Jim Sterling talks Tomb Raider, Dark Souls, and sales; makes good points

I'm in the same boat. I'm not a big fan of Jim Sterling and I don't like his approach, but he's been on a roll lately. You have to give credit where credit is due, and he's right.

It seems a lot of these big budget AAA titles's have really poor management on all fronts. Too many resources are being put in place on one game and budgets reach ridiculous amounts. I cannot believe that Resident Evil 6 sold five million copies considering it's negative press and still is likely not breaking even. It has become increasingly obvious over the last 7 years that it's incredibly hard to maintain consistent quality and keep track of your initial goals when your creep out of your scope creep.

You can keep sinking dollars into a project, but at the end of the day that is not going to help. They really need to plan ahead of time and ensure they don't move out of the scope of the project. Dark Souls is a prime example of managing scope and staying within bounds, it's possible to be really successful selling two million units. They really need to start investing wisely in their projects going forward, as I wouldn't be surprised to see some big names closing their doors next generation due to one titles "failures".

Link (because any non-YouTube embeds have been acting weird).

I'm not usually one to agree with Sterling, let alone much a fan, but damn, does he make some strong points

A few choice quotes (via NeoGAF):

Dark Souls can't be compared to Tomb Raider, I'm told, because Dark Souls didn't have to pay Hollywood actors or build a brand new engine -- but neither did Tomb Raider. I'm sick and tired of being told that AAA-games are being forced as if by invisible gunpoint to invest decadent amounts of money in their games to the point where they need to sell more copies than reality itself is capable of providing. That's not a defense: that's just bad, bad, terribly bad, bad, and terribly bad business.

...

There's a reason why From Software is pleased and Capcom and Square-Enix are kicking their bedroom walls like spoiled brats. Obviously, Dark Souls didn't cost as much to make. I mean -- Resident Evil 6 had a dev team of six-hundred. Tomb Raider had to pay for extravagant hair physics and Hollywood actors.

...

It was made in the real world, sensibly. It knew its audience, knew what to expect, and clearly budgeted accordingly. It made as many copies as it could sell and was thrilled to sell what it did. And it's not like Dark Souls looks or plays like shit. It looks gorgeous, in fact, and plays incredibly well. For Dark Souls to look as good as it does, play as tight as it does, and be happy with the sales it got? There's actually no excuse for the rest of the game industry.

He's right, too. I mean, I enjoy big-budget blockbuster games as much as anyone else. But when Resident Evil 6 sells five million and is still considered a failure, something is not right. Yeah, the game had development staff in the hundreds (a bad move in its own right), but even so. This industry is a goddamn mess.

there's been all this talk about the mid-budget game getting forced out (for the sake of clarity, i'm defining mid-budget as a retail game whose budget is not around the max level like an assassin's creed or call of duty). with examples like dark souls and the simple fact the platinum gets to keep making games, i'm wondering if the restrictive climate is more around blockbusters.

How you're going to make back the initial investment should be one of the first questions when planning a game. How big is your audience? How expensive should it be? How much do similar games usually make?

Honestly, it seems like publishers and developers are beginning to forget how this stuff works. These games had sales numbers in the millions, and were still unsuccessful. Something has to be cut somewhere.

Unfortunately, the "make the game appeal to everyone" plan publishers and developers are using can get really expensive.

Don't Gears Of War and Uncharted titles generally cost around 20-30 million? Why are so many other titles costing upwards of 50-80 million to create let alone advertising costs... just makes no sense.

Honestly, the sooner these supposedly "AAA" games like Dead Space 3, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 6 go away, the better. Publishers seem to be under the illusion that budgets determine quality. Well excuse me, but for "AAA" games (whatever the hell that even means), most of these games are awfully mediocre and disposable and bring absolutely nothing worthwhile to the table. If anything, the sales numbers for these games are f***ing too high, if you ask me.

I've made the same argument before with other games. The original Dead Space was a massive, out of nowhere success. Then, Dead Space 2 added multiplayer in an attempt to broaden the fanbase, and then Dead Space 3 added co-op and microtransactions. The creator said Dead Space 3 needed to sell 5 million copies in order to be profitable.

Why did Dead Space 1's success mean DS2/3 HAD to have bigger budgets? Why did they have to try to make it something bigger than it was? They could have continued with less funding and still deliver a great game with increased profits. DS1 was gorgeous, atmospheric, and still the most fun in the series and it had the smallest budget. 

Its just bad business, and something AAA developers are going to need to learn, and fast. Tomb Raider should have been a massive success. Really, there's no other way to say it. Jim Sterling nailed it.

It sold 5 million and it's a failure? I wonder who takes that kind of budgeting decisions. I can't help but imagine some bald, fat Capcom executive going "we'll make a game with a little something for EVERYONE! Think about it, horror, action, big dumb military guy, cutscenes, QTE, zombies, explosions! Everyone will want to buy it! I expect the game to sell 20 million." And then another bald, fat Capcom executive telling him "how much do you need? A team of 600? A budget of 100 or 200 millions? Well, since EVERYONE will buy this game, we'll give it to you!"

But you know what? That kind of decision is actually a good thing for the industry. The more money that Capcom and EA lose while trying to make huge budget sequels that try to appeal to everyone (and end up pleasing nobody), the better. Eventually they'll realize that their business model is stupid and they'll start making more games, with smaller budgets and much better focus. 

Yeah. Read up on this earlier in the week. Hard not to agree with those statements. Really makes you question the thought processes some of these developers and/or publishers have going on. Tomb Raider goes and sells 3 million copies in one month= "failure". Dark Souls sells 2 million over two years, and it's considered a strong success.

These folks have got to get their act together, not every game needs the aggressive spending to be profitable, especially when some of the games that are made with said budget are'nt even all that special. Dark Souls is the best damn thing I've played this generation.

I don't understand it.  Take Dead Space for example:  a single-player-only horror action/adventure game, it sold 3.69 million copies.  That was apparently satisfactory enough to get two sequels.  So they could have made similar games and probably gotten similar sales, but oh no, we'll turn the second one into a corridor shooter to attract the Call of Duty kids.  With online multiplayer of course ("I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience" - EA studio president Frank Gibeau)  It sold 2.88 million.  So what to do now - turn the third one into an online co-op shooter in an even more desperate attempt to attract the horror-hating Call of Duty kids.  And that sold 1.16 million copies. 

WTF?

Oh well, typical day in the life of EA.  Just to make it even more EA-like they immediately insist they're not cancelling the series after barely selling a million copies even though they previously said it needed to sell 5 million to remain viable.

I'm sure Gibeau will probably get a raise this year that's bigger than my annual salary.

Honestly, the sooner these supposedly "AAA" games like Dead Space 3, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 6 go away, the better. Publishers seem to be under the illusion that budgets determine quality. Well excuse me, but for "AAA" games (whatever the hell that even means), most of these games are awfully mediocre and disposable and bring absolutely nothing worthwhile to the table. If anything, the sales numbers for these games are f***ing too high, if you ask me.

UpInFlames

I don't understand it.  Take Dead Space for example:  a single-player-only horror action/adventure game, it sold 3.69 million copies.  That was apparently satisfactory enough to get two sequels.  So they could have made similar games and probably gotten similar sales, but oh no, we'll turn the second one into a corridor shooter to attract the Call of Duty kids.  With online multiplayer of course ("I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience" - EA studio president Frank Gibeau)  It sold 2.88 million.  So what to do now - turn the third one into an online co-op shooter in an even more desperate attempt to attract the horror-hating Call of Duty kids.  And that sold 1.16 million copies. 

WTF?

Oh well, typical day in the life of EA.  Just to make it even more EA-like they immediately insist they're not cancelling the series after barely selling a million copies even though they previously said it needed to sell 5 million to remain viable.

I'm sure Gibeau will probably get a raise this year that's bigger than my annual salary.

Jackc8

Interesting that publishers will alter a game into something it was never intended to be, isn't it? What did adding multiplayer and co-op into Dead Space do for the franchise? It alienated the people that loved the original and didn't attract any newcomers.

And I like DS3. The co-op is solid and surprisingly well done, but no one was asking for it. People weren't like "oh sweet, I can play that one series I never bothered with now!" no, it was a poor business decision.

Oh well, typical day in the life of EA.  Just to make it even more EA-like they immediately insist they're not cancelling the series after barely selling a million copies even though they previously said it needed to sell 5 million to remain viable.

I'm sure Gibeau will probably get a raise this year that's bigger than my annual salary.

Jackc8

That explains closing down the sims social and other games. They have a sales target. Well damn them.

It sold 5 million and it's a failure? I wonder who takes that kind of budgeting decisions. I can't help but imagine some bald, fat Capcom executive going "we'll make a game with a little something for EVERYONE! Think about it, horror, action, big dumb military guy, cutscenes, QTE, zombies, explosions! Everyone will want to buy it! I expect the game to sell 20 million." And then another bald, fat Capcom executive telling him "how much do you need? A team of 600? A budget of 100 or 200 millions? Well, since EVERYONE will buy this game, we'll give it to you!"

But you know what? That kind of decision is actually a good thing for the industry. The more money that Capcom and EA lose while trying to make huge budget sequels that try to appeal to everyone (and end up pleasing nobody), the better. Eventually they'll realize that their business model is stupid and they'll start making more games, with smaller budgets and much better focus. 

ReddestSkies

It needed to sell 7 million to be considered successful, which is even crazier given the game's already unprecedented performance.

I don't understand it.  Take Dead Space for example:  a single-player-only horror action/adventure game, it sold 3.69 million copies.  That was apparently satisfactory enough to get two sequels.  So they could have made similar games and probably gotten similar sales, but oh no, we'll turn the second one into a corridor shooter to attract the Call of Duty kids.  With online multiplayer of course ("I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience" - EA studio president Frank Gibeau)  It sold 2.88 million.  So what to do now - turn the third one into an online co-op shooter in an even more desperate attempt to attract the horror-hating Call of Duty kids.  And that sold 1.16 million copies. 

WTF?

Jackc8

I honestly don't understand the point in trying to court the mass market. If they didn't jump on board with a series from the start, they probably won't be jumping on at all.

To use Dark Souls as an example: lot of people ask for an easy mode or some other form of adjustable difficulty because the game's in their current form are too hard for them. But to go through all the effort to satisfying that vocal minority -- what good would that do? Why attempt to appeal to a market who's not guaranteed to buy your game? All that does is alienate your fans -- your audience. The same applies with just about any major game franchise altered in the name of greater mass appeal. There's no benefit. It's arguably a bigger gamble than creating something new.

You know, I'll probably get called a fanboy for bringing this up, but remember way back in the GC days when Nintendo said they were going to focus on smaller games with smaller budgets and shorter development times?  I sure didn't like the sound of that then, but if you look at the state of the industry now, you can't wonder if Nintendo would have been in a much worse state if their last Zelda game had cost them over 100 million to make.  Sure, their main franchises might not sell upwards of 5 million a piece anymore, but it doesn't look like they need those kinds of numbers for all their games.

Minecraft, anyone? ^^

One, two persons in development team (at least at the start of it's life) and sold...how many times?

The industry first and foremost FINALLY has to realize a good game is NOT about the effing graphics or hollywood voice acting. Sure, they CAN help, but they're far from being a guarantee for success.

What IS though is creativity and heart and soul put into it, it's values you CAN'T measure with all money in the whole damn world.

This industry really needs to crash and start anew.  The industry's absolute contempt for its customers plus its customers whining and crying about pedantic and stupid issues plus the industry's hopelessly broken economic model all need a hard reset and a sea change.

The current situation has a lot of ties to the Atari crash of the 1980s.  Too many games that no one really wants, bloated budgets, too many mediocre developers that should not be making games (Gearbox), all this needs to go away and a new gaming market needs to come back smaller, cheaper, more agile, and more receptive to change and market shifts.

This industry really needs to crash and start anew.  The industry's absolute contempt for its customers plus its customers whining and crying about pedantic and stupid issues plus the industry's hopelessly broken economic model all need a hard reset and a sea change.

The current situation has a lot of ties to the Atari crash of the 1980s.  Too many games that no one really wants, bloated budgets, too many mediocre developers that should not be making games (Gearbox), all this needs to go away and a new gaming market needs to come back smaller, cheaper, more agile, and more receptive to change and market shifts.

GalvatronType_R

No. There is already a smaller, smarter market in indie gaming, and it's growing every year. You could literally stop playing big budget games and still have more than enough choice. A crash is not useful.

This industry really needs to crash and start anew.  The industry's absolute contempt for its customers plus its customers whining and crying about pedantic and stupid issues plus the industry's hopelessly broken economic model all need a hard reset and a sea change.

The current situation has a lot of ties to the Atari crash of the 1980s.  Too many games that no one really wants, bloated budgets, too many mediocre developers that should not be making games (Gearbox), all this needs to go away and a new gaming market needs to come back smaller, cheaper, more agile, and more receptive to change and market shifts.

GalvatronType_R

I don't think the industry needs something so drastic as you claim to "make everything right" as you are so desperately declaring. There are still way more games that are great experiences than ones that are not. In fact, substantially so.

[QUOTE="GalvatronType_R"]

This industry really needs to crash and start anew. The industry's absolute contempt for its customers plus its customers whining and crying about pedantic and stupid issues plus the industry's hopelessly broken economic model all need a hard reset and a sea change.

The current situation has a lot of ties to the Atari crash of the 1980s. Too many games that no one really wants, bloated budgets, too many mediocre developers that should not be making games (Gearbox), all this needs to go away and a new gaming market needs to come back smaller, cheaper, more agile, and more receptive to change and market shifts.

juradai

I don't think the industry needs something so drastic as you claim to "make everything right" as you are so desperately declaring. There are still way more games that are great experiences than ones that are not. In fact, substantially so.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Honestly, the sooner these supposedly "AAA" games like Dead Space 3, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 6 go away, the better. Publishers seem to be under the illusion that budgets determine quality. Well excuse me, but for "AAA" games (whatever the hell that even means), most of these games are awfully mediocre and disposable and bring absolutely nothing worthwhile to the table. If anything, the sales numbers for these games are f***ing too high, if you ask me.

juradai

This industry really needs to crash and start anew.  The industry's absolute contempt for its customers plus its customers whining and crying about pedantic and stupid issues plus the industry's hopelessly broken economic model all need a hard reset and a sea change.

The current situation has a lot of ties to the Atari crash of the 1980s.  Too many games that no one really wants, bloated budgets, too many mediocre developers that should not be making games (Gearbox), all this needs to go away and a new gaming market needs to come back smaller, cheaper, more agile, and more receptive to change and market shifts.

GalvatronType_R

I'll tell you what the problem is. These AAA publisher still selling games at 60. No wonder people keep buying used and pirate games. You want to sell more copies? You're going to have to be more reasonable with your initial price tags, or put your games on sale sooner. What's worse, taking a hit on a new game at 30 or losing an entire sale to someone who just bought it used at GameStop for 55!!!

[QUOTE="juradai"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Honestly, the sooner these supposedly "AAA" games like Dead Space 3, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 6 go away, the better. Publishers seem to be under the illusion that budgets determine quality. Well excuse me, but for "AAA" games (whatever the hell that even means), most of these games are awfully mediocre and disposable and bring absolutely nothing worthwhile to the table. If anything, the sales numbers for these games are f***ing too high, if you ask me.

CarnageHeart

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="juradai"] These companies have way too many people in the mix. I'm seeing way too many executives, "veepees", producers and project managers of project managers in the credits at the end of games these days. These companies really need to trim the excess fat. That's what is causing costs to be outrageous.juradai

I think its possible. Credits lists certainly are long nowadays. I think the biggest problem is probably unnecessary modes though. I was one of the million or so fans of Warhawk PS3, which started off as a bunch of competitive multiplayer maps (with a heavy vehicle focus) but eventually developed a tutorial.

When they made the qusi-sequel Starhawk, the team clearly had their eye on CoD though. They introduced not only a single player mode, but a co-op multiplayer mode (both of them underbaked and neither of them worth playing, despite all the time we were told the developers spent on the campaign) and the competitive multiplayer introduced a system of extremely powerful skills which played a lot like CoD's perks but had no analogs in Warhawk.

So while the original Warhawk was sold for $40 and put up good, numbers, the bloated $60 Starhawk (which did a lot of really cool things) failed to put up the numbers it needed and the devteam is now relegated to making IoS games. I enjoyed Starhawk despite itself, but it would have been a stronger game if the developers hadn't tried to be all things to all men.

I think something similar could be said about RE6. By all accounts the amount of content included with the game is extremely generous, its just that most don't find the game itself compelling. If the team(s) had made a game people enjoyed, spending a lot of time developing content for it would have been hailed as an act of extreme generosity that would help make the game a classic, rather than a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.

Tomb Raider is a bit more complicated. The team could have chopped multiplayer and saved money but its also possible they might have been able to chop elements of the SP and maybe postpone or cancel the PC version (if a game's success if in doubt why increase the size and risk of the bet by publishing it everywhere at once?). Why not say 'We're shipping the console versions now, but we are holding back the PC version to make sure it fully takes advantage of the power of the PC'? Also, by many accounts it takes the game a few hours to find its feet (early on Lara dies a lot in QTEs, its only after a couple hours she starts freely exploring the island). Don't know how much time the animators and level designers and what have you spent on those early segments but surely that is time that could have been spent more profitably elsewhere.

[QUOTE="juradai"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] I think different companies have different problems. CarnageHeart

I think its possible. Credits lists certainly are long nowadays. I think the biggest problem is probably unnecessary modes though. I was one of the million or so fans of Warhawk PS3, which started off as a bunch of competitive multiplayer maps (with a heavy vehicle focus) but eventually developed a tutorial.

When they made the qusi-sequel Starhawk, the team clearly had their eye on CoD though. They introduced not only a single player mode, but a co-op multiplayer mode (both of them underbaked and neither of them worth playing, despite all the time we were told the developers spent on the campaign) and the competitive multiplayer introduced a system of extremely powerful skills which played a lot like CoD's perks but had no analogs in Warhawk.

So while the original Warhawk was sold for $40 and put up good, numbers, the bloated $60 Starhawk (which did a lot of really cool things) failed to put up the numbers it needed and the devteam is now relegated to making IoS games. I enjoyed Starhawk despite itself, but it would have been a stronger game if the developers hadn't tried to be all things to all men.

I think something similar could be said about RE6. By all accounts the amount of content included with the game is extremely generous, its just that most don't find the game itself compelling. If the team(s) had made a game people enjoyed, spending a lot of time developing content for it would have been hailed as an act of extreme generosity that would help make the game a classic, rather than a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.

Tomb Raider is a bit more complicated. The team could have chopped multiplayer and saved money but its also possible they might have been able to chop elements of the SP and maybe postpone or cancel the PC version (if a game's success if in doubt why increase the size and risk of the bet by publishing it everywhere at once?). Why not say 'We're shipping the console versions now, but we are holding back the PC version to make sure it fully takes advantage of the power of the PC'? Also, by many accounts it takes the game a few hours to find its feet (early on Lara dies a lot in QTEs, its only after a couple hours she starts freely exploring the island). Don't know how much time the animators and level designers and what have you spent on those early segments but surely that is time that could have been spent more profitably elsewhere.

I think we are definitely in agreement and what you mention here contributes to there being too many people in the mix. These extra features that aren't really wanted by the fan base(such as multiplayer modes) have to be forced into games and managed by someone, right? In my opinion these additional elements seem to make the development process top heavy and add unnecessary people to the team.

That being said though, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth and always appreciate any extra features that truly compliment the "core" game. I emphasize core because adding a multiplayer mode or some social media tie-in to a single player focused game does nothing to enhance the main experience you know, the reason people bought the first game to begin with. (See Dead Space 3 in this instance)

How you're going to make back the initial investment should be one of the first questions when planning a game. How big is your audience? How expensive should it be? How much do similar games usually make?

Honestly, it seems like publishers and developers are beginning to forget how this stuff works. These games had sales numbers in the millions, and were still unsuccessful. Something has to be cut somewhere.

Unfortunately, the "make the game appeal to everyone" plan publishers and developers are using can get really expensive.

GreatExarch

First and foremost, casting Hollywood actors and actresses into a video game and paying them large salaries is complete insanity. They're paying for a voice that is bound to a 3D character model. Why can't they get actors and actresses who don't ask for a ridiculous amount money, but have at least some talent (let's face it, most voice acting in games is bad anyways, but nobody ever seems to care)? It's not like they aren't out there? And who buys a game just because a certain well-known actor or actress is in it? Answer: Nobody. Ever.

If a game is selling like hot cakes but still fails, then that's the fault of the developer. It's not like the game wasn't a success - it just sounds more like so much money was wasted that no amount of sales could ever gain it back. That has nothing to do with the customer base.

First and foremost, casting Hollywood actors and actresses into a video game and paying them large salaries is complete insanity. They're paying for a voice that is bound to a 3D character model. Why can't they get actors and actresses who don't ask for a ridiculous amount money, but have at least some talent (let's face it, most voice acting in games is bad anyways, but nobody ever seems to care)? It's not like they aren't out there? And who buys a game just because a certain well-known actor or actress is in it? Answer: Nobody. Ever.

If a game is selling like hot cakes but still fails, then that's the fault of the developer. It's not like the game wasn't a success - it just sounds more like so much money was wasted that no amount of sales could ever gain it back. That has nothing to do with the customer base.

Beagle050

The standard of games have gone some much against the game developer. Game expect graphic to be great. Worse their tolerance for errors has gone down so much. Many seem to just pick on tiny detail or make it sounds more important than it is. They whine that CoD games are not changing while not caring about the new staging they have in each game.

These standards for games come from the gamers so if it anyone is at fault then it is the gamers.

First and foremost, casting Hollywood actors and actresses into a video game and paying them large salaries is complete insanity. They're paying for a voice that is bound to a 3D character model. Why can't they get actors and actresses who don't ask for a ridiculous amount money, but have at least some talent (let's face it, most voice acting in games is bad anyways, but nobody ever seems to care)? It's not like they aren't out there? And who buys a game just because a certain well-known actor or actress is in it? Answer: Nobody. Ever.

If a game is selling like hot cakes but still fails, then that's the fault of the developer. It's not like the game wasn't a success - it just sounds more like so much money was wasted that no amount of sales could ever gain it back. That has nothing to do with the customer base.

Beagle050

The standard of games have gone some much against the game developer. Game expect graphic to be great. Worse their tolerance for errors has gone down so much. Many seem to just pick on tiny detail or make it sounds more important than it is. They whine that CoD games are not changing while not caring about the new staging they have in each game.

These standards for games come from the gamers so if it anyone is at fault then it is the gamers.

wiouds

Stupid gamers, why can't they see that the staging is better in COD games than in those dumb open world games?!

c_rake

but i think the reason why game developers feel it's absolutely necessary to 'expand' the audience by appealing to the mass market at large is because the core audience - once it reaches a certain maximum, is destined to start declining, especially as they go on in the years. If you don't innovate enough or push the story well and far enough then even your core audience will start trickling out.

and in a world where there is so so much stuff competing for your dollar and time, the only way they see to keep their quality level up is by expanding horizontally by trying to cover as many bases as possible. There are lot of people, who refuse to buy a game without multiplayer for instance.

and what you end up getting is an industry full of grey goo homogenization, that when a game like Dark Souls comes along it's like a breath of fresh air, when it's just a type of game that used to exist but just came back in a world where - for the core gamers - is a world of games stuck on easy/medium mode.

the budgeting for games - especially in the triple AAA space - definitely, HAS TO be reigned in. All games do not have to be ALL things to ALL people.

But tell this to the big execs from the publishers who expect substantial growth with each entry into every series. the first game is hard enough, the sequel is doable, but after that, it gets harder and harder to please those investors and executives if you do not have this magical exponential rise in profit.