By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Western Publishers are struggling

Legend11 on 16 December 2008
shio said:
naznatips said:
Ari_Gold said:
@ Montana... EA's big yearly franchises grew old ( Medal of Honor, Battlefield, Burnout, Need for Speed), hence they need to make original IPS, most of them have been pretty good actually, i loved skate, mirror edge and dead space. Activision got lucky with Guitar Hero and Call of Duty 4. But they'll eventually go the way EA is currently going, and start to make new IPs.

New EA > Old EA

 

The console market is now all but meaningless to Activision.  In their last quarter their financials were 58% of their profit was from PC alone (42% of that from WoW, 16% from other sales). Followed by 13% on Wii, 10% on DS, and PS3 and 360 fighting over the last pathetic little 19%.  If you think either of those consoles mean jack in this industry anymore you are nuts.  PS3 and 360 could drop dead tomorrow and it wouldn't affect Activision much at all.  EA, however, would instantly go out of business.  EA will die long before Activision has to change anything.

This. It's not surprising that EA is more and more pushing PC support and caring less about HD consoles. EA is making a HUGE comeback on PC:

- Spore (2 millions in first 3 weeks, "The Sims" sales level), and a "looks awesome" expansion releasing in 2009

- Warhammer Online (over 1 million sales in it's debut month, best MMO launch since WoW)

- Battlefield Heroes (new take on the series, with Free-to-Play model + microtransactions)

- Revamp of all EA Sports titles for PC in 2009, which will take advantage of the PC's strengths with new specific features

- Battleforge, coming 2009, looks amazing and also is microtransactions-based

- Star Wars MMO, likely Free-to-Play with transactions so that it doesn't clash with Warhammer Online business model

- The Sims 3, proven +10 millions seller on PC

I think I'm forgetting some things more.

No doubt that EA knows where the big bucks are..... PC.

 

So if the big bucks are with PC why isn't that shown on their quarterly financial reports?  You know the one where the PC is dwarfed by console gaming?  (And I'm including subscription fees with the PC's results).

 



Around the Network
Riachu on 16 December 2008
Legend11 said:
shio said:
naznatips said:
Ari_Gold said:
@ Montana... EA's big yearly franchises grew old ( Medal of Honor, Battlefield, Burnout, Need for Speed), hence they need to make original IPS, most of them have been pretty good actually, i loved skate, mirror edge and dead space. Activision got lucky with Guitar Hero and Call of Duty 4. But they'll eventually go the way EA is currently going, and start to make new IPs.

New EA > Old EA

 

The console market is now all but meaningless to Activision. In their last quarter their financials were 58% of their profit was from PC alone (42% of that from WoW, 16% from other sales). Followed by 13% on Wii, 10% on DS, and PS3 and 360 fighting over the last pathetic little 19%. If you think either of those consoles mean jack in this industry anymore you are nuts. PS3 and 360 could drop dead tomorrow and it wouldn't affect Activision much at all. EA, however, would instantly go out of business. EA will die long before Activision has to change anything.

This. It's not surprising that EA is more and more pushing PC support and caring less about HD consoles. EA is making a HUGE comeback on PC:

- Spore (2 millions in first 3 weeks, "The Sims" sales level), and a "looks awesome" expansion releasing in 2009

- Warhammer Online (over 1 million sales in it's debut month, best MMO launch since WoW)

- Battlefield Heroes (new take on the series, with Free-to-Play model + microtransactions)

- Revamp of all EA Sports titles for PC in 2009, which will take advantage of the PC's strengths with new specific features

- Battleforge, coming 2009, looks amazing and also is microtransactions-based

- Star Wars MMO, likely Free-to-Play with transactions so that it doesn't clash with Warhammer Online business model

- The Sims 3, proven +10 millions seller on PC

I think I'm forgetting some things more.

No doubt that EA knows where the big bucks are..... PC.

 

So if the big bucks are with PC why isn't that shown on their quarterly financial reports? You know the one where the PC is dwarfed by console gaming? (And I'm including subscription fees with the PC's results).

 

Consoles dwarf the PC market since the PC games are being pirated while the console games are really hard to pirate.

 



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

gnawkz on 16 December 2008

The main reason why most publishers are struggling is due to such heavy competition by 1st party publishers to get console acceptance.

Originally $20 Billion would be fought over by EA, Take 2, Activision, THQ, UbiSoft and other 3rd party publishers. Maybe $1 - 3 Billion would be for 1st party publishers.

Now $7 Billion - $10 Billion is being taken in by 1st Party Publishers. As such, the 3rd party publishers are left with scraps to pick.

What happens? the shovelware developers get axed (and axed fast), i.e. EA & THQ.

With regards to profitable games, Take 2 takes the cake, easily. GTA IV, even though costs $100 Million to make has generated Take 2 ~$200 Million profit.



Kyros on 16 December 2008

Midway, Atari/Infogrames, SCi/Eidos, THQ, Take 2, Electronic Arts and likely LucasArts


Let's have a look at their games:

Midway sucked and is a synonym for bad games.
Lucasarts should be shot. They made amazing games once upon a time in a galaxy far far away. Since then only shit thats available on every console they can get their hands on.
We don't have to talk about EA. Their moneyspinners are loosing speed and their good new games are too little too late. Good riddance.
Take2 isn't loosing money anymore now that GTA4 has been out.
Eidos makes anything worthwhile besides Tomb Raider?



The bottomline is: You make good games and you have no money problems. You make shitty games and you will evtl. die.
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are taking a bigger piece of the cake. Activision and Ubisoft are the new two big kids on the block. The rest ...




Khuutra on 16 December 2008
Kyros said:
Midway, Atari/Infogrames, SCi/Eidos, THQ, Take 2, Electronic Arts and likely LucasArts


Let's have a look at their games:

Midway sucked and is a synonym for bad games.
Lucasarts should be shot. They made amazing games once upon a time in a galaxy far far away. Since then only shit thats available on every console they can get their hands on.
We don't have to talk about EA. Their moneyspinners are loosing speed and their good new games are too little too late. Good riddance.
Take2 isn't loosing money anymore now that GTA4 has been out.
Eidos makes anything worthwhile besides Tomb Raider?



The bottomline is: You make good games and you have no money problems. You make shitty games and you will evtl. die.
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are taking a bigger piece of the cake. Activision and Ubisoft are the new two big kids on the block. The rest ...

That is simply untrue. There are many quality games being made that don't make money back.



Around the Network
alpha_dk on 16 December 2008
Malachi said:
Endz said:
You could take PS2 to PS3 as an example. Sony got massive revenue from PS2 but in developing for PS3 that added up to lots of expenses. Why? Sony tried too put too much too quickly. Some people agreed that PS3 should have waited for one more year to be released (this would have been market share suicide in my opinion) but still time is the factor here.

Everything just advanced too much not just graphical advancement (which takes loads of money to develop) but features too. As other posts have said, you need those shiny hot real-life graphics to even be noticed in this gen (xbox and PS3 mainly of course) but people want more. Technical advancement is too much (AI and physics for hundreds of enemies), everything in a game is too complicated, features like achievements for everything and huge multi-player. Things are just going to cost more and more along with each advancement.

But time is the factor, Sony could have waited until hardware parts are cheaper like game companies could have waited until getting into top-end technologies is cheaper. What if next-gen Xbox has a console that allows for many more features in games and close to real-life graphics- Companies would need to develop for that and the costs might be staggering.

*snip*

Wii got the mass market audience but not the traditional gamer one (except for marioboy) a situation that cause publisher problem because they can't install themself on it by bringing there traditional gaming franchise. Once that happen publisher start to have problem. As I say different is not the same as new, you can make whole new football gaming franchise with a different name and change a few feature here and there it's not going to change anything, only traditional gamer wll be interested in it, much less just additioning All Play at the end of the name. Same thing with EA Fit and that cart game EA is making, again, it's new not different, it's the equivalent of the GTA clones, good to bring in some revenue but it's not going to become your next blockbuster, something EA really need.

Crazzy?

This argument still fails, much as it has failed every time it's brought up in the past.  For you to say these efforts will fail on Wii requires the effort to be put in on the Wii.  I see plenty of games - even games not made by Nintendo - sell lots and lots when they have a little bit of effort put into them

100% of Wii's games that were designed to be blockbuster games* ended up selling like gangbusters.  That's a fact.

*As in, were marketed as you would a blockbuster game.  I'm talking TV spots, special events, etc.



Please, PLEASE do NOT feed the trolls.
fksumot tag: "Sheik had to become a man to be useful. Or less useful. Might depend if you're bi."

--Predictions--
1) WiiFit will outsell the pokemans.
  Current Status: 2009.01.10 70k till PKMN Yellow (Passed: Emerald, Crystal, FR/LG)

scottie on 16 December 2008

Well I say the solution is to not care about most of those devs.

Lucasarts should be granted unlimited use of the USA's treasury, and EA deserves a bit more money now that they're cleaning up their act.

As for the rest of them, if they made better games they mightn't be in this position.

Also, how could you say that it is good that Activision is making money with a straight face?



HappySqurriel on 16 December 2008
tabsina said:
naznatips said:

It's not as simple as "let's just make everything on Wii and it will be all sunshine and daisies" either. World at War bombed on Wii. Someday it may recover sales, but it will take a long time, and shooters will never sell as well on Wii as they do on the HD consoles and PC.

Just as a hypothetical.. if the developers decided to only make a wii version of World at War, what would have happened?

My best guess is that the people who bought world of war on 360 or ps3, would have purchased it on wii if that were the only option.. sure, not all of them would, but i'm willing the bet the amount of profit would have been much higher than making a wii, 360, ps3 and pc version, and having the cheapest-to-make version selling the least because of those higher end (graphically) versions

(Note - the reason 360 and PS3 owners choose the versions on 360 and PS3 is another topic, this is purely from the perspective of the developers in the interest of staying in business)

My point:
1. I don't believe World at War is a good game to look at when making that sort of assessment
2. If developers are serious about making profits, they shouldn't be making games on both the wii and ps360/pc, big franchises (like Call of Duty) need to be exclusively on the wii (remember, this is purely in the interest of making profits), because I think if, lets say Call of Duty 6 were to be exclusively wii, many of those who would have bought the ps360/pc versions would buy the wii version instead, meaning more profits, whether or not every single one of them do

There's nothing saying that publishers and developers can not make big games for the HD consoles, but they should be looking at their entire line-up and producing a pyramid to manage the risk of their larger projects. If a company has a decent base of Wii, DS, PSP, PS2, PSN, XBox Live Arcade, and WiiWare games the risk of a big budget game brining down the entire company is pretty limited.

 



Riachu on 16 December 2008
HappySqurriel said:
tabsina said:
naznatips said:

It's not as simple as "let's just make everything on Wii and it will be all sunshine and daisies" either. World at War bombed on Wii. Someday it may recover sales, but it will take a long time, and shooters will never sell as well on Wii as they do on the HD consoles and PC.

Just as a hypothetical.. if the developers decided to only make a wii version of World at War, what would have happened?

My best guess is that the people who bought world of war on 360 or ps3, would have purchased it on wii if that were the only option.. sure, not all of them would, but i'm willing the bet the amount of profit would have been much higher than making a wii, 360, ps3 and pc version, and having the cheapest-to-make version selling the least because of those higher end (graphically) versions

(Note - the reason 360 and PS3 owners choose the versions on 360 and PS3 is another topic, this is purely from the perspective of the developers in the interest of staying in business)

My point:
1. I don't believe World at War is a good game to look at when making that sort of assessment
2. If developers are serious about making profits, they shouldn't be making games on both the wii and ps360/pc, big franchises (like Call of Duty) need to be exclusively on the wii (remember, this is purely in the interest of making profits), because I think if, lets say Call of Duty 6 were to be exclusively wii, many of those who would have bought the ps360/pc versions would buy the wii version instead, meaning more profits, whether or not every single one of them do

There's nothing saying that publishers and developers can not make big games for the HD consoles, but they should be looking at their entire line-up and producing a pyramid to manage the risk of their larger projects. If a company has a decent base of Wii, DS, PSP, PS2, PSN, XBox Live Arcade, and WiiWare games the risk of a big budget game brining down the entire company is pretty limited.

 

Exactly.  That's why EA are still around despite being in the red area.

 



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

Mr Khan on 16 December 2008

It's a matter of a lot of things. This holiday season, so lauded by hardcore gamers, has produced quite a few big-budget-bombs. This is due to oversaturation. You look at companies like Capcom, releasing a lot of their heavy hitters in Q1/Q2 of next year. Second to that is the high cost of these games period. Finally there is their refusal to really put focus outside of the High-End Trio, so they've heavily invested on a smaller space.

 

The fact that revenue is up while profits are down proves that its not an issue of economic recession, what we're seeing is the consequences of overexpansion



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.