Topic: Dead Space Extraction

[Spinnzilla]

Hopefully this has wifi co-op.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Dead Space has already made roughtly 81 million dollars in revenue and it isn't even out in Japan yet. It's critically acclaimed and will surely continue selling on both PS3 and 360.

Source?

I don't have a direct source but I've heard it's sold around 1.35 million copies total across both ps3 and xbox.

That'd put it at around 58 million revenue for the publisher assuming they get $43 out of every $60 purchase.

This was my exact point.  EA doesn't keep all $60 of the retail price and they don't get to count it as revenue.  I don't know where Kairon figured $43 per unit, but I'm willing to accept that he might know more about it than me.  (I would have guessed it's even lower considering they have to give a nice chunk of the MSRP to the retailer as well as royalty fees to Sony and Microsoft.)

Revenue can be counted as total sales amount if you want.  It really depends on your point of view.  I did the math talking from the stores point of view. If you wanted to do the math from the publisher's point of view seling to the store you could.

Both answers are "right". The fact remains that the game was incredibly successful.

Especially for a brand new IP.

[KDR_11k]

Revenue can be counted as total sales amount if you want.  It really depends on your point of view.  I did the math talking from the stores point of view. If you wanted to do the math from the publisher's point of view seling to the store you could.

Both answers are "right". The fact remains that the game was incredibly successful.

The problem is that successful means it made a big multiple of what it cost to make, without dev costs we can't say if it really was successful. 60 million revenue is getting dangerously close to the tens of millions games like that cost to make. For example GTA4 would be a disaster if it made only 60 million in revenue because it cost 100 million to develop AFAIK. EA has been reporting issues with costs rising too much compared to revenues leading to massive losses so it's not impossible to have a cost problem here.

[Stratos]

I think sales and reusable material can also have an impact along with profit.
If they made a game engine or other tools that help with the game creation process, then they get to have those tools available from the start of the next project without any extra costs or dev time.

If the game sold a very good number, then they feasibly have found a market that would support a sequel. People already know about the series and what to expect from those types of games so marketing may become cheaper. Once a sequel is made, it is on longer new but more established in the market.

While profit is the bottom line, I think these other elements can play a role in a company's long term plans.

[Pale]

I don't believe the game was in development long enough to have a HUGE cost of creation.

I put development time at around 3 years, which probably puts the cost somewhere between 5 and 10 million max.

And Stratos is right about reusable materials.  Assets will be reused across all future games in the series, including Extraction and any other games made down the road.

There really is no arguing whether or not this game was successful, it WAS.  Redwood Shores made it and, to my knowlege, they have seen VERY FEW of the layoffs EA has been throwing around across their entire organization. That's saying something right there.

[vudu]

I put development time at around 3 years, which probably puts the cost somewhere between 5 and 10 million max.

How do you figure that?  There's a video of the game running on the original Xbox hardware.  The 360 has been out on the market for almost 3.5 years.  It's not likely that EA planned to release this game for the original hardware long after the 360 was launched, so this game has likely been in development for quite a bit longer than 3 years.

[Pale]

I put development time at around 3 years, which probably puts the cost somewhere between 5 and 10 million max.

How do you figure that?  There's a video of the game running on the original Xbox hardware.  The 360 has been out on the market for almost 3.5 years.  It's not likely that EA planned to release this game for the original hardware long after the 360 was launched, so this game has likely been in development for quite a bit longer than 3 years.

They made a proof of concept pitch some years ago but that far from means that's when development ramped up.  This game has not been in full time development for that long by any means.

[Spinnzilla]

This better have wifi co-op.  that is all.

[Kairon]

I put development time at around 3 years, which probably puts the cost somewhere between 5 and 10 million max.

I'm pretty sure it cost more than that. The most expensive Wii games cost $10 million max. HD games cost a good chunk more.

Still even if the publisher made only 40 million revenue, I think the original Dead Space was far from a disaster. Though I do think it underperformed to expectations last fall, I distinctly remember that point being made when researching NPD numbers.

[Stratos]

I put development time at around 3 years, which probably puts the cost somewhere between 5 and 10 million max.

I'm pretty sure it cost more than that. The most expensive Wii games cost $10 million max. HD games cost a good chunk more.

Still even if the publisher made only 40 million revenue, I think the original Dead Space was far from a disaster. Though I do think it underperformed to expectations last fall, I distinctly remember that point being made when researching NPD numbers.

I think Dead Space's under performance in EA's eyes might be akin to Nintendo's opinion that Wii Music underperformed in spite of breaking the two million mark (2.32 million according to VGChartz; 1.1m in America, 840k in Europe/others and 340k in Japan).

[Pale]

Well i have a request out to see if I can get an estimate for how much was invested in the game. I'll let you know what I find out.

I still say it was around 6 million though.

[Stratos]

Are you talking to EA about this or are you calling on an insider contact?

[NWR_Lindy]

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for PS3 had a budget of $20 million.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2007/11/16/naughty-dog-uncharted-couldve-been-bioshock-or-resistance/

It really depends on what exactly went into making the game, though.  Uncharted was Naughty Dog's first PS3 game, so it had to be built from scratch.  That would extend the development cycle and require a lot more R&D on the front end.  EA has a lot of experience on both the PS3 and 360 already, so I'm sure they cribbed technology from existing engines for Dead Space.  Even it it was built from scratch, they'd have a leg up on Naughty Dog since they already have lots of experience with both platforms.  If I were to put a guess on Dead Space's cost, I'd say between $10 and $15 million.

[ShyGuy]

Are we including marketing costs here?

[Stratos]

So considering all that they have at the very least broken even at this point on the game alone it sounds like.

ShyGuy's point on advertising may change this but even if that is included, how much did they go into the black? Only making a paltry amount on top of that will dictate their decision on sequels.

[NovaQ]

Well, considering we're getting this prequel/spin-off indicates to me that they're interested in sequels.

I suppose another factor in this that might be harder for us to consider is the who behind the decision for more games in the series. Was it done by someone / a group willing to take more risks or a person / people that try to play it more by the books?

[Pale]

I didn't get a budget answer, but I did get confirmation on the three years timeline I said...

http://twitter.com/isaacclarke/statuses/1241568242

[Pale]

PS. Still working on the budget thing.

[UltimatePartyBear]

OMG.  Are you doing this to torture me?  I know how fucking retail works.

Being mean to vudu is fun!

[vudu]

[Stogi]

LOL

That strip always gets a chuckle out of me.

[UltimatePartyBear]

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever done for me.

[redgiemental]

I'm late to the party I know.

I skimmed through this thread looking for new information on this. I'm bitterly disappointed its an on-rails shooter. Some people seem to be downplaying the importance of the change.

I just want to point out that gameplay is the whole point of games in the first place. Characters and story are secondary. When I buy a game it's because I want to PLAY it.

Also for those of you saying RE:UC> RE 5. While I'd argue with you on that I don't think anyone would argue that RE 5 with Wii controls > RE:UC.

It's easier, quicker and cheaper to make on-rails games and that why we are getting one.

[Kairon]

It's easier, quicker and cheaper to make on-rails games and that why we are getting one.

I would argue that this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I perfectly understand that some people aren't fans of on-rail shooters, but then again it would be wrong to assume that third-person survival horror is some unimpeachable virtue.

[ShyGuy]

It is when they pull a bait and switch with the wii enthusiasts for several weeks.