Dead Space 3 needs to sell 5 million units to be "viable".

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Dad_Is_A_Zombie (1225 posts) -

And now from the even more reason for concern about this game department:

"It's definitely not getting away from gore or horror, but at the same time it's opening up to a larger audience by adding some elements," said EA's Frank Gibeau. "In general we're thinking about how we make this a more broadly appealing franchise, because ultimately you need to get to audience sizes of around five million to really continue to invest in an IP like Dead Space. Anything less than that and it becomes quite difficult financially given how expensive it is to make games and market them." Quoted from Destructoid.

Translation: "Everything you were worried about with our Dudebro shooter E3 demo is true. Not only is this franchise no longer about what made it great in the first place but if we don't move five million units it won't exist period." That's just great....

#2 Posted by jakob187 (21662 posts) -

Here's an idea on how to not need to sell five million in order to make the game viable: don't spend so much money making a goddamn Dead Space game. I can guarantee they didn't dump nearly as much into the first game as they did into this new one, and the first game was SOLID! Even with Dead Space 2, they dumped money into it - but it showed and they were rewarded for it. They were able to keep all the things that made Dead Space awesome while giving it some much needed tweaks.

With Dead Space 3, I just don't see anything that interests me. I'll be keeping my eye on it, as I really want the game to be stellar and happen to be a massive Dead Space fan (both the games and the extended universe). I...just can't find a reason to pick this game up yet.

#3 Posted by Atlas (2435 posts) -

I hate that games are being made to live up to these ludicrous expectations by publishers/developers. I cannot understand how they couldn't have predicted this, and I equally cannot understand why they went ahead with it. 5 million copies?! Only the most elite AAA titles sell that many copies.

Is there any evidence, or plausible theories, as to why the costs of developing games seems to have exploded in the past few years? Surely if we're running on hardware that's more than 7 years old at this point, it can't be a technical issue that requires a large group of programmers to build an engine, right? Is it large advertising budgets? Is it something I'm completely missing?

A year ago, the prospect of purchasing Dead Space 3 on release would have been near a certainty for me. Now, it's merely a possibility. And I loved, loved those first two games.

#4 Posted by big_jon (5723 posts) -

Uhg...

#5 Posted by Pr1mus (3858 posts) -

When publishers set the bar that high for games to be considered success and worth investing into is when video games will be done.

#6 Edited by s10129107 (1182 posts) -

Their business model is what isn't viable. They can't spend so much money on these videogames.

5 million is an absurd amount of copies to sell. This is what killed KOA.

::Edit:: We wanna sell 5 mil, also we'll probably make it exclusive to Origin to expand our market. How has that worked out for them anyway?

#7 Posted by Marz (5648 posts) -

that's too bad, dead space had potential to be a great horror series but now it's just another action game.

#8 Posted by JTB123 (1046 posts) -

That seems astronomically high considering the sales of Dead Space 2, which according to EA did extremely well. This just comes across as EA being every so slightly greedy, I highly doubt it needs to sell 5 million copies just to break even.

#9 Posted by Demoskinos (14733 posts) -

Yeah, everything about that E3 demo bored me to tears. No buy from me.

#10 Edited by Bobby_The_Great (1004 posts) -

It's getting ridiculously pathetic in the gaming industry that things have to sell 5 million copies just to be "viable." That's $300,000,000, folks. What company in the world makes that kind of moneyon property and considers it just, "okay?" 
 
Oh that's right, the most evil one of 2011, EA. Congrats, you money grumbing bastards. 

#11 Edited by Jeust (10540 posts) -

I won't buy it at launch. I'm not thrilled about co-op games, and I'm not fond of threats. It will be a pity if Dead Space is dropped, but I like my horror games singleplayer, appart from Left 4 Dead, and scary.

#12 Posted by iAmJohn (6114 posts) -

This coming from the company that struggled to get more than two million people to buy the Mass Effect games and Dragon Age II. Good luck with that, guys!

#13 Posted by s10129107 (1182 posts) -

I think it would be ok to end Dead Space at 3 games anyway.

#14 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

Long live the dudebro! I am so shotgunning a beer while playing coop and wearing a backwards hat

#15 Posted by stryker1121 (1394 posts) -

5 million means they're trying to get a chunk of that CoD money, no? I mean, 5 million, really? that's the only way the IP can stay afloat? Where's the cost coming from to produce and market this game? GT.TV has the entire demo and while it looks pretty, the shooty action stuff is very, very prevalent. I guess the only way to sell a game nowadays is to make it look like everything that's moved huge amounts of units over the last few years. Or it's outright greed from a publisher that wants a piece of what Acti's getting. Depressing, as I like the franchise.

#16 Posted by Grissefar (2842 posts) -

Good call, EA.

#17 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@TheHumanDove said:

Long live the dudebro! I am so shotgunning a beer while playing coop and wearing a backwards hat

With no less than three popped collars.

#18 Posted by Getz (2996 posts) -

I'm not even mad really, I wasn't looking for another Dead Space game either way. Shooter or Survival Horror, I've had my fill; let's move on to something different.

As great as they were, the Dead Space games weren't really that great as horror games. Sure, there was the odd monster closet and dark room with fucked up noises coming out of it, but the game was all about empowerment over subtlety. You get all these fancy weapons and when you walk in to a room you know there's a good chance you're coming out alive. That's not scary. Them turning it in to a full blown shooter is just the next logical step for their big-selling franchise.

Now, if Amnesia 2 was a shooter, THEN you could reasonably say a line has been crossed.

#19 Posted by JTB123 (1046 posts) -

@Jeust: The coop isn't mandatory like it was in RE5, so you can still play DS3 completely by yourself, which is what I plan on doing.

#20 Posted by Cloudenvy (5891 posts) -

Well, bye bye Dead Space!

#21 Posted by NaDannMaGoGo (338 posts) -

What's up with all those Devs/Publisher telling us how many copies they have to sell for game XYZ? Especially EA.

Do they want to pressure some customers? "Get it or the franchise you like is dead asshole!"

#22 Posted by Aldrenar47 (78 posts) -

You don't have to sell 5 million copies of Dead Space 3 if you don't want to, but the option is there for the players who want it.

You want to sell 5 million copies of Dead Space 3? If that's what you want to do, you can do it.

#23 Posted by Zealousadonis (133 posts) -

I used to like Dead Space, it's a shame what they're doing to it. Someone should tell EA an accessible game probably won't do as well as a good one. When recommending a game to someone I don't say "You should get this game! It's kind of lame but it's really easy to understand and play!"

#24 Posted by Hailinel (24286 posts) -

Altman be fucked!

Online
#25 Posted by Ubersmake (754 posts) -

If it doesn't do well (enough), it sounds like Dead Space will be one of those IPs that gets buried and then revisited and rebooted a decade or two later. Because clearly, if it sells only 1 million units, not enough people wanted to play it to justify making more games with that IP.

Sounds like a death-spiral development model.

#26 Posted by Jeust (10540 posts) -

@JTB123 said:

@Jeust: The coop isn't mandatory like it was in RE5, so you can still play DS3 completely by yourself, which is what I plan on doing.

Yes, I read in an interview that in singleplayer the co-op assistance will appear as allucinations, but still I have my doubts about how good will the singleplayer be. Scratch scary, because in order to have broad appeal it mustn't be scary like the first one.

#27 Posted by TheSlothKing (331 posts) -

@Jeust: They already said the reason they didn't show the "scary" parts is because it doesn't demo well, same with RE6 from what I hear.

#28 Edited by ProfessorEss (7309 posts) -
@NaDannMaGoGo said:

What's up with all those Devs/Publisher telling us how many copies they have to sell for game XYZ? Especially EA.

Do they want to pressure some customers? "Get it or the franchise you like is dead asshole!"

I bet that's exactly it. 
 
They told everyone that developers see a share of the profits on new game sales to kill the rental and used markets and everyone seemed to buy that nonsense, why not try to use the demise of a favourite franchise to make a few more bucks?
 
Publishers have realised that despite hating them the game buying public will believe anything they are told - especially when it's backed up by their lackeys in the gaming press (who apparently have no conflict of interest in all of this).  
#29 Posted by MikkaQ (10280 posts) -

Well whatever, not every franchise needs a million entries.

#30 Edited by Jeust (10540 posts) -

@TheSlothKing said:

@Jeust: They already said the reason they didn't show the "scary" parts is because it doesn't demo well, same with RE6 from what I hear.

Yeah but I doubt it will be anywhere as good as Dead Space 1. Dead Space 2 wasn't.

#31 Posted by AlexanderSheen (4966 posts) -

"It's definitely not getting away from gore or horror, but at the same time it's opening up to a larger audience by adding some elements,"

Cause it worked really well the last time, good thinking EA.

#32 Posted by Zlimness (549 posts) -

In before it'sjustcooltohateonEAyouguysdontknowwhatyour'retalkingaboutcan'twejustplaygamesandshutup.

#33 Posted by Deathmachine117 (377 posts) -

I should wait until the game comes out to make a informed decision but everything so far just looks like Lost Planet and thats a bad thing.

#34 Posted by Sackmanjones (4682 posts) -

Damnit. I'll wait till it comes out to judge but this doesn't sound good

#35 Posted by artgarcrunkle (970 posts) -

Dear Videogame Industry,

Please crash, I'm tired of this shit.

Thank you.

#36 Posted by DjCmeP (1148 posts) -

The new game looks like shit...haven't seen any horror/good things so far. I'm gonna skip this one and I'm sure many other people will too.

#37 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

I've still never beaten Dead Space 1 or 2, I should get on that sometime.

#38 Posted by TentPole (1858 posts) -

@Jeust said:

@TheSlothKing said:

@Jeust: They already said the reason they didn't show the "scary" parts is because it doesn't demo well, same with RE6 from what I hear.

Yeah but I doubt it will anywhere as good as Dead Space 1. Dead Space 2 wasn't.

I am with this guy.

#39 Posted by Phatmac (5725 posts) -

Goodbye Dead Space! I guarantee that it won't reach 5 million!

#40 Posted by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

I think publisher should stop this trend of "we need this game to sell this many copies or you won't get any more games" before becomes a thing, the game should speak for itself and the bus... what? videogames are carefully constructed with business in mind? ha!, you're crazy little floating man videogames are for FUN! get out of my head.

#41 Posted by corganmurray (33 posts) -

Well, we'll always have the first two!

#42 Posted by Jeust (10540 posts) -

@corganmurray said:

Well, we'll always have the first two!

First three, plus Dead Space Extraction, Dead Space for IOS/Android and Dead Space Ignition.

#43 Posted by believer258 (11776 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

Here's an idea on how to not need to sell five million in order to make the game viable: don't spend so much money making a goddamn Dead Space game. I can guarantee they didn't dump nearly as much into the first game as they did into this new one, and the first game was SOLID! Even with Dead Space 2, they dumped money into it - but it showed and they were rewarded for it. They were able to keep all the things that made Dead Space awesome while giving it some much needed tweaks.

With Dead Space 3, I just don't see anything that interests me. I'll be keeping my eye on it, as I really want the game to be stellar and happen to be a massive Dead Space fan (both the games and the extended universe). I...just can't find a reason to pick this game up yet.

Pretty much this. I can't say that I understand why publishers keep dumping so much money into games when they could obviously make more money if they did away with one stupid set piece that you just watch instead of play.

Online
#44 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Won't end well.

#45 Posted by WilliamHenry (1202 posts) -

@Bobby_The_Great said:

It's getting ridiculously pathetic in the gaming industry that things have to sell 5 million copies just to be "viable." That's $300,000,000, folks. What company in the world makes that kind of moneyon property and considers it just, "okay?" Oh that's right, the most evil one of 2011, EA. Congrats, you money grumbing bastards.

Yea, because the publisher totally receives 100% of every sale right?

#46 Posted by WilliamHenry (1202 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@jakob187 said:

Here's an idea on how to not need to sell five million in order to make the game viable: don't spend so much money making a goddamn Dead Space game. I can guarantee they didn't dump nearly as much into the first game as they did into this new one, and the first game was SOLID! Even with Dead Space 2, they dumped money into it - but it showed and they were rewarded for it. They were able to keep all the things that made Dead Space awesome while giving it some much needed tweaks.

With Dead Space 3, I just don't see anything that interests me. I'll be keeping my eye on it, as I really want the game to be stellar and happen to be a massive Dead Space fan (both the games and the extended universe). I...just can't find a reason to pick this game up yet.

Pretty much this. I can't say that I understand why publishers keep dumping so much money into games when they could obviously make more money if they did away with one stupid set piece that you just watch instead of play.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I just find it humorous that you claim that all they have to do is spend less money to make the game when you have no understanding of how game development costs actually work. None of us do.

#47 Posted by killacam (1284 posts) -

better idea: do not make dead space 3

#48 Posted by Subjugation (4719 posts) -

What happened to the days of reasonable expectations?

#49 Posted by Encephalon (1240 posts) -

I don't think his phrasing was such that "viability" is synonymous with "breaking even." Nevertheless, 5 mil sounds like a fucking home run to me, and the fact that it's considered a bare minimum internally makes me question the handling of the Dead Space franchise.

#50 Edited by Trilogy (2648 posts) -

Why are we all of a sudden being told how much a game needs to sell to break even or profit? Don't try to guilt people into buying your game because you spent way toOmuch making it. This isn't fucking kickstarter.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.