4 ms·

Can anyone with insight into the games industry explain the financials of dedicating years to adding material to a failed title for free? How do they make enoug

by ebg13 8y ago

Can anyone with insight into the games industry explain the financials of dedicating years to adding material to a failed title for free? How do they make enough new revenue from new customers that wouldn't otherwise pick it up to justify the cost of creating all of the new features and material?

devoply 8y ago
I believe, as a cursory internet search says, they had revenue of over 130 million (in 2016) as a small team with no investors. If true, they can continue to do this for the rest of their lives without any financial issues.
tomc1985 8y ago
NMS was hardly a failure, even at launch. It may have been panned but all those complainers still bought copies
- Bekwnn 8y ago
  Pretty sure it has done well in sales since, it has gone on sale and the updates have gained it a ton of good will
  - waste_monk 8y ago
    That was partly the reason I bought it once the post-release fixes came in. To help show that "not screwing people" is a viable business model. The devs did the right thing by their customers which is sadly quite rare these days.
- zamalek 8y ago
  Pre-orders are hardly a success. The game is now doing well off of a hard-earned sales tail thanks to good will and amends. Which answers the root question: the update isn't "free" if it attracts new customers.
Sendotsh 8y ago
I'm not sure it was a "failed title", so much as upset a lot of people by advertising features that weren't in it at launch. I, and most people I knew who bought the game at launch, were disappointed but also REALLY enjoyed the game. I still play casually to this day and the updates since launch have more than made up for any disappointment I originally felt, and it's currently one of my favourite games of the last few years. It's a stunningly beautiful, peaceful, and endlessly enjoyable creative explorer. On par with Minecraft and Astroneer.
modeless 8y ago
No Man's Sky is a perfect example of the old aphorism "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Sales were pretty good, I think. The game wasn't really bad at launch either, despite the complaints. It has problems but it was and still is a unique experience.
- asdf_asdf_1234 8y ago
  A more accurate read would be: 1. Massive hype suspended the critical faculties of many gamers (maybe fueled by Murray's geeky and somewhat confused countenance) and the game saw substantial pre-orders. 2. Sandbox, infinite exploration nature of the game meant massive numbers were playing after launch despite disappointment and frustration in the game. It does offer a unique experience. 3. After a period of keeping their heads down as an organization -- probably partially to try to avoid a lawsuit -- they started rolling out free updates that pushed the game forward enough to maintain interest. The game was hugely successful, even by AAA standards. Combined with a tiny team means they could likely put out free updates for another decade. I have a feeling they're playing the long game. Once they've unequivocally won people over with updates they'll likely use their war chest and momentum to roll out another insanely ambitious title, though they might stick to a PC release so they can manage expectations better.
Impossible 8y ago
NMS is only a failure in the sense of internet backlash. The game sold well (and afaik continues to do so) and has gotten better reception (recent steam ratings are mostly positive https://store.steampowered.com/app/275850/No_Mans_Sky/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/275850/No_Mans_Sky/) as new updates have been released over the years. HN in general has weird standards around game quality considering many of the users work on software as service start-ups that launch as almost broken MVPs. I understand NMS asked players to pay $60 up front but they've put their money where there mouth is and continually supported and updated the game.
- mox1 8y ago
  The "backlash" was mostly centered around the promises made by the game creator and the demo's they showed. It had everything to do with what promised / implied vs what was actually delivered. If the creator had slapped a Open Beta tag on the box and charged $20 (and simply upped that number as they got closer to release), everyone would probably still be talking about it. But instead they delivered on 25%-50% of what they claimed was in the game.
  - naikrovek 8y ago
    Why did you put quotes around 'backlash'? Do you not believe that there was one, or do you believe the reaction wasn't a backlash?
- naikrovek 8y ago
  > HN in general has weird standards around game quality considering many of the users work on software as service start-ups that launch as almost broken MVPs. Thank you so much for saying this. This community is very toxic in a few ways, and this is one of them.
timavr 8y ago
The game sold super well. Team still owns all the IP. Was overhyped, but it probably 50% is press fault.
- s9w 8y ago
  There were endless lies by the lead dev, on multiple occasions. This was 100% their fault and deserved. It's still a bad game.
  - cdf2theworld 8y ago
    Tell us what you really think
jayd16 8y ago
The real answer is Sony will pay for timed exclusives and they want to push their VR headset. You do some market analysis and couple that with the free PR and cash of an exclusive contract. If that looks good then you go for it.
dogma1138 8y ago
Games today are more of a services than a business due to online distribution. You don’t go in debt by making a ton of copies that don’t sel and you don’t lose money when you lower your sale price to clear inventory because there isn’t none. If you continue to develop and support the game you can create a continguous stream of revenue even if it’s a small one, for a small studio without investors it’s a very viable business model.
soared 8y ago
Outside of the other commentators mentioning revenue, I found the game to be /exceptional/. I played it maybe 1.5 years (?) after release and it was very well polished and extremely fun to play. Apparently it failed at launched but has fully recovered game play and finance-wise.

by ebg13 8y ago

devoply 8y ago

I believe, as a cursory internet search says, they had revenue of over 130 million (in 2016) as a small team with no investors. If true, they can continue to do this for the rest of their lives without any financial issues.

tomc1985 8y ago

NMS was hardly a failure, even at launch. It may have been panned but all those complainers still bought copies

Bekwnn 8y ago
Pretty sure it has done well in sales since, it has gone on sale and the updates have gained it a ton of good will
- waste_monk 8y ago
  That was partly the reason I bought it once the post-release fixes came in. To help show that "not screwing people" is a viable business model. The devs did the right thing by their customers which is sadly quite rare these days.
zamalek 8y ago
Pre-orders are hardly a success. The game is now doing well off of a hard-earned sales tail thanks to good will and amends. Which answers the root question: the update isn't "free" if it attracts new customers.

Sendotsh 8y ago

I'm not sure it was a "failed title", so much as upset a lot of people by advertising features that weren't in it at launch. I, and most people I knew who bought the game at launch, were disappointed but also REALLY enjoyed the game. I still play casually to this day and the updates since launch have more than made up for any disappointment I originally felt, and it's currently one of my favourite games of the last few years. It's a stunningly beautiful, peaceful, and endlessly enjoyable creative explorer. On par with Minecraft and Astroneer.

modeless 8y ago

No Man's Sky is a perfect example of the old aphorism "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Sales were pretty good, I think. The game wasn't really bad at launch either, despite the complaints. It has problems but it was and still is a unique experience.

asdf_asdf_1234 8y ago
A more accurate read would be: 1. Massive hype suspended the critical faculties of many gamers (maybe fueled by Murray's geeky and somewhat confused countenance) and the game saw substantial pre-orders. 2. Sandbox, infinite exploration nature of the game meant massive numbers were playing after launch despite disappointment and frustration in the game. It does offer a unique experience. 3. After a period of keeping their heads down as an organization -- probably partially to try to avoid a lawsuit -- they started rolling out free updates that pushed the game forward enough to maintain interest. The game was hugely successful, even by AAA standards. Combined with a tiny team means they could likely put out free updates for another decade. I have a feeling they're playing the long game. Once they've unequivocally won people over with updates they'll likely use their war chest and momentum to roll out another insanely ambitious title, though they might stick to a PC release so they can manage expectations better.

Impossible 8y ago

NMS is only a failure in the sense of internet backlash. The game sold well (and afaik continues to do so) and has gotten better reception (recent steam ratings are mostly positive https://store.steampowered.com/app/275850/No_Mans_Sky/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/275850/No_Mans_Sky/) as new updates have been released over the years. HN in general has weird standards around game quality considering many of the users work on software as service start-ups that launch as almost broken MVPs. I understand NMS asked players to pay $60 up front but they've put their money where there mouth is and continually supported and updated the game.

mox1 8y ago
The "backlash" was mostly centered around the promises made by the game creator and the demo's they showed. It had everything to do with what promised / implied vs what was actually delivered. If the creator had slapped a Open Beta tag on the box and charged $20 (and simply upped that number as they got closer to release), everyone would probably still be talking about it. But instead they delivered on 25%-50% of what they claimed was in the game.
- naikrovek 8y ago
  Why did you put quotes around 'backlash'? Do you not believe that there was one, or do you believe the reaction wasn't a backlash?
naikrovek 8y ago
> HN in general has weird standards around game quality considering many of the users work on software as service start-ups that launch as almost broken MVPs. Thank you so much for saying this. This community is very toxic in a few ways, and this is one of them.

timavr 8y ago

The game sold super well. Team still owns all the IP. Was overhyped, but it probably 50% is press fault.

s9w 8y ago
There were endless lies by the lead dev, on multiple occasions. This was 100% their fault and deserved. It's still a bad game.
- cdf2theworld 8y ago
  Tell us what you really think

jayd16 8y ago

The real answer is Sony will pay for timed exclusives and they want to push their VR headset. You do some market analysis and couple that with the free PR and cash of an exclusive contract. If that looks good then you go for it.

dogma1138 8y ago

Games today are more of a services than a business due to online distribution. You don’t go in debt by making a ton of copies that don’t sel and you don’t lose money when you lower your sale price to clear inventory because there isn’t none. If you continue to develop and support the game you can create a continguous stream of revenue even if it’s a small one, for a small studio without investors it’s a very viable business model.

soared 8y ago

Outside of the other commentators mentioning revenue, I found the game to be /exceptional/. I played it maybe 1.5 years (?) after release and it was very well polished and extremely fun to play. Apparently it failed at launched but has fully recovered game play and finance-wise.