Post by: Mike-OPN2000 on February 18, 2003, 05:09:03 PM
Post by: RickPowers on February 18, 2003, 05:44:14 PM
Post by: Sean on February 18, 2003, 06:08:56 PM
When you reflect on that, it's hard to imagine that movies have been around for over a hundred years and only relatively recently have we really paid a lot of attention the box office. This has extended to everything, pretty much. I'm not complaining, just talking.
Post by: Moonwatcher on February 18, 2003, 06:28:07 PM
Post by: BlkPaladin on February 19, 2003, 01:18:34 AM
Post by: egman on February 19, 2003, 07:03:22 AM
To tell you the truth, I think all of this has started in Hollywood when the blockbuster was born in the 70's with movies like Jaws. Ever since then studios have put their bank roll on the line hoping for film with mega returns, rather than hoping for modest return on several good films. In order to make this happen, they need to make it so that the film looks like the event of the century, and if you miss out on it you're a loser. This in turn distorts the publics view about what should be considered "good" or "bad."
Since the video game industry has been trying to emulate Hollywood for at at least almost a decade now, it was only matter of time before this mentality would emerge in the production and consumption of video games. The problem is further exasperated by that fact that Sony and Microsoft true aim is not video game production, even though video games is probably the fast growing entertainment field. Sony and Microsoft want to sell us multimedia set top boxes, and in order to expand the market to a point that this dream can be realized, they are using some of the same tatics that film and music have employed for the last couple of decades.
I'm sorry to say this, but the market probably changed forever when Sony executives decided that they needed to make a console.
Post by: MetalHead666 on February 19, 2003, 07:10:28 AM
Post by: RickPowers on February 19, 2003, 08:16:38 AM
There's also a great deal of misinformation or information that has lost it's context floating around too. What's worse, armed with this information, every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the Internet can become an Armchair CEO, deciding for themselves how companies can make more money. And 99% of the time, these people are wrong. But they write well, and make convincing arguments with spurious logic, and people less educated beleive them.
It's very sad, really.
I've been in the games industry a long time, and on several different sides. People think that because they worked at Electronics Boutique over the summer than they know how the games business "works". They don't know jack. They are seeing one, largely colored facet of a much greater dynamic. Take the comment above from Metalhead, for example:
Quote
Usually the break even point for a game is around 250,000 copies.
No, the average break-even point for a game is NOT 250,000 copies, and you pulled that information completely out of your ass. I've seen a game break-even at 75,000 copies, sometimes even less. There is NO average break-even point, because it depends largely on the contracts between developers and publishers, development costs, overhead, marketing, etc. There are HUNDREDS of variables.
This is a large part of the reason why we are so strict in the Forums. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The problem is that many people voice those opinions as if they were fact, and even more base THEIR opinions on these "facts". Finally, there are a great deal of people that think they know EVERYTHING and just can't keep an open mind, so that when they are presented with ACTUAL facts, they can allow their opinions to be reformed. No, they'll stick to their guns come hell or high water, regardless of how foolish it makes them look. So we try to squelch anyone spreading false information or just plain badly formed opinions, because that stuff tends to spread like a virus.
Post by: Christberg on February 19, 2003, 08:37:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sean
I remember a commedian, years ago, joking about how we're all so hung up on sales and box-office intake for movies, etc. by saying he knew it was bad when his cab driver was warning him against a movie he had said he wanted to see because it only made x-dollars over the weekend and couldn't be worth his time. And, as you know, x-dollars isn't good.
When you reflect on that, it's hard to imagine that movies have been around for over a hundred years and only relatively recently have we really paid a lot of attention the box office. This has extended to everything, pretty much. I'm not complaining, just talking.
Yeah, I can completely agree with and appreciate this sentiment. Most of us internet geeks are washed over with ridiculous amounts of information that have no real bearing on our actual happiness with the things that we purchase. I mean, honestly, if how well something sold dictated how well I liked it, why would I ever have bought a Gamecube? I mean, it's so distantly behind the PS2 it couldn't possibly be worth owning right? Wrong.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. It's my favorite console this generation so far and it's only now with this new batch of RPGs that my PS2 is really, really starting to make me happy. Still, in the next couple months I'm still going to be buying more GC software than the other 2 in spite of there being way more stuff released.
I think it's important that we all take a step back and think about it for a while.
Post by: Resemvla_Syria on February 19, 2003, 09:47:01 AM
Quote
The problem is further exasperated by that fact that Sony and Microsoft true aim is not video game production, even though video games is probably the fast growing entertainment field. Sony and Microsoft want to sell us multimedia set top boxes,
That is not a fact, and certainly is not a right statement either. Believe me MS and Sony are very happy making money from software sales and royalties, the backbone of the video games industry, almost anybody would dare to say that if their interest was just to sell the system they wouldn't even be making one.
Just don't get carry away even by what MS and Sony says about the future, the multimedia system dream. Probably is what they want but this industry has defined itself into what it is today, games are just a proven system and without them you are nothing, concerning this industry.
Post by: MetalHead666 on February 19, 2003, 11:38:57 AM
*EDIT*
OK I found that bit of info, it was in an interview with and Xbox spokesperson, so I guess we can completely disregard that piece of info. Sorry Rick that is what I get for listening to a MS employee.
Fell free to tell that person they are stupid. (semus Blackley to be specific)
Post by: RickPowers on February 19, 2003, 11:58:56 AM
In this particular case, what types of game was he talking about? It also doesn't take into account a sequel or similar game built with the same engine (lowering development costs for that second game). There is no hard and fast average.
By the way, Seamus is no longer with Microsoft. He left with Kevin Bacchus to form CEG, a company that basically nurtures really good games and ideas, and then delivers the finished product to publishers.
Post by: egman on February 19, 2003, 12:00:01 PM
Post by: Mingesium on February 19, 2003, 12:02:56 PM
Quote
Most Expensive Computer Game Development - The Dreamcast computer game titled Shenmue cost over $20 million to develop. The project took seven years to complete, and was the brainchild of Japanese developer Yu Suzuki, head of Sega's game-development AM2 division.
I expect the norm to be $3 to $7 million to make a game. A lot of games can make that in a couple of month.
If a game does lose money, it is probable because of marketing. They spend all this money to market a game and the game flops.
Here is a question - Why are companies pulling GameCube support (Sega Sports)?
I thought that ports where easy money. The cost of porting a game wouldn't be much unless they are adding features like Splinter Cell. If they shipped a limited supply, I bet they could make a small profit.
Post by: MetalHead666 on February 19, 2003, 12:02:56 PM
Anyhoo, he does seem like a good guy. But I was just going by what I had read, I wasnt trying to mis-inform anyone.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on February 19, 2003, 12:11:21 PM
Quote
Most Expensive Computer Game Development - The Dreamcast computer game titled Shenmue cost over $20 million to develop. The project took seven years to complete, and was the brainchild of Japanese developer Yu Suzuki, head of Sega's game-development AM2 division.
*Shakes head*
Poor Sega. They tried so damn hard with Shenmue, yet the game was basically a flop on Dreamcast. It was released when the hype-train was beginning for Sony's PlayStation 2.
Then they made the wonderful sequel, and thanks to Microsoft, it was never released in the US in it's original form. So it gets ported to the Xbox, which is a death wish if you're looking for sales in Japan. Not only that, but if sales of S2 are anything to go by, the majority of Xbox gamers just are not interested in Adventure games...
Post by: rodtod on February 19, 2003, 01:13:29 PM
To get only around $3 to $7 million you'd have to sell at least 120,000 copies. When you think about it, the really cruddy games out there don't cost more than that to develop, and probably don't sell more than a hundred thousand or so. So when you make a bad game, at least you get your money back
Post by: MetalHead666 on February 19, 2003, 01:17:54 PM
Post by: Mike-OPN2000 on February 19, 2003, 04:22:51 PM
Post by: Dolphin64X on February 19, 2003, 04:41:47 PM
Keep in mind that the numbers mean nothing, and I'm just speculating.
Post by: theaveng on February 20, 2003, 11:31:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sean
When you reflect on that, it's hard to imagine that movies have been around for over a hundred years and only relatively recently have we really paid a lot of attention the box office. This has extended to everything, pretty much. I'm not complaining, just talking.
Not true. When the 1937 movie Snow White became the #1 movie in sales, it was a big deal. It was even granted 7 special Oscars for its achievement. When in 1939, Gone with the Wind became the #1 movie in sales, it was once again a big deal. Making lots of money has ALWAYS been important.
.
.
.
BTW, isn't this topic a POLL and therefore should be closed?
Post by: Dolphin64X on February 20, 2003, 12:05:40 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on February 20, 2003, 02:10:07 PM
Quote
I haven't heard of really any title that hasn't at least pulled its weight.
ET for the Atari 2600?
