Support NeoGAF

[Duchess]

The Highest-Selling Games Developed By Bethesda Ranked (& How Much They Sold)

From Elder Scrolls to Fallout, Bethesda is responsible for developing some of the highest-selling games known to the gaming community.

gamerant.com

The Elder Scrolls: Arena	3,000 (1994)
The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall	120,000 (1996)
The Elder Scrolls: Blades	1 Million (2019)
Fallout 76	1.4 Million (2018)
The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind	4 Million (2010)
The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion	9.5 Million (2015)
Fallout 4	12 Million (2015 – Launch Day)
Fallout 3	12.4 Million (2015)
The Elder Scrolls Online	18 Million (2021)
The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim	30 Million (2016)
Fallout Shelter	170 Million (2020)
Starfield	TBA

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Game sales combined with licensing, DLC, merch, media and more will see Starfield easily surpass $1B in a few short years or less.

 

[Three]

Majority? no it's not the Majority. Around 2 million, 1 million of those on Steam and overall 10 million players so far. Its over 4 years to reach 1 billion in revenue, its going to achieve that without question. Also the premium edition which was required for E access was more expensive because the DLC was in the purchase.

That's my point, but it wasn't more expensive. Some of that X million had some people paying $30 both for early access and the DLC. The early access numbers would eat into the DLC sales especially if Starfield doesn't have long enough legs and the majority into it are the early access users.

 

[Heisenberg007]

At an average sale price of $50, wouldn't you think selling 18-20 million units is what this game will need to do to hit that "Billionish" number?

1. $50 is too high for the average sale price. The game is already being discounted at select retailers as well as "key" websites for around $50. Gamespot is even giving it away for free with XSX. The avg. price will go down. $30 would be more accurate if we're looking at a 4-year span.
2. Considering that most of the copies will be sold on Steam, not Xbox, the revenue % will be lower as Steam will also be taking its 20-30% cut.

Even if we ignore Steam's cut, the game will need to sell ~33 million copies to get to $1 billion.

Remember, Microsoft expected the game to sell ~10 million copies just on PS5. There's no way they were expecting the game to sell ~8 million copies on Xbox + PC combined.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The Highest-Selling Games Developed By Bethesda Ranked (& How Much They Sold)

From Elder Scrolls to Fallout, Bethesda is responsible for developing some of the highest-selling games known to the gaming community.

gamerant.com

The Elder Scrolls: Arena	3,000 (1994)
The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall	120,000 (1996)
The Elder Scrolls: Blades	1 Million (2019)
Fallout 76	1.4 Million (2018)
The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind	4 Million (2010)
The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion	9.5 Million (2015)
Fallout 4	12 Million (2015 – Launch Day)
Fallout 3	12.4 Million (2015)
The Elder Scrolls Online	18 Million (2021)
The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim	30 Million (2016)
Fallout Shelter	170 Million (2020)
Starfield	TBA

By the way, this also turned out to be false.

If Fallout 4 indeed sold 12 million copies at launch, then Fallout 4 was and still is Bethesda's biggest game launch. However, Bethesda recently celebrated Starfield as "the biggest Bethesda launch" with just 6 million players (not even 6 million copies sold).



So either Bethesda is lying now with Starfield or they lied previously with Fallout 4's data. Both things can't be true at the same time.

 

[DenchDeckard]

At an average sale price of $50, wouldn't you think selling 18-20 million units is what this game will need to do to hit that "Billionish" number?

Revenue doesn't just come from sales though.

Theres partnerships, looks at Starfield graphics cards and hardware, Limited edition controllers, headsets, console skins. Then just say hyper thetically microsoft tracks gamepass usage and theres people playing it monthly on that so the game is receiving/generating revenue share from subscriptions...Also, as well as all the sales, and DLC sales etc.

Merchandise. It's not just game sales, and I honestly believe people arent that ignorant to think it is just that.

 

[midnightAI]

They could hit a billion if they released it on PS5. Or, create expansions that people have to buy even on gamepads.

 

[NikuNashi]

Its engagement that matters.

 

[GHG]

Its engagement that matters.

Engagement and "merchandise" now.

Unlimited possibilities for the resident spin doctors.

 

[sertopico]

In 12 years? Sure.

 

[Negotiator101]

That's my point, but it wasn't more expensive. Some of that X million had some people paying $30 both for early access and the DLC. The early access numbers would eat into the DLC sales especially if Starfield doesn't have long enough legs and the majority into it are the early access users.

Well all of the Steam players payed full price we know this. How many paid for the upgrade through Microsoft who knows?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Engagement and "merchandise" now.

Unlimited possibilities for the resident spin doctors.

$1 billion worth of Starfield T-shirts and figures of Todd Howard

 

[Three]

Well all of the Steam players payed full price we know this. How many paid for the upgrade through Microsoft who knows?

Even assuming that all the estimated 1M paid $70-100 and didn't get it through cheaper keys that would be $70-100M through steam. They would need to make up $900-930M elsewhere. That's a pretty hefty chunk to make up after launch hype and cheaper prices.

 

[Gaiff]

1. $50 is too high for the average sale price. The game is already being discounted at select retailers as well as "key" websites for around $50. Gamespot is even giving it away for free with XSX. The avg. price will go down. $30 would be more accurate if we're looking at a 4-year span.
2. Considering that most of the copies will be sold on Steam, not Xbox, the revenue % will be lower as Steam will also be taking its 20-30% cut.

Even if we ignore Steam's cut, the game will need to sell ~33 million copies to get to $1 billion.

Remember, Microsoft expected the game to sell ~10 million copies just on PS5. There's no way they were expecting the game to sell ~8 million copies on Xbox + PC combined.

Those are some Scott Steiner-tier maths.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Those are some Scott Steiner-tier maths.

But to say that Bethesda only needs to sell 14 million copies at $70 in the first four years makes absolute sense, right?

 

[Duchess]

2023: Starfield
2025: Legendary Edition
2028: Special Edition
2030: VR Edition
2033: 10th Anniversary Edition

 

[Lucifers Beard]

I seriously hope not. I don’t want this giving other developers the impression that we want more painfully boring games like this.

 

[Gaiff]

But to say that Bethesda only needs to sell 14 million copies at $70 in the first four years makes absolute sense, right?

Or they could sell 20M copies at $50.

 

[FireFly]

By the way, this also turned out to be false.

If Fallout 4 indeed sold 12 million copies at launch, then Fallout 4 was and still is Bethesda's biggest game launch. However, Bethesda recently celebrated Starfield as "the biggest Bethesda launch" with just 6 million players (not even 6 million copies sold).



So either Bethesda is lying now with Starfield or they lied previously with Fallout 4's data. Both things can't be true at the same time.

Wasn't that 12 million shipped to retailers? So that wouldn't be the same as the number of players.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Or they could sell 20M copies at $50.

And that's what I explained earlier in the comment you tried to mock -- that $50 is too high an average price over a span of 4 years. The game is already being discounted and has become a part of free giveaways.

Games are usually discounted 50% off within a year. Here is an example of Deathloop's discount from the same company (Bethesda/Microsoft).

The game launched on September 21, 2021, at $60 and was discounted by 50% 3 months later. And 40% off after 6 weeks.

And you're using $50 (28% off) over 4 years? Why?

 

[Gaiff]

And that's what I explained earlier in the comment you tried to mock -- that $50 is too high an average price over a span of 4 years. The game is already being discounted and has become a part of free giveaways.

Games are usually discounted 50% off within a year. Here is an example of Deathloop's discount from the same company (Bethesda/Microsoft).

The game launched on September 21, 2021, at $60 and was discounted by 50% 3 months later. And 40% off after 6 weeks.

And you're using $50 (28% off) over 4 years? Why?

These are the lowest prices and temporary sales. It's not the regular retail price. Additionally, Deathloop is a smaller AA title. AAA games these days don't get discounted nearly as often as they used to. Look at Elden Ring's pricing over the last year and it's still widely sold at full price. Sekiro is constantly full price and gets temporary 35% discounts. Then throw in all the DLCs over the next several years and there is your $1B.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Wasn't that 12 million shipped to retailers? So that wouldn't be the same as the number of players.

Yes, it was obvious to us, but in this context, it was used as if they sold 12 million units.

What's worse is that Bethesda also misled people at the time of launch and implied that these were actually sales; they even used the word "representing sales."

The following is from Bethesda's website.

 

[three_muffins]

2023: Starfield
2025: Legendary Edition
2028: Special Edition
2030: VR Edition
2033: 10th Anniversary Edition

Im down

 

[Heisenberg007]

These are the lowest prices and temporary sales. It's not the regular retail price. Additionally, Deathloop is a smaller AA title. AAA games these days don't get discounted nearly as often as they used to. Look at Elden Ring's pricing over the last year and it's still widely sold at full price. Sekiro is constantly full price and gets temporary 35% discounts. Then throw in all the DLCs over the next several years and there is your $1B.

Deathloop is not a smaller AA title lol. It launched at $60.

And these are definitely NOT the lowest prices. Here is the full chart.

You're now moving the goalposts and conversation so you don't have to accept that I was right.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Yes, it was obvious to us, but in this context, it was used as if they sold 12 million units.

What's worse is that Bethesda also misled people at the time of launch and implied that these were actually sales; they even used the word "representing sales."

The following is from Bethesda's website.

So yeah, they are probably comparing the 10m Starfield number vs. unique players of Fallout 4 (a smaller number than shipped copies) at the same time period. That's fair.

 

[L*][*N*K]

doesn’t sound undoable, the game is huge and will have years of support

 

[Gaiff]

Deathloop is not a smaller AA title lol. It launched at $60.

Doesn't matter that it launched at $60, it's not a AAA game and certainly nowhere near something like Starfield or Elden Ring, which is what you should be comparing the game to. You're out to launch if you think something on the level of Starfield will get discounted as quickly as Deathloop, especially since it's like 4x the budget. What makes a game AAA is the budget, not the selling price. Immortals of Aveum is $60 and sure as shit isn't AAA.

And these are definitely NOT the lowest prices. Here is the full chart.

You're now moving the goalposts and conversation so you don't have to accept that I was right.

I said lowest "prices". Not a single one. For instance, here is the current lowest price on the market for Forza Horizon 5.

This is the typical price at which these games sell. You will get temporary price drops at $20 but these last a short time and only happen several times a year. You using historical lows as evidence is laughable. Use the typical sales price as people buy these games throughout the years, not just when they drop. Major sales will give them a temporary bump, and that's assuming grey market prices when Steam is still the most popular retailer by a wide margin.

Then throw in the deluxe edition and DLCs that will be released and yeah, your $30 average is a farce. $50 is much closer to the average but probably still higher. Starfield starts out at $70 too, not $60.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Doesn't matter that it launched at $60, it's not a AAA game and certainly nowhere near something like Starfield or Elden Ring, which is what you should be comparing the game to. You're out to launch if you think something on the level of Starfield will get discounted as quickly as Deathloop, especially since it's like 4x the budget. What makes a game AAA is the budget, not the selling price. Immortals of Aveum is $60 and sure as shit isn't AAA.

I said lowest "prices". Not a single one. For instance, here is the current lowest price on the market for Forza Horizon 5.

This is the typical price at which these games sell. You will get temporary price drops at $20 but these last a short time and only happen several times a year. You using historical lows as evidence is laughable. Use the typical sales price as people buy these games throughout the years, not just when they drop. Major sales will give them a temporary bump, and that's assuming grey market prices when Steam is still the most popular retailer by a wide margin.

Then throw in the deluxe edition and DLCs that will be released and yeah, your $30 average is a farce. $50 is much closer to the average but probably still higher. Starfield starts out at $70 too, not $60.

As I literally showed you in the above screenshot, I did not use the lowest price.

The lowest price is $15 as of now (can be seen in the screenshot). I instead used $30 because the game dropped 50% off in just 3 months.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So yeah, they are probably comparing the 10m Starfield number vs. unique players of Fallout 4 (a smaller number than shipped copies) at the same time period. That's fair.

It's anything but fair.

One includes players playing the game via a subscription service; the other only includes buyers. Moreover, out of 12 million copies, less than 50% played Fallout 4, and yet Bethesda celebrated the 12 million "sales" on their website?

Nothing about that is fair or accurate.

 

[devilNprada]

The Highest-Selling Games Developed By Bethesda Ranked (& How Much They Sold)

From Elder Scrolls to Fallout, Bethesda is responsible for developing some of the highest-selling games known to the gaming community.

gamerant.com

The Elder Scrolls: Arena	3,000 (1994)
The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall	120,000 (1996)
The Elder Scrolls: Blades	1 Million (2019)
Fallout 76	1.4 Million (2018)
The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind	4 Million (2010)
The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion	9.5 Million (2015)
Fallout 4	12 Million (2015 – Launch Day)
Fallout 3	12.4 Million (2015)
The Elder Scrolls Online	18 Million (2021)
The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim	30 Million (2016)
Fallout Shelter	170 Million (2020)
Starfield	TBA

Isn't Shelter the free phone App game?

 

[Gaiff]

Why should I care about what BAFTA thinks? They decide what is a AAA game now? You said earlier that "It's $60, it's AAA," which is clearly false since we have plenty of non-AAA games that are $60. Furthermore, Deathloop isn't the same caliber of game as Starfield or anywhere near it. Starfield supposedly had a budget of $200M+ and was developed over 8 years. Not the same level of game at all so using Deahtloop as a precedent for Starfield is moronic. They won't drop it as low as fast because it was far more expensive to develop.

What's more, Deahtloop peaked at 20,000 concurrent players on Steam. Starfield peaked at 330,000 and even the early access version which is $100 peaked at 267,000. How the fuck are you going to use Deathloop as a precedent when Starfield boasts almost 17x the number of concurrent players? And Deathloop wasn't even on Game Pass Day 1.

As I literally showed you in the above screenshot, I did not use the lowest price.

The lowest price is $15 as of now (can be seen in the screenshot). I instead used $30 because the game dropped 50% off in just 3 months.

Starfield is $70, not $60 and has a deluxe edition of $100 and has a bunch of DLCs planned. The $100 deluxe version contains one story expansion which will presumably be $30. You're basically telling us the playerbase, even factoring the DLCs and premium versions, will pay 30% on average over the next 4 years, basically not spending 70% of the full potential. That won't happen. Factoring the base game + the additional content, the average player will spend much closer to $50. Unless of course, you think they'll buy the game for $20 on average and add another $10 for DLCs.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

It's anything but fair.

One includes players playing the game via a subscription service; the other only includes buyers. Moreover, out of 12 million copies, less than 50% played Fallout 4, and yet Bethesda celebrated the 12 million "sales" on their website?

Nothing about that is fair or accurate.

All they claimed was that Starfield was the "biggest Bethesda launch of all time." If 6 million people played Starfield before 6 million people played Fallout 4, they aren't fibbing about anything. They also released a tweet about being the biggest launch in history when it hit 10m, so Starfield probably hit 10m unique users before Fallout 4 as well. All we know is that the Fallout 4 12m number is the shipped copies and not the sell-through numbers. I don't know why this gets people all in a damn fuss. They didn't say Starfield was the fastest selling Bethesda game, or that it sold the most copies. Success also seems to be measured in engagement, and that makes sense considering the way Game Pass changed the Xbox business model. You can like or dislike that metric, but it's their metric, and it has been for a long time. I remember all the MAU talk around here well before the purple forum split.

 

[MarkMe2525]

So disregarding the fact that GP games don't really sell, does the author of this article believe the publisher gets 100% of the revenue from a $70 game sale?

Well, considering the report, that we are looking at, was before the MS acquisition, there are all kinds of issues with the article. We are 5 pages into a discussion revolving around irrelevant/outdated data.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Well, considering the report, that we are looking at, was before the MS acquisition, there are all kinds of issues with the article. We are 5 pages into a discussion revolving around irrelevant/outdated data.

It's a really dumb article and doesn't even deserve a click. Haha.

 

[MarkMe2525]

It's a really dumb article and doesn't even deserve a click. Haha.

Ironically, it's ineptitude is the sole reason it has received the clicks that it has. (This sentence reads weird)

 

[JTCx]

Its engagement that matters.

How much does oxygen cost?

 

[MarkMe2525]

How much does oxygen cost?

 

[IntentionalPun]

The problem with "it's engagement that matters" logic is that it's a part of MS's strategy that requires FAR GREATER scale of Gamepass subs to work.

MS of course still sells things for $60-70 but with their 1st party they are doing a lot less of that. That model clearly requires a scale MS isn't reaching, as evidenced by all the recent leaks of what they've said about it all. They are probably also selling less 3rd party software, although I haven't seen great evidence of that... there are certainly going to be people happy w/ Gamepass and don't feel the need to spend any extra.

Subscription services depend on scale greatly. Netflix spends the same amount of money on content when they had 100 million users as they roughly will when they have 300 million users. That's the "great thing" about the sub model, but it's also the pitfalls of it. As mentioned above gaming is different as you still sell everything separately, but if you are attracting your former "whales" who were spending $500+ on software a year to your cheap sub service that's a huge problem. It's the exact problem all of the video services not named Netflix are having. Their digital sales, theater sales, and things like DVD/Blu-ray sales are being cannibalized by their streaming services and they are losing billions on them. Also taking away customers from highly lucrative ad-supported cable/broadcast TV. They yearn for the days of the old business models that made them way more money.

I personally think the entire thing's days are numbered, as I've been saying for years now. Microsoft failed to "disrupt" the industry, they are losing ground to their competitors, and something has to give.

 

[eNT1TY]

Diablo 4 did that in a quarter, MS will be fine. They can use acti/blizz revenue to subsidize lesser quality projects like Starfield moving forward.

 

[DenchDeckard]

After the announcement of bundles, maybe they can recoup a large chunk of it that way.

 

[Gavon West]

I seriously hope not. I don’t want this giving other developers the impression that we want more painfully boring games like this.

And yet. here you are......

 

[Lucifers Beard]

And yet. here you are......

Sorry, I don't follow. Is this related to my purchasing of the game? I'll own up to being fool there. Shouldn't have pre-ordered.

 

[Negotiator101]

Diablo 4 did that in a quarter, MS will be fine. They can use acti/blizz revenue to subsidize lesser quality projects like Starfield moving forward.

 

[Slicker than your average]

Its engagement that matters.

Which xbox talking point is this? Number 4?

 

[Duchess]

Isn't Shelter the free phone App game?

Yep. Shouldn't really be counting stuff like that in the table.

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

Games go on discount after a few months. Starfield is already discounted at select retailers and was even discounted before the launch with specific methods.

Unless it's selling ~14-15 million in the first few months, it will need to sell a hell of a lot more to hit that $1 billion mark as MSRP goes down with time.

Yea like I said paid expansions, deluxe edition which MS sold a lot of and simply time are ways to reach that number. The game will continue to sell as they add new content and new mods are released that drum up interest and while it won't sell at full price revenue is revenue.

I'm also expecting a complete edition and a next gen version thats similar to the PC version running at high settings with some mods included by default (like they did with Skyrim) for next gen. Lots of ways for them to increase revenue here.

 

[yurinka]

If it would have been multiplatform and great, and not included in GP day one that projection would have made sense. But now I think it won't generate half of that, maybe even not a third of that.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Fallout 4 generated $750M in 24 hours and people think Starfield won't hit $1B after 4 years? I love mocking the game as much as anyone else but let's be real here.

I personally know 7 people who are playing Starfield. Not a single one paid for it.

 

[StealthGoblin]

The problem with "it's engagement that matters" logic is that it's a part of MS's strategy that requires FAR GREATER scale of Gamepass subs to work.

MS of course still sells things for $60-70 but with their 1st party they are doing a lot less of that. That model clearly requires a scale MS isn't reaching, as evidenced by all the recent leaks of what they've said about it all. They are probably also selling less 3rd party software, although I haven't seen great evidence of that... there are certainly going to be people happy w/ Gamepass and don't feel the need to spend any extra.

Subscription services depend on scale greatly. Netflix spends the same amount of money on content when they had 100 million users as they roughly will when they have 300 million users. That's the "great thing" about the sub model, but it's also the pitfalls of it. As mentioned above gaming is different as you still sell everything separately, but if you are attracting your former "whales" who were spending $500+ on software a year to your cheap sub service that's a huge problem. It's the exact problem all of the video services not named Netflix are having. Their digital sales, theater sales, and things like DVD/Blu-ray sales are being cannibalized by their streaming services and they are losing billions on them. Also taking away customers from highly lucrative ad-supported cable/broadcast TV. They yearn for the days of the old business models that made them way more money.

I personally think the entire thing's days are numbered, as I've been saying for years now. Microsoft failed to "disrupt" the industry, they are losing ground to their competitors, and something has to give.

Look at any thread where sales splits are discussed. Very, very lopsided towards PS5, with PS5 leading by enormous margins on physical and digital.

 

[RoboFu]

You all know most of the money isn’t made with game sales alone.

starfield merchandise - Google Search