BTW the budget of the game is an important factor but considering big AAA titles (15-20M$+ games) i think that just 750k copies is a flop (=loosing money)...1M starts to become profitable...1.3M+ is a success (=expect a sequel). Super-huge-budget games (KZ2 or Halo 3) probably need at least 2.5M-3M to break even

rocketpig said: Game_boy said: The Wii's sensor technology has also been around for years. They waited until the cost came down enough so it was cheaper to use that than do the expected processor-and-graphics upgrade to the Gamecube. Result: success. See also: DS touch screen, online download services, decision not to use HD optical media. Bullshit. The MS Sidewinder was using the same tech damned near ten years ago... For $40. The Wii has combined great games, great controls, nothing else. Nintendo has not innovated anything except mass gameplay. Is it fun? Shit yeah.

 The innovation was releasing it as the standard controller. It was a bold move.

Spectrumglr said: BTW the budget of the game is an important factor but considering big AAA titles (15-20M$+ games) i think that just 750k copies is a flop (=loosing money)...1M starts to become profitable...1.3M+ is a success (=expect a sequel). Super-huge-budget games (KZ2 or Halo 3) probably need at least 2.5M-3M to break even

 Yep ... develpment cost is an important factor . If they make 20$/game pure profit , than they need to sell 1 million copys just to get even , if the game is a higher budget game ...

Munkeh111 said: @ daleklord, it can't be 1m for all PS3 games, only the big ones (Uncharted, R and C, HS) the dev of Dynasty Warriors Gundam said that the game had to sell 500,000 to break even which it didn't so had to be ported to 360

500,000 good lord, that thing just used the Dynasty Warriors engine from the PS2, the grahical team must of been expensive... can't see the level design teams costing much. Well that and the Gundam liscence.

rocketpig said: Game_boy said: What amazes me is if one studio has four big-budget PS3 titles with a 850k break-even, and three of them hit 1m sold because of great reviews, and the fourth one is Lair and sells 300k , the grand total is, uh, -100k. Yes, despite having three out of four million sellers, they lose 100k*$15=$1,500,000. 3/4 is even optimistic for big PS3 games looking at the charts now. How long will third-parties endure this? I would say that not many third parties are starting development on PS3 exclusives at this point unless Sony is throwing the moneyhat at them. Every third party PS3 game has bombed or barely tread water to this point. It's ridiculous to think that any more developers with a brain will think of starting a PS3-only game at this point. It makes too much sense not to multi-plat everything between the PS3 and 360. The 360 is selling software like crazy and to leave it out of the equation is corporate suicide unless the developer makes a Japanese-centric game and then you'd have to be cork-on-the-fork stupid not to put it on the Wii.

I'll say. Not to mention the multi-plat games sell BETTER on PS than the PS3 exclusives. Probably because of word of mouth.

rocketpig said: Bodhesatva said: A game with low development cost, little marketing, and small developer expectations could exist on any system (although yes, it's considerably more likely on the Wii than the 360/PS3), and unless we know all three factors, it's very difficult to know what is what. For example, what if Nintendo released Wii Sports 2? Bod, as always I love your point but isn't that the point of XBLA and PSN? The idea is not to mandate expensive games; it's to bring a different experience to your console. Perhaps MS and Sony aren't getting that to the public enough but the idea is there (though not done as well as Nintendo, I might add).

The problem is... a very large percentage of gamers don't put their consoles online. So these cheaper games are at a loss to them. I don't even have my console hooked up online, of course i own most of the VC games physicaly so there is little reason too. Though my other friend also didn't have his 360 hooked up online despite loving online play because there just wasn't a connection fast enough in his area to do it.

Flop in its most simplistic form, and the only one that is truly relevant is whether a game was profitable. That said I would say the average sales for AAA games are as follows for the different consoles. This would be the break even point for development and marketing costs.

Wii= 250,000
360= 350,000
PS3= 500,000

Other then that the costs can run the entire field dependent on game quality. You could make shovelware for any platform and sell less then a hundred thousand and be profitable. You just make the sales shortfall up by spending less in development, but charging full price. On the other hand there are games that need to sell millions of copies, because they are almost prototype development. Which generate code and tools for the development community usually first party efforts.

I think my figures are pretty close the last time I saw the numbers quoted by a third party developer was about a year ago and at the time the PS3 was six hundred thousand the 360 was four hundred thousand, and the Wii was just under three hundred thousand. Given that costs should have gone down since then, and that the Wii is probably bottom feeding as is the numbers are probably close to the average mark.

I dont think that a multiplatform game has to sell 500k on the PSP ... 300k is much more acceptable ...