Game Quality Vs Game Sales

[BlackKnight]

Chris' Survival Horror Quest has posted an interesting and comprehensive investigation into why games succeed, and how the proposition of making a game must seem to the developers. Why are the only games worth buying on the 360 or PS3 the big name ones? Why does an insanely clever game like Ace Attorney take a beating in sales? Using the entire software sales history of the PlayStation 2 as a model, this article hopes to find out;

 

If you keep up on the gaming press, you've probably read about various industry figures arguing about next gen costs and quality. There's Midway marketing guy Steve Allison arguing that 93% of new IP games fail (followed by this retort), Blast Entertainment CEO Sean Brennan decrying next gen console development costs, and industry analysts divided over the amazing success of the Nintendo Wii in spite of its comparatively underpowered graphics hardware. Developers and marketers alike are struggling with the idea that the costs associated with next generation game development may make it unprofitable, which I've ranted about before. Next gen is a high-risk environment right now, and as previously discussed, risk means a dearth of innovative or niche games.

 

Game companies have a few problems. First and foremost, developing games for Xbox360 and PS3 is way expensive. Secondly, developing for the Wii is easier and cheaper, but it means you have to compete with Nintendo's first party games, which are always powerful market forces. Finally, since development of any next gen game will take several years, companies are having to place a bet on which consoles are the most likely to be the most profitable in 2009. Of course, it's possible to do games in less time than that, but usually the quality suffers dramatically. So the real question here is how much can quality suffer without impacting sales? Some people believe that there's no correlation between quality and sales, and thus think that the way to make money is to make things that are easily marketable (read: licenses). Game developers themselves usually argue that sales above a certain level require a game to be sufficient quality. I decided to see which of these perspectives was correct for the Playstation 2 era.

 

Source: http://www.dreamdawn.com/sh/features/sales_vs_score.php?

[Devia Eleven]

In my eyes, no video game on a next gen console should suck, at all.

 

If you are going to make a game, make the game. If developers are creating a game that will get a 4/10, why make the game? Why would you spend so many months or years creating a game that is only going to get a 5/10?

 

With $60 being the price for new games, every game should at least be a 8/10 and higher, no game should suck.

 

IMO

[gavin19]

In my eyes, no video game on a next gen console should suck, at all.

 

If you are going to make a game, make the game. If developers are creating a game that will get a 4/10, why make the game? Why would you spend so many months or years creating a game that is only going to get a 5/10?

 

With $60 being the price for new games, every game should at least be a 8/10 and higher, no game should suck.

 

IMO

 

Console games have roughly cost the same as far back as I can remember, starting with the NES/Master System through the SNES/Megadrive, Saturn/PSX etc. Back in the SNES days games were relatively easy to develop. No cut scenes/FMV, voice acting, online considerations. A game could be knocked out in a few months. But very few developers deliberately developed crap games. Making a 8/10, 9/10 game is a skill, it's not like time invested == amazing game.

 

Developers took advantages of licences then, and they still do now. Making average, pretty looking licensed games which they know will still sell because of the brand attached, rather than the gameplay. In fact, it was almost always a red flag when a licensed game was released. If you bought it, 9 times out of 10 it was because you had some attachment to the license, not because you knew you were getting a Mario Kart or Sonic 2.

[Diso]

In my eyes, no video game on a next gen console should suck, at all.

 

If you are going to make a game, make the game. If developers are creating a game that will get a 4/10, why make the game? Why would you spend so many months or years creating a game that is only going to get a 5/10?

 

With $60 being the price for new games, every game should at least be a 8/10 and higher, no game should suck.

 

IMO

 

A lot of games get cuts most likely due to budgets and deadlines. These games usually are pretty good and would have received a higher rating, but then some of the features they advertise in their trailer or whatever gets cut and it makes the game not that special. A game I can think of is blacksite: area 51. It probably was a decent game, but I think they were advertising cooperative mode, which is a pretty anticipated and wanted feature. Their coop mode got cut and I think most desire for this game went away. Risky business unfortunately

 

Looking at those graphs, I can agree with the guy who wrote this article on his conclusions. Marketing/advertising is definitely needed for a game to succeed. You don't really hear about those third-party or obscure titles unless you get news about them from forums or friends.