Lock if old.
Everything is here : http://www.forbes.com/ebusiness/2008/11/21/games-eedar-developers-tech-ebiz-cx_mji_1121eedar.html
The title is my conclusion from reading it. So as forecasted, 3rd parties are losing tons of money. They used to lose tons already, but now it's worse with the HD consoles.
Can they survive this generation using the same stupid business model and the same stupid analysts to help them make supposedly better games for their platform?
I understand now why the Wii only get bad games fromwetsern 3rd parties.
Pasted here :
Cooking Up A Blockbuster Game
Mary Jane Irwin, 11.21.08, 10:23 AM EST
Research company EEDAR helps publishers and developers find the right ingredients.
What if, like Dr. Frankenstein, you could stitch together the best bits of your favorite games to create a guaranteed hit? What if you knew adding a few key components to a title would boost its sales exponentially or extend its shelf life? What if there was a recipe for designing a perfect game?
Those were the answers I sought when I asked Electronic Entertainment Design and Research ( to run an algorithmic regression on a mock game called "FutureNot" that I whipped up. But such a recipe does not exist, says EEDAR President Geoffrey Zatkin. Games can't be assembled like a Mr. Potato Head doll--swapping out eyes and ears until you find the most agreeable feature set. But if you look at the whole game, it is possible to project sales and determine whether it is worth including specific ingredients.
This is the sort of stuff the Carlsbad, Calif.-based research company does all the time for clients like Electronic Arts (nasdaq: ERTS - news - people ), Activision (nasdaq: ATVI - news - people ) and Ubisoft. Since 2006, the 20-person firm has been busy compiling sales data, classifying games and cataloging key components--everything from the art style to the gender of playable characters.
With its database of 6,000 games, EEDAR analysts can use historical and competitive data sets to project sales for upcoming releases. It can also determine how certain developers and publishers, marketing budgets and release dates align to affect game sales.
"Every game I have ever worked on, we've gone in blind as to which features would sell the game better," says Zatkin, who designed games for 11 years before co-founding EEDAR. Not knowing whether it would be worth an extra $500,000 to design a multiplayer mode "would scare the crap out of me," he says.
Only a portion of the games that enter production make it to market. Of those, one in five actually make a profit, notes Zatkin.* About 60% of a game's budget is spent reworking or redesigning a game. Armed with all this data, companies can make those tough calls early in the development process.
As for "FutureNot's" potential success, Zatkin analyzed it and says it's "a surprisingly decent game" that could sell 216,000 copies in six months. He notes that most developers won't make a blockbuster like "Halo 3," which has sold more than 3 million copies so far.
The game would be made for the Xbox 360 by Ubisoft's Montreal studio--the folks behind "Assassin's Creed"--for release in October 2010. Zatkin reassures me that 216,000 units sold is about average for the Xbox 360. The middle 50% of games published to the console sell between 75,000 and 250,000 copies, he notes.
The upper end of that spread grows to 500,000 copies sold when the action genre is combined with mature themes on the platform. EEDAR's data show that mature-themed titles are more popular on the 360 than those rated "Teen" (the videogame equivalent of PG-13).
A mature stealth-action game with a dash of role-playing elements, "FutureNot" chronicles the dangers of time travel. Special Agent Lesley Cain accidentally triggers a doomsday device during a routine terrorist investigation. He travels back in time in hopes of preventing himself from liquefying half the planet--only each time he returns to the present, the timeline alterations ripple in increasingly violent waves.
Running a comparison against the PlayStation 3 library, EEDAR projects "FutureNot" would sell 192,256 copies over six months on the PS3. That would drive total sales to 408,336 copies--a compelling argument for building the game for both platforms.
With gamers always looking for more bang for their buck, would it be worth adding a multiplayer mode to "FutureNot," even if it was conceived as a single player experience? EEDAR forecasts that a cooperative mode would boost sales by 12,400 copies, while a competitive mode would bump sales by nearly 25,000. Zatkin estimates that would generate an additional $1 million in revenues. If implementing the different modes costs under $300,000, it would be worthwhile.
A more robust multiplayer mode, like that found in "Call of Duty," would likely increase sales even further, Zatkin says. You'd end up selling more games simply because consumers would be less likely to sell back a game they want to keep playing. The promise of downloadable content has the similar effect of keeping games in player's homes instead of in the used-game bin. Without a large supply of used copies, consumers would have to buy "FutureNot" new.
Zatkin also notes that a game's release date plays a critical role in its success. Games released during the holidays are helped by the gift-giving season, but there's also more competition because every publisher is trying to benefit from holiday sales.
The quality of the development team is another factor in a game's success. Ubisoft Montreal, for instance, has a proven track record in the action genre. A less experienced developer, or one who specializes in strategy games, might not fare so well at the helm of "FutureNot." Theme (World War II shooters always do well, Zatkin says), visual style, branding and celebrity tie-ins can dramatically impact sales too.
"No one or two things can determine the success or failure of a game," Zatkin says. But with the right metrics, you can compensate.
*Editor’s note: Of the games that enter production, only 4% wind up making a profit. But many of those games never reach the market. That means the proportion of games that reach the market that are profitable is 20%. An earlier version of this story should have clarified that point.
