EA: Buy this game or we'll shoot this IP.

[Fabricated]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/

A president Frank Gibeau says that Dead Space needs a number of players roughly equivalent to the entire population of Norway to justify its continued existence. “In general, we’re thinking about how we make this a more broadly appealing franchise, because ultimately you need to get to audience sizes of around five million to really continue to invest in an IP like Dead Space,” he told CVG in a recent interview.

“Anything less than that and it becomes quite difficult financially given how expensive it is to make games and market them,” he continued. While firm sales numbers are not readily available, EA did say back in February that Dead Space 2 was selling about twice as well as the franchise’s first entry had. Yet, even given that, they feel that Dead Space 3 needs to be more “broadly appealing” without alienating current fans of the series.

What a nice IP you have there...shame if something would...happen to it.

[Nebu]

Makes you wonder if EA suddenly got an education about IP expenditures from another recent title. 

[HaemishM]

EA is heading into the same territory as the movie industry. They don't know how to make games on a budget. If your video game has to sell 5 million copies to break even, you are doing it wrong.

And the guys who made Amnesia? They are laughing in your face.

[Kageru]

They don't want to either. Their model is based on substantial and reliable revenues from iterations on a franchise. As per this interview with the origin manager.

Q: One of the things that Steam does is this random deep-discounting of software, and it works well for them. Do you see that as something you want to do?

David DeMartini: We won't be doing that. Obviously they think it's the right thing to do after a certain amount of time. I just think it cheapens your intellectual property. I know both sides of it, I understand it. If you want to sell a whole bunch of units, that is certainly a way to do that, to sell a whole bunch of stuff at a low price. The gamemakers work incredibly hard to make this intellectual property, and we're not trying to be Target. We're trying to be Nordstrom. When I say that, I mean good value - we're trying to give you a fair price point, and occasionally there will be things that are on sale you could look for a discount, just don't look for 75 percent off going-out-of-business sales.

Really, they are a perfect image of the soulless mega-corp that wants to reduce gaming to a generic, reliable, recurring, product. Hopefully the alternatives continue to develop.

(Random articles found while looking for the pulled "Star-wars going f2p" article incidentally, but seemed appropriate).

[Paelos]

They are also wrong. They are a corporation that's refusing to adapt, and their financials are paying for their screw-ups.

I mean shit, their stock is dangerously close to hitting the same price point they had in 1999.

[Rokal]

EA is heading into the same territory as the movie industry. They don't know how to make games on a budget. If your video game has to sell 5 million copies to break even, you are doing it wrong.

It's not "5 million to break even" it's "5 million to be worth it". They're talking about opportunity costs. When they can pull in 5 million+ from franchises like Battlefield 3, FIFA, or the Sims, investing $40 million into another Dead Space game is money that could have gone into a more profitable project. Remember that with SWTOR, the subscription numbers to be 'worthwhile' and the subscription numbers to be 'profitable' were very different. Merely being profitable and cultivating a dedicated following is evidently not enough for massive publishers.

Sad news, but at least we got two pretty decent games out of the series. Dead Space 1 is one of my top 5 games from the last decade.

[jakonovski]

Err, so EA is trying to get 5 million sales for DS3 by alienating the 2 million customers they already have for the franchise? Lemme know how that works out for you.

[UnSub]

And the guys who made Amnesia? They are laughing in your face.

Amnesia sold roughly 400k units in its first year. Dead Space 2 apparently sold 2m+ units in the first week.

EA is playing in a different space. They spend big budgets on big IPs. They aren't into niche any more.

Amnesia is also mostly successful on PC through DD, while EA's console titles are sold through retail. Again, it's a different thought process for each channel and platform.

[Goumindong]

EA is heading into the same territory as the movie industry. They don't know how to make games on a budget. If your video game has to sell 5 million copies to break even, you are doing it wrong.

It's not "5 million to break even" it's "5 million to be worth it". They're talking about opportunity costs. When they can pull in 5 million+ from franchises like Battlefield 3, FIFA, or the Sims, investing $40 million into another Dead Space game is money that could have gone into a more profitable project. Remember that with SWTOR, the subscription numbers to be 'worthwhile' and the subscription numbers to be 'profitable' were very different. Merely being profitable and cultivating a dedicated following is evidently not enough for massive publishers.

Sad news, but at least we got two pretty decent games out of the series. Dead Space 1 is one of my top 5 games from the last decade.

They would still be wrong then. Opportunity cost on making a game like that is going to be interest rate on a bond that you could float the money on instead. So you're talking 15-25% over 3 years of development [does it take that long for them to make a deadspace game?] depending on your cost structure.

They can't "just make another FIFA/Sims/Battlefield" because they already have those projects going and by their nature they can't expect to release battlefield 4 and battlefield 5 3 months later and expect to make the same money on each as battlefield 3.

[HaemishM]

And the guys who made Amnesia? They are laughing in your face.

Amnesia sold roughly 400k units in its first year. Dead Space 2 apparently sold 2m+ units in the first week.

EA is playing in a different space. They spend big budgets on big IPs. They aren't into niche any more.

Amnesia is also mostly successful on PC through DD, while EA's console titles are sold through retail. Again, it's a different thought process for each channel and platform.

Ok, now how much money did it cost to make Amnesia? I can't find those figures. Either way, it's certainly not a game that needs 5 million sales to be "worthwhile." I realize that worthwhile for EA means it makes back like what... 5-10% over its operational costs? But therein lies the problem. EA doesn't know how to make cheap (or cheaper) games but still have respect for making a quality game. Thus they say that a game isn't worthwhile unless it can generate that many sales, which is just an insane number. It's an insane number because 4 guys in Norway made a game that is a hundred times more interesting than Dead Space AND has made back all the development costs AND has made funding their next game a done deal, in addition to allowing them to all get bigger salaries.

It is two different schools of thought on how to run a video game business. One works, is profitable and produces great games. The other is an ever-increasing death spiral of rising costs that feeds a negative cycle of requiring more sales than anyone should expect AND causes the development company to stagnate creatively. One is functional, the other is broken. I'll leave you to decide which is which.

[Paelos]

Not only can EA not make games cheaper, they have no idea what made their games popular in the first place.

[Ironwood]

This is sounding familiar.

The comparison here is apples to oranges anyway.  I'm with the monkey :  These guys are just too big to make the hard decisions on cost control.  Frictional ?  Not so much.

[Merusk]

As others have pointed out, they don't care what made them popular with their model.

"That one didn't do well enough.  Toss the funding at another franchise and see if that sticks, this one didn't."

Does it make sense? Not totally, no, but games haven't developed focus groups and the like yet.  That'll come with the next generation of execs.

[LK]

It's always fun to watch business and art collide.

[Ratman_tf]

How can they have a wildly successful game if you jerks don't buy millions of copies? 

[Fabricated]

Also Max Payne 3 sold "only" 440,000 copies in its first week so analysts are calling it a "flop".

The gaming industry is literally the shittiest its ever been.

[Kageru]

But gaming is great. Watching an old, staid, deadly serious military simulator topping the steam sales is just hilarious.

I really appreciate Origin, I don't even have to notice that EA exists anymore.

[Margalis]

Also Max Payne 3 sold "only" 440,000 copies in its first week so analysts are calling it a "flop".

The game had been completely rebooted multiple times and was in development for like 7 or 8 years. 400k copies is a flop.

[Rokal]

They can't "just make another FIFA/Sims/Battlefield" because they already have those projects going and by their nature they can't expect to release battlefield 4 and battlefield 5 3 months later and expect to make the same money on each as battlefield 3.

Activision would disagree with you. Seems like the majority of their studios are working on COD products at this point. However, the point isn't really "they could make another FIFA/Battlefield game with that money" it's that they could use that money to work on another franchise that could potentially reach FIFA/Battlefield numbers. If Dead Space isn't that franchise, they'll continue to change it until it is or they'll put that money towards something else.

[Paelos]

Activision is already trying actively to boot up another franchise with Titan, though.

I don't think that EA has such a thing in place.

[HaemishM]

I honestly think EA looks at Dead Space and thinks "here was our attempt to make an original IP and it's not selling well enough. People must want more Madden." Coupled with the failures of Syndicate and SWTOR, I think they quite literally just cannot fathom what makes a good successful game or even a bad game. They think it's a matter of putting X pieces with Y budget and that's it.

[Rendakor]

Activision is already trying actively to boot up another franchise with Titan, though.

I don't think that EA has such a thing in place.

Activision also has Destiny in the works with Bungie, and that contract calls for 4 games over 8 years.

EA seems to have a problem with expectations; Dead Space is easily the #2 horror franchise out there (behind Resident Evil but even that's debatable) but it's not a genre that's going to be as popular as military fps. Sadly their solution isn't "spend less money making the goddamn game and stop adding bullshit like multiplayer" but "throw tons of money at it, set unreasonable goals, then cancel a decent franchise when it fails to deliver Robot Jesus".

[Ratman_tf]

Does it make sense? Not totally, no, but games haven't developed focus groups and the like yet.  That'll come with the next generation of execs.

? I've seen game focus groups.

[Paelos]

I honestly think EA looks at Dead Space and thinks "here was our attempt to make an original IP and it's not selling well enough. People must want more Madden." Coupled with the failures of Syndicate and SWTOR, I think they quite literally just cannot fathom what makes a good successful game or even a bad game. They think it's a matter of putting X pieces with Y budget and that's it.

SWTOR wasn't an original IP. Syndicate was a reboot.

The problem with EA is they like to follow this formula:

1 - Minor game makes a splash, does better than expected, but is sort of in a niche market. However, it outpaces the budget 10-fold in revenues.
2 - Sequel goes into the works, EA decides it wants to "broaden" the appeal. Marketing campaign goes into full force.
3 - Sequel sells millions of copies but doesn't generate enough buzz to make up for the marketing onslaught and dev cost.
4 - Company heads make it known that if games don't generate $200M+ in revenues, they aren't interested.
5 - Nobody asks the question about if "broadening" the game watered down the product, or if restrictive sales practices killed their market.

[Margalis]

Game focus groups are completely the norm. Any game that goes through a major publisher is going to be focus grouped to some degree, especially in the west.

EA seems to have a problem with expectations; Dead Space is easily the #2 horror franchise out there (behind Resident Evil but even that's debatable) but it's not a genre that's going to be as popular as military fps.

AAA games are converging into one or two game designs. At some point somebody is going to realize that only the top few titles make money and vast swaths of the market are under-served and the pendulum will swing back.

That basically explains the PC renaissance right now. PC gaming really was dead, with its lifeless corpse propped up Weekend at Bernies style by the Sims and WoW. But now there is a lot of variety in terms of genres and price points serving a lot of different markets. AAA console games all aim for the exact same market.

[caladein]

Not only can EA not make games cheaper, they have no idea what made their games popular in the first place.

EA makes plenty of cheap games and has whole studios for them, they're just on PC if we don't want to count PopCap just yet.  And all the social/F2P stuff, but I'm hilariously underinformed about that market.

[UnSub]

EA has been kind (for EA) with Dead Space. The first game had a lot of extra money thrown at it to promote it (not every game gets a terrible anime to go with it, nor has books written under its lore) but didn't grab a huge number of gamers (something like 1m sold during the time EA cares about such things), and the Wii light gun game virtually was practically invisible sales-wise. But it was critically welcomed, so EA decided to greenlight a sequel. The sequel did better sales-wise, but EA is saying the third game is make or break for the IP. Three games isn't bad for any franchise.

Plus EA can resurrect it later on if they feel like it.

But for EA, all they care about is unit sales creating them a profit in the first 10 weeks of retail launch. After 10 weeks it's pretty unlikely for a title to catch on and sell - sleeper hits are rare - and even it does those sales are going to second hand copies.

If Dead Space is the #2 horror franchise IP, it's because no-one is competing in that space. Horror titles are seen to be played out, with the games that sold were action horror (like Dead Space and RE), not survival horror.

So, from EA's perspective, they can spend US$30+m and put a studio of 200 people on a franchise that isn't grabbing people, or they can spend that money elsewhere. They want a few blockbuster titles, not a handful of mid-range sellers. How good a strategy that is may be up for debate, but that's the mindset.

[jakonovski]

Someone said that modern AAA games development is like putting $50,000 in lottery tickets. Smart person, whoever it was.

[Kageru]

I read an interview with the Day-Z creator who made an interesting point when asked why the game took off:

Hall: I think a lot of it comes down to social media. Social media has really come of age. Like, you look at all the protests going on all over the world. I think the same thing’s kind of happening with games. It’s certainly why Day Z was successful. There was no promotion. I made one little tiny post in the Bohemia Interactive forums asking people to help me with testing. And then, all of a sudden, people began having these experiences.

Initially, all I put up was the download for the mod and the server name. That’s how it started. So people would have these very authentic, very real emotional experiences. And because, as humans, I believe we’re natural story-tellers, people wanted to tell their stories. The way they do it is through forums – NeoGAF and, well, Rock Paper Shotgun. You know, Jim wanted to tell his story as well. So people see these stories, and they’re like “Well, I want stories too.”

People want to experience a unique story of their own, want to read about other's experiences and share their own. Doubly so I guess if the game is social to begin with. And with social media to advertise and connect people, and online sales to handle distribution, a game that catches the imagination can find a firm foundation to grow from. Pretty much saved the PC too thank heavens.

EA is another sort of game business. The massive budget and design by focus groups mean they end up aiming at the broad market and can't afford failure thus they want a flashy, reliable, guided user experience. Make up in spectacle what they lack in depth and really wow people, even if it ends up being a very short ride. And they also need the massive hype engine to convince people they must have the game, ideally starting with an established an recognized IP to make that process easier. It's the same approach as the "block-buster" movie in a medium that demands an interactive connection to the user. You could probably argue they do best in games which have a nice simple hook ("shoot! hit! drive!") where the interaction is shallow and will find the going harder as the market becomes more demanding and diversified.

I care less about EA being bad now that there is enough space to support an alternative.

I assume this is old, EA in a Nutshell but I hadn't seen it before or recall it being linked.

[Azazel]

That video was pretty /facepalm tryhard.

[Kageru]

yes. Can't argue that.

[eldaec]

I'm not clear why anyone should care if Dead Space exists as a franchise?

It's not terrible, but I won't be losing sleep over the fate of Dead Space 6.

[Paelos]

Not only can EA not make games cheaper, they have no idea what made their games popular in the first place.

EA makes plenty of cheap games and has whole studios for them, they're just on PC if we don't want to count PopCap just yet.  And all the social/F2P stuff, but I'm hilariously underinformed about that market.

I agree they have studios for them. However, if they outpace expectations, they spiral into the same deathmarked list I posted earlier for EA.

[Teleku]

I'm not clear why anyone should care if Dead Space exists as a franchise?

It's not terrible, but I won't be losing sleep over the fate of Dead Space 6.

What didn't you like, out of curiosity?  Just played through both recently and thought they where probably some of the best games to come out over the last few years.

[Simond]

Replace 'Bioware' with 'Visceral Games' (or Maxis, Origin, Westwood Studios, etc. etc).