I would be shocked if any game developer in the SF Bay area made less than six figures in salary these days.
Competition from tech companies is a real thing, so if you can code, you have value.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dead Space 2 cost $60 million to make, sold 4 million copies, underperformed
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
I would be shocked if any game developer in the SF Bay area made less than six figures in salary these days.
Competition from tech companies is a real thing, so if you can code, you have value.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Yes because breaking even and not making much of a profit is exactly how businesses should run, they should've really hired you as you got the whole thing figured out.
The IP was as dead when they released a game with the worst reception and sales in the series.
Even Dead Space 1 likely cost more to make than SOMA.
Audioboxer
Member
That's my point?! LOL. If you are wanting to make a big profit you do not greenlight a budget of $120m+ for a game that's previous sales trajectory "only" hit 2m sales. What are you mocking me for with that statement when it's EA you should be asking why they didn't figure that out themselves?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
You can't massively reduce budget when the audience expects more. SOMA is nowhere near as complex a game as Dead Space are you serious dude??
Valkerionseven
Member
Dead Space 2 is one of my favorite games ever but holy crap, 60million.
This industry really is the worst. Lootboxes, virtual currency, and other bullshit rakes in unlimited cash while Dead Space and other amazing stuff underperforms. Just the worst.
Audioboxer
Member
Your budget is whatever you set it at, that is what project planning is and when you set sales expectations. Ignore SOMA right now and reread what you said to me. You made my point for me.
If you want to make a profit you need to budget accordingly. EA screwed up their projections for Dead Space 2 if they thought they could make a sizeable profit from a $120m expenditure. That's not my fault, so I'm not the one to be snarky at. EA are the ones you should be telling about how to run a business. I and others are merely commenting that if EA expected a large profit off of this budget expenditure for a horror game that's first entry sold 2m units, they were being completely unrealistic.
redfox088
Banned
Thats basically how Nintendo seems to be approaching the industry
A lot of people may think Dead Space 2 was a "basic" game but it had over 20 types of enemies, all of them with many unique animations, a lot of background assets and a variety of environments (even if it's all set in a space station the environments need to be modeled and re-used assets re-modeled), advanced morphing scenes, and looking at the credits, the majority of staff in the US, so budget ballooning to 60 million USD doesn't surprise me.
I also don't believe the tales of Uncharted 2 costing only 20 million USD to make, not even if they had made it re-using art assets from the first game.
I also don't believe the tales of Uncharted 2 costing only 20 million USD to make, not even if they had made it re-using art assets from the first game.
So who is at fault for DS2 being a disappointment?
EA
Visceral
The fans
What are you arguing???
He's not arguing about blame assignment.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Dead Space 3 had MTs. Thing is no one really bought them considering that A)not a lot of people bought the game in the first place and B)the game's balance was almost comically generous to the player since they were added so late in the game.
I didn't bring up SOMA in the first place, you brought it up as a gotcha while ignoring how different each title is because they're horror.
They heavily marketed the game and made changes to the game design to make it appeal to a broader audience.
I'm saying that you have no idea what you're talking about most of the time you're talking about the business side of gaming. You oppose the ways developers have been alleviating rising dev costs yet express disdain over examples that are the reason why.
It's a combination of factors! Not just a situation where we can point a finger!! No one group is at fault.
What is he arguing?
iTT gamers learn that video games are expensive to make
DrDomVonDoom
Member
Looking at ******** as a source for sales, doesn't surprise me. Silent Hill 2 on PS2 sold 1.28 million, Until Dawn sold 2.37 mil, Dead Space 1 sold almost 4 million across all titles. FEAR sold .54, Alan Wake did 1.3m Resident Evil is probably the most successful with ~4-5 million
Audioboxer
Member
I brought up SOMA as an example that horror games can be made on lesser budgets and be successful. The basis of that point is its okay to cut back on production values and create within your means if a sizeable profit is the number one goal on your agenda. A budget of $120m+ was not creating within your means if a large profit was the main focus of this project. I really can't understand why you can't get that or accept it. There isn't an alternative universe where that kind of budget for this sequel was raining in the cash.
But yes, it's me who doesn't know anything making these arguments in a topic around a publisher, EA, who has killed both this IP and the studio behind it. EA and Visceral studios should be held up as a great example here. Just as Konami should with their handling of Silent Hill. It's almost as if some of these big publishers have no idea how to handle horror games effectively with modest budgets and decent returns.
DriftingSpirit
Member
Good grief.
Not for action horror though, RE5 sold very well.
Would love it, but it will never happen. EA hates remasters.
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
$60M is not that expensive for a AAA game tbh.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
So $120 million was the total budget including marketing.
Assuming they barely broke even at 4 million, that's $30 a copy average after retailer and console cut.
Assuming they barely broke even at 4 million, that's $30 a copy average after retailer and console cut.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Every time budgets come up it's like clockwork of people not understanding how expensive this medium is, let alone how insane it is that games get made, let alone ones with the production values and design of Dead Space 2.
That website is banned for being generally inaccurate and misleading.
SOMA's a bad example to compare.
Because you aren't realizing that it's not s easy as "make a game that looks and is as simple as SOMA."
Nor is there an alternate universe where a Dead Space game as simple of SOMA would've made a higher profit and splash in the industry and ensured Visceral's success.
[QUOTEBut yes, it's me who doesn't know anything making these arguments in a topic around a publisher, EA, who has killed both this IP and the studio behind it. EA and Visceral studios should be held up as a great example here. Just as Konami should with their handling of Silent Hill. It's almost as if some of these big publishers have no idea how to handle horror games effectively with modest budgets and decent returns.[/QUOTE]
Modest budgets and decent returns, you realize that these games wouldn't be as complex had they scaled down? And thus, the reception would be different? And there's no indication that in both of those scenarios that they would have a higher profit.
Audioboxer
Member
Crossing Eden I'll say it one last time and then we can leave you now using SOMA just to avoid what I'm really saying about DS2s budget. The studio is now dead and most likely the IP is too. If you want to argue it's been handled well, or not as badly as I'm making out given the revelation of this budget news... okay, but that doesn't change what I just said. Visceral is now dead and for all intents and purposes so is Dead Space. Hooray, right? EA were spot on to go with a $120m+ budget here, don't anyone criticise that as unreasonable!
So, IP dead, unless EA do a Konami and farm out the IP to the cheapest bidder like with Silent Hill. We all know how Silent Hill ended up without Team Silent. Goodness knows it was 100% impossible for Visceral to ever revisit Dead Space and make a new entry on a more reasonable budget. I'm sure you'll tell me that would never be possible without loot boxes or something. But alas, the studio is sadly dead and another body is in the EA graveyard, so hypotheticals really don't matter now.
Yeah that's a good point.
The industry is changing. Kids now grow up on cheap mobile games and on Minecraft. You don't need to go all out crazy with graphical fidelity if you don't know for sure you can sell it (aka if you're not Rockstar). I assume graphical fidelity is the biggest contributor to budget.
I'll personally look out for the games that are less concerned with pushing their visual tech as I believe the HD baseline now is pretty much sufficient to express any idea you could have if you also bring solid art direction.
Gravity Rush comes to mind, Nier, Yakuza, The Souls games, especially the first two entries. A ton of indies...
What I will avoid are games that keep pushing their budgets to astronomical heights and try to compensate with huge marketing and shallow grindfest gameplay in order to incoorporate f2p economics into their non f2p games.
One word for the 60$ price tage blamers. Big games already do not cost 60$ anymore. Judging by how many people go for special editions and season passes, I guarantee the launch week average is significantly higher than 60. Not to mention all the cash that trickles in.
If you actually think they would stop trying to milk the heck out of every customer even if an 80$ baseline would be acceptable you're kidding yourselves. It's not stubbornness that keeps the price at 60, it's to get people in the door thinking they paid for a full game when they actually just get the base entry version of it. At least that will be true for the forseeable future.
I'll personally look out for the games that are less concerned with pushing their visual tech as I believe the HD baseline now is pretty much sufficient to express any idea you could have if you also bring solid art direction.
Gravity Rush comes to mind, Nier, Yakuza, The Souls games, especially the first two entries. A ton of indies...
What I will avoid are games that keep pushing their budgets to astronomical heights and try to compensate with huge marketing and shallow grindfest gameplay in order to incoorporate f2p economics into their non f2p games.
One word for the 60$ price tage blamers. Big games already do not cost 60$ anymore. Judging by how many people go for special editions and season passes, I guarantee the launch week average is significantly higher than 60. Not to mention all the cash that trickles in.
If you actually think they would stop trying to milk the heck out of every customer even if an 80$ baseline would be acceptable you're kidding yourselves. It's not stubbornness that keeps the price at 60, it's to get people in the door thinking they paid for a full game when they actually just get the base entry version of it. At least that will be true for the forseeable future.
redfox088
Banned
I think it would stabilize eventually just like when it went up to $60.
grosvenor_92
Member
EA and other publishers need to rethink how many copies a game needs to sell to make money or this problem won't go away
redfox088
Banned
Well it depends on the game. $60 for Forza feels like a rip-off due to car packs and such, but no one would complain about paying $60 for persona 5.
Astral Dog
Member
Fuck this, $60 dollar games are already expensive as hell. Just think about how is to buy a single console game for a $400-500 dollar box for children and teens.
Because they're allergic to common sense, fan appreciation, and easy success.
They look at those old games and get confused why anyone would buy them without loot boxes.
Bronetta
Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Fortunately there's a platform for broke kids, hand me down smartphones with unlimited F2P games.
I feel that, in a way, this is silly (just because of MTs). The logistics for licensing cars for Forza, the costs associated, etc can't be cheap. Persona 5 is PS3 era assets and it still took them years of delays to finally get the damn thing out.
I know people hate the MTs in Forza, but these two things are a bit different.
Bigboss242
Banned
They did everything right the marketing was superb. There bigest mistake was setti g up shop in san fran. California is going to be full of homeless eventually just way tio exoensive.
Bronetta
Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Forza games are a dime a dozen, we get one every year.
Persona 5 release felt like an event, new Persona games dont come out every year. Even the $110 I paid for the collectors edition felt like a deal.
Bolivar687
Banned
Reminds me of a Jim Sterling comment a few years back that these companies are selling millions and millions of games and still not hitting their targets.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Jesus fucking christ, the AAA space needs to be revamped yesterday
Astral Dog
Member
Yeah thats a reason many gamers moved to smartphones in the first place, i personally liked handheld gaming like GBA, DS and somewhat PSP and 3DS because the games quality were higher while keeping dev costs down.
But obviously the viability of those platforms changes with time
Jim Sterling did a video a few years ago predicting EA would close Visceral based on EA's behavior with other studios. He was right on the money.
IDK why they added MP for the game...I think thats what turned off folks from it...as well as making it more action oriented than a survival horror like its predecessor.
If you're an investor you want a nice return , so wether you own a chunk of EA stock and sit on the board or just own a few shares , you want to see that value increase.
If your sole product as a business is video games then they have to sell well. As a third party EA makes about 35$ per disc sold on a 60$ game. So in Dead Space 2's case they maybe did half that 4 million figure out if the gate and the other half at some level of discount , for examples sake let's say half. 70 million in revenue initially and another 35 million for the long tale. That sounds like a 100 million dollars + right ? Well f development cost 60 million and marketing was even half development that means only 10 million in profit.
So 15-20 cents on every dollar invested over 4 years. That's not big enough for people playing the markets. Barely enough to cover inflation accumulated in a bare bones savings account.
People have been saying since the late PS2 era that the current track of development costs is unstustainable and now you can all see why. No one wants to pay 60$ per game let alone the 180$ they should cost (based on typical sales generations past) so anything that can't make back double its investment within 12 months gets cancelled or filled with ugly micro transactions and loot boxes.
That new Star Wars game ? Probably had 40-50 million dumped into it already but it must have hit a milestone recently where they made a call - spend another 40-50 to finish the game and then 50+ million to market it and , at best sell only enough to break even after 5 years OR spend the same amount and add enough garbage to the game to make an extra 25-50% of the investment back. EA chose the latter.
If your sole product as a business is video games then they have to sell well. As a third party EA makes about 35$ per disc sold on a 60$ game. So in Dead Space 2's case they maybe did half that 4 million figure out if the gate and the other half at some level of discount , for examples sake let's say half. 70 million in revenue initially and another 35 million for the long tale. That sounds like a 100 million dollars + right ? Well f development cost 60 million and marketing was even half development that means only 10 million in profit.
So 15-20 cents on every dollar invested over 4 years. That's not big enough for people playing the markets. Barely enough to cover inflation accumulated in a bare bones savings account.
People have been saying since the late PS2 era that the current track of development costs is unstustainable and now you can all see why. No one wants to pay 60$ per game let alone the 180$ they should cost (based on typical sales generations past) so anything that can't make back double its investment within 12 months gets cancelled or filled with ugly micro transactions and loot boxes.
That new Star Wars game ? Probably had 40-50 million dumped into it already but it must have hit a milestone recently where they made a call - spend another 40-50 to finish the game and then 50+ million to market it and , at best sell only enough to break even after 5 years OR spend the same amount and add enough garbage to the game to make an extra 25-50% of the investment back. EA chose the latter.
redfox088
Banned
Well I guess AAA gaming is just a fucked part of the industry doomed to implode.