Take-Two: Duke Nukem Forever Was Profitable

[Hungry Donner]

It was profitable for Take2, but then they didn't have to finance most of the early developement so their costs were probably lower than we expect.

I also wonder if it was as profitable as they expected, I'd guess not.

 

[Trucken]

I see a lot of people here throwing a fit about Duke making money. First of all, you can't really be surprised. 14 years of development, heavily marketed and it's the fucking Duke. Of course it was going to do well in sales. Second of all, I'm positive that the people at 3D Realms (or are they a part of Gearbox now?) knows that the game was a mess. Hopefully they learned their lesson and use the money they made to make the next Duke Nukem game a good one.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

I'm amused by all the people with first hand knowledge of the game's shitness (thus presumably having bought the game) being confused by the sales figures.

As Joe put it, "even if a firecracker took 14 years to go off and it was a dud, people'd still wanna be there when it went off"

Also this.

 

[Jim Sturtridge]

Even though the game pissed me off to no end, with its freaking physics and shrinking levels. though i regretted buying this game and wish i just video taped myself burning $60 and put it on youtube for laughs. but the one thing that it was is a port for the continuation Duke Nukem's story and a setup for an act of penance by take- two, 2k and gearbox with another game.

 

[IronicBeet]

Hey man, it only makes sense. There are three main rules in life: Don't be a dick, tip your waiter, and always bet on Duke.

 

[Crunchy English]

I am so sick of this. This is the third story since Pitts' review that has been shocked or disappointed or just plain rueful of Duke's success. There was that NPD sales one where Chalk lamented the games' success. Snide comments in the article about PC Patches and now this.

We get it, you didn't like Duke. Hell, maybe nobody did. That's hardly the point. The fact that Gearbox was willing to rescue Duke at all is awesome. A few of those guys got their start with Duke and they wanted to see him go out with some dignity (so to speak, the character is sort of an inherent joke, but you know what I mean). For me, Duke is a story about the success of authorial investment in product. Stop sh*tting all over it because it reveals professional reviews to be the hack job we all know they are. No one is judging you, Escapist Crew, because your reviews don't line up with Sales #s. Everyone knows reviews are just cheap entertainment. Let it go.

 

[cefm]

Get down off that 12th-story ledge, dear reader - put away the noose and shotgun and don't drop the plugged in toaster into the bathwater just yet.

He said it was "profitable for the software publisher", not that the overall start-to-(insert 10 years)-finish development cost for the game was repaid with sales.

Remember this publisher came to the very end of the party, got MOST of its advertisement for free by word of mouth, and then sold a larger than deserved number of "novelty" copies that were driven more by morbid speculation than any actual expectation of quality (in the same way that a Betty White pron video would probably get more views than one with an unknown hottie). So I'm not surprised by that statement. The publisher probably turned a profit.

But the endless stream of broken promises and dreams that preceded it in the prior decade of doomed development will never be paid back.

 

[cefm]

Get down off that 12th-story ledge, dear reader - put away the noose and shotgun and don't drop the plugged in toaster into the bathwater just yet.

He said it was "profitable for the software publisher", not that the overall start-to-(insert 10 years)-finish development cost for the game was repaid with sales.

Remember this publisher came to the very end of the party, got MOST of its advertisement for free by word of mouth, and then sold a larger than deserved number of "novelty" copies that were driven more by morbid speculation than any actual expectation of quality (in the same way that a Betty White pron video would probably get more views than one with an unknown hottie). So I'm not surprised by that statement. The publisher probably turned a profit.

But the endless stream of broken promises and dreams that preceded it in the prior decade of doomed development will never be paid back.

 

[gigastar]

Considering DNF took 14 years, 10 of which were under Take Two, to oust from development, thats an amazing achievement.

Even if it was shit in the end, i still enjoyed it to an extent.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Since the game had the worst development hell ever, I expect the next game to have some level of quality sucessing its predecessor.

 

[Unhappy Crow]

The only people I see buying this game are mostly gamers that doesn't let reviewers tell them what game they shouldn't play. It's their choose whether the game is enjoyable or a waste of play time.

I'm still going to play this game once I fix my PS3. I'm afraid that my PC won't be able to handle it.

 

[Metalrocks]

this game is a disaster in the duke franchise. how i wish to get back my money for it. makes it even hard to believe this game was financially successful. but well, after 14 years you just want to see it.
real shame. not even the patch that you can carry 4 weapons will change my mind to play it again.

 

[Orekoya]

This article seems to imply that the game was financially successful because people enjoyed the game. In reality this game was financially successful because people bought their overpriced freak show tickets to see the attraction billed as "Game that survived over a decade as vaporware". Now that everyone has come to see Duke swing from the monkey bars and fling his feces people are ready to move on.

 

[Woodsey]

Not a surprise.

Virtually every comment I saw on reviews was, "huh, so its shit... I still think I'll buy it for nostalgia". So there you go. Its all your own fucking faults.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Seriously, a profit from Duke Nukem Forever?!?
All hail Gearbox!

I've said it before, but I like typing. Give them a title, give them a budget, they'll give you a game and they'll give it to you on the day you asked.

They may not be perfect, but they get things done.

 

[slarrs]

Are you surprised? It got bad review, but everyone still watned to play it. Then something like say Bullet storm got great reviews and was all around a pretty fun and at the very least original shooter and no one made any money. Gaming companies still make terrible things because we buy them.

 

[ArchBlade]

Well, we can always hope that Duke Nukem 5 will be good, right?

Right?

...Right...?

 

[Titan Buttons]

So this...thing made money while awesome lesser known titles like Psychonauts and Child of Eden sit on the back shelf *twitch* *twitch* I don't understand anything anymore...

It's all about publisity, the more advertisment a game gets the more money it makes. It's alos the reason Scott Pilgram didnt do so well.

 

[scar_47]

Well its not really that much of a surprise they probably pais very little for the game and it only took a year of dev time so I doubt their costs were that high to begin with, as for the sales I'm sure a few people bought it because they thought it would be a decent game but it became apparent rather quickly it wasn't I'm betting a good number of copies were sold because people wanted to see how the game turned out after such a long time or those that knew it was the end of Duke and wanted to say farewell.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

Well it's definitely a game worth playing for how bad it is.

It was a so bad it's somehow good scenario and I think many people may have wanted to see for themselves how terrible it actually was. So I'm not overly suprised it did ok.