| Slimebeast said: It's easy to say in hindsight that the game wouldn't become a success. |
Well it would need to sell about 700k at full price if the budget was $20m. Though that doesn't include advertising costs and as far as I remember it had TV spots.
Well. You can't really expect it to sell all that much more than 500k as a launch title, and since that what exactly have Ubisoft released for the system?
No sequel is a shame, but no surprise. But if they were expecting millions they have no one but themselves to blame.
Isn't ZombiU the best selling thirth party game on Wii-U?...
pokoko said:
No, AAA rank is just a projection of how well a game is expected to sell. Things like production and marketing budget can certainly factor into the analysis but that certainly isn't the whole of it. Retailers don't care how much a game cost to make, they care about what kind of profit it will generate. It's a system designed to tell them what to invest in. When I used to order for my store, looking for AAA beside the name of a game was a fantastic way to separate it from the clutter--and there was a LOT of clutter, especially for the Wii. People put too much emphasis on AAA status. It's basically just an educated guess about how well a title will perform. A game can cost 5 million but they'll give it AAA rank if the experts believe it will make a lot of money for retailers. It never was intended to be a way for fans to rank games. |
Really? The definition is based on sales expectations rather than development cost?
I totally never have thought of it that way in all these years even though I have thought about the business side of game development quite a lot.
Interesting.
| pezus said: Well, that confirms it. WiiU needs a price cut this year. Next year will be too late. Even Ubisoft is ready to jump off soon |
Let's not jump the gun. This is one game we are talking about, and they have a good 3 or 4 games on the way by the end of the year. If those games underperform, then we can worry. But right now it seems a tad pre-emptive to say they're ready to "pull the plug" on the system, because that doesn't seem to be true.
Having said that, if none of their forthcoming titles sell over, say, 200k LT then I could see them ending support.
TheLastStarFighter said:
|
no you misunderstand, what EA was referring to is internet traffic, which they would be right in this instance. COD for WIi U has less than 1000 players weekly, 1000 that is pitiful for the most popular online game outside of WoW. YOu cant even find matches sometimes and that is not a EA game
osed125 said:
The top 10 is definitely higher. This image is old, there are definitely much more expensive games that are not there. You have games that have costed more than $100 million to make (with the biggest exaggeration of all time which has been Star Wars the Old Republic, with $200 million total in budget). |
The image was made or updated in 2012 (The Old Republic numbers are from January 2012) so it's not that old.
What else should be on there ?
GTA V will certainly be there, but it's not out. GT6 is surely cheaper than GT5 (Polyphony said that themselves). Halo 4 maybe but even then the 10th and 9th and 8th place would be $60m.
Also from various Google research I've noticed that there are many unconfirmed numbers flying around. I would only trust the ones coming from the developers or publishers.
Kotaku says Halo 3 was $55m (that's what's in the image), Polygon says it's $30m (and another $30m advertising costs).
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/25/spencer-halo-4-is-microsofts-most-expensive-game/
I also don't think that Max Payne 3 had a $105m budget.
Here the salary of people in the industry:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/167355/
About $80k per year, which means that Rockstar hired 200 people for 6 1/2 years to work on Max Payne 3 or 400 people for 3 1/4 years (time between announcement and release were 3 years).
Btw. after they shipped the game 35 people worked at Rockstar Vancouver:
http://ir.take2games.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=86428&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1712961&highlight=
| Blood_Tears said:
To be fair ZombiU was a great game, but it wasn’t exactly the kind of title you’d see perfectly aligned with a Nintendo console’s primary target and customer base. I’m actually quite amazed that someone at Ubisoft really thought that it’d be anywhere close to profitable to begin with. Live and learn… |
That doesn't make much sense when you consider Resident Evil performances in the past on Nintendo consoles. I think the poor performance of the Wii U is more to blame than anything. I think the majority of Nintendo fanbase has yet to pick the system up due to a lack of titles. Nintendo's more core audience doesn't really care too much about NSMB at this point so launching with it was a mistake and nothing else has released yet from them that is noteworthy.
Conegamer said:
Let's not jump the gun. This is one game we are talking about, and they have a good 3 or 4 games on the way by the end of the year. If those games underperform, then we can worry. But right now it seems a tad pre-emptive to say they're ready to "pull the plug" on the system, because that doesn't seem to be true. Having said that, if none of their forthcoming titles sell over, say, 200k LT then I could see them ending support. |
I do think you agree it needs a price cut though. It needed one months ago. $350 for the Wii U is far too much.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
