game bombs on Wii selling 1/10th the average = $428,550 and the other does average = $4,285,714
Total = $4,714,264/2 = $2,357,132 - $2,000,000 = $357,132 profit

360
Now if the 360 game bombs and sells 1/10th the average = $925,714
Total = $925,714/2 = $462,857 - $2,000,000 = $1,537,142 loss

Honestly, as a 3rd party which option would you choose?

Depends on how confident I was in sales projections.

I never said, or meant to imply, that publishers cannot, or do not, make poor decisions on occasion or even frequently.

 

[liuelson]

To summarize: neither the "core/casual" nor the demographic breakdown have absolute and complete empirical data to offer us. The difference is that in addition to the lack of empirical data, we don't even agree what "core/casual" mean, while we do agree what a "woman" is, or what "female age 3-15" is.

lttp. I appreciate the attempt to be more precise in discussing gamer demographics. This raises a couple of thoughts:

1. Wasn't Nintendo's analysis that the traditional male 16-30 demographic would be insufficient to sustain it's fortunes in the post-GC cycle? Didn't they identify the "core" gamer as a male 16-30, and intentionally designed their console to address other demographics outside that specific one? Thus, the shift of salesage away from "core/casual" to "male, female, old, young, etc." could be considered a reflection of Nintendo's own shift in the development of the Wii.

2. We don't get reliable data about who buys what, only about what gets bought, so it's all speculation anyway. Why is it that I can find out what the average 40-55 year old Latino, single male with $45k / year in income living in a suburban area in the Midwest will do in the voting booth, but have no data about what he will do in the video game aisle?

3. Ultimately, this sense of a need for greater precision about videogame target demographics suggest that publisher decisions will be made on a game-by-game basis, and that specific games will be developed and marketed to specific demographics - not just "core" or "casual". There may eventually be a game developed specifically for the 40-55 year old Latino, single male with $45k / year in income living in a suburban area in the Midwest.

4. All the arguments with Hunahan re: 3rd party sales continue to use the broad, aggregate market model as a baseline assumption. If we are indeed moving towards a more "narrowcast" market in the videogame industry, then you really will have to start arguing more precisely. "3rd party publishers specializing in x, y, and z do better on platform A...There is a market opportunity for a 3rd party publisher specializing in s, t, and u on platform B...etc."

 

[Hero]

Why do you assume this? Where are you getting your data for costs?

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/cost-of-development-greatly-favors-wii-say-publishers/69714/?biz=1

http://www.*******.com/2007/12/29/cost-of-next-gen-game-production-is-a-burden-on-developers/

I don't see how you can call it an assumption as anyone with logical reasoning or thought can figure out it costs significantly more to produce games for PS3/360 than Wii.

 

[test_account]

We do not have numbers, but 15th place is good from anywhere from 80k to around 150k normally. If we had a SKU breakdown for Lego Batman we'd be able to deduce the numbers a little further.

Ok, thanks for the info! Do we have any numbers for the other Kirby games by the way? How many copies does Kirby games usually sell?

 

[Hunahan]

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/cost-of-development-greatly-favors-wii-say-publishers/69714/?biz=1

http://www.*******.com/2007/12/29/cost-of-next-gen-game-production-is-a-burden-on-developers/

I don't see how you can call it an assumption as anyone with logical reasoning or thought can figure out it costs significantly more to produce games for PS3/360 than Wii.

I never called it an assumption that it costs significantly more, I called an assumption that it was significantly more than my suggestions because I had seen no data to back up these claims.

Which, as it turns out, isn't significantly more than my percentage estimates.

So, fine, we're talking about a 2.4x to 2.5x increase for budgets. Good to know.

Work that into the model, if you like, the conclusion is the same.

Thanks for the link.

 

[charlequin]

My entire string of replies, initial objection, and subsequent attempts at explanation have all been based around one thing - that the missing data is highly relevant to discussion

But you're ignoring the difference between consumer side measurement and producer side measurement. We have none of the information we need to measure things on the producer's side -- how these sales translate directly into profitability for these companies -- but we have everything we need to judge how things behave on the consumer side -- to see what, after taking all factors into account, consumers actually go to the store to buy.

Sales numbers already factor all these things in: when games are cheaper, they sell more; when games rate higher, they sell more; when games have that certain je ne sais quoi they sell more. Raw sales let us abstract all of these things out and look at the pure overall trends: as the Wii sells more and more, the people buying it are more and more going out to buy third-party Wii games, to the point where they now buy such titles more frequently than they bought 360 titles at that point in the 360's life (and are continuing to increase the gap in launch-aligned charts.)

The objection everyone has to your argument here is that you want to bring in one production-end factor and leave all the rest out. I don't think anyone would argue that revenue can make up for lost sales, but with the development cost issue and with the Wii's trendline continuing to rise it's unhelpful to bring in a small portion of this information when we know for a fact that we can't get the rest of it.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Ok, thanks for the info! Do we have any numbers for the other Kirby games by the way? How many copies does Kirby games usually sell?

games we have virtually complete data from because of pre-ban leaks, rounded to nearest 250k to protect npd data yadda yadda
kirby nightmare in dreamland ~1mln
kirby air ride >750k
kirby and the amazing mirror >500k
kirby 64 >500k

games we have partial data for because of scattered leaks available on public websites, rounded yadda yadda
kirby squeak squad >500k as of january (no idea if it's done selling)
kirby canvas curse >250k as of january (totally done selling)

they're pretty consistently good sellers as you can see, but they sell over the long run so i wouldn't worry or get excited about first month's sales.

 

[poppabk]

Depends on how confident I was in sales projections.

Ultimately this is what it boils down to, and average sales per title do not give any insight into how well a particular title will do. Publishers can base their sales predictions on much more accurate data that we have, and will be focusing on specific demographics, how similar titles performed on a given platform. So Nintendo's graph wasn't meant to prove anything to publishers, other than that they should take a second look at their data, it was meant to combat a still prevelant meme that 3rd party software does not sell on the Wii. This isn't true regardless of average per title figures or tie ratios etc.

 

[Mariah Carey]

[EDIT] By the way, to be honest, I wish Malstrom had "competition", so to speak. His extreme position and flamboyant style make it very easy to get what he's talking about, but it lacks precision, and sometimes, I like dry text. As much as I like the guy, I don't want him (or anyone) to be my only source on a given subject. Some here would do a fine job providing a good counterpoint, but they don't write articles, sadly :/.

Neogaf can be good at reflecting on past and current trends, but I've never seen anyone here have quite the foresight that guy has. The reason he got noticed in the first place is because he saw it all coming. He's predicted the Wii success (and more importantly why), he predicted the DSi, and even predicted the global economic crisis. I've been meaning to have someone contact him to find out what he thinks is a good buy right now, I'm curious what he'd say.

 

[test_account]

games we have virtually complete data from because of pre-ban leaks, rounded to nearest 250k to protect npd data yadda yadda
kirby nightmare in dreamland ~1mln
kirby air ride >750k
kirby and the amazing mirror >500k
kirby 64 >500k

games we have partial data for because of scattered leaks available on public websites, rounded yadda yadda
kirby squeak squad >500k as of january (no idea if it's done selling)
kirby canvas curse >250k as of january (totally done selling)

they're pretty consistently good sellers as you can see, but they sell over the long run so i wouldn't worry or get excited about first month's sales.

Great, thanks alot again for the info and the numbers! Ye, i can think that the Kirby games are games that will sell over a longer period of time as you say

 

[charlequin]

The reason he got noticed in the first place is because he saw it all coming.

The reason he "saw it all coming" is because he listened to what Nintendo executives said and did the ludicrously simple mental math of putting the words "disruption" and "blue ocean" together with the business strategies of the same names. That's marginally better than the tides of GAF prognosticators who couldn't predict their own schedule for the day after tomorrow but that doesn't make him a genius or a Nostradamus, it just makes him a hack with a slightly better level of perception.

If you look at his blog, his complete inability to produce an even vaguely coherent prediction about anything else (his election predictions are pretty amazing) demonstrate pretty clearly why he's a stopped clock at best.

 

[camineet]

Anyone have total worldwide install base data on Wii? I'd estimate that it's right around the final install base of N64 which was 32-33M in 5 years. Done by Wii in 2 years. Impressive.

 

[donny2112]

3. Ultimately, this sense of a need for greater precision about videogame target demographics suggest that publisher decisions will be made on a game-by-game basis, and that specific games will be developed and marketed to specific demographics - not just "core" or "casual". There may eventually be a game developed specifically for the 40-55 year old Latino, single male with $45k / year in income living in a suburban area in the Midwest.

Yes. The focus should be on the game. Opiate's original attempt was to try to stereotype the Wii audience, which is a bad idea for reasonable discussion.

4. All the arguments with Hunahan re: 3rd party sales continue to use the broad, aggregate market model as a baseline assumption. If we are indeed moving towards a more "narrowcast" market in the videogame industry, then you really will have to start arguing more precisely. "3rd party publishers specializing in x, y, and z do better on platform A...There is a market opportunity for a 3rd party publisher specializing in s, t, and u on platform B...etc."

I've said that a lot over the past year or so. :lol

In the PS2-era, third-parties could make a game, put it on the PS2, and be pretty assured of hitting a very significant portion of the game's target audience. The waters are a lot more choppy this generation.

Anyone have total worldwide install base data on Wii?

Estimates.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

It's crazy how much ass the Wii's kicking.

Going from last place to market leader in the span of a generation is interesting. Then again Sony went from software developer/publisher to market leader in little time.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

People are still trying to spin Symphonia sales, years after the fact? Is Gamecube not allowed to have any successes?

 

[dyls]

I wonder if third-parties will be more likely to green light Wii titles over PS360 ones in the wake of the financial crisis. In this atmosphere it becomes a little less relevant which is riskier, rather the focus is simply on which is cheaper. Even on PS360 titles, I wonder if we'll see any sort of move away from the giant, bloated blockbuster towards more modest titles.

 

[farnham]

I'm not really equipped to give an authoritative answer on that one. It strikes me that either of the two explanations are worth exploring. Tales is a series that does awful here. ToS is a game that did exceptionally well here. Did ToS do well because of the particulars of ToS, or the situation on the GameCube, or some other reason? If ToS Wii bombs, will it be because it's not a good game, because of Wii owners, or some other reason?

I think it's fairly obvious at this point that ToS Wii is not going to do 450k. I don't see any way that could happen. Whether it does 200k or craters like Opoona did remains to be seen.

ToS was published by Nintendo

that helped a lot i guess

 

[HK-47]

I wonder if third-parties will be more likely to green light Wii titles over PS360 ones in the wake of the financial crisis. In this atmosphere it becomes a little less relevant which is riskier, rather the focus is simply on which is cheaper. Even on PS360 titles, I wonder if we'll see any sort of move away from the giant, bloated blockbuster towards more modest titles.

Nope we will just move further into Sequel Town

 

[JadedOne]

ToS was published by Nintendo

that helped a lot i guess

No it wasn't. It was published by Namco. I think Nintendo just funded the translation or something along those lines.

 

[farnham]

No it wasn't. It was published by Namco. I think Nintendo just funded the translation or something along those lines.

really..?

well maybe that was an europe only deal then

 

[OldJadedGamer]

It's crazy how much ass the Wii's kicking.

Going from last place to market leader in the span of a generation is interesting. Then again Sony went from software developer/publisher to market leader in little time.

And don't forget the quality software Sony was releasing before the Playstation hit...

 

[BishopLamont]

You should be the last guy here talking about fanboys. You keep getting banned for PS3 trolling all the time.



fail. it's not even close

This guy is still stuck on denial stage. :lol

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

And don't forget the quality software Sony was releasing before the Playstation hit...

I see your 3 Ninjas and raise you a

 

[justchris]

Haha. I knew getting involved with this thread was a bad idea.

Is this how it usually works? I make a claim, get called out, accused of being retarded, caps locks fly like crazy, and then when I substantiate the claim with actual data - illustrating how many of you don't even really have a clue about the actual state of the industry you're talking about - people still feel like they have the right to get all snippy?

Too funny.

As for the rest of the replies, I really don't have the time or interest to go through them point by point, particularly since most of them are just the same points over and over or compounded personal attacks.

I had assumed that everyone would be able to connect the dots as soon as I posted those numbers to back up my initial point, but here's the cheat sheet in case it's still not clear.

Nintendo Wii
350 titles generating 30,000,000 unit sales averages to 85,714 copies sold per game.

85,714 copies x $50 = $4,285,714

let's assume the publisher receives a highly conservative 50% of gross revenue, leaving them with $2,142,857 cash inflow.

If they budget for $1,000,000 in costs, they receive $1,142,857 in profit.

Xbox 360
175 titles generating 27,000,000 unit sales averages to 154,285 copies sold per game.

154,285 copies x $60 = $9,257,142

Let's assume the publisher receives a highly conservative 50% of gross revenue, leaving them with $4,628,571 cash inflow.

If they budget for $2,000,000 in costs, they receive $2,628,571 in profit.

Feel free to adjust these numbers however you wish in terms of what percentage the publisher receives of gross revenue, or what percentage of revenue the budgets of these games should be. It will not change the fundamental conclusion.

Obviously many publishers invest significantly more into their development costs. Either these are the companies that are simultaneously projecting higher revenues and unit sales, or they are failed businesses that will not survive. That's just life.

The point is that it is *possible* for a company to achieve higher profits, even with double the costs, on one alternative investment to the other. And the reason for that is higher revenues. Hardly irrelevant.

If you go back through my posts, you'll see that these are the same claims I have made all along.

Nintendo, as with any company, will pick and choose statistics to show that paint their company and personal interests in a more favorable light. The trick to remember is that it's often what isn't said that is more important than what is. Lies, damn lies, and statistics indeed.

Have fun.

The reason this argument is wrong, I mean seriously, brokenly wrong, is that developer/publisher revenue is not in any way dependent on units sold. It is dependent on units shipped (ie sold to retail). Units sold to consumers (which is what NPD reports) is a different statistic entirely. Most publishers do not have provisions for retail to recover spent costs on shipped units.

 

[donny2112]

Most publishers do not have provisions for retail to recover spent costs on shipped units.

Huh? I thought the exact opposite was true. I believe the hardware manufacturers definitely do.

 

[justchris]

Huh? I thought the exact opposite was true. I believe the hardware manufacturers definitely do.

That is entirely dependent on the publisher. Activision, EA, Ubisoft and the like are actually the minority of publishers, despite being the ones to generate the majority of the revenue. The majority of publishers are shovelware houses, which do not have such provisions, generally because their shipments are a lot smaller than, say, Force Unleashed. But whatever a retailer does order, they're stuck with until it sells.

Cost A or Cost B can be whatever you wish them to be. A greater Cost A and a smaller Cost B will move point x, but it will not erase it. Revenue A outgrows Revenue B on a percentage-based rate. Cost A does not outgrow Cost B as they are fixed costs. This will never change. The fundamental logic is intact.

But costs aren't fixed. Saying HD games in general cost 2-2.5x more than Wii games is acceptable. Saying that every HD game has the same fixed costs is really reaching. Even HD consoles have their share of shovelware, which could theorectically have costs lower than even your average Wii game.

1) The chart infers that the *average* sales for Nintendo Wii games are roughly 1/2 of that for the average 360 game, due to similar cumulative sales divided by a larger number of units. This is the unspoken truth of this statistic. I find this relevant. Regardless, even assuming an equal distribution of opportunity, further considerations must be applied.

2) There is a 20% higher revenue stream for the average 360 video game. This is a factor which will have a bearing on profit. I find this relevant.

3) Multiplying quantity sold times revenue per unit equals gross revenue (at a basic level).

4) The company will receive a percentage of this gross revenue as cash inflow. It is an assumption of my model that this percentage (or variable costs) should not fluctuate between manufacturer options. I have heard no objections to this assumption. I do not personally see why this would be incorrect.

5) It is therefor possible, although not guaranteed, that the profits can still be greater for the 360 game, even with a substantially higher budget, as long as the growth rate of revenue x units sold is larger than the increase in budget required to produce said project's fixed costs.

The reason there is so much argument is that your supposition doesn't actually provide any information that is useful. If the average unit sales of 3rd party games per console irrespective of publisher was actually useful data, this might be a meaningful discussion. But the data isn't really useful, since, going from publisher to publisher, the average sales will be different, and the average costs will be different as well. Regardless of console, it is reasonable to assume that EA has higher costs per title (and by extension higher expected revenue) than D3.

As charlequin said, we simply don't have enough information to make any kind of useful argument out of this, at least, not the way you're attempting to. We get publisher revenue numbers and unit numbers when they release their quarterly earnings reports, and with that information a meaningful argumetn can be made.

So far, the only meaningful argument you've made is that the average Wii game sells less than the average 360 game (and you completely forgot to do PS3 here, we need that information for a complete picture). However, extending that argument to revenue doesn't work for several reasons, many of which have already been stated, but I'll go over them again: 1) revenue for publisher is based on shipped numbers, not sold numbers; 2) multiple skus at different price points mean that revenue per title is inconsistent; 3) price drops on existing titles and rereleases (the list of titles you checked did not include greatest hits or rereleased titles separately) affect revenue numbers.

Basically, there is nothing in that graph on which to base an argument about revenue.

 

[donny2112]

The majority of publishers are shovelware houses, which do not have such provisions, generally because their shipments are a lot smaller than, say, Force Unleashed.

Ah, I get you. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Haunted]

It's crazy how much ass the Wii's kicking.

Going from last place to market leader in the span of a generation is interesting. Then again Sony went from software developer/publisher to market leader in little time.

Iwata :bow

Kutaragi pre-PS3 :bow

 

[justchris]

Ah, I get you. Thanks for the explanation.

To be fair, a lot of them aren't shovelware houses, so much as just small publishers who don't really have the budget to manage that sort of thing. I feel the need to clarify myself cause I think we throw around the 'shovelware' moniker a bit too frequently around here.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I see your 3 Ninjas and raise you a

I see your SkyBlazer and raise you a

Warm it up Kris... I'm about to... cause that's what I was born to do!