Support NeoGAF

[SonyToo!™]

In regards to treating staff have Konami been taking tips off these guys from Deux Ex HR?

The situation with MGS and the fox engine reminds me of SquareEnix with FFXIII, I'm expecting the MGR versions of FF XIII-2 and Lightning Returns, games made to recoup the money spent on the first game and are hated by fans.

 

[DC1]

Screaming Meat:

I, too, am a project manager! Who also edits stuff. And only managing low-level stuff, really.

Now lets perform the secret project manager's handshake

Is there love for one more?

.... Please. :/

 

[driph]

This might be of some interest:
http://www.forbes.com/profile/kagemasa-kozuki/

"Founder and chairman of software game developer Konami is expanding his slot machine business in Las Vegas while eyeing opportunities for a casino tie-up in Japan, should a law allowing casinos pass later this year." After this sentence, games are mentioned.
Seems obvious that this is all about profit, and there is a lot of profit in gambling.
Credit goes to Duckroll, he got me thinking about this.

Yeah, chatting with Konami dev folks here in Las Vegas, many are watching the corporate implosion with trepidation, and they are under the assumption that many Japanese dev resources are going to be moved into casino gaming projects.

From what I've heard, the Konami Las Vegas corporate culture isn't nearly as fucked up, at least.

 

[Palette Swap]

Not a legal professional but I'll try to add some context.

In Japan, it is hard to dismiss a worker.

Supreme Court decision on Kouchi Housou case (1977) might provide context.

A radio announcer over slept two times in two weeks, resulting in missing a 10 minute 6AM news segment, once completely, the second time partially.
The radio station dismissed (fired) the announcer.

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was invalid, because dismissal of the worker was too harsh and would not receive general social approval.

I'm not going to go into the detailed reasoning behind the decision but, put simply, dismissal of a worker is only allowed as a last resort. Even if the company is in financial difficulty or the employee has made a huge mistake that resulted in losses to the company, unless the company can prove that firing that worker was the last resort: that despite the companies best effort to provide education/training good work environment etc, that dismissing the worker was necessary (i.e. socially deemed acceptable), the dismissal might be ruled invalid.

Basically the employers are expected to educate and nurture their worker. Unless a worker is explicitly hired for a specific skill, the worker is expected to conform to company needs and the company is expected to train and educate the worker so they can perform the needed task. So when the company hits hard times or if an employee's skill sets becomes unwanted, the company is expected to reassign you within the company even if the said work is unrelated to the employee's skill set.

However, if such reassignments are done with the intent of coercing them to quit "of their own will," it's abuse of employer authority and is illegal. There are many cases of such lawsuits and I believe there is a lawsuit pending involving a current Konami employee who previously worked as a game designer. An update in 2014 indicated that Konami assigned him to be a play tester along side part-time workers. As far as I know, Sony has also been implicated in such illegal abuse as well. Some times these things happen because of personal reasons, sometimes it happens because of financial reasons.

At the end of the day, companies and workplaces involve people interacting with each other. And there's always both sides to the story. ALWAYS.
If the alleged reassignments happened with the intent to have people quit, sue the company, it's illegal in Japan.

I really can't find Japanese dismissal law issues written in English except for this one
http://www.mfj.gr.jp/web/lunch_seminar/documents/2008-01_Kanbayashi_doc.pdf

Thanks a lot for this very informative write up. I'm not done with the pdf but I had no idea Japanese labor law was mostly case law for example. Interesting stuff.

My takeaway is that more than anything else, it's a particular company abusing a possibility to bypass laws and basic labor rights more than anything else. That's in line with past rumblings about Konami that depicted a toxic and patriarchal management. I'm always wary of simplistic good vs evil narratives but they do look abusive here, regardless of how messed up that particular project management sounds.

As an aside, it's amusing to see that "social responsibility" of employers can grow organically when a lot of large western corporations have a super hard time trying to foster it artificially (it always sounds a bit hokey).

Thanks again!

Is $80 Million bad for the last Kojima Metal Gear game ever? Sounds reasonable to me.

Chicken and egg: I can't really say it would be the last one if that budget hadn't blown up. Hell, this might have been the straw that broke the camel's back and the one project that convinced them to pivot brutally out of traditional games.

 

[AuthenticM]

This is some fucked up shit.

 

[JazzmanZ]

oh well.

R.I.P Metal gear
R.I.P Bomberman
R.I.P Castlevania

 

[Predwolf]

MGS2 was 15 years ago and things have changed significantly since then - I would definitely not use that as a barometer. That game got a huge bump from MGS1 that isn't around anymore and there weren't the huge number of titles available on consoles like there are today. MGS5 won't do 7M and it will far exceed if it hits over 4M.

Even if it only sold 1M on each platform, it would top 5M.

I can't see it selling less than that over the first year, and I'll even go as far as to say that TPP will hit the 6M sold mark across all platforms by November 1st.

 

[Nessus]

Always found it strange when people acted like MGS was a series on par with like COD in terms of sales.

MGS4's lifetime sales were just under 6 million copies.

COD: Black Ops sold almost as many copies in a single day, and ended up selling over 25 million total.

The big budget AAA strategy only really seems worth it if you're doing COD or Assassin's Creed numbers.

MGS5 will probably still be profitable but it's a far riskier proposition for Konami when they can produce much cheaper mobile games, especially when they've also got cassino and pachinko divisions that are doing well.

I'm as upset and sad as the next person to see one of my favorite video game companies from the 90s crash and burn and turn its back on gaming, but from a business perspective it makes sense.

This graph from Famitsu:

really changed how I looked at things. The reality is traditional console gaming is dying in Japan and mobile is growing rapidly.

I often wonder how much longer companies like Square-Enix can go on like this (which makes me worry for the future of some of my favorite Eidos franchises like Deus Ex).

 

[legacyzero]

but 80million is a small price to many
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1085348

In comparison to what theyll make back? Yep.

 

[Lethe82]

Always found it strange when people acted like MGS was a series on par with like COD in terms of sales.

MGS4's lifetime sales were just under 6 million copies.

COD: Black Ops sold almost as many copies in a single day, and ended up selling over 25 million total.

The big budget AAA strategy only really seems worth it if you're doing COD or Assassin's Creed numbers.

MGS5 will probably still be profitable but it's a far riskier proposition for Konami when they can produce much cheaper mobile games, especially when they've also got cassino and pachinko divisions that are doing well.

I'm as upset and sad as the next person to see one of my favorite video game companies from the 90s crash and burn and turn its back on gaming, but from a business perspective it makes sense.

This graph from Famitsu:

really changed how I looked at things. The reality is traditional console gaming is dying in Japan and mobile is growing rapidly.

I often wonder how much longer companies like Square-Enix can go on like this (which makes me worry for the future of some of my favorite Eidos franchises like Deus Ex).

MGS4 broke 6 million copies and easily recouped all of its development budget and then some. It's weird that a lot of people on this thread including you seem to not grasp that you can have a budget of 80 million and make a ton of money off of 6 million units sold even with overall profit decay as unsold copies are marked down. MGS is pretty much one of the biggest 'not AC/Cod' franchise. Obviously mobile is lower risk, but Konami's situation only made 'sense' because they have spent the last decade sabotaging their revenue streams in this market.

And we all know of the situation in Japan, that doesn't change the fact that the overseas market is far more important for dedicated console development. Japan isn't really very important for console/handheld sales on a global scale, and it was this way prior to mobile really taking off.

 

[meanspartan]

80 million for MGSV? Jesus Christ

And that's why they resorted to things like punch cards and other bullshit. Not defending their mismanagement, but when a studio has burned THAT much, it makes sense to come in and lock it the fuck down and track every last expense.

I've felt recently like Kojima is benefitting from being deservedly beloved among gamers and not catching any flack for a bad situation that I bet is at least partially his fault.

 

[Lethe82]

And that's why they resorted to things like punch cards and other bullshit. Not defending their mismanagement, but when a studio has burned THAT much, it makes sense to come in and lock it the fuck down and track every last expense.

I've felt recently like Kojima is benefitting from being deservedly beloved among gamers and not catching any flack for a bad situation that I bet is at least partially his fault.

80 million for MGSV? Jesus Christ

80 million? God damn, how many copies do they need just to break even?

Now you know why they released Ground Zeroes. Got to do everything they can to make back that money.

$80 million for MGSV?

Holy bananas. We don't get much info on development budgets, but wow.

Wonder what FFXV looks like... ;.;

80 million- they would need to sell something like 3 million copies at full price just to break even.

Jesus, what the fuck were they thinking?!?

Holy shit people, 80 million isn't huge for a AAA game development budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

It's like looking at the budget for Heavy Rain and saying 'oh my god!' yet Heavy Rain that cost 52 million dollars and only sold 3+ million copies made over 130 million dollars.
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/08/19/heavy-rain-passes-3-million-copies-sold/
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/21/heavy-rain-cost-52-million-but-made-130-million-you-do-the-ma/

Whether or not Kojima was wasteful during development, 80 million is not a 'risk' for a series with MGS track record, stop spewing your ignorance everywhere and get educated about the industry. Especially when GZs (which likely had very little overhead specifically for it) has already sold probably around 2 million copies to help recoup some of the period of investment and generate revenue.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Only shit people, 80 million isn't huge for a AAA game development budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

Metal Gear makes number 18 on a list of 40 most expensive games. So no, it's not huge, just big enough to rank in the top 40 most expensive games. Not even including advertising costs.

 

[Lethe82]

Metal Gear makes number 18 on a list of 40 most expensive games. So no, it's not huge, just big enough to rank in the top 40 most expensive games. Not even including advertising costs.

And MGS 4 on the PS3 sold 6 million copies. We don't even know if the 80 million includes projected marketing budget and/or Fox Engine development. Plenty of games on that list don't have a separate marketing column so we don't know if marketing costs are or aren't included with the total. Your counter point is really ill founded.

Everything you're saying only makes sense when you ignore the average profits per unit sold for games that sell millions of copies. There's a reason that modern budget on big games can be so big, and not 'AC/Cod' big.

 

[nightever]

Always found it strange when people acted like MGS was a series on par with like COD in terms of sales.

MGS4's lifetime sales were just under 6 million copies.

COD: Black Ops sold almost as many copies in a single day, and ended up selling over 25 million total.

The big budget AAA strategy only really seems worth it if you're doing COD or Assassin's Creed numbers.

MGS5 will probably still be profitable but it's a far riskier proposition for Konami when they can produce much cheaper mobile games, especially when they've also got cassino and pachinko divisions that are doing well.

I'm as upset and sad as the next person to see one of my favorite video game companies from the 90s crash and burn and turn its back on gaming, but from a business perspective it makes sense.

This graph from Famitsu:

really changed how I looked at things. The reality is traditional console gaming is dying in Japan and mobile is growing rapidly.

I often wonder how much longer companies like Square-Enix can go on like this (which makes me worry for the future of some of my favorite Eidos franchises like Deus Ex).

You are quite wrong here, mobile development is quite risky nowadays, lots of mobile project doesn't turn profit despite the huge user base. We have seen Japanese devs jump back to console market already. Also, pachinko bussines is in bad shape recently becasue of the new law.

Seriesly people, MGS is not some new IP which is risky. It will guarantee to sell more than 5 million, which is a secured profit. In the other hand, mobile project can also make lose, Capcom have shown us already. It's not what we call a opportunity cost.

 

[JackelZXA]

It's weird that on that chart the blue stays somewhat the same, but the purple grows. Also, less japanese style games are made now than they were in a decade ago.

I never understood the idea of lumping in mobile with console sales. They're different markets with different products and different audiences. It's like a restaurant attempting to directly compete with Doritos. It shows a total lack of understanding of the product and audience. Why not just convert to making muffins instead of videogames? They'll make more money and everyone loves muffins. They obviously don't care about their talent or products. It's all dollar signs to them.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Always found it strange when people acted like MGS was a series on par with like COD in terms of sales.

MGS4's lifetime sales were just under 6 million copies.

COD: Black Ops sold almost as many copies in a single day, and ended up selling over 25 million total.

The big budget AAA strategy only really seems worth it if you're doing COD or Assassin's Creed numbers.

MGS5 will probably still be profitable but it's a far riskier proposition for Konami when they can produce much cheaper mobile games, especially when they've also got cassino and pachinko divisions that are doing well.

I'm as upset and sad as the next person to see one of my favorite video game companies from the 90s crash and burn and turn its back on gaming, but from a business perspective it makes sense.

This graph from Famitsu:

really changed how I looked at things. The reality is traditional console gaming is dying in Japan and mobile is growing rapidly.

I often wonder how much longer companies like Square-Enix can go on like this (which makes me worry for the future of some of my favorite Eidos franchises like Deus Ex).

The thing is, and this has been my take on it since the rumors started in Januaryish, is that they've gone completely Montgomery Burns in the boardroom there at Konami. They've been retreating from traditional video games from 9 years now, but it's been recently they've taken to doing it so ignorantly of PR.

 

[Xpliskin]

Hey Stevens i see you took a 60m45s lunch

LOL

 

[Game Guru]

MGS4 broke 6 million copies and easily recouped all of its development budget and then some. It's weird that a lot of people on this thread including you seem to not grasp that you can have a budget of 80 million and make a ton of money off of 6 million units sold even with overall profit decay as unsold copies are marked down. MGS is pretty much one of the biggest 'not AC/Cod' franchise. Obviously mobile is lower risk, but Konami's situation only made 'sense' because they have spent the last decade sabotaging their revenue streams in this market.

And we all know of the situation in Japan, that doesn't change the fact that the overseas market is far more important for dedicated console development. Japan isn't really very important for console/handheld sales on a global scale, and it was this way prior to mobile really taking off.

In addition, there was an article with its own NeoGAF topic that stated the majority of the money made in mobile gaming in Japan, like 70% to 80% of it, goes to just Puzzle & Dragons and Monster Strike. So a company like Konami would effectively only have access to 20% to 30% of the Japanese mobile market and has to share that with everyone else who isn't GungHo and Mixi.

 

[Mr-Joker]

Man Konami sounds like its internally falling apart and just doesn't care.

Honestly I don't mind if Konami wants to leave the console market but I just wish that they wouldn't drag Hudson Soft down with them.

Why did Konami had to be the one to buy them?

 

[shinra-bansho]

If you're going to draw comparisons, Heavy Rain cost €16.7MM in development cost at completion. That's the figure that can be compared to this reported ¥10B+. It's not specified what additional expenditure has been incurred in development since, nor what will be expensed for promotional purposes. (Also, from memory, the platform holder royalty is paid per disc printed i.e. becomes a larger share of revenue as price decays.)

But again even if the numbers were analogous, the situation isn't, the expected return on a project for Quantic Dream, a private company, backed by Sony, a platform holder, is not necessarily the same as a third party publicly listed conglomerate like current Konami, horrible workplace that it is.

That isn't saying that MGS won't sell a lot, (although perhaps not as much as some figures bandied about here, I don't really see how or why the franchise has grown particularly since it's heyday), nor that it will fail to recoup its development.

But a project's expense isn't really "justified" by some subjective assessment of the output quality relative to other products, but rather by the commercial potential of said project. The relative scale of MGS4 and MGS5 is inconsequential. That you think it's doing more in terms of ambition than COD or AC does is inconsequential. And the purpose of a project isn't typically to break even or make any arbitrary return, but to best utilise the firm's resources compared to other potential uses of capital.

Konami is withdrawing from consoles because it doesn't really have the capabilities to compete in the modern segment (including brands of which it has, like, 1.5 notable ones) and there are more lucrative lower risk alternative investments to engage in. This has been happening with Konami for something like a decade, so it's always strange to see it serve as such a surprise to people.

 

[foolishoptimist]

MGS5 will probably still be profitable but it's a far riskier proposition for Konami when they can produce much cheaper mobile games, especially when they've also got cassino and pachinko divisions that are doing well.

Mobile games may be less risky due to lower budgets, but the probability achieving large scale success in that sector is far lower than releasing more MGS games.

Of course you can take many more shots at success with shorter dev cycles than MGS.

 

[Matt]

Whether or not Kojima was wasteful during development, 80 million is not a 'risk' for a series with MGS track record, stop spewing your ignorance everywhere and get educated about the industry. Especially when GZs (which likely had very little overhead specifically for it) has already sold probably around 2 million copies to help recoup some of the period of investment and generate revenue.

You really, really need to curb this attitude, especially when you actually don't know what you think you do.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

And that's why they resorted to things like punch cards and other bullshit. Not defending their mismanagement, but when a studio has burned THAT much, it makes sense to come in and lock it the fuck down and track every last expense.

I've felt recently like Kojima is benefitting from being deservedly beloved among gamers and not catching any flack for a bad situation that I bet is at least partially his fault.

Let me put it this way: Konami has gone to extreme lengths to paint a big red target behind their backs while still acting surprised when they get shot.

 

[Success]

If this is true I can now understand people sentiment more and more about free to play being the bane of hardcore gaming.

 

[Lethe82]

You really, really need to curb this attitude, especially when you actually don't know what you think you do.

Enlighten me then, Matt. I have a decent background in Business and know my way around finance. If you really think 'I don't know what I think I do' then back it up with something substantive instead of drive by posting. I'd rather learn something than wallow in ignorance.

 

[CHC]

Sounds awful. I can relate to this. I used to work in an environment that started out friendly and then became permeated with extreme distrust from new leadership. Strict time-card monitoring, constantly being watched on camera and called on the intercom to adjust your activities. Every little bit of work scrutinized and investigated to high hell for no reason.

So fucking dehumanizing and discouraging I wound up leaving behind that entire career and just said fuck it and went back to school, whatever the cost.

(Sorry this shit just got mad personal!)

 

[BrianF]

oh well.

R.I.P Metal gear
R.I.P Bomberman
R.I.P Castlevania

Yeah I guess that really hits home. Some of my favourite franchises were made by Konami. Sure, Castlevania is living on through Bloodstained but nevertheless, it isnt quite the same. Metal Gear I feel like I've said goodbye to on at least 3 occasions so while I would like it to continue I am not as sad to see it go. I never got into Silent Hill and Contra but I imagine people will be pretty devo about that too.

 

[Lethe82]

If you're going to draw comparisons, Heavy Rain cost €16.7MM in development cost at completion. That's the figure that can be compared to this reported ¥10B+. It's not specified what additional expenditure has been incurred in development since, nor what will be expensed for promotional purposes. (Also, from memory, the platform holder royalty is paid per disc printed i.e. becomes a larger share of revenue as price decays.)

But again even if the numbers were analogous, the situation isn't, the expected return on a project for Quantic Dream, a private company, backed by Sony, a platform holder, is not necessarily the same as a third party publicly listed conglomerate like current Konami, horrible workplace that it is.

All of this is true, but it is wholly irreverent to what I was addressing: Posters acting as if 80 million in development (which may or may not include Fox Engine and/or GZ and/or estimated Marketing costs) is too much for a series that that has never had a mainline console entry sell below 5 million units. Rumored MGS4 budget was something akin to 50-70 million, and just like with the 80 million figure we have no way of know what the includes.

That isn't saying that MGS won't sell a lot, (although perhaps not as much as some figures bandied about here, I don't really see how or why the franchise has grown particularly since it's heyday), nor that it will fail to recoup its development.

I would not be surprised to see it easily surpass MGS4 at least due to the PS4 alone putting it in a better position than 4 had the endure.

But a project's expense isn't really "justified" by some subjective assessment of the output quality relative to other products, but rather by the commercial potential of said project. The relative scale of MGS4 and MGS5 is inconsequential. That you think it's doing more in terms of ambition than COD or AC does is inconsequential. And the purpose of a project isn't typically to break even or make any arbitrary return, but to best utilise the firm's resources compared to other potential uses of capital.

Konami is withdrawing from consoles because it doesn't really have the capabilities to compete in the modern segment (including brands of which it has, like, 1.5 notable ones) and there are more lucrative lower risk alternative investments to engage in. This has been happening with Konami for something like a decade, so it's always strange to see it serve as such a surprise to people.

Diversification is important, but I would say that mobile is actually fairly risky at the moment, and that any successful and competent video game company should also be looking heavily into mobile for potential growths, but Konami shunting its console output only makes sense at a stretch because it has spent the last decade arguably deliberately worsening their ability to compete in the traditional gaming market. I would go so far as to say that their decision 'making sense' only does so in the face of a decade of mismanagement and in spite of the efforts of now gone personnel such as Kojima who were attempting to standardize and streamline development in this area. They killed it to justify killing it, because of a mixture of incompetence and growing lack of commitment.

 

[Matt]

Enlighten me then, Matt. I have a decent background in Business and know my way around finance. If you really think 'I don't know what I think I do' then back it up with something substantive instead of drive by posting. I'd rather learn something than wallow in ignorance.

I'm not about to go into specifics when trying to unwind the financial truth of MGS5, because while I could do what I think would be a pretty good job of it, there are way too many variables and way too many pieces of information I don't have.

Nor do you. So please don't tell people to "stop spewing your ignorance everywhere and get educated about the industry." Because it just makes you sound like an ass.

 

[Lethe82]

I'm not about to go into specifics when trying to unwind the financial truth of MGS5, because while I could do what I think would be a pretty good job of it, there are way too many variables and way too many pieces of information I don't have.

Nor do you. So please don't tell people to "stop spewing your ignorance everywhere and get educated about the industry." Because it just makes you sound like an ass.

Let me put it this way, there is far more data to suggest that 80 million is still reasonable for AAA development, and people who are using said figure to justify Konami's firing of Kojima are at least more ignorant than you or I. I don't particularly care about sounding like an ass, the '80 Million? No wonder they fired Kojima!' strain that has been going on throughout this thread betrays a lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the norms of the industry and I make no apology for being sick of seeing it still popping up on Page 13 when others explained it on Page 1-3, and I'm rocking 100 posts per page. If you care more about how I come off than people actually having a grasp of what these kind of numbers mean I don't know what to tell you.

 

[10k]

Holy shit people, 80 million isn't huge for a AAA game development budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

It's like looking at the budget for Heavy Rain and saying 'oh my god!' yet Heavy Rain that cost 52 million dollars and only sold 3+ million copies made over 130 million dollars.
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/08/19/heavy-rain-passes-3-million-copies-sold/
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/21/heavy-rain-cost-52-million-but-made-130-million-you-do-the-ma/

Whether or not Kojima was wasteful during development, 80 million is not a 'risk' for a series with MGS track record, stop spewing your ignorance everywhere and get educated about the industry. Especially when GZs (which likely had very little overhead specifically for it) has already sold probably around 2 million copies to help recoup some of the period of investment and generate revenue.

Considering some AAA games don't even cost $80 million after marketing and development and this figure is development alone, and the fact that it'll be 7 years and four months between releases of MGS 4 and 5, I'd say you're wrong and this is a risk by konami.


And konami only gets approx 30-45% of the sales of MGSV so for it to break even it will need to sell for more copies than heavy rain.

 

[shinra-bansho]

People are acting like a ¥10B+ development cost is a lot because it is, even given the context of what little is publicized about modern game budgets. (Regarding the cost of MGS4, the producer disputed that the budget exceeded ¥5B.)

(I don't really know why a figure cited through April apparently attributed to development would include marketing expenses not yet borne. Also, given apparently long and troubled development it isn't particularly beyond the pall that cost overruns and delays have led to this sort of figure.)

I don't think an ultimate figure of ¥10B+ inclusive of promotional efforts would necessarily have raised as many eyebrows.

As for whether Konami deliberately sabotaged their capabilities, that frankly seems nonsensical. The market has shifted dramatically over the past decade+, and the deterioration of Konami's and really Japanese publishers in general to compete has been a function of that change. One can attribute it in part to their inability to adapt to the changing industry structure and/or consumer tastes, or a byproduct of their shift in focus to other industries.

EDIT: I'm not really sure how exactly one conflates all opinion that the cost is excessive with the idea that Konami isn't an awful place to work. Konami seems like an awful place to work. Their handling of the situation is, euphemistically, not optimal. That doesn't mean one can't still see that cost and think it relatively large.

EDIT2: Conversion at current rates to USD [inadvertently] downplays the cost incurred.

 

[Lethe82]

Considering some AAA games don't even cost $80 million after marketing and development and this figure is development alone, and the fact that it'll be 7 years and four months between releases of MGS 4 and 5, I'd say you're wrong and this is a risk by konami.

80 million may or may not include marketing, fox engine, the offshoot development of Ground Zeroes. Don;t assume the worst case scenario because it suits your argument.

And konami only gets approx 30-45% of the sales of MGSV so for it to break even it will need to sell for more copies than heavy rain.

So let's say at 59.99 they make 24 dollars per copy after all other incurred costs and they manage to sell 3 million copies at full price before any mark downs. That's 72 million dollars.

Ground Zeroes retailed for 39.99 and 29.99, let's just say that they made 16 dollars per copy on average keeping with the above percentage I used. They have sold something like 2 million copies so that would equal a return of something like 32 million collars.

 

[RK128]

Read the OP and wow.....that isn't right how badly people are being treated at Konami :'(.

I'm honestly surprised no one left the company yet and started informing people at how horrid they are being treated there; it has to be against labor laws and human rights laws for what Konami is pulling.

The ONLY reason I see people being at Konami is due the people there wanting to finish MGS V before leaving the company in mass droves, leaving Konami with very little work force and in turn, no one left to not treat right.

I feel really bad for the new Metal Gear team that Konami is making for future games :l; they will be treated badly not just by Konami but the community (people being pissed the series is continuing with Kojima and also by not buying the games due to the justifyed 'Fuck Konami' mentality).

With major gaming press covering this news (IGN posted both an article and YouTube video covering this, as did GameSpot I believe), hopefully something comes from this article and Konami faces action for mistreating developers the way they are being treated.

 

[Matt]

Let me put it this way, there is far more data to suggest that 80 million is still reasonable for AAA development, and people who are using said figure to justify Konami's firing of Kojima are at least more ignorant than you or I. I don't particularly care about sounding like an ass, the '80 Million? No wonder they fired Kojima!' strain that has been going on throughout this thread betrays a lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the norms of the industry and I make no apology for being sick of seeing it still popping up on Page 13 when others explained it on Page 1-3, and I'm rocking 100 posts per page. If you care more about how I come off than people actually having a grasp of what these kind of numbers mean I don't know what to tell you.

Well, first of all, acknowledging that 80 million is a lot to spend on MGS is not the same as supporting Konami's actions.

But secondly, I have seen no evidence from your posts that you have this "rudimentary understanding of the norms of the industry" or "a grasp of what these kind of numbers mean" that you seem to be so appalled by in the lack of others.

 

[vinnygambini]

Holy shit people, 80 million isn't huge for a AAA game development budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

It's like looking at the budget for Heavy Rain and saying 'oh my god!' yet Heavy Rain that cost 52 million dollars and only sold 3+ million copies made over 130 million dollars.
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/08/19/heavy-rain-passes-3-million-copies-sold/
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/21/heavy-rain-cost-52-million-but-made-130-million-you-do-the-ma/

Whether or not Kojima was wasteful during development, 80 million is not a 'risk' for a series with MGS track record, stop spewing your ignorance everywhere and get educated about the industry. Especially when GZs (which likely had very little overhead specifically for it) has already sold probably around 2 million copies to help recoup some of the period of investment and generate revenue.

It's ¥10 billion yen comparatively to its predecessor's budget of ¥5 billion yen.

How is this not a big figure for a conglomerate the size of Konami?

 

[Lethe82]

Well, first of all, acknowledging that 80 million is a lot to spend on MGS is not the same as supporting Konami's actions.

But secondly, I have seen no evidence from your posts that you have this "rudimentary understanding of the norms of the industry" or "a grasp of what these kind of numbers mean" that you seem to be so appalled by in the lack of others.

Why do you believe that 80 million is a lot to spend on Metal Gear when the rumored budget for 4 was 50-70 million? Not too mention that the 80 million figure may in fact include Fox Engine development which was intended to be used across all Konami games (it's being used for Pro Evo right now).

I

How is this not a big figure for a conglomerate the size of Konami?

That is a big figure, it is a ton of investment for a payout that has taken a lot of time. However, relative to other AAA game budgets for franchises this size (in terms of sales) it is within the known norm.

 

[Matt]

Why do you believe that 80 million is a lot to spend on Metal Gear when the rumored budget for 4 was 50-70 million?

Honestly that was a lot too.

 

[Lethe82]

Honestly that was a lot too.

Not for a franchise that has never had a mainline entry sell below 4 million copies. You have arbitrarily decided to place a hidden value on what is an isn't acceptable costs for a metal gear game based on something other than the return of investment. I'm not sure why, but here we are.

 

[Umibozu]

I may sound ignorant but it doesn't make sense to account for a marketing expense that hasn't occurred yet to be in the $80+ million. So I could only see the number significantly increase, especially if they want the game to sell well enough to hope for the game to recoup costs and make a profit.

Yes, $80+ million is a lot to tie-up for the period that the game has been in development, and other ventures would have been risky as well. But I would think those other ventures (such as mobile) wouldn't have been as costly to pursue or wouldn't tie-up their cashflow for as long.

sales also don't mean much if aren't profitable

Their corporate policy in which they treat their employees maybe as poor as it gets, but from a risk adverse business perspective it makes sense their pursuit of less risky business ventures.

 

[Matt]

Not too mention that the 80 million figure may in fact include Fox Engine development which was intended to be used across all Konami games (it's being used for Pro Evo right now).

Which is largely irrelevant if Konami isn't using that engine in other games.

That is a big figure, it is a ton of investment for a payout that has taken a lot of time. However, relative to other AAA game budgets for franchises this size (in terms of sales) it is within the known norm.

We don't know MGS's size anymore. The last mainline game was 7 years ago.

 

[the_batman]

Honestly that was a lot too.

why is that a lot for Metal Gear when it's one of the biggest selling and well known video game franchises of all time?

btw, people are saying you're a developer, well post your credentials before acting all holier than thou

 

[neoism]

80 million for MGSV? Jesus Christ

it will sale 6mil so is going to triple it. back... if not more.


fuck this shitty company....man i would loooove to wait and get mgs5 second hand but i just cant wait.....

 

[Matt]

Not for a franchise that has never had a mainline entry sell below 4 million copies.

lol, yes, it was. For the time, for the platform, with declining sales between 2 and 3, for the time between 3 and 4, it was.

 

[Matt]

why is that a lot for Metal Gear when it's one of the biggest selling and well known video game franchises of all time?

That's very generous.

 

[10k]

why is that a lot for Metal Gear when it's one of the biggest selling and well known video game franchises of all time?

btw, people are saying you're a developer, well post your credentials before acting all holier than thou

Because the industry average at the time was 20-30 million (halo 3 for example was 20 mil in Dev costs). MGS4 was twice that so its return on investment was not as large as some other AAA games.

 

[Matt]

btw, people are saying you're a developer, well post your credentials before acting all holier than thou

?

First of all, no. Secondly, I'm not badmouthing Kojima like you seem to think I am (and taking it rather personally).

 

[Lethe82]

Which is largely irrelevant if Konami isn't using that engine in other games.

That's up to them and their (terrible) own decision after the fact. Kojima Productions isn't at fault for creating a multi-platform engine intended for wide use within the company if said company then decides to mothball everything after the fact. If it is a part of that budget, it only matters on paper relative to the return on investment.

We don't know MGS's size anymore. The last mainline game was 7 years ago.

One of the defining characteristics of Metal gear has been an extremely loyal fan base. There was almost a 4 year gap between Snake Eater and 4. 4 Outsold Snake Eater. Saying we don't know is very pessimistic given the history of the series. Let me put it this way, I would make an account bet with you that MGSV sells more than 5 million units WW between the PS4/XB1/PC/PS3/360.

But while we're on the subject you have yet to answer how you feel that 50-70 million for MGS4 was a lot too. You're basically saying that the franchise has a certain value to you that doesn't mesh with finance.

lol, yes, it was. For the time, for the platform, with declining sales between 2 and 3, for the time between 3 and 4, it was.

Snake Eater sold over 4 million units after August 2005 (it was released in November 2004) not including subsistence or other re-releases one would think. 4 sold more than 3. 'The time between 3 and 4' was filled with spin offs on niche platforms. Again is said 'mainline entry'.

 

[the_batman]

?
First of all, no.

why? don't you want people to buy your games?

did you just make some flash games on Newgrounds and decide to take the title of games developer?

Secondly, I'm not badmouthing Kojima like you seem to think I am (and taking it rather personally).

well you keep saying Metal Gear games aren't worth the actual budgets, so what high profile games do you think ARE worthy of their budgets?