Square Enix: poor Hitman and Tomb Raider sales reflect 'intrinsic problem' of industry
Sales of Sleeping Dogs, Hitman Absolution and Tomb Raider fell short of Square Enix's expectations, sparking the publisher to launch a costly restructuring. The problem, Squeenix has said in its annual report, is "an intrinsic problem within the HD game business model." It's just not sensible to work on a game for years, losing money, then release it and hope you'll make enough back, you see.
Sales of Sleeping Dogs, Hitman Absolution and Tomb Raider fell short of Square Enix's expectations, sparking the publisher to launch a costly restructuring. The problem, Squeenix has said in its annual report, but "an intrinsic problem within the HD game business model." It's just not sensible to work on a game for years, losing money, then release it and hope you'll make enough back, it says.
Square Enix says that games were "critically-acclaimed" (which is debatable) and it considers them successful from a development perspective, but the money part was the problem.
The console market is still primarily driven by boxed copies of games on store shelves, it says (noting that digital distribution is "becoming the mainstream" for PC and DLC), but oodles of games are flooding in and retailers are becoming picky about stocking them.
To get attention into the crowded market it offered "considerable incentive programs" to retailers, "such as price protection, back-end rebates, and promotional cooperation costs." While this helped ship boatloads of copies to stores, it lowered the profits on each.
As making a big fancy game takes years, its current model is to spend money all through that then hope it makes it back at the end. Which is a bit of a gamble. "Profit opportunities are almost non-existent during the game development phase," it notes. Other than irritating pre-order campaigns, of course.
One might point to the alpha-funding craze on PC which is letting people play games early and fund development, but it's jolly unlikely any major publisher would venture into that in any serious way.
One might also sneer that Square Enix needn't spend millions and millions of dollars on making games so very fancy, but don't expect that to change. "Titles of large-scale development are our flagship titles, showcasing our technologies, it said. "We will never lower the flag of such titles."
However, having such big and beloved fancy brands realized so lavishly gives it "the potential of diverse content exploitation," it says. Square Enix dreams of using these in "a business model that delivers content in various formats to customers even before the launch of a game."
Unfortunately, it neglects to paint a picture of what this model could include. Small spin-offs and mobile and games, like Ubisoft favors, is one possibility I imagine. However, far more interesting would be ideas like Hitman: Sniper Challenge.
The Hitman: Absolution spin-off used bits of the main murder simulator to create a standalone game focused purely on sniping from a rooftop. Bafflingly, it was offered as a pre-order bonus rather than a paid release. If Square Enix were to start spinning off cheap-to-make snippets of games as standalones, it could both make a little money back and get people excited about the main release.
(Sniper Challenge, by the way, was released free-to-play almost a year later on an obscure online portal--relatively useless for both monetization and marketing.)
-
Alice O'Connor posted a new article, Square Enix: poor Hitman and Tomb Raider sales reflect 'intrinsic problem' of industry.
Sales of Sleeping Dogs, Hitman Absolution and Tomb Raider fell short of Square Enix's expectations, sparking the publisher to launch a costly restructuring. The problem, Squeenix has said in its annual report, is "an intrinsic problem within the HD game business model." It's just not sensible to work on a game for years, losing money, then release it and hope you'll make enough back, you see.-
-
-
If you can't be successful with 3.4 million copies sold... then something is intrinsically wrong with your design/project plan. Make a smaller game or make it more efficiently. They should shoot for 1 million to be sold to be successful and everything beyond a million to be gravy. 3+ million is a lot of damn copies. They were not in touch with reality if they were expecting more.
-
Speculation I've seen is that Squeenix is using these games not selling Call of Duty numbers to cover the fact that other games are selling far worse. The other games are more appealing to (some of) the culture in the company, so they're being preserved at the expense of games that actually are popular and sell.
-
-
-
In some ways publicly traded companies are fundamentally flawed. They always go with the assumption that revenues will always increase when that isn't feasible. There's always a plateau. Either it's hit and that's what the company makes annually or the company continues to grow until it implodes and dies.
-
It's actually worse than that. The people running the company are obliged to increase shareholder value. Shareholders only hold on to their shares for an average of about 7 months. Things that "increase shareholder value" in that time frame are going to tend to be short-term benefits at best, and may actually be detrimental to the company as a whole.
-
Especially given that they're making probably around $25 per copy. If you can't be successful pulling in $85 million then there's really something wrong. 100 people pulling in $80k for 4 years is $32 million in salary (that would be a pretty large and reasonably paid team in the industry around here at least). So where is the remaining $53 million going? Obviously there's fixed expenses (building lease, etc), but I can't help but feel that there's something fundamentally wrong if selling 3.4 million copies isn't enough anymore.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Problem with FFXIV is they are throwing good money out with bad.
FFXIV was by any standard measure an absolute failure.
As much as I like the FF series they really lost their way IMHO after FFX. I heard 12 was good but I just couldn't get past the fact that you no longer are playing the game the way FF games were played. The current system would be GREAT if it was used in a game where you were controlling multiple small parties rather than 1 multi person party.
Any,TR is a great game (I'm about 3 hours in) and I would be pissed if they killed the franchise...and this is coming from a guy who never liked TR games of old.
-
-
Hitman wasn't exactly a turd, but it definitely wasn't anything special.
Tomb Raider, on the other hand... I thought Tom Raider was one of the better games of the year. It was sort of a blend of Uncharted, Batman: Arkham City, and Far Cry 3. I also liked that it didn't really ever blow its load in terms of plot. I also think Tomb Raider would have sold even better than it did if gamers weren't particularly sensitive to reboots and franchising. I think we all expected it to be nothing special.
Also, if they want to talk about intrinsic problems, they should mention the multiplayer. Is multiplayer really important for a game like Tomb Raider. Did people overwhelmingly ask for or play it? How much extra did it cost to develop that component of the game? -
-
-
-
-
In case you guys didn't know there's a decent length of a supply chain involved to get a boxed game on to the shelf at Walmart.
Developer > Publisher > Marketer > Distributor > Retailer
Sometimes there's overlap, but even the big guys will use someone in the middle on some steps or at least with some accounts. That's a lot of hands in the pie so the profit back to the developer can be a pretty small percentage, and even then the publisher will want to recover any up-front money they feed the developer before giving them any cut of profits. Depending on the business arrangements all along the way, even a some what decent selling game can still cause the developer to close if not enough profits are able to flow to them. -
I loved all three of those games. But I only bought them when they were on sale. Just not in a position to pay full price for the last few years. I think the spin-off suggestion is a good one. I definitely agree with comments about their forecasts being stupid, rather than the games not selling well.
-