vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
This is going nowhere.
-
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.
New Nikkei articles shares some information about the situation at Konami
- Thread starter Blablurn
- Start date
What does "fault" have to do with anything? I'm not attacking Kojima on his spending.
...And 2 sold better than 3 and 4. When you add 7 years to the mix, things can get dicey. It adds to the risk.
neoism
Member
lol wat?
comparing the budget to mgs4
are people hear really forgetting its being released on 5 consoles compared to 1 for mgs4.....
Man you're feisty.
The Assassin's Creed games, for example (at least until recently).
So clearly I'm not at all talking about quality.
Selective reasoning. Also that the PS3 was in a terrible spot at them time. The PS4 alone puts MGSV in a much better position.
shinra-bansho
Member
Just some random numbers off the top of my head.
Borderlands 2 shipped 9MM copies.
Watch_Dogs shipped 9MM copies.
Far Cry 3 shipped north of 10M copies.
Assassin's Creed games regularly do higher numbers than those.
Oh, Skyrim was 20MM.
As for the second part, I mean it might be relevant if it translated into five times as many sales. But increasing the number of places where people can buy it, doesn't really have that sort of linear relationship.
You said 'well it's a a waste of money if they aren't going to use it now' which has nothing to do with anything. I pointed out that even if that's true, it's not especially relevant except to the end result of the balance sheet.
2 came off the back of 1 and the insane PS2 hype. Of course the time frame adds risk, unacceptable risk in this case? Not really.
mgs4 budget included the marketing costs. mgs5 is still in development, the online multi will continue to be development post launch so those costs will continue to accrue, and doesn't include the majority of the marketing costs since they have yet to occur. they aren't comparable yet
Of course not, but it will sell millions more over its lifetime by being able to reach out to people who own one platform but not the other. You post almost comes across as an argument against multiplatform development when we've seen the entire industry moving in that direction (or having had arrived at that some time ago) because of costs.
It actually depends on if this number includes projected marketing costs. Their marketing plan is 99% already 'bought' at this point. Continued development of MGO3 will be subsidized by DLC and the like.
foolishoptimist
Member
What were the budgets for the Assassins Creed games?
As long as you keep it in perspective that MGS4 only sold 774,600 in its launch month in North America but went on to sell 6 million copies WW because witha post like that I get the feeling that almost any number would result in a 'hahah told you so' post.
shinra-bansho
Member
I think it's entirely plausible it sells more given it's presence on both major core systems and the PC. Or it could sell similar amounts more quickly, which would still be of benefit.
I also think it's entirely plausible it sells about the same, over a similar period and at similar price decay.
It's also entirely plausible that it sells less, although I think this is less likely than the prior scenarios.
I don't really think there's any particular evidence of the brand strength to draw from to indicate growth or decay.
I guess for a somewhat analogous situation, I don't know if there's anything to suggest or expect Kingdom Hearts 3 will sell more than prior entries, given its multiplatform nature.
...we're talking about the end result on the balance sheet. We're talking about how much money Konami put into this whole project, how much they might get out of it, and if those numbers are something Konami execs and shareholders should be happy about.
Who are you to so definitively judge what is acceptable risk for someone else?
foolishoptimist
Member
Surely strong sales of Ground Zeroes would be useful in determining current brand strength?
...At significantly reduced revenue per copy.
Which has nothing to do with anything bud. MGS4 still made a lot of profit.
You do realize those are basically one in the same right, and no, when my entire tangent here has been about why people casting the 80 million figure as too much are unifromed about the realities of traditionalAAA gaming budgets, and you're the one who started to pick a fight with me, you don't get to turn around and dictate that we're talking about the relative value of the opportunity costs between dedicated console development investment and mobile. The fact is you've been sitting here trying your best to make an argument against not MGS but dedicated console development in general it would seem.
I've already addressed this particular line of reasoning, I guess you missed it. If you scroll up I already talked about Konami's decision to exit the dedicated software biz. I don't think it's an especially smart one, and one that only works because of their decade long inability and lack of commitment.
It's subjectively less of a risk than you think it is. Again I'll make an account bet with you that MGSV sells over 5 million copies worldwide if you're so confident in the detrimental risk of the sales of MGSV being able to recoup the investment.
You do realize those are basically one in the same right, and no, when my entire tangent here has been about why people casting the 80 million figure as too much are unifromed about the realities of traditionalAAA gaming budgets, and you're the one who started to pick a fight with me, you don't get to turn around and dictate that we're talking about the relative value of the opportunity costs between dedicated console development investment and mobile. The fact is you've been sitting here trying your best to make an argument against not MGS but dedicated console development in general it would seem.
I've already addressed this particular line of reasoning, I guess you missed it. If you scroll up I already talked about Konami's decision to exit the dedicated software biz. I don't think it's an especially smart one, and one that only works because of their decade long inability and lack of commitment.
It's subjectively less of a risk than you think it is. Again I'll make an account bet with you that MGSV sells over 5 million copies worldwide if you're so confident in the detrimental risk of the sales of MGSV being able to recoup the investment.
neoism
Member
yeah i get you but it really shows the mgs4s budget was more bloated than 5s... seeing how i was only made for 1 console... 80mil for 5 consoles doesn't sound like that high to me.. as much as i love this series.. and now knowing konami's shittiness in handling all of this, i want the game to do well but not at the same time its not going to help all the peps that worked hard on it and i hope kojima starts his own thang... and i hope most of his key bros go with him... its a real shame but i feel like konami will waste the fox engine....not like it will matter for me though i will never support them again after this...
i say its done by now.. its 27 days from release... never knew that about mgs online... i doubt Konami will even keep the servers up as long as mgs4 online sadly .... marketing costs... seems like it wont be that much.... dont they usually start that stuff already....?
hodayathink
Member
To people acting like 6 million in sales is a huge number that proves KojiPro was worth it, BioShock Infinite had sold somewhere around that amount when Irrational got shut down, which was probably because 2K didn't trust Ken Levine to be able to bring in a big budget game on time and on budget. Sound familiar?
...did you edit my post when you quoted it? Because that's not what I said.
I assumed it was a typo because anything else implied a massive failure on your part to understand my post. Since I said 'except to the end result of the balance sheet'. Obviously that result plays into if it was a worthwhile investment overall for the company.
Yeah, don't do that. It's bad form.
I meant exactly what I said. The end result for Konami's balance sheet is the only thing that matters for this conversation. I'm not talking about anything else.
Then you might want to stop saying things like 'at a significantly reduced revenue per copy...' (just like every other game ever) and 'Which is largely irrelevant if Konami isn't using that engine in other games' when we're talking strictly about the balance sheet eh? You very clearly have a particular slant in how you are approaching this.
Again, if you're so certain of the risk being detrimental? Perma ban bet: MGSV breaks 5 million WW.
if they sell 5m copies, they'll probably make $167m back from games sold. subtract the cost of development and that's $87m.
What are you talking about!?
Selling 6 million copies over a long period of time means you can't do a (for example) basic $30 x 6,000,000 to determine the revenue Konami earned off the game. So, yes, it matters to this conversation. What does any other game have to do with it?
And if Konami had an engine to use in other games they were planning to make as a result of the MGS5 investment, that DOES affect the balance sheet, because it's an upfront cost that can be used to reduce future expenditures.
And what's my slant? I like the MGS games!
No they won't make close to that off of 5 million sales.
Obviously. What is nonsensical is bringing it up as a negative as though it's a unique circumstance. Games with similar costs sell millions and make a lot of money. Nowhere in that post was I saying that every copy sold generated the same revenue, you just decided to take on that bit about revenue decay to continue the negative outlook.
Which as I said only matters relative to the balance sheet not if they are them still going to use the engine or not. Obviously the cost can be justified better if they are going to use the engine (well I assume they will continue pro evo, and they said they are making a new MGS team at least), but that does nothing to change the nature of the 80 million investment being 'too much' on the basis of being able to be recouped an make good profit from. 80 Million is not out of line with other games that sell similar numbers, and again, holy crap, we do not know if it includes the already 'bought' marketing plan, Fox Engine Development, and it is also cushioned somewhat by sales of Ground Zeroes.
The whole reason GZs existed was to help generate revenue from the long investment period of Fox Engine/MGSV
MGS4 shipped/sold to retailers 3 million copies worldwide in its first month. A sigificant portion of that came from Japan where you can't return unsold orders. It Sold through 1 million in Europe in the first month. While you're right, you're over estimating price decay. Games these days are increasingly front loaded. To reach 6 million the company would have been accepting requests for more copies to be made for areas that sold out.
Hmmm after reading all the tweets there, i do feel that Kojima had some blame for why Konami treated him like that here.(it is not ok though)
He cares too much on the quality of the game and ignore the financial point. Seeing how the gaming division of Konami is performing badly at this point of time and the smartphone market is booming, it is not a wonder they change their vision into mobile market.
And of course 80 milliom whether it included fox engine or not is still a very huge amount od budget especially for Japanese gaming industry where budget is usually much lesser except for S-E. And this is also without any marketing cost which also can further add to that cost by a huge number.
It makes the game had very huge risk which can be very scary for company like Konami who have been looking to exit gaming market industry. And even if lets said sold around 8 million i feel the profit will not be huge enough to offset all the time and cost wasted on a single game.
He cares too much on the quality of the game and ignore the financial point. Seeing how the gaming division of Konami is performing badly at this point of time and the smartphone market is booming, it is not a wonder they change their vision into mobile market.
And of course 80 milliom whether it included fox engine or not is still a very huge amount od budget especially for Japanese gaming industry where budget is usually much lesser except for S-E. And this is also without any marketing cost which also can further add to that cost by a huge number.
It makes the game had very huge risk which can be very scary for company like Konami who have been looking to exit gaming market industry. And even if lets said sold around 8 million i feel the profit will not be huge enough to offset all the time and cost wasted on a single game.
Regardless of what the budget for Infinite was, it was bigger than MGSV and estimated as being one of the biggest budgets of all time.
Then why did you say:
Lethe said:
Clearly the reduced revenue per copy matters to the balance sheet.
The Fox Engine, if it was going to be used on more projects in the future, is an asset that has value. But if they are not using it (or barely using it, or could have used something else), it has no value.
And yes, as I said before, we don't have enough information to really judge these numbers, although if I had to guess I doubt it includes any marketing costs.
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Marketing is surely not accounted for as a healthy sum is provided by console manufacturers too during the game's launch.
Much like movie budgets, it's production costs, not marketing + production.
Much like movie budgets, it's production costs, not marketing + production.
Not in every case. Though with a title like MGS maybe Sony. They still would have had such agreements finalized prior to launch and the game has already been delayed.
Oh they absolutely do, but that does not mean it's included in this number. I don't know the answer to that...but if $80 million includes marketing, than they really aren't planning on advertising this thing.
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
I'm positive Harker alluded that Sony have a co-marketing arrangement with Konami for MGSV.
I can see that happening given everything. They might look at MGS as an established and visible brand and just want it out the door.
Publisher only gets a fraction of the game price even at full price. At 60 dollars a piece they may only get 30 or even less.
Just zeroing in on this point. Kojima Productions was a part of Konami. It wasn't and should not have been an independent entity acting on its own strategic interests. If Konami didn't have the interest in using Fox Engine, even if it was just out of genuine disinterest, then why should Kojima Productions be spending Konami's money on it?
I think a lot of people want to view this as a black and white scenario, and it's only getting easier since Konami isn't making themselves look great.
It is the job of Konami (and their producers) to keep tabs on development and budget. It is Kojima's job to spend the money he has been given where he deems it appropriate. If nobody interceded then it is the fault of the people controlling the purse-strings.
And if they do that(they won't) the game will never reach that 6 million number for sure and it will be a lost project.
MGSV will make a profit without a doubt. It might even make a significant one.
However, I can definitely understand why a company would be wary of spending so much on a single game that takes so long to develop. Mainline MGS games aren't just something Kojima can churn out, they're something he takes his time perfecting.
The wariness probably increases tenfold for a company that seems to have increasingly wanted to focus on other industries.
The diverging interests of Konami and Kojima were going to come to a head sooner or later, MGSV's delays and cost just accelerated the process.
However, I can definitely understand why a company would be wary of spending so much on a single game that takes so long to develop. Mainline MGS games aren't just something Kojima can churn out, they're something he takes his time perfecting.
The wariness probably increases tenfold for a company that seems to have increasingly wanted to focus on other industries.
The diverging interests of Konami and Kojima were going to come to a head sooner or later, MGSV's delays and cost just accelerated the process.
Given the way they have been slashing and burning their gaming departments, they may be perfectly content to write this off as a loss and just attempt to cut their losses wherever possible.
The way they have been acting, doesn't show them looking to continue with AAA gaming, and definitely points to their desire to make an exit at whatever cost.
I agree that development has mostly been completed, marketing costs could go into the tens of millions but from konami's actions thus far and the lack of marketing seen up to this point I think they're trying to send mgs5 as fast as possible and with little fanfare as possible to pursue things they deem to be more fruitful (gambling, mobile, etc.)
The usual argument I see whenever the Konami/Kojima issue comes up, especially with regards to budgets and delays, is that people really want there to be a good guy and a bad guy with somewhere to point "fault" at. But I think there's another way to look at it - at this point their mutual interests were simply not compatible.
For a big game publisher to invest 80 million dollars or more into expanding their biggest action franchise worldwide into a full open world experience, asynchronous online social hooks integrated into the single player, and a separate team based online multiplayer shooter component on every major platform available... is not a bad idea at all. On its own it is neither a bad investment nor is it a poor business decision - provided that said publisher is interested in this sort of business in the future and interested in continuing to invest into this segment to build on it further.
Konami is not that publisher. Ubisoft is. Kojima was just working for the wrong megacorp.
For a big game publisher to invest 80 million dollars or more into expanding their biggest action franchise worldwide into a full open world experience, asynchronous online social hooks integrated into the single player, and a separate team based online multiplayer shooter component on every major platform available... is not a bad idea at all. On its own it is neither a bad investment nor is it a poor business decision - provided that said publisher is interested in this sort of business in the future and interested in continuing to invest into this segment to build on it further.
Konami is not that publisher. Ubisoft is. Kojima was just working for the wrong megacorp.
Okay, I'm kind of tired and I probably shouldn't have woken up yet, but I'm having trouble putting these things together right now. So Metal Gear Solid 4 only made 10% of its North American sales in its first month, which proves that we shouldn't be underestimating its selling power, but price decay isn't a significant problem because games are more front loaded?
adamantypants
Member
My biggest takeaway isn't the insane budget for MGSV, it's the utterly, insanely toxic culture at Konami. It makes me sick just reading about it.
If anything I'm glad Kojima was pissing away their money.
If anything I'm glad Kojima was pissing away their money.
I know you're thinking along the lines of "eat it, corporate fatcats", but I don't really think there's anything positive result if Konami execs feel like their money is being wasted. It probably didn't make them treat their employees and better - more likely the opposite. And it probably didn't hurt them too badly because it gives them an excuse to move resources away from traditional game development and towards safer areas.
Last Hearth
Member
Let me just do the math for you. $80 MM by April probably means near $100 MM by release. Add another $50 MM to marketing and that's being conservative. Add the fact that over 5 years the baseline return for $100 MM with annual 5% returns (again being conservative) is $127 MM, the game would have to make $177 MM to break even.
At $24MM profit per 1 million copy sold, Konami would have to sell 177/24= 7.3 million copies.
7.3 million copies to break even.
Even if I give them the generous return of $30 MM per 1 million sold, you're still looking at 5.9 million copies sold to break even.
At $24MM profit per 1 million copy sold, Konami would have to sell 177/24= 7.3 million copies.
7.3 million copies to break even.
Even if I give them the generous return of $30 MM per 1 million sold, you're still looking at 5.9 million copies sold to break even.