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

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by NaDannMaGoGo (338 posts) -

Well EA is all about the right and now.

No doubt Dead Space would a insanely successful IP in 5-10 years if, after the first game, they took more time for sequels and only produced quality extra content, with that I mean no terrible Dead Space animes etc.

But that's not what EA is looking for, never has in fact. The moment they see one of their products being somewhat successful they go all out on it and milk immediately. Which in a short term probably does gain them some more money (which the CURRENT CEO probably likes ;) ) but some more years down the line? Well, there we have another average IP that only does so-so.

I think the problem is that the people at the top are not enough interested in quality game development (not like a Gabe Newell or Mike Morhaime) and want to make as much money as possible right now when they still have the job, as they're uncertain about their own and the companies future.

#102 Posted by Karkarov (3187 posts) -

Well you can kiss this franchise good bye as the odds of it moving 5 million units is just about non existent.

#103 Posted by minotaka (320 posts) -

@Cloudenvy said:

Well, bye bye Dead Space!

*nods*

#104 Posted by BaconGames (3488 posts) -

You guys are crazy if you don't think this was EA's plan all along. They tried to focus on quality like the "hardcore" market demanded with the first game and it blew up in Richitello's face across the board. They re-imagined their plan with the sequel and it did better for them. Naturally they're going to double down on what made 2 successful and still keep elements of the franchise that enough "hardcore" fans will buy it. At least that's the plan. The moment they saw Dead Space as not a big money maker, they took steps to make it one. And you know what I bet I'll still love it if they keep up the trend. I could give fuck all of its slightly less scary or whatever.

Where they got that number from is a product of the fact that marketing budgets are a ludicrous proportion of a game's budget which are not small for AAA titles. Let's say a game costs 50 million to make. A company like EA can spend upwards of another 25-50 million just to market that game if they're being modest. Chances are cost and marketing are double what I mentioned hence where we get that 5 million. A lot of that is hype for the public to be pressured into thinking about Dead Space and buying it to make sure it survives. They're not stupid, they have entire PR teams that control this kind of information but this also is another example of a publisher shifting a game's focus financially within the company. Activision does this even more severely where a game that catches on can become the major financial focus of the company (Call of Duty, Guitar Hero) and they double all their efforts on what's working right now. Hopefully they find something else that works in the meantime and so onward they move. EA for as much hate as they get are not nearly as calculating in that respect and try to cut it both ways. Both ways in this case trying to cast as wide a net between fans and curious players with this game because they pretty much have nothing else as a major franchise right now. Mass Effect is done, Dragon Age needs a rethinking, NFS needed Criterion to come in to save it from middling reception, and Medal of Honor is still being retooled. Except Battlefield, Hot Pursuit, and a few others EA is going to double down on Dead Space 3 because that's what you do at the end of console cycles when you have a big name franchise like that.

We're dealing with a product that has to sell worldwide to finance a company that needs to recoup costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars each time. That's the game they're playing, the big 3rd party publisher one that is, and they're going to make every business decision that seems to make sense for them so they can stay in the red. That a few people on the internet seem butthurt about an E3 demo and some pull quotes because they have anxiety issues about not being directly catered to isn't something they give a shit about unless that sentiment is reflected at large in sales and critical reception.

With all that said EA if is still positioned to fail I think that's entirely fair. After all if it does turn out that their interpretation of getting a wider audience fails for them, that's their fault for not reading the market and executing on it. Basically the ideal situation for them is for Dead Space 3 to get good/great reviews, anticipate the butthurt fans which everyone company does with any big franchise, and sell 3 million at least to break even if they're budget and marketing is as big as it seems. Of we don't really know what their real bottom line number is and 5 million is just a marketing ploy but I bet 5 million is the number they need to feel really great about reinvesting another big chunk of cash.

Keep this in mind folks as well. Dead Space 3 is a third game in a franchise at the end of the console cycle. If they don't sell a lot of copies, why make a fourth? Is that what we want, a fourth or fifth Dead Space game? We can already see the version of that with fourth games in franchises because its the end of the cycle and those games have big names (Halo, Gears) and its anyone's guess how those will turn out. Again I would really really not like a shit Dead Space game to end out the franchise but if its good and it dies, it also makes sense from a trilogy perspective and console cycle perspective.

(sorry for the book folks).

#105 Posted by Brodehouse (10080 posts) -

If budgeting a 60 dollar retail release with the proper amount of marketing is as easy to turn a profit on as you guys believe, why wouldn't the guys at Visceral walk from their contracts and start their own indie studio where they can make whatever they want? Seems like a no-brainer.

Or if the game with a 20M production would sell at a higher profit margin than a game at a 50M production cost, why would they be spending this much on DS3? If it could be more viable at 2 million units sold, why would they choose this path? If it was greed than they would choose to make it for less, remember its not total sales that matter to business, it's profit margins. If recouping costs at 2 million was safer and more profitable than 5, why would it be this way?

The problem I think a lot of people don't get is that the part they like about Dead Space is the parts that cost millions and millions of dollars. I don't know how you cut Dead Space 2's budget in half and come out with a game that's even close to as good (or popular, or profitable). We've proven ourselves there's only about two directions to be profitable when selling to 'core' gamers; spend a shit ton of money and blow the doors off like a Dead Space and rely on huge sales numbers, or cut corners and make downloadable stuff that appeals to a niche. The double A development area, the middle class of gaming, has pretty much evaporated in terms of profitability.

#106 Posted by MadMagyar92 (67 posts) -

I'm becoming burnt out...

On these internet forums seemingly full of financial and marketing experts.

Least to say, I'll probably still buy this game. Worst case, an awesome trilogy was made. Best case, the lore continues.

#107 Posted by ProfessorK (825 posts) -

It's these ridiculous bars being set so high that could bring us another video game crash. Seriously, as long as we've been in this console generation, it amazes me that costs haven't come down on the production of AAA games.You can't tell me noone has learned any ways make development easier/cost efficient in the past 7 years so that 5 million copies isn't needed "just to be viable."

#108 Posted by Minion101 (91 posts) -

They should just say "there will be no Dead space 4"

#109 Edited by CptBedlam (4453 posts) -

Well, good luck with that. I will certainly not buy DS3.

#110 Posted by AndrewB (7669 posts) -

@ProfessorK said:

It's these ridiculous bars being set so high that could bring us another video game crash. Seriously, as long as we've been in this console generation, it amazes me that costs haven't come down on the production of AAA games.You can't tell me noone has learned any ways make development easier/cost efficient in the past 7 years so that 5 million copies isn't needed "just to be viable."

I'd be glad to see a crash if it meant a return to sane expectations and not betting a company on every single game they put out.

@Sid Meier's Civilization V said:

"A golden age has begun for Gaming!
...
Gaming's golden age has ended."
#111 Posted by Morningstar (2192 posts) -

@AndrewB said:

@ProfessorK said:

It's these ridiculous bars being set so high that could bring us another video game crash. Seriously, as long as we've been in this console generation, it amazes me that costs haven't come down on the production of AAA games.You can't tell me noone has learned any ways make development easier/cost efficient in the past 7 years so that 5 million copies isn't needed "just to be viable."

I'd be glad to see a crash if it meant a return to sane expectations and not betting a company on every single game they put out.

@Sid Meier's Civilization V said:

"A golden age has begun for Gaming!
...
Gaming's golden age has ended."

Amen to that.

#112 Posted by ShaggE (6555 posts) -

@Getz said:

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

A Machine Gun For Pigs?

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.