Despite Everything, Duke Nukem Forever Was Profitable

Posted by patrickklepek (6420 posts) -

We probably won't ever know the full story about the financials, but according to Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick, Duke Nukem Forever will be a profitable release for the company.

How profitable, however, is something we don't know.

The CEO revealed this interesting tidbit on yesterday's call with investors and analysts, where Take-Two announced a loss for the quarter, despite shipping more than four million copies of L.A. Noire.

Duke Nukem Forever's ending suggested the so-called king would return again, but who knows how long it'll be before Gearbox Software shows off Duke's inevitable reboot.

Gearbox certainly has its hands full at the moment, having just announced Borderlands 2, polishing up the oft-delayed Aliens: Colonial Marines for a release next spring and taking the Brothers in Arms series in a brand-new direction with the Borderlands-inspired Brothers in Arms: Furious 4.

#1 Posted by patrickklepek (6420 posts) -

We probably won't ever know the full story about the financials, but according to Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick, Duke Nukem Forever will be a profitable release for the company.

How profitable, however, is something we don't know.

The CEO revealed this interesting tidbit on yesterday's call with investors and analysts, where Take-Two announced a loss for the quarter, despite shipping more than four million copies of L.A. Noire.

Duke Nukem Forever's ending suggested the so-called king would return again, but who knows how long it'll be before Gearbox Software shows off Duke's inevitable reboot.

Gearbox certainly has its hands full at the moment, having just announced Borderlands 2, polishing up the oft-delayed Aliens: Colonial Marines for a release next spring and taking the Brothers in Arms series in a brand-new direction with the Borderlands-inspired Brothers in Arms: Furious 4.

#2 Edited by ADarkMatter (139 posts) -

Always Bet on Duke 

#3 Posted by Gplo32Gplo32 (12 posts) -

Good for them!

#4 Posted by WJist (328 posts) -

Got milk?

#5 Posted by Chet_Rippo (251 posts) -

What has the world come to?

#6 Posted by Crunchman (417 posts) -

BUT AT WHAT COST?

#7 Posted by zombie2011 (5266 posts) -

Glad to hear it, i think Duke could be a good game if it wasn't just stitched together levels from however many years it was in development. I reboot could be good.

#8 Posted by LethalKi11ler (1600 posts) -
@Crunchman said:

BUT AT WHAT COST?

#9 Posted by crusader8463 (14755 posts) -

Of course it was profitable. It didn't matter how terrible it was, there were enough people who were going to buy it just because of the legacy of the games development let alone the casual walmart shoppers that don't know any better.

#10 Posted by ryanwho (12012 posts) -

I have a hard time believing they account for the salary of every person who worked on this over the past 12+ years when measuring their gains.

#11 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5904 posts) -

Good. Gearbox took a huge risk and I'd hate to have seen them lose money on anything. Remember this money goes to Borderlands 2!!!!!

#12 Posted by crusader8463 (14755 posts) -
@Crunchman said:

BUT AT WHAT COST?

$69.99 plus tax.
#13 Posted by Bucketdeth (8235 posts) -

Hail to the King baby!

#14 Posted by ckeats (496 posts) -

The collectors edition is only $69.99 now. Even though the game is terrible, that box comes with some cool stuff.

#15 Posted by Herocide (447 posts) -

Hopefully the reboot can redeem this stale franchise.

#16 Posted by bretthancock (798 posts) -

Not surprised, all the talk about the amount of work they put into DNF had to be vastly over exaggerated. Bought it on the cheap, spend very few resources, and increase your profit margin. Honestly not a bad idea at all, that game was a turd that wasn't going to be turned around.

#17 Edited by Doctorchimp (4171 posts) -

Are we still talking about Duke?
 
Also how about a little clarification, is it just a profit for Zenimax after just buying the license and the assets wholesale? 
 
Or did it come close to the dollar amounts George Broussard squandered and pissed away? Those are the numbers I want to see.

#18 Posted by Bigheart711 (1272 posts) -
@Crunchman said:

BUT AT WHAT COST?

This.
#19 Posted by Nomin (1004 posts) -

Duke is smug, as if to say, 'Suck it game journalists.'
#20 Edited by MajorToms (474 posts) -

I wonder how many copies of L.A. Noire have actually been sold. Every shop I go into has way too many copies sitting around.

Anyways, who thinks that Duke Nukem will be turned into a "Brah" character? He is the sort of chauvinistic jock of yesteryear, and that translates to the brahs of today. Dear god please don't be this silly Gearbox, Duke has more intelligence than the brahs of today. He needs to have a high level of suave and arrogance, but still be a complete meat head. Most brahs are just meatheads with low level suave and replace arrogance with ignorance.

#21 Posted by 24f234f232323 (21 posts) -

hahahahahaha I mean so many people got it for the sole purpose of seeing *how* bad it was

#22 Posted by PhatSeeJay (3331 posts) -

@scriptkittie said:

hahahahahaha I mean so many people got it for the sole purpose of seeing *how* bad it was

Pretty much this. And it wasn't even bad enough to be funny. I just got bored. Hell even Duke sounded bored.

#23 Posted by The_Nubster (2581 posts) -

When all of their others games ship, I'm curious to see what Gearbox does with Duke, now that they can build him from the ground up.

#24 Posted by Repox (2 posts) -

$4 of profit from Duke Nukem Forever, when matched up to development costs.

#25 Posted by ReyGitano (2491 posts) -

I can't imagine Duke Nukem being profitable if you take into account all it's years of development. Good for Gearbox though, getting that money so they can keep making better games, like Borderlands.

#26 Posted by Legend (2695 posts) -

@Bucketdeth said:

Hail to the King baby!
#27 Posted by WilliamHenry (1257 posts) -

@ADarkMatter said:

EDIT: Was Shadows of the Damned "profitable"? I mean Duke was just a bad joke and should have stayed like that, let the guy die already, and there are a bunch of better games out there that just won't sell as much as Duke Nukem Forever did; that's bad for the industry IMO.

After selling only 24k, how could it possibly be profitable? And how does a bad game making a profit hurt the industry? It gives devs/pubs more money to make better games. How is that a bad thing?

#28 Posted by Brendan (8802 posts) -

@SlashseveN303 said:

I can't imagine Duke Nukem being profitable if you take into account all it's years of development. Good for Gearbox though, getting that money so they can keep making better games, like Borderlands.

Wildly unprofitable if you consider the 10+ years of lost opportunity costs.

#29 Posted by unholyone123 (203 posts) -

Fuck everyone who bought this game. Now you have no room to complain about the avalanche of shitty clone games that will come out. Do any of you realize the companies largely make games based around what you buy.

#30 Posted by StingingVelvet (594 posts) -

@unholyone123 said:

Fuck everyone who bought this game. Now you have no room to complain about the avalanche of shitty clone games that will come out. Do any of you realize the companies largely make games based around what you buy.

I bought it and make no apologies, I really enjoyed it. The PC Gamer review matches my own thoughts well, it's flawed but still really fun. I know the PC version was better in many respects, which might have something to do with it.

#31 Posted by Cogzwell (291 posts) -

Ofcourse it did! all they had to do was stable together the limbs and organs and sell it!

#32 Posted by Duffman (205 posts) -

Ugh.  Fuck you, Duke.  Fuck you.

#33 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6420 posts) -

This......this just makes me sad.

#34 Posted by JJOR64 (19567 posts) -

:(

#35 Posted by CharlesAlanRatliff (5712 posts) -

Sweet! Glad my Balls of Steel purchase was able to help.

#36 Posted by Rawrnosaurous (812 posts) -

I honestly wish it had tanked just so that I wouldn't have to deal with that character again. I mean it was great in the 90's but man not only is the character stuck in the past but so is the gameplay, can anyone actually try to imagine a duke game with a modern control scheme? Would you like to play a Duke Nukem game that has a cover mechanic and regenerating health? Active reload? QTE? No first person platforming? Gearbox is going to do it either way because they have been getting rather cocky with their games ever since borderlands was a big hit.

#37 Posted by YoungFrey (1363 posts) -

Some easy investing advice to take from this.  FInd a property that everyone know about but is on sale for a huge discount.  Market the crap out it.  Profit.   
 
This was just Take 2 wisely seeing that the game, despite being garbage had titanic name recognition and a generation of gamers who grew up waiting for it to come out.  It's pretty much had a marketing campaign going for a decade.  It doesn't really say anything about the industry.
#38 Posted by UberExplodey (980 posts) -

sad face.

#39 Posted by ADarkMatter (139 posts) -
@DivineCC said:

@ADarkMatter said:

EDIT: Was Shadows of the Damned "profitable"? I mean Duke was just a bad joke and should have stayed like that, let the guy die already, and there are a bunch of better games out there that just won't sell as much as Duke Nukem Forever did; that's bad for the industry IMO.

After selling only 24k, how could it possibly be profitable? And how does a bad game making a profit hurt the industry? It gives devs/pubs more money to make better games. How is that a bad thing?

I fell it as a bad thing because there are a whole lot of better games that won't make as much money as this game did, also the final product felt to me as if it was put together without any effort, and given the history of this game development being such a bumpy ride i would suppose that effort was indeed given to this game but the final product just feels incomplete, i don't want to use the word "unfair" but that's just what comes to my mind when i think of this game making way more money than others, and the devs/pubs of this specific game did have the resources to make a good game, it just felt like they wanted it to be over.
#40 Posted by WiqidBritt (584 posts) -

was Take Two actively funding the game during the entire development or was it mostly 3D Realms/George Broussard paying for it? I can't imagine this game actually made enough money to even cover 15 years worth of salary, let alone licensing multiple engines and everything else that goes into making a game. 
 
Being profitable for Take Two doesn't necessarily mean it made more money than what went into it.

#41 Posted by Claude (16630 posts) -
#42 Posted by Bestostero (2919 posts) -

I like the cover art.

#43 Posted by TheBlackPigeon (335 posts) -

It just goes to show that no matter what the haters say.........
 
Always bet on Duke.

#44 Posted by SuperfluousMoniker (2908 posts) -

Duke made money and Bulletstorm didn't. No justice in the world.

#45 Posted by Zidd (1917 posts) -

@Rawrnosaurous: Do you not think that Duke has a place in todays gaming world? I think they need to make another Duke game and have it ship on time to really find out.

Online
#46 Posted by bybeach (5185 posts) -

Mine's still in it's wrap. Maybe if I return it justice will prevail....

#47 Posted by Branthog (5717 posts) -

Fucking depressing.

On the other hand, I'm sure most of us only bought it to have it on the shelf. I own a copy, but only so I can own a copy. I have no intention of ever *EVER* playing it. I don't hate myself that much.

#48 Posted by GetEveryone (4531 posts) -
@scriptkittie said:
hahahahahaha I mean so many people got it for the sole purpose of seeing *how* bad it was
Yeah! Try that on for size, Take-Two!
#49 Posted by MisterSamMan (371 posts) -

Time is money.

#50 Posted by Cybexx (1314 posts) -

I doubt Duke made a profit on its entire development cost. My guess is that is made a profit based on the price that Gearbox acquired it for, the money that 2K had put into 3D Realms and the last year of development costs for Gearbox. I can't see it paying for the 14 years of development that 3D Realms funded themselves from sources such as the old Duke games, Prey and the finder's fee they got for Max Payne.

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.