Didn't EA itself say that Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were not selling up to expectations?
One of their reps said that Mirror's Edge was selling "miserably" (his word for it), but that Dead Space was fairing "better."
EA has also stated that NFS whatever it was called was doing poorly.
They have also said that they were going to start cuttign skus from the 'bottom levels of profitability.'
Among other things.
It's not like they just decide to come out of nowhere to lie about a random game just to say that it's meeting expectations and selling well when it's not.
My issue is, if someone has no basis for calling a game a "disappointment," why is it that no basis is better evidence than actual affirmative statements from the company, that were later reiterated, and then later reinforced with actual sales data?
And yet we know that both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are over a million now and the most recent NFS sold over 5 million. I submit that words from EA at this point are worthless. Only #s matter.
A game can sell over a million and still fail to meet company expectations. Max Payne 2 is like the perfect example of this. Tomb Raider Whatever it was Called is another example.
NFS whatever was released on a trillion platforms. So perhaps developing the game and its many, many iterations wasn't enough to meet the kind of money that EA was expecting in return.
Numbers matter, but numbers need context.
Yeah but seriously fuck expectations. There is no way in this world a game that sold 5+ million wasn't profitable. While a game that only sold 400k even on the Wii could be struggling to make money. My point is simply that EA is spinning their press releases. Dead Space made money, as did Mirror's Edge and there is no question in my mind NFS made buckets.
So how is EA losing so much money?
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Yeah but seriously fuck expectations. There is no way in this world a game that sold 5+ million wasn't profitable. While a game that only sold 400k even on the Wii could be struggling to make money. My point is simply that EA is spinning their press releases. Dead Space made money, as did Mirror's Edge and there is no question in my mind NFS made buckets.
It can be profitable and still not meet expectations. Companies have to produce sales expectations and financial reports regarding expecations, and they plan their business strategies around them. They try to live up to these expectations for the sake of shareholders.
Also, many publishers have come out and stated that a Wii game can be profitable at 250k or 300k.
Also EA has said that a Wii game can cost as little as, what, 1/4 or 1/2 or 1/3 the cost as producing an HD game? Something to that effect.
Also, if EA is merely "spinning their press release," to make themselves look good, then how does that explain the press releases that clearly and affirmatively state disappointment with other games?
Finally - why would you believe that Boom Blox sold poorly when a) EA said it sold well, b) reinforced that statement, c) the numbers for the game are good, and c) it took ages for the price to drop, and d) a sequel was announced? When the only countervailing evidence is .... "because I think so"
I just want to know what the basis of your reasoning that Boom Blox sold poorly is, because right now, there's only strong evidence showing that it sold well.
Riccitiello said during EA's Q3 2009 earnings call that "development is typically a third to a fourth as much for a Wii game than it is for a PS3 or an Xbox 360 game."
The expense of development for HD systems necessitates far higher sales for the games to turn a profit and be a success on the platforms. It doesn't require quite as high the types of sales for Wii games to turn a profit.
Didn't EA itself say that Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were not selling up to expectations?
One of their reps said that Mirror's Edge was selling "miserably" (his word for it), but that Dead Space was fairing "better."
EA has also stated that NFS whatever it was called was doing poorly.
They have also said that they were going to start cuttign skus from the 'bottom levels of profitability.'
Among other things.
It's not like they just decide to come out of nowhere to lie about a random game just to say that it's meeting expectations and selling well when it's not.
My issue is, if someone has no basis for calling a game a "disappointment," why is it that no basis is better evidence than actual affirmative statements from the company, that were later reiterated, and then later reinforced with actual sales data?
And yet we know that both Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are over a million now and the most recent NFS sold over 5 million. I submit that words from EA at this point are worthless. Only #s matter.
A game can sell over a million and still fail to meet company expectations. Max Payne 2 is like the perfect example of this. Tomb Raider Whatever it was Called is another example.
NFS whatever was released on a trillion platforms. So perhaps developing the game and its many, many iterations wasn't enough to meet the kind of money that EA was expecting in return.
Numbers matter, but numbers need context.
Yeah but seriously fuck expectations. There is no way in this world a game that sold 5+ million wasn't profitable. While a game that only sold 400k even on the Wii could be struggling to make money. My point is simply that EA is spinning their press releases. Dead Space made money, as did Mirror's Edge and there is no question in my mind NFS made buckets.
What do you get for a year's worth of marketing? For its videogame "Dead Space," hitting stores this week, Electronic Arts unleashed TV, in-cinema, a Web site, a six-part animated comic book series and other elements to support the futuristic sci-fi horror epic.
In return, the company hopes to see major sales, especially with videogame reviewers calling the title "a masterpiece of gaming" and a "front-runner for the best game of the year."...
TV launched earlier this month, via Heat, San Francisco, with 30-second spots on South Park, Adult Swim and Monday Night Football. Creative is running in-cinema in 2,000 theaters prior to trailers before R-rated movies.
Comic books, both in print and animated online, developer diaries (via Deep Focus, New York) and a Web site, www.Deadspace.ea.com, bulked up the marketing. A new DVD, Dead Space Downfall, is an animated feature film being released Oct. 28.
I also don't get what he means about how words from EA don't matter...a major point of this discussion is why a sequel would get made. Well, if EA says it sold poorly, that's an indicator of why a sequel might not happen. Even if you think a million seller means it's a great property, if it loses more money than it makes and EA calls it a wash, then I think that's something we might be able to draw conclusions from.
I think if EA can't make a profit on a million seller then they need to change the way they are doing business. By an metric we have that is very successful game. I mean really? Really? Maybe madden or GTA you could budget higher than that but anything else you have to be an idiot to write your business plan expecting, needing more than a million to turn a profit.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough? These are new IPs they are not that stupid.
I also don't get what he means about how words from EA don't matter...a major point of this discussion is why a sequel would get made. Well, if EA says it sold poorly, that's an indicator of why a sequel might not happen. Even if you think a million seller means it's a great property, if it loses more money than it makes and EA calls it a wash, then I think that's something we might be able to draw conclusions from.
I think if EA can't make a profit on a million seller then they need to change the way they are doing business. By an metric we have that is very successful game. I mean really? Really? Maybe madden or GTA you could budget higher than that but anyting else you have to be an idiot to write your business plan expecting, needing more than a million to turn a profit.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough?
It's a shame but you're probably right about the first part. They started making more interesting games and look where it's got them.
Honestly, you're arguing that facts are not true because you don't think they should be true. That's not the way things work. See the much more intelligent posts after mine for more info.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough?
Possibly.
Couscous on
0
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
I also don't get what he means about how words from EA don't matter...a major point of this discussion is why a sequel would get made. Well, if EA says it sold poorly, that's an indicator of why a sequel might not happen. Even if you think a million seller means it's a great property, if it loses more money than it makes and EA calls it a wash, then I think that's something we might be able to draw conclusions from.
I think if EA can't make a profit on a million seller then they need to change the way they are doing business. By an metric we have that is very successful game. I mean really? Really? Maybe madden or GTA you could budget higher than that but anything else you have to be an idiot to write your business plan expecting, needing more than a million to turn a profit.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough? These are new IPs they are not that stupid.
When you have several examples of games selling 2.5 million plus on 360 alone, it's not crazy for EA to think that their big, heavily-marketed game on three platforms might sell over twice as well as it did.
I think if EA can't make a profit on a million seller then they need to change the way they are doing business.
They are changing the way they do business. Their refocusing more efforts and emphasis on Wii development, where they have had major successes on several key properties, one of which is Boom Blox.
By an metric we have that is very successful game. I mean really? Really? Maybe madden or GTA you could budget higher than that but anything else you have to be an idiot to write your business plan expecting, needing more than a million to turn a profit.
It's the blockbuster strategy. Put all these eggs into one huge basket. Then hope you hit the jackpot when you release it.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough? These are new IPs they are not that stupid.
Dead Space? Absolutely, given the production value and marketing campaign and franchise-building campaign and the fact that it was built for the HD systems that are themselves expensive to develop for.
Mirror's Edge? Maybe. But given the nature and expense of HD development, it's not impossible; although the marketing campaign wasn't as enormous as that for Dead Space.
I also don't get what he means about how words from EA don't matter...a major point of this discussion is why a sequel would get made. Well, if EA says it sold poorly, that's an indicator of why a sequel might not happen. Even if you think a million seller means it's a great property, if it loses more money than it makes and EA calls it a wash, then I think that's something we might be able to draw conclusions from.
I think if EA can't make a profit on a million seller then they need to change the way they are doing business. By an metric we have that is very successful game. I mean really? Really? Maybe madden or GTA you could budget higher than that but anyting else you have to be an idiot to write your business plan expecting, needing more than a million to turn a profit.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough?
It's a shame but you're probably right about the first part. They started making more interesting games and look where it's got them.
Honestly, you're arguing that facts are not true because you don't think they should be true. That's not the way things work.
Well to be honest we are both arguing a point based upon EA saying they were disappointed with sales for two games. Neither one of us know if they were profitable or not. I am submitting that they were and EA were crying simply to get some more press for their new IPs. You are taking them at their word. Either one of us could be wrong.
I have drank the better part of a bottle of wine so it is far more likely that you are but the discussion was fun.
I also don't get what he means about how words from EA don't matter...a major point of this discussion is why a sequel would get made. Well, if EA says it sold poorly, that's an indicator of why a sequel might not happen. Even if you think a million seller means it's a great property, if it loses more money than it makes and EA calls it a wash, then I think that's something we might be able to draw conclusions from.
I think if EA can't make a profit on a million seller then they need to change the way they are doing business. By an metric we have that is very successful game. I mean really? Really? Maybe madden or GTA you could budget higher than that but anything else you have to be an idiot to write your business plan expecting, needing more than a million to turn a profit.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough? These are new IPs they are not that stupid.
I think it's been argued many times that many companies have done just that----not spent frugally, sold less than they were hoping for and thus paid for it financially.
Neither one of us know if they were profitable or not. I am submitting that they were and EA were crying simply to get some more press for their new IPs.
Name one company that would ever do that.
Couscous on
0
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Neither one of us know if they were profitable or not. I am submitting that they were and EA were crying simply to get some more press for their new IPs.
I just want to know what basis people have for believing that Boom Blox didn't sell well despite all of these facts and numbers. It's difficult for me to see, and I still haven't been given a reason.
Neither one of us know if they were profitable or not. I am submitting that they were and EA were crying simply to get some more press for their new IPs.
Name one company that would ever do that.
Well it worked with me on Uncharted. Granted that was word of mouth around here but there was a push from the major media outlets saying look at this new IP that is awesome and no one is giving it love. So I picked it up and it was awesome.
There is also a difference between not living up to expectations and turning a profit. They could expect ME to be the next Halo and it only does 1- 1.5 mil that doesn't make it unprofitable.
I just want to know what basis people have for believing that Boom Blox didn't sell well despite all of these facts and numbers. It's difficult for me to see, and I still haven't been given a reason.
I guess if I'd quit posting then he'd have to say something to you smart folks. But then he might stop altogether and we wouldn't have the entertainment...
Yeah but seriously fuck expectations. There is no way in this world a game that sold 5+ million wasn't profitable. While a game that only sold 400k even on the Wii could be struggling to make money. My point is simply that EA is spinning their press releases. Dead Space made money, as did Mirror's Edge and there is no question in my mind NFS made buckets.
I'm still confused why EA would want to spin that Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, and NFS are dissapointments to their shareholders. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that those titles did very well if they actually do well to their shareholders?
Unless somehow you think EA would rather spin for a small budget affair like Boom Blox than for high budget games like Mirror's Edge and Dead Space.
Your logic is definitely not of this world. I don't know how you do so, but your way of thinking definitely transcend reality.
Neither one of us know if they were profitable or not. I am submitting that they were and EA were crying simply to get some more press for their new IPs.
Name one company that would ever do that.
Well it worked with me on Uncharted. Granted that was word of mouth around here but there was a push from the major media outlets saying look at this new IP that is awesome and no one is giving it love. So I picked it up and it was awesome.
There is also a difference between not living up to expectations and turning a profit. They could expect ME to be the next Halo and it only does 1- 1.5 mil that doesn't make it unprofitable.
News outlets != straight from the company.
Hearing about a game's sales doing poorly based on media reports is different than, say, financial reports or affirmative statements in press conferences straight from the publisher's mouth.
Also, a game can turn a profit, but if it failed to meet expectations, and the company was planning, financially, on certain expectations, it can indeed be a bad thing for the company despite the gaming paying for itself plus some amount.
This is ridiculous, no company ever downplays the success of their products. Because of the bandwagon theory. The more a product is perceived to be popular, the more people are likely to give it a shot.
That's why you see all kinds of advertising campaigns built around "the #1 box office hit", or "best selling game of 2008" or some such. That's why you see companies like Sony and Microsoft spin every which way to claim how successful their console is. Because the thing they dread more than anything is for the public to perceive it to be a loser.
There is no way EA would deliberate sabotage the future sales of these games by claiming they did poorly if they didn't.
And furthermore, we know for a fact they lost $630 million last quarter, if all these games made them money, how did they lose so much money?
Hearing about a game's sales doing poorly based on media reports is different than, say, financial reports or affirmative statements in press conferences straight from the publisher's mouth.
So do we have financial reports saying these games have sucked ass or do we have interviews with a pr rep speaking to media saying this because I was under the impression it was the later. If in fact EA has sent out press release to share holders saying the NFS, ME and Dead Space have sucked while Boom Blox was the one bright spot in the quarter than I suppose I should retract my statements.
Neither one of us know if they were profitable or not. I am submitting that they were and EA were crying simply to get some more press for their new IPs.
Name one company that would ever do that.
Well it worked with me on Uncharted. Granted that was word of mouth around here but there was a push from the major media outlets saying look at this new IP that is awesome and no one is giving it love. So I picked it up and it was awesome.
So you can't name one company that would ever do that.
I also don't get what he means about how words from EA don't matter...a major point of this discussion is why a sequel would get made. Well, if EA says it sold poorly, that's an indicator of why a sequel might not happen. Even if you think a million seller means it's a great property, if it loses more money than it makes and EA calls it a wash, then I think that's something we might be able to draw conclusions from.
I think if EA can't make a profit on a million seller then they need to change the way they are doing business. By an metric we have that is very successful game. I mean really? Really? Maybe madden or GTA you could budget higher than that but anything else you have to be an idiot to write your business plan expecting, needing more than a million to turn a profit.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough? These are new IPs they are not that stupid.
One of the things EA is doing right now is trying to get a good name back. This is why you seeing a bunch of new IPs that potentially won't turn a profit on their first game. Why do think ME was announced as a trilogy and so many other game coming out for the 360/PS3 being designed as trilogies? The cost of designing a new engine, art assets, etc. etc are much higher for a new game, so a company will greenlight a project that won't make money with the first game, but by the second or third.
Rakai on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
Riccitiello said during EA's Q3 2009 earnings call that "development is typically a third to a fourth as much for a Wii game than it is for a PS3 or an Xbox 360 game."
The expense of development for HD systems necessitates far higher sales for the games to turn a profit and be a success on the platforms. It doesn't require quite as high the types of sales for Wii games to turn a profit.
Which means if you develop multiplatform for the HD twins, you have to spend 6 to 8 times more to make one game. Which means if a game breaks even at say, 400,000 for the WII, a multiplatform HD game will break even at some where between 2.4 to 3.2 million sold.
So now do you see why ME and DS may have been huge losers financially?
Hearing about a game's sales doing poorly based on media reports is different than, say, financial reports or affirmative statements in press conferences straight from the publisher's mouth.
So do we have financial reports saying these games have sucked ass or do we have interviews with a pr rep speaking to media saying this because I was under the impression it was the later. If in fact EA has sent out press release to share holders saying the NFS, ME and Dead Space have sucked while Boom Blox was the one bright spot in the quarter than I suppose I should retract my statements.
My problem is that you're choosing to believe the opposite of the evidence that is out there, when your position has no evidence.
And I'm not sure why you're choosing "no evidence" as being more convincing than "some pretty great evidence."
I like how Corin7's existence and state of mind makes us feel so much better about our own.
Your a bit of a cock aren't you.
Look my words got a little twisted in all this.
No one has any facts here. Everyone is speculating and pretending their educated guesses are facts. EA said ME and DS underperformed. Does anyone have a press release saying they were unprofitable? I have never seen anything but the term underperformed. The general consensus in this thread seems to be that means they were unprofitable. I am simply saying this is not correct. Their expections could be crazy high we don't know... we have no context.
I like how Corin7's existence and state of mind makes us feel so much better about our own.
The best thing is allowing for one specific piece of evidence that he's pretty sure doesn't exist, while ignoring all the other (sometimes more compelling!) evidence in the face of logic.
Guys, there isn't a press release that says ME and Dead Space sucked while Boom Blox led in sales, that means we've got it all wrong.
Hearing about a game's sales doing poorly based on media reports is different than, say, financial reports or affirmative statements in press conferences straight from the publisher's mouth.
So do we have financial reports saying these games have sucked ass or do we have interviews with a pr rep speaking to media saying this because I was under the impression it was the later. If in fact EA has sent out press release to share holders saying the NFS, ME and Dead Space have sucked while Boom Blox was the one bright spot in the quarter than I suppose I should retract my statements.
Evidence that EA's games in general sold poorly in the last quarter:
"Our holiday quarter came in below our expectations and we have significantly reduced our financial outlook for fiscal 2009, a clear disappointment," says EA CEO John Riccitiello.
Games EA released during or near the holidays: # Left 4 Dead (2008) — Xbox 360, Windows # Madden NFL 09 (2008) — Nintendo DS, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, Wii, Xbox, Xbox 360 # Mirror's Edge (2008) — PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Windows
# MySims Kingdom (2008) — Wii, Nintendo DS # Need for Speed: Undercover (2008) — XBox 360, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, PC, Nintendo DS, Mobile (including iPhone), Wii and PSP
# Rock Band 2 (2008) — Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii, PlayStation 2 Spore (2008) — Windows, Mac OS X
# Skate It (2008) — Nintendo DS, Wii
# Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 (2008) — PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PSP, Wii, Xbox 360 # Dead Space (2008) — Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Windows # FaceBreaker (2008) — PlayStation 3, Wii, Xbox 360 # FIFA 09 (2008) — Playstation 3, Playstation 2, PC, Playstation Portable, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS, Mobile, Nintendo Wii
# Mercenaries 2: World in Flames (2008) — Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
Bolded is known to have sold over a million. Italicized flopped from what I remember.
Out of these, Rock Band probably made a profit, MySims was basically an expansion pack, and they just published Left 4 Dead. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 is a yearly title so should be consistently profitable or else they wouldn't be making it every freaking year. Basically, you are looking at them having to have way overspent on both the development of new games that have yet to be released during the third quarter plus the games that sold less than a million each whose profit is uncertain having flopped extremely hard and having been expensive to develop.
Riccitiello said during EA's Q3 2009 earnings call that "development is typically a third to a fourth as much for a Wii game than it is for a PS3 or an Xbox 360 game."
The expense of development for HD systems necessitates far higher sales for the games to turn a profit and be a success on the platforms. It doesn't require quite as high the types of sales for Wii games to turn a profit.
Which means if you develop multiplatform for the HD twins, you have to spend 6 to 8 times more to make one game. Which means if a game breaks even at say, 400,000 for the WII, a multiplatform HD game will break even at some where between 2.4 to 3.2 million sold.
So now do you see why ME and DS may have been huge losers financially?
Porting from 1 HD system to the other will cost money but not that much.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
EA had some positive things to say about Rock Band 2 after the holiday dust settled, but unfortunately they were very cryptic with respect to success or expectations. Although I don't think anyone should be too worried about Rock Band in general.
Hearing about a game's sales doing poorly based on media reports is different than, say, financial reports or affirmative statements in press conferences straight from the publisher's mouth.
So do we have financial reports saying these games have sucked ass or do we have interviews with a pr rep speaking to media saying this because I was under the impression it was the later. If in fact EA has sent out press release to share holders saying the NFS, ME and Dead Space have sucked while Boom Blox was the one bright spot in the quarter than I suppose I should retract my statements.
Evidence that EA's games in general sold poorly in the last quarter:
"Our holiday quarter came in below our expectations and we have significantly reduced our financial outlook for fiscal 2009, a clear disappointment," says EA CEO John Riccitiello.
Games EA released during or near the holidays: # Left 4 Dead (2008) — Xbox 360, Windows # Madden NFL 09 (2008) — Nintendo DS, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, Wii, Xbox, Xbox 360 # Mirror's Edge (2008) — PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Windows
# MySims Kingdom (2008) — Wii, Nintendo DS # Need for Speed: Undercover (2008) — XBox 360, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, PC, Nintendo DS, Mobile (including iPhone), Wii and PSP
# Rock Band 2 (2008) — Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii, PlayStation 2 Spore (2008) — Windows, Mac OS X
# Skate It (2008) — Nintendo DS, Wii
# Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 (2008) — PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PSP, Wii, Xbox 360 # Dead Space (2008) — Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Windows # FaceBreaker (2008) — PlayStation 3, Wii, Xbox 360 # FIFA 09 (2008) — Playstation 3, Playstation 2, PC, Playstation Portable, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS, Mobile, Nintendo Wii
# Mercenaries 2: World in Flames (2008) — Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
Bolded is known to have sold over a million. Italicized flopped from what I remember.
Out of these, Rock Band probably made a profit, MySims was basically an expansion pack, and they just published Left 4 Dead.
How do you know Rock Band probably made a profit? They way you state that makes me think nothing else did. A disappointment could simply mean it wasn't as awesome as the last quarter. I mean we have zero numbers just adjectives.
Look I am in a sales thread saying that numbers are more telling than words and just got piled on and called crazy? And really that is all I was saying in my initial statement. I expected a little more from you guys. I haven't even once said my opionion was right just that assuming that every emotion every PR rep from EA spouts is gospel isn't the path to success. I am just asking for some objective observation. Christ on a cross are you guys serious?
Riccitiello said during EA's Q3 2009 earnings call that "development is typically a third to a fourth as much for a Wii game than it is for a PS3 or an Xbox 360 game."
The expense of development for HD systems necessitates far higher sales for the games to turn a profit and be a success on the platforms. It doesn't require quite as high the types of sales for Wii games to turn a profit.
Which means if you develop multiplatform for the HD twins, you have to spend 6 to 8 times more to make one game. Which means if a game breaks even at say, 400,000 for the WII, a multiplatform HD game will break even at some where between 2.4 to 3.2 million sold.
So now do you see why ME and DS may have been huge losers financially?
Porting from 1 HD system to the other will cost money but not that much.
EA recently said that the development cost of the average Wii game is about 1/3 to 1/4 that of the development cost of HD games in general. Now advertising can make the difference much smaller or much greater depending on the game.
Aren't they just the publisher on Rock Band 2 also? I thought it technically falls under the umbrella of MTV Games.
They're just the distributor.
In other words, they're job is simply to make sure that the game gets into stores properly, and "ready for consumption" by the consumer. A pretty minimal role, really, but nevertheless a necessary one.
I think you can pretty much say for certain the ME lost money. "selling miserable" is not ambiguous.
And furthermore, the idea that if it made a small profit, it's okay is also faulty and ignorant of how businesses work.
If I invest 50 million dollars over 2 years to make a game, it had better turn a decent profit, because I could have put that in a bank and made 3-4% interest. I could have use it to made 4 Wii games and made more money. Whether a game is successful is ultimately judged against the opportunity cost of using that money invested in the game into some other endeavor. If a game makes a tiny profit, that's not a very high incentive for a company to make a sequel, they will often decide going in another direction can result in higher returns.
EA would have to be pretty incompetent not to make a profit on it.
The Xbox 360 version of Rock Band 2 was the third best-selling game in North America in September 2008, selling 363,000 copies.[65] and also has an average critic review score of 92% on Metacritic, tying it for the 11th highest-rated game for the Xbox 360 and the 7th highest-rated game on the Playstation 3. The Xbox 360 version continued to sell more than 119,000 copies in October 2008, while a similar number of units were sold of the PlayStation 3 version following its October debut.[66] Rock Band 2 sold 1.7 million units all platforms in North America in 2008, about half as many as Guitar Hero World Tour.[67]
Nothing has suggested that it has sold less than expected. They would have had to somehow lost money on distributing it without having to pay for its development.
No one has any facts here. Everyone is speculating and pretending their educated guesses are facts. EA said ME and DS underperformed. Does anyone have a press release saying they were unprofitable? I have never seen anything but the term underperformed. The general consensus in this thread seems to be that means they were unprofitable. I am simply saying this is not correct. Their expections could be crazy high we don't know... we have no context.
Underperformed doesn't mean they're unprofitable - you're right about that. However, it does spell some gloom that a game that's so highly marketed, hyped, and epicly budgeted like Dead Space is said to underperform even after getting more than a million in sales.
These are the facts we do have straight from EA that you somehow still don't try to put into context.
You keep saying that DS sold more than a million while not acknowledging EA's own admission that DS is underperforming compared to their expectation of the title.
When you pick and choose the facts you represent to support your opinion, don't be surprised when people call you out for that.
And again, please for making me feel smarter and wiser than I really am.
I think you can pretty much say for certain the ME lost money. "selling miserable" is not ambiguous.
And furthermore, the idea that if it made a small profit, it's okay is also faulty and ignorant of how businesses work.
If I invest 50 million dollars over 2 years to make a game, it had better turn a decent profit, because I could have put that in a bank and made 3-4% interest. I could have use it to made 4 Wii games and made more money. Whether a game is successful is ultimately judged against the opportunity cost of using that money invested in the game into some other endeavor. If a game makes a tiny profit, that's not a very high incentive for a company to make a sequel, they will often decide going in another direction can result in higher returns.
Not only that, but businesses build their financial projections around sales expectations. Just because something ends up paying for itself and then some doesn't mean that they weren't relying, financially, on greater sales than that.
Furthermore, many businesses are looking to grow and it often takes more than just a tad of profits to grow. Rather, if they've invested heavily into a certain brand or product, and expect to make a certain sum of money to use and reinvest or expand the company with, then just making a tad of profit might not be enough for that either.
It's generally not good for companies to simply limp along with a tad of profit on huge, expensive projects.
EA would have to be pretty incompetent not to make a profit on it.
The Xbox 360 version of Rock Band 2 was the third best-selling game in North America in September 2008, selling 363,000 copies.[65] and also has an average critic review score of 92% on Metacritic, tying it for the 11th highest-rated game for the Xbox 360 and the 7th highest-rated game on the Playstation 3. The Xbox 360 version continued to sell more than 119,000 copies in October 2008, while a similar number of units were sold of the PlayStation 3 version following its October debut.[66] Rock Band 2 sold 1.7 million units all platforms in North America in 2008, about half as many as Guitar Hero World Tour.[67]
Nothing has suggested that it has sold less than expected. They would have had to somehow lost money on distributing it without having to pay for its development.
EA had something to say about RB2's sales, but they didn't say it until after the Wii version came out and pulled the excellent sales numbers. I guess they wanted to wait to get Wii numbers, the best selling version, before commenting on it.
Posts
So how is EA losing so much money?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It can be profitable and still not meet expectations. Companies have to produce sales expectations and financial reports regarding expecations, and they plan their business strategies around them. They try to live up to these expectations for the sake of shareholders.
Also, many publishers have come out and stated that a Wii game can be profitable at 250k or 300k.
Also EA has said that a Wii game can cost as little as, what, 1/4 or 1/2 or 1/3 the cost as producing an HD game? Something to that effect.
Also, if EA is merely "spinning their press release," to make themselves look good, then how does that explain the press releases that clearly and affirmatively state disappointment with other games?
Finally - why would you believe that Boom Blox sold poorly when a) EA said it sold well, b) reinforced that statement, c) the numbers for the game are good, and c) it took ages for the price to drop, and d) a sequel was announced? When the only countervailing evidence is .... "because I think so"
I just want to know what the basis of your reasoning that Boom Blox sold poorly is, because right now, there's only strong evidence showing that it sold well.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
The expense of development for HD systems necessitates far higher sales for the games to turn a profit and be a success on the platforms. It doesn't require quite as high the types of sales for Wii games to turn a profit.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
When you have a marketing campaign like Dead Space's, a million copies moved probably isn't enough to make a profit.
I think if EA can't make a profit on a million seller then they need to change the way they are doing business. By an metric we have that is very successful game. I mean really? Really? Maybe madden or GTA you could budget higher than that but anything else you have to be an idiot to write your business plan expecting, needing more than a million to turn a profit.
Bottom line do you really think EA wrote up the plans for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and green lit them knowing that if they sold a million copies it just wouldn't be enough? These are new IPs they are not that stupid.
Honestly, you're arguing that facts are not true because you don't think they should be true. That's not the way things work. See the much more intelligent posts after mine for more info.
When you have several examples of games selling 2.5 million plus on 360 alone, it's not crazy for EA to think that their big, heavily-marketed game on three platforms might sell over twice as well as it did.
They are changing the way they do business. Their refocusing more efforts and emphasis on Wii development, where they have had major successes on several key properties, one of which is Boom Blox.
It's the blockbuster strategy. Put all these eggs into one huge basket. Then hope you hit the jackpot when you release it.
Dead Space? Absolutely, given the production value and marketing campaign and franchise-building campaign and the fact that it was built for the HD systems that are themselves expensive to develop for.
Mirror's Edge? Maybe. But given the nature and expense of HD development, it's not impossible; although the marketing campaign wasn't as enormous as that for Dead Space.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Well to be honest we are both arguing a point based upon EA saying they were disappointed with sales for two games. Neither one of us know if they were profitable or not. I am submitting that they were and EA were crying simply to get some more press for their new IPs. You are taking them at their word. Either one of us could be wrong.
I have drank the better part of a bottle of wine so it is far more likely that you are but the discussion was fun.
I think it's been argued many times that many companies have done just that----not spent frugally, sold less than they were hoping for and thus paid for it financially.
One that wants its stock price to drop 15-20%?
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Well it worked with me on Uncharted. Granted that was word of mouth around here but there was a push from the major media outlets saying look at this new IP that is awesome and no one is giving it love. So I picked it up and it was awesome.
There is also a difference between not living up to expectations and turning a profit. They could expect ME to be the next Halo and it only does 1- 1.5 mil that doesn't make it unprofitable.
I'm still confused why EA would want to spin that Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, and NFS are dissapointments to their shareholders. Wouldn't it make more sense to say that those titles did very well if they actually do well to their shareholders?
Unless somehow you think EA would rather spin for a small budget affair like Boom Blox than for high budget games like Mirror's Edge and Dead Space.
Your logic is definitely not of this world. I don't know how you do so, but your way of thinking definitely transcend reality.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
News outlets != straight from the company.
Hearing about a game's sales doing poorly based on media reports is different than, say, financial reports or affirmative statements in press conferences straight from the publisher's mouth.
Also, a game can turn a profit, but if it failed to meet expectations, and the company was planning, financially, on certain expectations, it can indeed be a bad thing for the company despite the gaming paying for itself plus some amount.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
That's why you see all kinds of advertising campaigns built around "the #1 box office hit", or "best selling game of 2008" or some such. That's why you see companies like Sony and Microsoft spin every which way to claim how successful their console is. Because the thing they dread more than anything is for the public to perceive it to be a loser.
There is no way EA would deliberate sabotage the future sales of these games by claiming they did poorly if they didn't.
And furthermore, we know for a fact they lost $630 million last quarter, if all these games made them money, how did they lose so much money?
So do we have financial reports saying these games have sucked ass or do we have interviews with a pr rep speaking to media saying this because I was under the impression it was the later. If in fact EA has sent out press release to share holders saying the NFS, ME and Dead Space have sucked while Boom Blox was the one bright spot in the quarter than I suppose I should retract my statements.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
One of the things EA is doing right now is trying to get a good name back. This is why you seeing a bunch of new IPs that potentially won't turn a profit on their first game. Why do think ME was announced as a trilogy and so many other game coming out for the 360/PS3 being designed as trilogies? The cost of designing a new engine, art assets, etc. etc are much higher for a new game, so a company will greenlight a project that won't make money with the first game, but by the second or third.
Which means if you develop multiplatform for the HD twins, you have to spend 6 to 8 times more to make one game. Which means if a game breaks even at say, 400,000 for the WII, a multiplatform HD game will break even at some where between 2.4 to 3.2 million sold.
So now do you see why ME and DS may have been huge losers financially?
My problem is that you're choosing to believe the opposite of the evidence that is out there, when your position has no evidence.
And I'm not sure why you're choosing "no evidence" as being more convincing than "some pretty great evidence."
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Your a bit of a cock aren't you.
Look my words got a little twisted in all this.
No one has any facts here. Everyone is speculating and pretending their educated guesses are facts. EA said ME and DS underperformed. Does anyone have a press release saying they were unprofitable? I have never seen anything but the term underperformed. The general consensus in this thread seems to be that means they were unprofitable. I am simply saying this is not correct. Their expections could be crazy high we don't know... we have no context.
The best thing is allowing for one specific piece of evidence that he's pretty sure doesn't exist, while ignoring all the other (sometimes more compelling!) evidence in the face of logic.
Guys, there isn't a press release that says ME and Dead Space sucked while Boom Blox led in sales, that means we've got it all wrong.
Evidence that EA's games in general sold poorly in the last quarter:
Games EA released during or near the holidays:
# Left 4 Dead (2008) — Xbox 360, Windows
# Madden NFL 09 (2008) — Nintendo DS, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, Wii, Xbox, Xbox 360
# Mirror's Edge (2008) — PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Windows
# MySims Kingdom (2008) — Wii, Nintendo DS
# Need for Speed: Undercover (2008) — XBox 360, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, PC, Nintendo DS, Mobile (including iPhone), Wii and PSP
# Rock Band 2 (2008) — Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii, PlayStation 2
Spore (2008) — Windows, Mac OS X
# Skate It (2008) — Nintendo DS, Wii
# Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 (2008) — PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PSP, Wii, Xbox 360
# Dead Space (2008) — Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Windows
# FaceBreaker (2008) — PlayStation 3, Wii, Xbox 360
# FIFA 09 (2008) — Playstation 3, Playstation 2, PC, Playstation Portable, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS, Mobile, Nintendo Wii
# Mercenaries 2: World in Flames (2008) — Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
Bolded is known to have sold over a million. Italicized flopped from what I remember.
Out of these, Rock Band probably made a profit, MySims was basically an expansion pack, and they just published Left 4 Dead. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 is a yearly title so should be consistently profitable or else they wouldn't be making it every freaking year. Basically, you are looking at them having to have way overspent on both the development of new games that have yet to be released during the third quarter plus the games that sold less than a million each whose profit is uncertain having flopped extremely hard and having been expensive to develop.
Porting from 1 HD system to the other will cost money but not that much.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
How do you know Rock Band probably made a profit? They way you state that makes me think nothing else did. A disappointment could simply mean it wasn't as awesome as the last quarter. I mean we have zero numbers just adjectives.
Look I am in a sales thread saying that numbers are more telling than words and just got piled on and called crazy? And really that is all I was saying in my initial statement. I expected a little more from you guys. I haven't even once said my opionion was right just that assuming that every emotion every PR rep from EA spouts is gospel isn't the path to success. I am just asking for some objective observation. Christ on a cross are you guys serious?
They're just the distributor.
In other words, they're job is simply to make sure that the game gets into stores properly, and "ready for consumption" by the consumer. A pretty minimal role, really, but nevertheless a necessary one.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
And furthermore, the idea that if it made a small profit, it's okay is also faulty and ignorant of how businesses work.
If I invest 50 million dollars over 2 years to make a game, it had better turn a decent profit, because I could have put that in a bank and made 3-4% interest. I could have use it to made 4 Wii games and made more money. Whether a game is successful is ultimately judged against the opportunity cost of using that money invested in the game into some other endeavor. If a game makes a tiny profit, that's not a very high incentive for a company to make a sequel, they will often decide going in another direction can result in higher returns.
Underperformed doesn't mean they're unprofitable - you're right about that. However, it does spell some gloom that a game that's so highly marketed, hyped, and epicly budgeted like Dead Space is said to underperform even after getting more than a million in sales.
These are the facts we do have straight from EA that you somehow still don't try to put into context.
You keep saying that DS sold more than a million while not acknowledging EA's own admission that DS is underperforming compared to their expectation of the title.
When you pick and choose the facts you represent to support your opinion, don't be surprised when people call you out for that.
And again, please for making me feel smarter and wiser than I really am.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
Not only that, but businesses build their financial projections around sales expectations. Just because something ends up paying for itself and then some doesn't mean that they weren't relying, financially, on greater sales than that.
Furthermore, many businesses are looking to grow and it often takes more than just a tad of profits to grow. Rather, if they've invested heavily into a certain brand or product, and expect to make a certain sum of money to use and reinvest or expand the company with, then just making a tad of profit might not be enough for that either.
It's generally not good for companies to simply limp along with a tad of profit on huge, expensive projects.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
EA had something to say about RB2's sales, but they didn't say it until after the Wii version came out and pulled the excellent sales numbers. I guess they wanted to wait to get Wii numbers, the best selling version, before commenting on it.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games