BioShock Infinite Sells 3.7 Million Units

[lacktheknack]

I know that Game Dev Tycoon is not actually an authority in sales, it doesn't cover publishers, etc, but it DOES give some real ballpark measurements.

With that, HOW IS $1.214 BILLION NOT ENOUGH?

People keep saying that a video game crash isn't going to happen, but with numbers like that, I don't see why not...

 

[MetalMagpie]

Their situation doesn't look anywhere near as grim as Squeenix's or EA's, so they'll probably be fine.

Actually, EA made a profit in FY12 of about $76 million! Square Enix only managed ¥127 million (roughly $1.2 million) but it's still a profit.

Which is all a bit depressing. :/

 

[anian]

I can't help but think, the trouble with not making profit is in some CEO or a whole room of people who receive millions for "being boss" (add a few of those and you basically have your profit right there), those kind of people infiltrated other industries, so why not this.
I won't go so far to think they also probably know little about running a business (in a game industry), but that's the case quite often as well probably.

 

[Albino Boo]

Doubled revenue from same quarter last year

Full-year totals up to 1.2 billion

Wasn't enough to result in profit

What in the blue, high-definition fuck is wrong with either the expectations or the costs of this industry?

Edit: Oh, and Infinite has some shitty Tomb Raider kind of numbers. I was under the impression that it succeeded. Next time Levine, if you get a next time with this kind of abysmal performance.

Its called the economics. In case you haven't noticed we are in the worst recession in 80 years. Southern Europe has unemployment rates of around 50% of the under 25s and and over 25% overall. Thats is a significant chunk of the market where people just simply can't afford games anymore. The French and even the Dutch economy is on the verge of being dragged into the same state as the south of the eurozone. Outside of the eurozone real incomes have been squeezed by inflation since 2008 and less disposable income means less games sold.

The decisions to start on the current crop of AAA games would have been taken back in 2010 when the market was still buoyant and economic projections indicated moderate growth, so it was not an unreasonable assumption that sales growth would continue. The problem lies in that the economic projections were based on the assumption that the Eurozone's problems would be solved, however that is something that Eurozone leaders have singularly failed to do. A major part of the world economy has still not tackled the problems facing it and the consequent lack of demand is imposing drag on the rest of the world economy. In short games sales figures will continue to drop until the Eurozone is fixed and that is way beyond the remit of games companies.

 

[The_Echo]

I'm in the "how the fuck is 1.2 billion dollars not making a profit?" boat.

I mean... I. That's a lot of money. Do the Take Two CEOs all have 50-story mansions or something? What can a company do to make it so a billion dollars won't turn a profit?

 

[lancar]

Hey, at least they didn't start blaming solid game markets as "underperforming". I think Take-Two is a publisher that takes a lot more risks than the others, so that they too take a some losses isn't much of a surprise. Their situation doesn't look anywhere near as grim as Squeenix's or EA's, so they'll probably be fine.

Probably wouldn't hurt to trim away some needless graphical fidelity fat, though, but as long as what they're doing is (mostly) working, and continue to produce titles that I actually want to play (since they're pretty much the only big publisher that still does that), then who cares.

bioshock infinite wasnt that graphical tho. Its recommended was a gtx 560 in a market where the 660ti is only 300. You probably have a point but in the case of bioshock I wonder just how much trimming there was left to do.

I love what they did tho thing performed great on my 600 dollar hp with ati 3700 integrated graphics(ie integrated graphics = shit)

Be that as it may, I was thinking in general terms where the industry as a whole is still in the mindset that graphics must be brilliant or games will not sell. In that respect Take-Two may be less guilty than the rest of them, but it's still a factor.

 

[lancar]

Their situation doesn't look anywhere near as grim as Squeenix's or EA's, so they'll probably be fine.

Actually, EA made a profit in FY12 of about $76 million! Square Enix only managed ¥127 million (roughly $1.2 million) but it's still a profit.

Which is all a bit depressing. :/

I'm thinking that EA's (and Squeenix's) shareholders probably expected a much, much larger profit than that, and thus put more pressure on them as a result, whereas Take-two's shareholders might have more confidence in the company and so don't start yelling like small children as soon as the money flow stops.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Its called the economics. In case you haven't noticed we are in the worst recession in 80 years. Southern Europe has unemployment rates of around 50% of the under 25s and and over 25% overall. Thats is a significant chunk of the market where people just simply can't afford games anymore. The French and even the Dutch economy is on the verge of being dragged into the same state as the south of the eurozone. Outside of the eurozone real incomes have been squeezed by inflation since 2008 and less disposable income means less games sold.

The decisions to start on the current crop of AAA games would have been taken back in 2010 when the market was still buoyant and economic projections indicated moderate growth, so it was not an unreasonable assumption that sales growth would continue. The problem lies in that the economic projections were based on the assumption that the Eurozone's problems would be solved, however that is something that Eurozone leaders have singularly failed to do. A major part of the world economy has still not tackled the problems facing it and the consequent lack of demand is imposing drag on the rest of the world economy. In short games sales figures will continue to drop until the Eurozone is fixed and that is way beyond the remit of games companies.

I'm fully aware of all of that, but you've only proven my point (I was being facetious). Despite everything you just said, 3.7 million people were still able to come up with the disposable income to purchase this game. Based on everything we've learned until recently, that should be a very high number that causes the champagne to come out. What I was getting at was the issue with that number being low despite all factors or context, and 1.2 billion being a number where you aren't turning a profit. My only guess is that Levine asks for crazy Bioshock money, and Houser asks for insane GTA money, to the point where our normal standards of success are greatly skewed. Things should be going great for them considering the economic situation.

And if the economy is hurting them that badly despite all that, the teams really don't need to do all their assets from scratch, write an in-house lighting engine from scratch, or pay Hollywood voice actors. That's not the kind of shit that makes games memorable, and I imagine the sales would be damn near the same if that were the case.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

What the hell are they doing when that's not enough to turn a profit? I know that EA and Square-Enix spend too much on advertising and DLC, plus EA makes shitty games. But what the fuck did Take-Two do?

 

[Albino Boo]

Its called the economics. In case you haven't noticed we are in the worst recession in 80 years. Southern Europe has unemployment rates of around 50% of the under 25s and and over 25% overall. Thats is a significant chunk of the market where people just simply can't afford games anymore. The French and even the Dutch economy is on the verge of being dragged into the same state as the south of the eurozone. Outside of the eurozone real incomes have been squeezed by inflation since 2008 and less disposable income means less games sold.

The decisions to start on the current crop of AAA games would have been taken back in 2010 when the market was still buoyant and economic projections indicated moderate growth, so it was not an unreasonable assumption that sales growth would continue. The problem lies in that the economic projections were based on the assumption that the Eurozone's problems would be solved, however that is something that Eurozone leaders have singularly failed to do. A major part of the world economy has still not tackled the problems facing it and the consequent lack of demand is imposing drag on the rest of the world economy. In short games sales figures will continue to drop until the Eurozone is fixed and that is way beyond the remit of games companies.

I'm fully aware of all of that, but you've only proven my point (I was being facetious). Despite everything you just said, 3.7 million people were still able to come up with the disposable income to purchase this game. Based on everything we've learned until recently, that should be a very high number that causes the champagne to come out. What I was getting at was the issue with that number being low despite all factors or context, and 1.2 billion being a number where you aren't turning a profit. My only guess is that Levine asks for crazy Bioshock money, and Houser asks for insane GTA money, to the point where our normal standards of success are greatly skewed. Things should be going great for them considering the economic situation.

And if the economy is hurting them that badly despite all that, the teams really don't need to do all their assets from scratch, write an in-house lighting engine from scratch, or pay Hollywood voice actors. That's not the kind of shit that makes games memorable, and I imagine the sales would be damn near the same if that were the case.

You forget that between 2008-2012 sales actually grew and despite the poor economic outlook bioshock infinite still sold more than the last, just not as much predicted. Part of the problem with the games industry has is the price point of AAA games has remained constant over the last 20 years, so just to stand still you need increase sales because of inflation. The margins have been further eroded by increases in VAT in large parts of Europe making the need for sales growth greater than predicted. This is problem that cuts across industries and is not exclusive to games and the market reacted by to the news by the grand fall $0.049 of a dollar in 2k's share price and the share price is up on the year. In other words the market thinks they have done better than last year.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I like how people are still disagreeing with me that the industry is in trouble, even with stories like these becoming nearly weekly occurrences.

Games now cost too much to make. It costs a million dollars to make one street fighter character; a job one person could do,(theoretically) on their home computer, but a job we instead give to a small army. This industry is nothing but excess and bloat now, it cannot support it's own weight. Developers and publishers will feel an even bigger pinch next year with the new generation, when we are putting triple the production costs into games and getting EVEN LESS return. Then many more familiar faces will vanish from gaming forever; taking many of their IP's with them.

All because most people still think polygon count, movie-esque set pieces and Hollywood voice acting is somehow important to playing controllable pixels.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

... when we are putting triple the production costs into games and getting EVEN LESS return. Then many more familiar faces vanish from gaming forever; taking many of their IP's with them.

All because most people still think polygon count, movie-esque set pieces....

The hope with the migration to x64 architecture is that we will not see it happening to such an extent because it's easier to program for than say the Cell architecture (PS3).
Edit: Also ports between platforms will be easier to do.

 

[xPixelatedx]

The hope with the migration to x86 architecture is that we will not see it happening to such an extent because it's easier to program for than say the Cell architecture (PS3).
Edit: Also ports between platforms will be easier to do.

That's an interesting thing to consider, but I would be surprised if it actually made a difference. Making things cross-platform and developing for cell is costly, but I don't think that is where all the cost is going... Not even by a long shot. For example, exclusives for all consoles still cost small fortunes and require small armies to make. With so many 'casuals' leaving on all fronts, games just won't be able to make the return they once did. If you are making games and using blockbuster movie resources and budgets, you have to get blockbuster movie profits in return to sustain yourself.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

That's an interesting thing to consider, but I would be surprised if it actually made a difference. Making things cross-platform and developing for cell is costly, but I don't think that is where all the cost is going... Not even by a long shot. For example, exclusives for all consoles still cost small fortunes and require small armies to make. With so many 'casuals' leaving on all fronts, games just won't be able to make the return they once did. If you are making games and using blockbuster movie resources and budgets, you have to get blockbuster movie profits in return to sustain yourself.

I guess I agree, what I said was just meant as in doing the same things will not take as long to do.
I am sure there will be great many other excuses.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Handhelds and indie games are the future because triple-A publishers are killing themselves with this graphical arms race and movie-like advertisement budgets. I wonder how much did Shin Megami Tensei IV cost to make compared to a Lara Croft?

 

[wizzy555]

Games now cost too much to make. It costs a million dollars to make one street fighter character; a job one person could do,(theoretically) on their home computer,

Where does that number come from?

 

[Mr.Mattress]

WTF??? This AAA economic model is completely backwards. How can a company have not one, but several oustanding hits under its belt, plus continued earnings from previous games and still not turn a profit?? Seriously, what the heck kind of ultra kool-aid are investors drinking these days to imagine the outlandish sales the industry is simply not able to provide?

Exactly! They made over 800 Million dollars in sales, and yet they were still 31 Million short! That's ridiculous! Something has to change or else all of these Developers are doomed!

 

[xPixelatedx]

Where does that number come from?

Here. A lot of people brought that up during the discussion of the price of Skullgirls characters. Since I did not bother to find a real source on that number, I admit it could be wrong. It does however seem right if it is even costing indi devs $150'000 to make 2D sprites for a fighting game character, (which I also still think is a tad excessive).

 

[sXeth]

GTA 5 development, plus that insanely heavy ad campaign for Infinite probably. Although if you doubt that game development has gotten bloated, just sit through the credits of any AAA game, and try and imagine paying all those people for a period of several months at minimum, if not full years.

 

[Tactical Pause]

I'm fully aware of all of that, but you've only proven my point (I was being facetious). Despite everything you just said, 3.7 million people were still able to come up with the disposable income to purchase this game. Based on everything we've learned until recently, that should be a very high number that causes the champagne to come out. What I was getting at was the issue with that number being low despite all factors or context, and 1.2 billion being a number where you aren't turning a profit. My only guess is that Levine asks for crazy Bioshock money, and Houser asks for insane GTA money, to the point where our normal standards of success are greatly skewed. Things should be going great for them considering the economic situation.

And if the economy is hurting them that badly despite all that, the teams really don't need to do all their assets from scratch, write an in-house lighting engine from scratch, or pay Hollywood voice actors. That's not the kind of shit that makes games memorable, and I imagine the sales would be damn near the same if that were the case.

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Infinite itself did much better than TakeTwo was expecting, and ended up doing very well financially. Infinite did not suffer a loss, but the company as a whole (i.e. their other properties) did.

Also, bit of a separate issue here, but (as I believe Jim Sterling mentions in one of his episodes) most of the overspending is the result of publishers failing to understand what will really benefit from resources and manpower being poured in. In most cases it has nothing to do with the developer asking for more money than they should.