4 ms·

I disagree with your characterization of Bioshock Infinite as a "flop." Usually, calling something a "flop" means that it was wildly unsuccessful. Infinite may

by scott_s 13y ago

I disagree with your characterization of Bioshock Infinite as a "flop." Usually, calling something a "flop" means that it was wildly unsuccessful. Infinite may not have re-couped its investment, but it was not wildly unsuccessful. That would be selling under, say, 100,000 units. (Keep in mind this is a semantic distinction, and not a value judgement of the game itself.)

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>Usually, calling something a "flop" means that it was wildly unsuccessful. To me, "flop" means it failed to meet the rather ambitious expectations, and instead performed only moderately well.
- uchi 13y ago
  So what would you call something that actually 'flops' by the English definition standard? A cataclysmic failure bound to ruin any and all associated with it?
ijk 13y ago
The problem being, AAA game development is hit driven enough that a common publishing strategy is blockbuster tentpole or bust. Many of the games produced are fine games, and some even sell well, but may not match the (possibly extremely overoptimistic) financial forecasts. So, "flop" is probably pejorative. It does fit what the business reaction seems to be to some of these games, but that may be a problem originating with something other than the game.
kosei 13y ago
The last game that studio published was 6 years ago - Bioshock in 2007; Bioshock 2 was shipped by another studio. If they had 100+ employees (not unreasonable for a AAA game studio), they could have incurred personnel costs of $60M+ for the game's development. Which could definitely be considered a failure in the eyes of a game that only shipped 4MM games.
- antimagic 13y ago
  Sure, but just look at the numbers - let's firstly boost the number to 300 employees, not 100, I think that's closer to real, with an everage salary of around $60k. That puts salaries at about $180m. But, they sold 4 million copies at about $60 each, which makes $240m profit. Allowing for a decent ad spend, you're still looking at a back of the envelope break-even. OK, I get that investors might be bummed about that, but it's enough money to mean that they live to fight another day, have another crack at hitting it out of the park. As others have noted, AAA games are hit-based propositions. You pretty much have a few (3-5) titles that make all of the money each year, another 10 or so that hold the line, and everyone else loses. It's the last group that are flops, the second group are the par result. I think we can safely say that Bioshock Infinite was in the second group...
  - timje1 13y ago
    The $240m figure is not profit, it's gross income. Taxes, marketing costs and distribution costs will dwarf that figure. In some cases, AAA games can even spend more on marketing than wages.
  - benbou09 13y ago
    I think 60$ average is a bit high Source: I bought it on Steam for 8€
    - fat0wl 13y ago
      lol yea i bought this for.... $7.50 and got the DLC bundle (which sucked) for about 5 IIRC
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    they certainly do not get the full 60 per copy. I am not sure what current publishing deals are set at but I would be surprised if they even see 40
    - AmVess 13y ago

by scott_s 13y ago

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>Usually, calling something a "flop" means that it was wildly unsuccessful. To me, "flop" means it failed to meet the rather ambitious expectations, and instead performed only moderately well.

uchi 13y ago
So what would you call something that actually 'flops' by the English definition standard? A cataclysmic failure bound to ruin any and all associated with it?

ijk 13y ago

The problem being, AAA game development is hit driven enough that a common publishing strategy is blockbuster tentpole or bust. Many of the games produced are fine games, and some even sell well, but may not match the (possibly extremely overoptimistic) financial forecasts. So, "flop" is probably pejorative. It does fit what the business reaction seems to be to some of these games, but that may be a problem originating with something other than the game.

kosei 13y ago

The last game that studio published was 6 years ago - Bioshock in 2007; Bioshock 2 was shipped by another studio. If they had 100+ employees (not unreasonable for a AAA game studio), they could have incurred personnel costs of $60M+ for the game's development. Which could definitely be considered a failure in the eyes of a game that only shipped 4MM games.

antimagic 13y ago
Sure, but just look at the numbers - let's firstly boost the number to 300 employees, not 100, I think that's closer to real, with an everage salary of around $60k. That puts salaries at about $180m. But, they sold 4 million copies at about $60 each, which makes $240m profit. Allowing for a decent ad spend, you're still looking at a back of the envelope break-even. OK, I get that investors might be bummed about that, but it's enough money to mean that they live to fight another day, have another crack at hitting it out of the park. As others have noted, AAA games are hit-based propositions. You pretty much have a few (3-5) titles that make all of the money each year, another 10 or so that hold the line, and everyone else loses. It's the last group that are flops, the second group are the par result. I think we can safely say that Bioshock Infinite was in the second group...
- timje1 13y ago
  The $240m figure is not profit, it's gross income. Taxes, marketing costs and distribution costs will dwarf that figure. In some cases, AAA games can even spend more on marketing than wages.
- benbou09 13y ago
  I think 60$ average is a bit high Source: I bought it on Steam for 8€
  - fat0wl 13y ago
    lol yea i bought this for.... $7.50 and got the DLC bundle (which sucked) for about 5 IIRC
- Shivetya 13y ago
  they certainly do not get the full 60 per copy. I am not sure what current publishing deals are set at but I would be surprised if they even see 40
  - AmVess 13y ago