93% of new-IP games released are flops?

[VIAN]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/46874

 

[DaveSimmons]

Not quite, but close: 93% of new, original games that aren't sequels or tie-ins.

Meanwhile, the Spider-Man 3 game bad enough to warrant a Penny Arcade strip today will be hugely profitable.

---
"According to Midway senior VP and chief marketing officer Steve Allison, only 7% of the new game-related intellectual properties introduced across the past four years can be considered successful and review scores had no bearing on the sales of those games. "In other words, 93 percent of new IP fails in the marketplace," he explained on N'Gai Croal's Level Up. "So while the 90-plus review scores and armfuls of awards create the perception that titles like Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and other great pieces of work were big successes...they were big financial disappointments and money losers."
---

 

[Schadenfroh]

Now we know why the EA sequel / expansion pack machine is unstoppable......

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Now we know why the EA sequel / expansion pack machine is unstoppable......

Yes, destroy the EA War Machine!

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

From this article: Text

...

While $25 million is a princely sum to most companies, EA's quarterly loss was dwarfed by the publisher's annual revenues. For the 12 months ending on March 13, 2007, the company took in $3.09 billion in net revenue, 5 percent more than the $2.95 billion it posted during its prior fiscal year.

However, virtually all of the $1.88 billion in gross profit the company took in during the year was wiped out by expenses. The company spent $107 million on stock-based compensation charges during the year and went on a shopping spree that saw it acquire independent developer Mythic Entertainment, Headgate Studios, and Battlefield-maker Digital Illusions CE.

...

I guess EA is the Monsanto of the software gaming world.

 

[Schadenfroh]

At least Monsanto's genetically modified organisms are tasty. Was it this year that EA made all of those exclusive deals with the NFL and such?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
---
"According to Midway senior VP and chief marketing officer Steve Allison, only 7% of the new game-related intellectual properties introduced across the past four years can be considered successful and review scores had no bearing on the sales of those games. "In other words, 93 percent of new IP fails in the marketplace," he explained on N'Gai Croal's Level Up. "So while the 90-plus review scores and armfuls of awards create the perception that titles like Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and other great pieces of work were big successes...they were big financial disappointments and money losers."
---

GREAT GAMES!!

 

[Czar]

after having owned a psp for quite some time now I have learned the hard way never buy games because they look cool, sound good on the box or because of some other hype

always go after reviews, never ever anything else

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
---
"According to Midway senior VP and chief marketing officer Steve Allison, only 7% of the new game-related intellectual properties introduced across the past four years can be considered successful and review scores had no bearing on the sales of those games. "In other words, 93 percent of new IP fails in the marketplace," he explained on N'Gai Croal's Level Up. "So while the 90-plus review scores and armfuls of awards create the perception that titles like Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and other great pieces of work were big successes...they were big financial disappointments and money losers."
---

GREAT GAMES!!

Agreed, although SoTC is set in the same universe as ICO, and ICO is far more under-appreciated than SoTC. I didn't play ICO until after SoTC, but ended up liking it far more.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
---
"According to Midway senior VP and chief marketing officer Steve Allison, only 7% of the new game-related intellectual properties introduced across the past four years can be considered successful and review scores had no bearing on the sales of those games. "In other words, 93 percent of new IP fails in the marketplace," he explained on N'Gai Croal's Level Up. "So while the 90-plus review scores and armfuls of awards create the perception that titles like Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and other great pieces of work were big successes...they were big financial disappointments and money losers."
---

GREAT GAMES!!

Figures.

I love those games, but it seems most people are only interested in buying crap :roll:

 

[apoppin]

the original article is FAR more interesting:

http://ncroal.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=593154

he has LOTs of suggestions and this is *in part*

Outsourced: Midway Home Entertainment Chief Marketing Officer Steve Allison on What Developers Must Do to Make Games That Sell, Part I

According to our numbers, the actual success rate of new IP over the past four years is just seven percent. In other words, 93 percent of new IP fails in the marketplace. So while the 90-plus review scores and armfuls of awards create the perception that titles like Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and other great pieces of work were big successes, the truth is that they were big financial disappointments and money losers.

So with a success rate of less than 10 percent for new IP, it is not the way we market and launch games that needs revisiting in the next generation. No, it is development that needs reflection, refinement and change. It is development that must evolve in all its various facets, from inception to execution. It is the conception and creation of new IP that must be redefined in this new generation so that we can all pull together to beat the 93 percent failure rate--even as we face significantly higher development costs--by reaching a common understanding that the potential success of any game is wholly dependent on three key factors, in the following order of importance: the true commercial power of the game's high level concept, the timing of the game's release, and finally the quality of the game's execution.
...

1. The Most Important Thing to Get Right is the Concept.

Games should have an elevator pitch that makes avid gamers and average mass market consumer who plays games say "I've got to get that" or "Bad ass!"

One very important truth is this: 16-35-year-old males in 2007 are not attracted to the things our PD [product development] guys naturally tend to come up with. Why? Because working at a publisher day in and day out, particularly in development, we all get trapped in the hardcore gamer's mindset. It's really important to understand that our customers on next generation home consoles--Playstation 3 and Xbox 360--are 90 percent male, and that's not going to change anytime soon. Therefore, the games that have the highest commercial potential are those that provide an outlet for them to live out their alpha male fantasies, to do the things they truly want to do but never could in real life.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
the original article is FAR more interesting:

http://ncroal.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=593154

he has LOTs of suggestions and this is *in part*

Outsourced: Midway Home Entertainment Chief Marketing Officer Steve Allison on What Developers Must Do to Make Games That Sell, Part I

According to our numbers, the actual success rate of new IP over the past four years is just seven percent. In other words, 93 percent of new IP fails in the marketplace. So while the 90-plus review scores and armfuls of awards create the perception that titles like Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and other great pieces of work were big successes, the truth is that they were big financial disappointments and money losers.

So with a success rate of less than 10 percent for new IP, it is not the way we market and launch games that needs revisiting in the next generation. No, it is development that needs reflection, refinement and change. It is development that must evolve in all its various facets, from inception to execution. It is the conception and creation of new IP that must be redefined in this new generation so that we can all pull together to beat the 93 percent failure rate--even as we face significantly higher development costs--by reaching a common understanding that the potential success of any game is wholly dependent on three key factors, in the following order of importance: the true commercial power of the game's high level concept, the timing of the game's release, and finally the quality of the game's execution.
...

1. The Most Important Thing to Get Right is the Concept.

Games should have an elevator pitch that makes avid gamers and average mass market consumer who plays games say "I've got to get that" or "Bad ass!"

One very important truth is this: 16-35-year-old males in 2007 are not attracted to the things our PD [product development] guys naturally tend to come up with. Why? Because working at a publisher day in and day out, particularly in development, we all get trapped in the hardcore gamer's mindset. It's really important to understand that our customers on next generation home consoles--Playstation 3 and Xbox 360--are 90 percent male, and that's not going to change anytime soon. Therefore, the games that have the highest commercial potential are those that provide an outlet for them to live out their alpha male fantasies, to do the things they truly want to do but never could in real life.

So in other words, sh1t-for-brains wins the day. And it's true - you can see how everything has been dumbed down to a point now where a baboon could successfully play these games. Hardcore gamers are on their way out and the casual gamers are in full control. Hardcore gaming is certainly in its death throes.

Now go out and earn your Xbox360 achievement points like a good little doggie!

 

[apoppin]

i posted the *original* article to show these morons *still* don't get it

read it all ... he DOES make some interesting points, however ...

and there is a *reason* that 90 of males play games ... these guys only make good games for guys
:roll:

look at the Wii - is it appealing to the over-50 crowd
:Q


maybe they should hire us as "consultants"

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Czar
after having owned a psp for quite some time now I have learned the hard way never buy games because they look cool, sound good on the box or because of some other hype

always go after reviews, never ever anything else

:thumbsup: I hate going to EBGames, seeing a game I *think* looks cool, but not being able to buy it because I don't have a computer to look up a review. I need to bring a pen and paper to write down all the ones I think I'll want so I can remember to look them up.

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Czar
after having owned a psp for quite some time now I have learned the hard way never buy games because they look cool, sound good on the box or because of some other hype

always go after reviews, never ever anything else

:thumbsup: I hate going to EBGames, seeing a game I *think* looks cool, but not being able to buy it because I don't have a computer to look up a review. I need to bring a pen and paper to write down all the ones I think I'll want so I can remember to look them up.

Can't agree with this at all, and I think people need to start thinking for themselves if games are good or not. Also, you can find insanely varying reviews on the internet. For example, my fav rpg valkyrie profile gets a 7 from one site and a 10 from another, both out of 10. Now if i had seen the 7/10 I prolly never would've bought it. Luckily I couldn't care less what gamespot thinks and I bought the game the day it came out. Now its over 100$ on ebay cause they only made it in limited numbers and its basically a collector's item now. I've noticed a trend that almost all big hyped games get scores that are higher than they deserve, and sell well even if poorly reviewed. Reviews are way too opinion based to be helpful, and in the end I think they could make you skip games that you would love rather than try them out.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Czar
after having owned a psp for quite some time now I have learned the hard way never buy games because they look cool, sound good on the box or because of some other hype

always go after reviews, never ever anything else

:thumbsup: I hate going to EBGames, seeing a game I *think* looks cool, but not being able to buy it because I don't have a computer to look up a review. I need to bring a pen and paper to write down all the ones I think I'll want so I can remember to look them up.

Can't agree with this at all, and I think people need to start thinking for themselves if games are good or not. Also, you can find insanely varying reviews on the internet. For example, my fav rpg valkyrie profile gets a 7 from one site and a 10 from another, both out of 10. Now if i had seen the 7/10 I prolly never would've bought it. Luckily I couldn't care less what gamespot thinks and I bought the game the day it came out. Now its over 100$ on ebay cause they only made it in limited numbers and its basically a collector's item now. I've noticed a trend that almost all big hyped games get scores that are higher than they deserve, and sell well even if poorly reviewed. Reviews are way too opinion based to be helpful, and in the end I think they could make you skip games that you would love rather than try them out.

I think reviews can be very helpful IF (and that's a big if) they are willing to put in the time to actually review the game. How many sites have a review for an MMO inside of a week after it is released. That is not nearly enough time to really say if it is good or not. I remember when Earth and Beyond came out every review I could find said it was an 8 or better out of 10 (adjusting scales that aren't out of 10 there). I buy it based on these reviews and I really like it, for about a month then it becomes really boring as the game never really changes and doesn't offer any compelling reason to keep playing.

Then the next month I get my Computer Games Magazine (at the time one of the few review places with integrity) and they gave it a terrible score and said that it would only be fun for a short period of time. The problem with reviews is that they are in such a rush to be first or to have the review, or to have it out at launch that they have to put out a review before they can really spend the time making sure the game will be good.

Anymore I take reviews as a guide not as a dealbraker.

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Czar
after having owned a psp for quite some time now I have learned the hard way never buy games because they look cool, sound good on the box or because of some other hype

always go after reviews, never ever anything else

:thumbsup: I hate going to EBGames, seeing a game I *think* looks cool, but not being able to buy it because I don't have a computer to look up a review. I need to bring a pen and paper to write down all the ones I think I'll want so I can remember to look them up.

Can't agree with this at all, and I think people need to start thinking for themselves if games are good or not. Also, you can find insanely varying reviews on the internet. For example, my fav rpg valkyrie profile gets a 7 from one site and a 10 from another, both out of 10. Now if i had seen the 7/10 I prolly never would've bought it. Luckily I couldn't care less what gamespot thinks and I bought the game the day it came out. Now its over 100$ on ebay cause they only made it in limited numbers and its basically a collector's item now. I've noticed a trend that almost all big hyped games get scores that are higher than they deserve, and sell well even if poorly reviewed. Reviews are way too opinion based to be helpful, and in the end I think they could make you skip games that you would love rather than try them out.

I think reviews can be very helpful IF (and that's a big if) they are willing to put in the time to actually review the game. How many sites have a review for an MMO inside of a week after it is released. That is not nearly enough time to really say if it is good or not. I remember when Earth and Beyond came out every review I could find said it was an 8 or better out of 10 (adjusting scales that aren't out of 10 there). I buy it based on these reviews and I really like it, for about a month then it becomes really boring as the game never really changes and doesn't offer any compelling reason to keep playing.

Then the next month I get my Computer Games Magazine (at the time one of the few review places with integrity) and they gave it a terrible score and said that it would only be fun for a short period of time. The problem with reviews is that they are in such a rush to be first or to have the review, or to have it out at launch that they have to put out a review before they can really spend the time making sure the game will be good.

Anymore I take reviews as a guide not as a dealbraker.

Well I was just talking with my friend about this and we both agree that reviews should stop giving final scores. I mean how many times have you seen high scoring reviews that have a lot of negative comments, and then lower scores with a ton of really good comments and very few negatives. I agree with that most places rush their reviews after only playing the game for a week or so. Also as you pointed out, games are becoming so multiplayer dependent these days that its hard to give a good review of the online component in such a short amount of time.

 

[gneGne]

I usually wait untill atleast a few reviews are out.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Czar
after having owned a psp for quite some time now I have learned the hard way never buy games because they look cool, sound good on the box or because of some other hype

always go after reviews, never ever anything else

:thumbsup: I hate going to EBGames, seeing a game I *think* looks cool, but not being able to buy it because I don't have a computer to look up a review. I need to bring a pen and paper to write down all the ones I think I'll want so I can remember to look them up.

Can't agree with this at all, and I think people need to start thinking for themselves if games are good or not. Also, you can find insanely varying reviews on the internet. For example, my fav rpg valkyrie profile gets a 7 from one site and a 10 from another, both out of 10. Now if i had seen the 7/10 I prolly never would've bought it. Luckily I couldn't care less what gamespot thinks and I bought the game the day it came out. Now its over 100$ on ebay cause they only made it in limited numbers and its basically a collector's item now. I've noticed a trend that almost all big hyped games get scores that are higher than they deserve, and sell well even if poorly reviewed. Reviews are way too opinion based to be helpful, and in the end I think they could make you skip games that you would love rather than try them out.

Sorry, there's just too many bad games out there for me to spend $50 on one without knowing a thing about it. I check GameRankings, and if a game hasn't gotten at least one positive review I won't play it. If you bought a game the day it came out, you probably knew something about it beyond what was on the back of the box. For most of the games I see in stores, I don't know anything about it beyond what's on the box. I've bought games on release day before too, as well as games I've never read reviews for, but only if I have a good idea the game isn't going to suck. I have gotten burned by impatience before.

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Czar
after having owned a psp for quite some time now I have learned the hard way never buy games because they look cool, sound good on the box or because of some other hype

always go after reviews, never ever anything else

:thumbsup: I hate going to EBGames, seeing a game I *think* looks cool, but not being able to buy it because I don't have a computer to look up a review. I need to bring a pen and paper to write down all the ones I think I'll want so I can remember to look them up.

Can't agree with this at all, and I think people need to start thinking for themselves if games are good or not. Also, you can find insanely varying reviews on the internet. For example, my fav rpg valkyrie profile gets a 7 from one site and a 10 from another, both out of 10. Now if i had seen the 7/10 I prolly never would've bought it. Luckily I couldn't care less what gamespot thinks and I bought the game the day it came out. Now its over 100$ on ebay cause they only made it in limited numbers and its basically a collector's item now. I've noticed a trend that almost all big hyped games get scores that are higher than they deserve, and sell well even if poorly reviewed. Reviews are way too opinion based to be helpful, and in the end I think they could make you skip games that you would love rather than try them out.

Sorry, there's just too many bad games out there for me to spend $50 on one without knowing a thing about it. I check GameRankings, and if a game hasn't gotten at least one positive review I won't play it. If you bought a game the day it came out, you probably knew something about it beyond what was on the back of the box. For most of the games I see in stores, I don't know anything about it beyond what's on the box. I've bought games on release day before too, as well as games I've never read reviews for, but only if I have a good idea the game isn't going to suck. I have gotten burned by impatience before.

Fair enough, I do a bit of research before games come out if I think it looks pretty good, and if I didn't know anything about it I would be a bit apprehensive as well.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: VashHT

Fair enough, I do a bit of research before games come out if I think it looks pretty good, and if I didn't know anything about it I would be a bit apprehensive as well.

Yeah, for a game that I know will be coming out, I'll read up on it and have a pretty good idea if I'm going to buy it without reviews. Most recently I did that with Super Paper Mario. But I missed the better part of a generation of games because I was a poor college student, so a lot of times I just browse the used games in EB Games to see if there's anything I'd like to play. And there were just so many games for the PS2 that I haven't heard of most of them. I saw one that looked interesting so I asked one of the guys who worked there, and all he did was look at the box and the manual and say "it looks like a first person shooter." It actually didn't look like a first person shooter at all, it looked like a top-down game along the lines of Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines.

 

[mooncancook]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

I think reviews can be very helpful IF (and that's a big if) they are willing to put in the time to actually review the game. How many sites have a review for an MMO inside of a week after it is released. That is not nearly enough time to really say if it is good or not. I remember when Earth and Beyond came out every review I could find said it was an 8 or better out of 10 (adjusting scales that aren't out of 10 there). I buy it based on these reviews and I really like it, for about a month then it becomes really boring as the game never really changes and doesn't offer any compelling reason to keep playing.

Then the next month I get my Computer Games Magazine (at the time one of the few review places with integrity) and they gave it a terrible score and said that it would only be fun for a short period of time. The problem with reviews is that they are in such a rush to be first or to have the review, or to have it out at launch that they have to put out a review before they can really spend the time making sure the game will be good.

Anymore I take reviews as a guide not as a dealbraker.

Reviews are useful for filtering out the terrible money-wasting games. I usually avoid games with bad reviews. And I don't mind rushed reviews because a rushed review is better than no review. For instance, if there's a reputable review for Wii Bust-a-Move within 2 days of release then I probably wouldn't have bought the game. The problem is that if reviewers wait a couple of weeks to release a review, a lot of ppl would have bought the game already. The important thing is that you don't just look at the scores, you read thru it to find out why.

Anyway, another game that comes to my mind is No One Lives Forever 1 & 2. Both games received very good reviews yet both just don't sell. With fewer and fewer hardcore gamers, I wonder how well will games like XCOM and Jagged Alliance do now.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Czar
after having owned a psp for quite some time now I have learned the hard way never buy games because they look cool, sound good on the box or because of some other hype

always go after reviews, never ever anything else

:thumbsup: I hate going to EBGames, seeing a game I *think* looks cool, but not being able to buy it because I don't have a computer to look up a review. I need to bring a pen and paper to write down all the ones I think I'll want so I can remember to look them up.

Can't agree with this at all, and I think people need to start thinking for themselves if games are good or not. Also, you can find insanely varying reviews on the internet. For example, my fav rpg valkyrie profile gets a 7 from one site and a 10 from another, both out of 10. Now if i had seen the 7/10 I prolly never would've bought it. Luckily I couldn't care less what gamespot thinks and I bought the game the day it came out. Now its over 100$ on ebay cause they only made it in limited numbers and its basically a collector's item now. I've noticed a trend that almost all big hyped games get scores that are higher than they deserve, and sell well even if poorly reviewed. Reviews are way too opinion based to be helpful, and in the end I think they could make you skip games that you would love rather than try them out.

I think reviews can be very helpful IF (and that's a big if) they are willing to put in the time to actually review the game. How many sites have a review for an MMO inside of a week after it is released. That is not nearly enough time to really say if it is good or not. I remember when Earth and Beyond came out every review I could find said it was an 8 or better out of 10 (adjusting scales that aren't out of 10 there). I buy it based on these reviews and I really like it, for about a month then it becomes really boring as the game never really changes and doesn't offer any compelling reason to keep playing.

Then the next month I get my Computer Games Magazine (at the time one of the few review places with integrity) and they gave it a terrible score and said that it would only be fun for a short period of time. The problem with reviews is that they are in such a rush to be first or to have the review, or to have it out at launch that they have to put out a review before they can really spend the time making sure the game will be good.

Anymore I take reviews as a guide not as a dealbraker.

Well I was just talking with my friend about this and we both agree that reviews should stop giving final scores. I mean how many times have you seen high scoring reviews that have a lot of negative comments, and then lower scores with a ton of really good comments and very few negatives. I agree with that most places rush their reviews after only playing the game for a week or so. Also as you pointed out, games are becoming so multiplayer dependent these days that its hard to give a good review of the online component in such a short amount of time.

The score is important to me. I use it in several ways... one, if the text is well written and convincing, I use the score ot gauge how bad the negatives pointed out were or how good the positives. If they write a great review and the basic gist is that the gameplay is innovative, but the final score is 7.x, I know that the game has some flaws. Often times, the score does not seem at all related to the text, like said above, though, and that can indeed be detrimental.

These days I rarely ever buy games without reading the reviews. There's just too much derivative crap out there, and my standards are extremely high.