93% of New Games Fail, Reviews Don't Matter

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Midway's senior VP and chief marketing officer says that, when it comes to new games, there is absolutely no correlation between review scores and commercial success. While most of what he says is absolutely true, it makes you wonder exactly how a game that garners all positives reviews could end up being a flop.

"In other words, 93 percent of new IP fails in the marketplace," he explained on N'Gai Croal's Level Up. "So while the 90-plus review scores and armfuls of awards create the perception that titles like Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and other great pieces of work were big successes...they were big financial disappointments and money losers."
Click to expand...
 
It's not a shock when you consider that their idea of a financial success is World of Warcraft.
 
Freespace 2. Considered to be the pinnicle of the space sim genre due to it's awesomeness, and also the downfall of the genre due to its poor sales.
 
Game quality matters. Most games spend way too much money on graphics.

I just got back from vacation and was playing Guitar Hero II (for XBox 360) while away... that game has basically nothing in graphics imho since the only thing you really look at is the scrolling music bar so you know when to hit the chords.

However, its a damn fun game to play and got everyone in the house (old and young) to rock out and had a blast.

It was a huge success because it was fun to play, and simple enough that even a 4 year old could have fun.

Stop spending so much on the game to make it look pretty, spend time on gameplay, and release them for cheaper and you will sell more units and make a profit. The Wii is doing great because the whole system is based on this idea.
 
The VP makes some very good points. The gaming industry is one of the very few, if not only industries, where you go in knowing you're going to lose a lot of money. Even Microsoft just reported that they'll finally start making money selling 360s sometime next year... and those are just hardware sales.

I'm sick of commercials and ads being everywhere I look, but if the gaming industry wants to progress, the marketing needs to be much more aggressive...
 
Because a game gets good reviews does not necessarily mean it's a good game for the average gamer. Many in-depth micromanagement games like Civilization and amazing hybrids like Deus Ex do not appeal to you average gamer who just wants to jump in and have fun. This is where the intuitive draw of games like World of Warcraft come in. You want to start having fun within 20 minutes, or give up the game. Niche games are fine, but they will NOT be commercial successes. Sad fact of life as computer games have become such a huge money business. Small studios no longer are competing with each other to come out with innovation. They're competing against huge publishers who are concerned only with how many fish they can hook. This is sadly why EA Sports is one of the most successful game divisions in the industry.
 
Eickst said:
It's not a shock when you consider that their idea of a financial success is World of Warcraft.
Click to expand...

Seriously and with their new credit card we have a whole new level of fun...

Nothing like buying WoW gold from ebay with your WoW credit card :D
 
so what was the percentage ten years ago? any different?
 
thats why the Wii is so popular it may not have all the eye candy graphics, but the just the pure fun factor has made it a total success.
 
I loved Psychonauts. It wasn't graphically beautiful, but it was a blast to play, and still it sold like crap. While I do prefer substance over graphics, I can tell from sales of some games that this really doesn't matter either.

I am the milk man, my milk is delicious.
 
jmackay said:
Game quality matters. Most games spend way too much money on graphics.

I just got back from vacation and was playing Guitar Hero II (for XBox 360) while away... that game has basically nothing in graphics imho since the only thing you really look at is the scrolling music bar so you know when to hit the chords.

However, its a damn fun game to play and got everyone in the house (old and young) to rock out and had a blast.

It was a huge success because it was fun to play, and simple enough that even a 4 year old could have fun.

Stop spending so much on the game to make it look pretty, spend time on gameplay, and release them for cheaper and you will sell more units and make a profit. The Wii is doing great because the whole system is based on this idea.
Click to expand...

a close friend of mine's brother in law developed that game. :)
 
MorfiusX said:
I loved Psychonauts. It wasn't graphically beautiful, but it was a blast to play, and still it sold like crap. While I do prefer substance over graphics, I can tell from sales of some games that this really doesn't matter either.

I am the milk man, my milk is delicious.
Click to expand...

I think advertising the heck out of a game would help. And now with marketplace/PS store able to give demos, I think new IPs can have a better chance. But they GOT to advertise in new and memorable ways.

It's a shame Psychonauts (and many other titles) did poorly. Especially since I think it was only $30 when it launched.
 
I think there are a few reasons for this.

  1. Cost - $50-$60 a game is really getting up there. Yes, I know production costs money. That doesn't change the fact...
  2. Insane Copy Protection - For those companies that used StarForce, SHAME ON YOU. For those that learned your lesson, GOOD for you.
  3. Delivering what you promise - If you advertise your next game as the end-all and absolute best ever for the genre, then deliver it. Don't try to baffle us with Bullshit. My prime example of this would be EA's Nascar Sim Racing. It led up and up and up and up and... right to a cliff. Instead of fixing it for their customers, they discontinued it. Thanks...

That's just a few I can think of quickly.

If you develop a quality title, price it right, SUPPORT it right, you will go far. Some of the best games have a life-after-death that's stronger than it was when it was a selling title.

A good example of this is Nascar Racing 2003 by Papyrus. It was discontinued years ago, yet it's outstanding online code and superb sim capabilities have kept it at the top of the genre long after it was off the shelf. USED copies on eBay go for as much as $150. I've never seen anything like that before.

The original crew, along with some heavy-hitting partners, is creating iRacing. See www.iracing.com for the details.
 
TechLarry said:
I think there are a few reasons for this.

  1. Cost - $50-$60 a game is really getting up there. Yes, I know production costs money. That doesn't change the fact...
  2. Insane Copy Protection - For those companies that used StarForce, SHAME ON YOU. For those that learned your lesson, GOOD for you.
  3. Delivering what you promise - If you advertise your next game as the end-all and absolute best ever for the genre, then deliver it. Don't try to baffle us with Bullshit. My prime example of this would be EA's Nascar Sim Racing. It led up and up and up and up and... right to a cliff. Instead of fixing it for their customers, they discontinued it. Thanks...
Click to expand...

Uh..I don't agree with this? Explain Pyschonauts, explain Okami, explain Beyond good and Evil.
 
Damn, no edit button. They should fix that :)

I wanted to add...

Another example, GPL (Grand Prix Legends) from the same company. Simulates 1967 Grand Prix Racers. It didn't sell very well because in being so realistic, it is immensely difficult to drive. Hey, it's a Sim, and damned good at it's job. Those cars were HARD to drive. This nearly 10 year old title is STILL a favorite amongst hardcore SIM racers and has a strong following to this day. The graphics, while primitive compared to todays stuff, are very good. Hell, it needed a patch to support Direct3D :)
 
Are you telling me all the 9+ scores given to games on a reviewboard like GameSpot really has no cooriliation to how good the game is?? Man... my world just got crushed


oh yah... </sarcasm>
 
Anyone else notice this annoying pattern?

A quick search on Amazon for Spider-Man 3 (the game), and you'll notice the following prices:

xBox 360: $60 (!!!)
PS3: $60 (!!!)
PS2: $40
Wii: $50
PC: $30 (?!?!?)

Wow...
 
Game quality matters for many games, but advertising and hype matter just as much. Look at Okami, excellent game across the board, but failed huge at retail. It didn't have enough hype or advertising, but you can talk about it in the same breath as most Zelda games.
 
I would say word of mouth gets more sales than any review does. My recommendation of Company of Heroes to friends probably sold more copies among the group of people I game with than the outstanding ratings the reviewers of the game gave. And that's even with CoH getting game of the year/RTS of the year from most review shops.

Not to mention I've been burned badly by buying a game based off of reviews. I don't do that anymore. I either buy it because I heard about it and I liked what I saw and loved the demo (ALL 3 - both supreme commander and C&C 3 failed the last for me) or it was recommended by a friend who likes similar things that I do.
 
Also something to consider the more 9+ usually they like to spike the price $$$$ so that deter casual gamers from getting them. I didn't own a console per say on a pc until recently with ps2 and ps3.


Also there is a lot of factors why it didn't sell in the retail side but the game is probably are really great. I saw psychonaunts for 8$ might pick it up for the pc.
 
advertisement, thats basically what it comes down to. if the casual gamers don't hear about it the game will flop.
 
miskari said:
advertisement, thats basically what it comes down to. if the casual gamers don't hear about it the game will flop.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of if the game doesn't have hot girls on the cover or at their E3 booth than it won't sell.
 
The problem is the sheer number of games out there; without a massive marketing campaign, chances are people will not hear about the game until after it's been displaced by a new title on store shelves. Without heavy advertising, it can take months before people hear about a game from their friends.

Many of these excellent games flop due to deficiencies in other areas. Many gamers will pass up on a highly reviewed game if they discover that it only offers 10 hours of gameplay, or that the game developer couldn't be bothered to implement multiplayer support. I've had many occasions where I've passed up on buying a game simply due to knowing that a week after I've paid for it, I won't be playing it anymore.
 
Maybe reviews would matter if the reviewers told it like it was? I do not recall ever reading a review that said `game XYZ just sucks'. If all reviews are good to excellent, who is going to pay attention to them? Just because the `two thumbs up'
crap works for movies -every movie is the best movie ever, fourteen thumbs up...- doesn't mean that it'll work for computer games.
 
Okami's not doing well at the box office? That's too bad. I got it as a gift and it's a fantastic game. I could see it being difficult for American audiences, since it's very very Japanese.

Another example of good reviews not selling well - Sacrifice. It got 9s and 10s everywhere but flopped immediately. Too bad, I thought it was a great game.
 
ShnikeJSB said:
Anyone else notice this annoying pattern?

A quick search on Amazon for Spider-Man 3 (the game), and you'll notice the following prices:

xBox 360: $60 (!!!)
PS3: $60 (!!!)
PS2: $40
Wii: $50
PC: $30 (?!?!?)

Wow...
Click to expand...
Because you don't pay a fee to develop games for PC. Anyone can make one, submit to ESRB (if you want) and get a rating for it and distribute online or try and get some shelf space.

I think the majority of people aren't willing to take a chance if a game is $50~$60. Okami had TV, full page ads in every magazine, web ads and such... but people just don't want to take that risk. Publishers see this and don't want to take that risk with other games.

Oh I say check out The Red Star for the PS2. It has been 4 years in the making and I've been waiting that long to play it. Been canceled on the XBox though. $20 and it's a steal. XS Games published this. Pick it up, because it will be one of those games you will not be able to find soon.
 
Reviews mean nothing. Your average gamer doesn't sit there, calculate reviews, and make a long considered purchase.

You want to know why success is a PITA for gaming, go to best buy, wal-mart, target, etc. Look at the selection of games. With a few exceptions where there is a LOT of money paid to get things placed front and center ona shelf, it's basically a random selction of cheap games with the majority of shelf space going to the under $50 games, and aprobably a third of it to budget titles.

If your game doesn't get on the shelf, it can't be an economic success.

Good gameplay and good eye candy have little to do with it. The people doing the purchasing for the retail channels are obviously not picking games based on content. Previous sales numbers, franchise tie ins to something with a track record of sales, but not content be it deep or shallow.
 
Lamont said:
Because you don't pay a fee to develop games for PC. Anyone can make one, submit to ESRB (if you want) and get a rating for it and distribute online or try and get some shelf space.

I think the majority of people aren't willing to take a chance if a game is $50~$60. Okami had TV, full page ads in every magazine, web ads and such... but people just don't want to take that risk. Publishers see this and don't want to take that risk with other games.

Oh I say check out The Red Star for the PS2. It has been 4 years in the making and I've been waiting that long to play it. Been canceled on the XBox though. $20 and it's a steal. XS Games published this. Pick it up, because it will be one of those games you will not be able to find soon.
Click to expand...



huh?? PC Games cost money to develop just like any other type of game
 
Maybe if the reviewers were not paid or threatened to never have a product sent to them for review the reviews might mean something.
 
osalcido said:
huh?? PC Games cost money to develop just like any other type of game
Click to expand...

I think what he meant is there is no royalty fee or licensing fee. You just write code and that's it. Obviously there is a development cost but no licensing fees.
 
Quality does matter. It certainly doesn't guarantee success, but is an important factor. How many of the best sellers got abysmal ratings?

What are recent best sellers on the PC? Sims 2, Half-life 2, and WoW perhaps? All got good ratings.

ShnikeJSB said:
Anyone else notice this annoying pattern?

A quick search on Amazon for Spider-Man 3 (the game), and you'll notice the following prices:

xBox 360: $60 (!!!)
PS3: $60 (!!!)
PS2: $40
Wii: $50
PC: $30 (?!?!?)

Wow...
Click to expand...

Check the Hot Deals. The PC version can be had for $9.99.
 
Eickst said:
I think what he meant is there is no royalty fee or licensing fee. You just write code and that's it. Obviously there is a development cost but no licensing fees.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I was just gonna post something like that. There are licensing fees for certain products/software/IP's in-game used (depending on the team), but for the most, anyone can make a PC game get it to the masses.
 
The masses are dumb/lazy, that's all there is to it. Most people aren't willing to make a well-thought/researched decision about purchases. Really, it's the answer to most dilemmas related to this.

It's all about appeal (which is NOT the same as extensive advertising) and clever tactics (to have your game have a high chance of being selected if some Joe walks into a store not knowing what to buy --- this can be something as dumb as attractive box design or EXCITING details on the back of the box, or something more subtle like where games are placed as someone mentioned earlier in the thread).

The thing about the concept of appeal is that once a franchise is "established", any further games to come out of it will have appeal, and people will buy the hell out of it even if it degenerates into a piece of crap. And it is difficult as hell to create a new popular franchise, which is EXACTLY why guys in the video game and movie industry resort to dumb, uncreative sequels.

This is why I hate the hell out of companies like Electronic Arts or Apple Inc. for the way they handle things, but in reality they just know how to make money from the masses.
 
I think I remember reading something about how things in EA work.

When a person proposes a game idea to the guys at the top of EA, they would have to have an attractive one-sentence explanation for the game. Based on the sentence, they would decide whether or not to pursue the game's production. The idea behind it is that if that one sentence is not attractive to them, it will not be attractive to the masses, so it won't sell.

This is EXACTLY WHY I hate EA Games, because many of their games lack substance and are designed with the masses in mind.

My bro-in-law used to work at a game company that got bought by EA, and after EA took over, he said he felt like EA sucked the creative energy out of their company. So he ended up leaving for another one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top