Was XCOM 2 a flop?

According to Steam Spy Grey Goo has 200k owners, so a game with total sales of less than Xcom 2 sold in a week had a 20% increase in users over a free weekend.

Xcom has (lets keep it simple) ~3 million owners, allowing for the same percentage of new owners as Grey Goo gained from a free weekend (20%) that would equate to 600,000 extra 'sales'

Do you enjoy destroying your own arguments?

That's not how free weekend works... It gets added into all users accounts when they login that weekend, and is then removed next time they login (which is why the change is diminished over time). It's not some percentage based nonsense. As I've already said, no matter how niche or popular the game is, the process works the exact same way.

Grey Goo March 9th was at 160k on Steamspy (you need a free account to see three months back), and that was with six months of free weekend. Even if it sold absolutely zero copies normally, and even if the amount of free weekend owners didn't diminish at all in the next three months (both of which are impossible scenarios), the absolute maximum from free weekend, even in this impossible scenario, is 160k. I'd estimate it's around 80k when you account for the standard owners and the extra three months, not that it even matters as even 160k debunks your whole argument as is.

Now, please, admit you were wrong and move on.

Doesnt seem as popular as last game.

It was said to be coming to the consoles shortly after its release..so the answer is no.

It's better regardless

XCOM2 keeps flopping

XCOM: EU was given away for free with a pre-order of Bioshock Infinite on Steam.

So yea, if you're using steamspy to judge how this game did compared to the first saleswise, you should probably stop.

This is pathetic.

So you admit that you have no legitimate basis for comparison and are talking out your ass?

Your source for "800k sales after four months with no signs of healthy legs is not good for a AAA game"?

Define exactly what is a "good" amount of sales for a AAA game 4 months after release.

It was also not a new IP to those that played its predecessors (but still a niche title) and knew what to expect.

76% positive is very good if you ask me. I've loved many games that have been rated 60% or lower.

Anyways, I read a lot of xcom 2 reviews, and many of them really hated the timed missions. And i couldn't agree more, and its why i stayed clear of the game... there is nothing i hate more than the pressure of timed missions and i don't like to deal with frustrations like that. I was still thinking of getting someday if its extremely cheap and i got free time, but im sure i'd cheat my way through any problems i had in the game if i got stuck. But ya, 76% is good if you ask me, thats 3/4 of the people liking the game a lot.

No and I haven't had any problems with the game since launch anyways.

AAA games typically require at least 2-4m copies sold at full MSRP to be profitable, but of course this depends on marketing, dev time, dev size, etc.

Now Firaxis has said XCOM is a "very, very big budget game" (link), and sequels tend to be quite a bit higher budget after an IP has proven itself, so no 800k sales is not what would be defined as "good" sales based on what we know.

And if you are referring to the legs, just look at Steamspy for its last three months, it has been so flat that its increases are practically within Steamspy's margin of error.

Interesting. Now, this may be an issue if there wasn't such a massive difference between them.

Currently at 3.4m, taking away a generous 100k for free weekend, taking away a generous 500-600k for Bioshock Infinite Preorder bonus, and adding 400-500k for console sales, you still have around 3.2m, even with generous estimates given for free weekend and Bioshock Inifinite, which is still roughly 4x the sales of XCOM2.

Like I said, nothing wrong with a slow burner, but XCOM2 shows absolutely zero signs of being a slow burner or having healthy legs. Massive price slashes will be needed to move units, which will of course slash revenue per copy as well.

Just as an FYI, very rarely do you feel that time pressure in a mission. Only a couple of times did I ever really feel crazy rushed

But you didn't play on the hardest difficulty?

Oh look, worthless conditional statements, using steam sales as a representation of all the title's sales, and comparing console AAA sales numbers using their concentrated (i.e. smaller libraries).

Firaxis can make that claim, but unless you have actual numbers that demonstrate a GTA/Star Citizen-sized budget, then it's nothing but developer sales hype.

The Xcom reboot failed abysmally on consoles, but succeeded on PC which is why they took the sequel to PC first and will likely scrap some features to shoehorn it and make it functional on consoles.

The dynamic level generation was already giving non-SSD owners issues with extended load times.

I'd hate to see what console's HDDs and tablet processors would produce if the third party porting studio decides to keep this feature.

The fact that they're paying a third party to port it is already a demonstration of its success. If it "flopped" on PC, why risk the additional expense of multiplatting it to platforms that it previously failed on unless you can afford to take the gamble.

Yes, I get it, you think that Steamspy represents the sale of all PC titles, but unfortunately you're wrong and your three month snapshot demonstrates nothing but the standard rise and fall of sales which is completely normal on a long enough timeline.

Aren't herms braging all the time that steam has sales on new games quick?

The price really doesn't matter at this point if it's on sale or droped by the publisher, it's still a good game...that i will get on the PS4.

If you haven't played the game before and don't like frustrations do you think its likely that he will be playing on insane ironman?

A lot of people got used to being able to turtle and overwatch down the map playing XCOM: EU on Classic or harder. You can't play XCOM 2 like that, and I think a lot of those people were left very frustrated. I didn't have a lot of problems with the time limit, but there are definitely some firefights where I take more risks knowing I'm only halfway to extraction and only have 5-6 turns left where I otherwise might have pulled back and overwatched.

Yea, you had to keep moving and ammunition/reloading actually became an issue at times. I think the real issue was that it was used maybe too often, but the nature of XCOM 2 was that as essentially terrorists most missions you had to get in and out before reinforcements arrived. Perhaps a better mechanic would have been for the timer to start once you'd been revealed.

XCOM2 is a steamworks game. Every single copy of XCOM2 sold will be represented on Steamspy lol.

So the developer itself makes the claim, and we already know Firaxis is fairly large team that makes big budget games and XCOM was even a more bold endeavor than they usually attempt, but you're just going to dismiss that? Can we not say QB or Battleborn or SFV are flops since we don't know exact budgets? You're just being ridiculous right now with this damage control. We can compare it to the previous title, other typical titles of similar size, and Firaxis' own statements regarding the budget, and in every category it would not be a "success."

It didn't flop horribly on consoles. It sold 119k first month, physical only, in US, plus the expansion sales, plus the PS+ and GWG deal they did. 119k first month for US would be at bare minimum 500k LTD when you account for RotW and sales beyond the first month (also remember that XCOM was a new IP with positive WoM and had a strong tail). For reference, only 33% of XCOM sales on Steam are from US, so I believe 500k is a rather lowball estimate, it could easily be as high 800k-1m depending on how good the legs were (obviously not including PS+ and GWG sales)

Also, the fact that it's coming to consoles says nothing of the success or the failure of the game. It was planned from before launch. They invited console-only magazine journalists to their pre-release event.

And yes Steamspy actually does represent all the sales of steamworks games like XCOM. Even non steamworks games sell vast majority of copies on Steam unless they are notable cheaper on other sites (GOG, Uplay) like Witcher 3 or R6 Siege.

You really are very ignorant regarding this topic and you are better off just not responding.

So why is it available through Amazon?

Developers make claims all the time, but unless you have numbers to support your assertions, you have nothing to actually support your assertions.

The quote that you referenced about it being a "big game" was also a quote about the original reboot and not the sequel, but I suppose you're now ignoring that fact.

So 119k in a month is not a flop on consoles, in spite of their smaller libraries and more concentrated sales (a point you conveniently ignored along with your steam sales snapshot claims and how they are representative of nothing more than standard market fluctuations)?

It's interesting if 119k in a month is not representative of a failure since the sequel sold approximately 365,000 in its first day (and that only counts steam sales). The rest of your baseless speculation can be ignored on the grounds that you have no evidence to support your claims.

Btw, did you now forget that you claimed that, "AAA games typically require at least 2-4m copies sold at full MSRP to be profitable?"

Even by your highest speculated sales totals of 800k, the game still failed horribly on consoles since that's well shy of your own stated number of copies sold to be profitable.

Your "evidence" to support that it was planned before launch is them inviting console journalists to their pre-release?

That doesn't sound like a confirmation but more of an attempt to build word of mouth were they to decide to even release it on consoles. Btw, where is this evidence?

Steamspy represents the sale of games sold through Steam and unfortunately for you, the game was also available for purchase through Amazon.

Hey cow, "You really are very ignorant regarding this topic and you are better off just not responding."

The retail versions include a Steam key and don't work without Steam. It is a Steamworks game.

I already addressed that. Sequels are almost always larger in scope, dev costs, and marketing after a game has been proven as a new IP. XCOM2 is the sequel to a "very, very big budget game" from a large dev team with a fairly long development cycle. I don't have access to exact budgets for XCOM2 or for any game, but that doesn't mean we can't use the information we do have and reach a reasonable conclusion based on it.

You're completely taking what I said out of context. XCOM would not have been a success if it was released only on consoles, as 500k nor 800k-1m would be enough to be profitable. But a traditionally PC developer making a game in a genre that traditionally doesn't really appeal to console owners to sell that amount on consoles is pretty good, and not at all the massive failure people make it out to be (so often people just post that 119k number completely out of context, without understanding that is only represents ~1/3 of sales for one month of a new IP). So while it would not have been profitable ONLY on consoles, it was no doubt profitable to port to consoles. I mean there's a pretty big difference between developing a full game and just porting it to another platform. And funny since you say that "only counts Steam sales" since there are literally NO other sales for XCOM2 since it is a steamworks game.

Again, you are entirely in the wrong and are coming off as a bit of an ignoramus here. ALL COPIES OF XCOM2 INCLUDE A STEAM KEY AND REQUIRE STEAM TO BE USED SINCE IT IS A STEAM GAME. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE YOU BUY IT FROM, IT COUNTS FOR STEAMSPY.

In regards to the pre-release event, I'm sure you could find it if you did some digging, but not everything is archived so easily like that. Even just as a general rule though, most of these decisions are made well before-hand, and are not revealed until a later date so people double-dip. The UI was also pretty much completely unchanged from the console-friendly UI of the first game, which also suggests they had it planned in advance.

If the game was a success, you could argue that they are trying to earn money by expanding to other platforms. If the game was a failure, you could argue that they are porting other platforms in the hopes to break even. Being ported to consoles doesn't really speak for the success or failure of the game, so it's a pretty moot point to be honest.

Again, you're totally clueless when it comes to this and continue to be wrong on every front.

So a typical AAA game at $60 retail price needs a budget of $120 Million minimum. -_-

Half that figure, and say it's $30 retail price and only needs $60 Million and that is still a massive budget.

Maybe. I actually prefer the tight time limit. It makes your decisions a lot more interesting. I think the stealth mechanic as a whole could have been a lot more fleshed out, though.

Here we go,

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-06-firaxis-xcom-is-a-very-very-big-budget-game

"We're 50, 60 guys, I don't know exactly," he said. "We've been working on it for three-and-a-half, four years. It's a big, big game. It's definitely as big as any game we've ever made at Firaxis. It's huge. It's a bit like piloting a big old boat."

So, very rough budget figures. assuming the 75 percentile for the developers (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Video_Game_Designer/Salary) to be ~$76,000 a year.

Call it 60 people at 76k by 4 years. $18M in labour. Double that for marketing and whatever else I can't think of. To arrive at $36M budget. Probably a bit high to be honest, but whatever.

Selling the game for $60 (insert whatever you think is fair). Steam takes 30%, so that drops back to $42 to the developer. $36M / 42 = 857,000'ish to be profitable. Assuming all my assumptions are near the mark.

I remember it selling really well when it launched.

Ok, so I was wrong about the Amazon sales not being included and I can admit that after having read about how Steamspy gathers its data.

Unfortunately, you still won't even acknowledge the difference between PC and console sales that result from the increased concentration of sales on consoles of new titles due to smaller existing libraries or the meaninglessness of your steamspy snapshot comparisons.

So no, 119k sales over a month for a AAA title, even if its a new IP in a rare genre, on consoles is still poor no matter how you look at it given the overall size and identical capabilities of the install bases.

Context is also irrelevant when it comes to the financial bottom line.

It was either a profitable decision or it wasn't. In this case, it clearly was not.

You're also drifting back into conditional claims like, "Sequels are almost always larger in scope, dev costs, and marketing after a game has been proven as a new IP ... I don't have access to exact budgets for XCOM2 or for any game, but that doesn't mean we can't use the information we do have and reach a reasonable conclusion based on it."

Actually, given the information that we do have (i.e. none aside from dev claims regarding the nebulous budget of its predecessor) you can't form any legitimate conclusions; especially considering the previous title's lack of success on consoles.

It would have only been profitable to have ported it to consoles if the profits actually exceeded the console development costs, and by your own admission the game had a "very, very big budget." The console sales of the original don't seem to align with your claim that it was a profitable effort, but I'm only making a "reasonable conclusion" based on the information we have.

I'm not going to dig for information to support your unsubstantiated claim about console games journalists attending a pre-release event proving that there were plans to port the sequel from the beginning. It's your claim and the burden of proof is on you. I've also never heard of anyone double-dipping to play a game on an inferior platform. I'm not saying it doesn't happen because I could maybe see people doing it to play a game with friends that don't own a gaming PC, but if you're trying to produce double-dip sales, then it makes much more sense to release with the inferior platforms' version first (like GTA 5).

The UI worked for all platforms in the previous game, so there was no need to reinvent the wheel. It doesn't suggest anything more than why fix what isn't broken.

Yes, "if the game was a success, you could argue that they are trying to earn money by expanding to other platforms."

That's a reasonable conclusion and likely the reason Firaxis is contracting the work to a 3rd party instead of doing it themselves and saving some money.

Sorry, but PC games being ported to consoles generally speaks to a studio looking to expand their market, which is something they can only do after attaining a certain level of success as a studio or with a particular IP (see The Witcher, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, etc.). The success that allows them to do this is provided by their original PC fanbase.

You're a poor cow troll who likes to generalize, draw conclusions, and make claims without evidence all while trying to excuse previous assertions with an appeal to "context."

@jereb31:

Your assumptions aren't near the mark. That doesn't include overhead, that doesn't marketing, that doesn't include outsourcing. AAA game development is expensive, and the costs have only been ballooning over the years. 60 people is probably the core dev team at Firaxis, but much more than that worked on the title; I counted 120+ just from the credits not even including outsourced work.

Look at the Witness for example, an indie game without the corporate bloat, and with only one guy along with a few programmers and artists and that took 5-6m USD to develop. There a ton of hidden costs to development, it's not just a simple math equation where you just sub in some variables and call it a day. There is a reason why AAA studios get shut down or large parts of their dev team laid off constantly, and these are games that sold millions of copies.

Irrational was shut down, and Bioshock Infinite is sitting at 4m+ on Steam plus probably equal or more on consoles; that was a studio that was under the wing of 2K just like Firaxis is. Evolution Studios was closed after Driveclub sold 2m+ copies plus DLC, and that was a relatively small studio. Disney just recently shut down its entire game publishing with Disney Infinity. So no, 800k from a big AAA studio like Firaxis is not good by any extent in the AAA gaming industry.

@Dasein808:

You have not posted anything to suggest that PC games typically have longer tails than console games. The platform is not important when it comes to the longevity of a game so much, it is whether it is a new IP, whether it has strong WoM, whether it had heavy marketing or not (heavy marketing typically means more front-loaded), whether the game was a cult hit, etc. Very few games like CSGO, TF2, Dota2, Skyrim, etc. have a strong tail on PC. But one thing we do know is that XCOM2 doesn't have a strong tail.

I'll use an example, just a few days ago, some guy similar to yourself was trying to say DOOM on Steam is a "slow-burn," when it has sold 500k copies total on Steamspy, yet only a mere ~12k in the third week. Compare that to DOOM on console which sold in the UK (physical only) (I'm using UK because they are the only ones besides Japan that gets consistent weekly charts with numbers) 62k week one, 40k week two (-35%), and 24k week three (-41%). (link) So on PC, DOOM had sold around 12k on its third week out of 500k total, while on console, DOOM had sold around 24k on its third week out of 126k (2.4% compared to 19%).

Context is not irrelevant when it comes to financial bottom line, because context IS financial bottom line. Not all games are created equally, they have different development costs and marketing costs, and that's why that's important to consider. It's also important to consider the difference between developing a game from scratch and porting a game. Porting a game to console and it selling 500k-1m (broad range because we have very limited sales data) is likely quite profitable, but developing a AAA game that only sells 500k-1m total across all platforms is NOT profitable.

And we do have enough data to make a reasonable conclusion, just like we do with QB, SFV, Battleborn, etc. being flops. We know that sequels to successful IPs are larger in scope and budget due to increased marketing costs now that there is proof of concept that the game will sell, and we know that this game is just as large as the original, just take a look at XCOM2 credits and see it is quite a large team (120+ not including outsourcing, a big larger than the original). I mean honestly just the fact that it is a AAA game studio with a dev team numbering 120+ is already enough for us to come to the logical conclusion that 800k is low for a AAA game that is showing nearly nonexistent legs. Maybe console sales will have to save it, but in the end, XCOM2 will simply not be a big earner, and if Civ 6 doesn't meet expectations, Firaxis may get the boot, 2K doesn't play around.

And again, porting doesn't speak to the success or failure of a game, it speaks only to whether the sales they would get from porting would be a profitable decision from them to make. Many devs who have failed to see success have ported to another platform in the hopes to break even, just as many devs who have had success on PC want to expand their reach to console and vice versa.

And yes, it uses the same UI from the original, because the original was designed around consoles and to be used with a controller. Although the game didn't sell as well on console as PC, I think the simplified control scheme is what made XCOM so accessible and appealing; then they try to go the PC-only route in the sequel and you would think sales would improve since they are focusing on one platform, yet they are quite low because they missed what made the first game appealing, and now they have to desperately hope console sales pull through and meet expectations.

You're still completely missing the point and wrong on many accounts. I've been following sales and trends for years now and have talked to many of those within the industry. There's no shame in admitting you're wrong and moving on.

PC games tend to sell longer over the same timeline and this is well known due to PCs larger existing library and greater potential purchase options as well as the paradigm shifting potential of mods. I already explained that, like all of the other points of yours that I demonstrated to be either baseless or irrelevant, but you're choosing to ignore these facts.

The platform is the most important factor when it comes to the longevity of a game because console players have fewer purchase options to choose from, as well as a lack of mods, whereas PC titles are competing against 30+ years of games.

Other factors contribute as well, but console sales are always more concentrated because the userbase is typically more focused on their latest options.

We do not "know" that Xcom 2 does not have a strong tail, that's you, again, talking out your ass and arbitrarily deciding that you can make that judgement at this time and not months or years from now.

Your Doom example is unsurprisingly worthless for the reasons I already mentioned (i.e. concentration of sales on a standardized platform with fewer potential purchase options/mods). I still plan on buying it at some point, but I already have enough titles that I'm still playing, so I'm in no hurry.

There are MANY others with the exact same intentions.

If context is the the financial bottom line, then the Xcom reboot was a financial failure on consoles due to the anemic numbers sold. Your excuses for why those numbers were so poor are irrelevant.

They were terrible numbers for a AAA title on a standardized platform with a fraction of the PC's library. No amount of attempting to justify why they were so bad will change that they were in fact, bad because many consolites prefer movie games / spectacles over those with actual substance and depth.

"We know that sequels to successful IPs are larger in scope and budget..." this is not an absolute truth.

Sometimes, studios have setbacks due to the lack of success of other titles, or other priorities and are forced to adjust their sequel budget accordingly, in spite of the success of a previous title.

The rest of your ridiculous speculation on the demise of Firaxis isn't even worth addressing because, like most of your arguments, it's nothing more than your continued self-aggrandizing speculation.

Incidentally, there are multiple articles from actual industry media refuting your claims:

"On the evidence of Take-Two's releases thus far, it seems to be working. XCOM 2 was both a fantastic game and Steamspy puts it at 700,000 sales in its first month, impressive for a PC-only, turn-based strategy game that's yet to have a significant discount."

"So far, the game has sold over 563,000 units at the average price of $59.99. This is a pretty big number, especially when you compare it to Rise of the Tomb Raider‘s numbers during its first full week,which finished at 323,000 units. Lara Croft’s new adventure was released a little over a week before XCOM‘s return to steam and has sold a total of 419,000 copies on the digital platform so far (via GearSiege) ."

"In addition, XCOM 2 has surpassed 500,000 copies sold in less than a week. This figure puts it well beyond what XCOM: Enemy Unknown achieved in the same timeframe despite being available on three platforms."

Unsurprisingly, it looks like you, as a self-appointed "expert" on these matters, appear to be in the minority when it comes to your claims.

The only devs that port in an attempt to break even are studios/publishers which can afford to take the risk and eat the cost. As a previous non-starter of an IP on consoles, Firaxis would be foolish to port, especially with the additional expense of the assistance of a third party doing the work, if the game were not already a success.

The original title was developed and released simultaneously across all platforms. It was not "designed around consoles." It was a reboot of a PC IP which was designed to accommodate the interface and technological limitations of a console, while still supporting the traditional superior mouse and keyboard interface.

I know I didn't play it with a controller.

There's a difference between designing a multi-platform title "around consoles" and designing a multi-platform title so that it can actually even be played on consoles.

Your assertion that sales "...are quite low because they missed what made the first game appealing, and now they have to desperately hope console sales pull through and meet expectations," has absolutely no basis in reality and is not a sentiment shared by actual industry professionals, but by all means continue your rectal ventriloquism and making yourself look ridiculous as industry media contradicts your claims at every turn.

Your appeals as some sort of authority on the matter are pathetic for the reasons that I've already demonstrated and they're also a logical fallacy.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and your opinion is not corroborated by industry media, at all.

In fact, industry media contradicts everything you say about the game's sales needing to be shored up through console sales.

You're just another mad cow troll.

I agree that there's no shame in admitting that you're wrong, so I'm not sure what is stopping you.

@StealthMonkey4:

No i think its pretty close if well over. No company on earth has an overhead approaching 50% when everything is developed in house. And PC does not market anywhere near the amount as console so i think literally doubling the budget to cover the remainder is vast overkill. You saying the budget would need to be $60-120Million minimum is pretty dumb.

Do you think that the 120+ people all worked on the job for 4 years straight or do you there was a slow start a peak and a drop at the end like every project? I think most games that arent odd blockbusters are well below the 50 million budget. Well below.

The reason studios layoff people after projects is the same in any contracting business. You do not keep all of your personnel in between projects and pay them to wait for the next project to arrive.

800k is fine the company is obviously not going bankrupt as your assertions based on no evidence is proposing.

Hey would you look at this. Evidence.

http://kotaku.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-big-video-game-1501413649

And more evidence.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Most_expensive_games

Seems like $50M and above budgets are the exception and not the rule.

Vast majority of budgets are never unveiled publicly and a wikipedia list is not the go-to source for accurate gaming budget infomration.

I never said 800k would bankrupt them or anything absurd like that, I'm telling you how budgets in the AAA world work, and that is a highly expensive and competitive environment and budgets continue to balloon. Firaxis is a AAA studio that has seen big success with the Civilization series, and XCOM2 simply doesn't cut it with a 120+ person studio who budgets and markets a game on par with Civilization (they said XCOM was as big a game they've ever made in the article).

And Irrational and Evo and Disney Infinity were not contracted, they were wholly owned by their parent company and were closed down due to failing to meet expectations despite the games selling what someone from the outside looking in (who doesn't understand the indsutry and how budgeting works) would think is well.

@Dasein808:

You say "PC games sell longer over the same timeline and this is well known" yet offer zero data whatsoever to support this, while ignoring data contrary to it. This isn't even about the whole of Steam anyways, it is about XCOM2, which is displaying very poor legs.

You say "console sales are always more concentrated" without offering any evidence supporting this

We do know that XCOM2 does not have a strong tail because we literally have daily sales information accounting for 100% of sales (because it's a steamworks game). You literally make up claims about console games without providing any evidence, yet blatantly ignore the daily sales of XCOM2 that show you the weak legs.

Now you completely dismiss the DOOM example with some rambling nonsense anecdote about how you plan to buy it (why the hell would I care about what you buy?), while ignoring the VAST difference in sales legs (console literally sold nearly 8x as much in the third week compared to the total) between the PC and console versions of DOOM.

Again, XCOM would be a success or failure based on overall sales, not just breaking it down by each platform. That's why these games are multiplat, because they would not be as profitable if not on multiple platform. For a port to console, the console version was profitable.

Now you post a bunch of articles that just regurgitate Steamspy when I can literally just look at every single day on Steamspy from launch. I never said the initial launch was horrible, but the fact that it is showing almost no legs, has had a very lukewarm reception, issues with bugs and performance issues, much lower user reviews than XCOM, and lacks the WoM of its predecessors all contribute to the sad state of XCOM2 sales currently.

Also the claim that "This figure puts it well beyond what XCOM: Enemy Unknown achieved in the same timeframe despite being available on three platforms" is completely misleading as there was no sales data released for XCOM. The only information we got was NPD numbers, and peak Steam users (which is only a broad approximation for sales). Steamspy didn't exist, Steam never releases numbers, 2K never made any statements or shared any data, and sales outside of US first month are unknown outside of GfK chart-track placements (not actual numbers).

The UI was in place to work with a controller. Many PC-centric games simply do not work with controller, and since Firaxis knew they were designing the game to release on consoles day one, the UI had to be designed to work well and be accessible with controller (and obviously it works with kb/m as well)

Jake Solomon actually had an interesting article with Destructoid where he damage controlled the UI changes and made sure to let everyone know that the game had to be designed to work with controllers, obviously nothing at all was lost whatsoever in the translation to consoles *wink wink* and people were understandably upset that they simplified it for consoles and that their lead guy had to go to Destructoid to damage control it.

Also, you say industry media (aka fresh out of college with a journalism degree who hasn't been tracking sales and trends for years) contradicts everything I said, but offer no evidence of this. And no, I don't care what some unknown contributor who has no experience with sales data and trends within the industry without access to any extra data is saying regarding the sales numbers. If I were to bring up any of these points to these so called journalists, they would not have a response, they simply don't follow the industry as I and many sales-age posters do.

@StealthMonkey4: So your saying that we should trust you, without any evidence, because "You are in the know".

Nah I will trust my links and my own experiences on big budget projects I think.

So they said it was a bigger budget than Civilisation. So what, do you have any figures to back up your claim or just your assurances.

You havent worked for a contracting company have you. A company like disney will hire contractors to fill roles for the duration of a project and no longer. It keeps costs down in between projects by not having to pay idle employees.

I already posted the article in which Firaxis discuessed budget. And if you want to believe Wikipedia articles and Buzzfeed lists and what other nonsense you are looking at rather than examining sales data and talking to those within the industry, more power to you.

Keep living in your little bubble and convincing yourself that every game that sells a million copies is a massive success, and that every port that sells a few thousands copies is a success, because porting is just so cheap... while AAA studios continue to close down, people continue to lose their jobs, and budgets continue to swell.

@StealthMonkey4:

All you have is an article that says its "very big". Wow, im in awe.

You were saying before that 2-4 Million right. That would mean to just break even at $60 rrp and $42 return after the "steam tax" it means there budget was $84 - $168 Million. That would put it up there in probably the top 20-30 most expensive games ever made. That is just so far out as to be unbelievable. And at the same time you are saying just trust me.

Rubbish. I doubt the cost was $50 Million and they have probably already recouped costs.

Trust me im in the know. I know the industry lol.

@StealthMonkey4:

Did you really just say keep believing that every port selling a few thousand is a success but defend the 120k sales of a port in this thread earlier. Hypocrisy much?

I can agree with you that we are seeing Budgets increase for some titles over time though.

Whoever takes steam reviews into account? Also, the ratings you are discussing here are in fact "opinions" of the people.

I mentioned previously that the only evidence for Xcom 2 "displaying very poor legs," stems from your arbitrarily short chosen timeframe with which to try and demonstrate your point.

I offered no evidence of the concentration of console sales because you already provided it with your Doom sales rant.

Other supporting evidence may be found by examining the initial sales of most any multi-platform title and comparing the numbers sold between consoles and PC. I have also already explained the reasons for this discrepancy as well.

Incidentally, by your own admission, most titles don't even have "strong legs" because they typically make their sales early on and fizzle out like an exploding firework.

In the case of Xcom 2, it has already demonstrated strong initial sales for a niche title on a single platform, so whether or not it continues to accumulate PC sales over the next 3-4 years (which it will) is largely irrelevant.

I explained why I dismissed your pointless Doom sales rant. It's nothing more than a demonstration of the concentration of console sales on platforms with comparably microscopic libraries and it's representative of the trend of console gamers traditionally moving from the one latest and greatest flavor of the month title to the next because there are fewer options from which to select.

You offer absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that a niche title like Xcom requires multiplatform status to be profitable.

You also offered no counter to the fact that console sales of the previous reboot were pathetic for a AAA title on standardized platforms with smaller libraries and you also claim that the previous console ports were profitable without knowing the exact developmental costs required to produce those ports.

More claims with no actual supporting data. I'm shocked.

Yes, I posted actual evidence from the gaming media that cited Steamspy and their conclusions related to the data which, unsurprisingly, contradict the claims of a mad cow who continually claims to be a greater authority on the matter with no more evidence than a logical fallacy that amounts to, "I know more than those guys, so I'm clearly right."

The sales statement may be misleading due to its approximated nature, but it's also further confirmation that, unlike you, most industry media appear to agree that the sequel's sales were a success. I find it humorous that you take issue with this fact given that the entire basis of most of your claims are nothing more than approximated speculation (800k sales, etc.)

I'm sorry, if you can't handle the fact that you're in the minority in claiming that the game was a failure sales-wise; in spite of your self-professed greater expertise in the matter.

You also just repeated what I had already stated about the UI of the original needing to be functional for a controller based interface, but you again conveniently ignore how their maintaining a pre-existing UI is in no way evidence of intentions to port the game from its inception, but more likely a way to avoid having to do more work by overhauling the UI entirely, especially if they did eventually opt to port the game.

If their intentions were to port it from the start, then why not just release the game on all platforms simultaneously like they did with its predecessor?

Timed exclusives mean nothing on PC.

Most PC gamers don't even care about exclusives because they're not required to sustain the platform itself. As long as titles take advantage of the additional benefits a PC provides, then most people are content. It's when features started being sacrificed so that a game can function on consoles, or when interfaces only support things like controller based radial menus that PC gamers start to get irritated and accusing developers of "consolizing" games.

If you actually played the original titles, then you would know that a lot was "lost in the translation." to consoles (i.e. the "Time Units" system) because they knew that most consolites would lack the patience for that level of depth in an already niche title.

Time will tell whether or not the procedural map generation will make the cut in the port or whether it will also be similarly "streamlined," for console purposes.

You make baseless accusations regarding the media industry ("aka fresh out of college with a journalism degree who hasn't been tracking sales and trends for years") with no evidence to support your claims while once again simultaneously appealing to your own supposed authority.

I don't think you understand how this works. Your claims of superior authority are as meaningless as your non-evidence backed claims (i.e. the console media pre-release invite, etc., etc.) You keep doing this and trying to move away and ignore these facts when you are called out on them.

Guess what? I don't care what some unknown anonymous (likely Cranler) message board troll with grandiose claims of authority says either.

At least those media figures are being published and not trolling a subforum of a gaming website claiming superiority with no evidence to support their claims.

He has already contradicted himself numerous times now while also ignoring any instance where he has been proven to be lacking substantiating evidence.

@jereb31:

Are you playing dumb right now. 119k was first month, physical only, US only, not including expansions. On Steam, US was 33% of sales, so I'd imagine a similar breakdown on conosole.

We can't know the exact budget, aside from the fact that it's a large dev team, fairly long cycle, and 800k is not a good number for comparable games of similar scope and size (who are getting shuttered with numbers quite a bit larger than that). That's also not including that many of these Steam owners buy keys from grey market sites which have keys that were obtained in shady ways and are much cheaper than MSRP, and some of these keys on these sites are stolen keys that the publisher doesn't benefit from (although they are still counted as owners just the same as buying it from Steam), so not every sale is full $60 MSRP. When your previous games sell millions of copies each and you produce a game that sells only a small fraction of that at 800k and does not display healthy legs, that doe not look good to your parent publisher.

And these were not contracts that were up that just weren't renewed, Disney shut down their entire gaming division and completely exited the videogame market. Same with Evolution Studio, they were a first party of Sony, failed to meet expectations with Driveclub (2m+ sold and DLC) and were closed despite being a small studio (less than half the size of Firaxis), same with Irrational which was a fully owned subsidiary of 2K/Take Two and they were shut down completely.

@Dasein808:

They've already said why they didn't release it simultaneously in an article; they wanted to focus on optimizing it for PC (lol) and doing procedural generation, and focusing on mod support and DLC before they focused on porting it to consoles. They've made these statements many times to a variety of outlets who have asked them about the subject.

And now you say most games don't have legs, and honestly I'm struggling to think of many games in recent memory that don't have decent legs (or at least better than XCOM2, which has been essentially dead in the water past the first month). Practically all Nintendo games, practically all sports games, CoD, GTA, Minecraft, Destiny, DOOM, Far Cry Primal, R&C, Fallout 4, Bloodborne, Until Dawn, Mad Max, Halo 5, R6 SIege, The Division, etc. etc. I know that sounds just like a ton of random games, but with the exception of games that just completely flopped and were met with very negative WoM, practically every AAA console game I can think of has better legs than XCOM2 which hasn't really budged in months. Just look at the XCOM2 chart, on April 9th it was at 761k, on June 9th, it's only at 794k. Again though, this whole argument about PC and console legs really isn't even related, since this is only about XCOM2, and how XCOM2 is performing over time, which is quite poor.

And then you dismissed the example of how DOOM had weaker legs on PC, and very strong legs on consoles with some platform war nonsense about smaller libraries or whatnot. You then spout some console warring nonsense about how console owners have less games to play or something (although this is about AAA games, which doesn't really apply as most PC exclusives are indies) as if that somehow is related to, or justifies, PC games (or rather XCOM2) having weak legs? Makes no sense whatsoever, and you didn't flesh out your argument at all.

I don't care what some small-time unknown journo in the games media said, unless they had data to back it up. I've compared this data to other AAA games of similar scale, to their previous game, and I've showed how it had very weak legs. Also, those articles were all made within the first week/month, and XCOM2 was an extremely front-loaded game which is why initial impressions were much more positive than the reality.

Now you're actually agreeing with the statement that you just argued and disagreed with in a previous post. I said that XCOM had to be designed to be catered towards consoles from the UI to the game design. But I also said I think that's what made the game so appealing, even on PC. It didn't have so many moving parts and complex mechanics, and it falls into that very accessible, but satisfying "easy to learn, hard to master" type of gameplay. The first game did pretty well on PC and console, and although it's impossible to know how a more niche PC exclusive XCOM that would have been designed around PC and less accessibly would sell, I don't think it would hit the success of XCOM currently. And now I know you're going to say I need some kind of source to back up my claim, even though you just said yourself that XCOM was designed to work with consoles and to be streamlined and accessible. And do you really need a fucking article to tell you that accessible games sell well over niche ones?

Videogame journalists aren't analysts, and they don't follow sales data and trends of the industry, especially not these small time kids on these unkown, irrelevant sites. They graduate from their liberal arts college of choice with a journalism degree, try to get whatever job they can, and sometimes that happens to be within the gaming industry. Do you need a source to tell you how college works and what a degree is? Do you not understand that because someone types some words in an article, that that doesn't make them the definitive go-to source for that information, especially when they have no data to back up their claims?

So now you've completely gone back on your argument against how XCOM2 has weak legs, gone back on your argument about how Steam doesn't represent all XCOM2 sales, gone back on your argument that XCOM wasn't designed with consoles in mind, gone back on your argument that the XCOM console ports weren't successful (once I had to kindly explain that a port would not have to foot the bill for the entire development, but rather only for the costs of porting), given up your unsubstantiated claim about PC games having stronger legs than console games and then damage controlled it with some platform war nonsense about how PC gets more games (which doesn't change the fact, and is related how?), and then you tried to post articles that literally just linked straight to Steamspy as if that was some trump card you're pulling, when I can literally just go directly to Steamspy and view daily sales since release lol.

And you're just ranting and raving that because I don't have a worthless journalism degree to go with my data that you're just going to plug your ears and go "nananananana can't hear you!" and just making random auxilliary arguments that aren't related to XCOM2 and whether it was a success or not.

So I have to ask, are you done yet? You're kinda wasting my time here tbh

They have never once stated that, "they wanted to focus on optimizing it for PC (lol) and doing procedural generation, and focusing on mod support and DLC before they focused on porting it to consoles."

Are we resorting to outright lying, now?

More accurately:

Jake Solomon, the game’s creative director, addressed the issue, stating, “When we looked at what we wanted to do with the sequel, we had all these very, very ambitious goals.” Solomon explained that Firaxis has a relatively small team of developers compared to other companies, and that, because the team’s vision for XCOM 2 is so deep and expansive, everyone simply felt more comfortable working on the PC, which is the hardware they know the best. As Solomon said, “That’s our home, and that’s where we’re really comfortable.”However, Solomon did provide a glimmer of hope that XCOM 2 will make its way to consoles. “We’re certainly not opposed to that,” Solomon said, “but I can assure that’s something we’re not even discussing yet.”

In other words, the potential porting was contingent on the game's success, and so much for your repeated claims of:

Could you be wrong more?

The Xcom series are niche games and comparing them to mainstream AAA titles is an irrelevant and meaningless comparison when it comes to your obsession with games' "legs."

It's like comparing Europa Universalis IV sales to CoD sales.

Your tiresome list of mainstream, non-niche, titles is demonstrative of nothing because they all belong to an entirely different demographic whose success or failure is measured on a completely different scale.

Xcom 2 appears to have already met its required ceiling for success to the point that the devs can now consider the possibility of a port; in spite of your inane doomsaying and meaningless Steamspy appeals.

Is your reading comprehension that poor?

I don't need to "flesh out" my argument if you can actually comprehend what I wrote.

I dismissed your tangential Doom rant with the factual realities about the differences between PC and console libraries and PC vs. console consumers.

It has less to do with PCs receiving more titles per month, indie or otherwise, and more to do with PC already having a substantial library of AAA titles spanning decades whereas the latest consoles have a comparative handful at best.

Greater competition yields lesser concentration of sales.

This is a reality not up for debate.

You don't even have the data to back up your own claims as I've pointed out on multiple occasions now while you continue to ignore this fact and try to slink away.

You've also been comparing your "data" on a niche series to other "(mainstream) AAA games of similar scale," when you admit that you yourself don't know the exact budget numbers to even perform legitimate comparisons.

There's also the fact that you have repeatedly claimed that Firaxis was a huge studio in spite of Solomon's claims to the contrary. I'm sure he's wrong though, and you know better than he does.

Xcom 2 is a niche title, so of course its sales are more likely to be front loaded.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

The Xcom reboot was produced as a compromise to accommodate console players and their platform's limitations while, ideally, retaining the core fans that made the series popular in the first place.

I'd love to see your evidence that their decisions are what made the game appealing to PC gamers, because as a veteran of the series, I hated them, but I still welcomed the return of the series even if it was watered down for the ADD "press X/A" set.

They tried to recapture the drama of the base assault in the latest sequel, but it still pales in comparison to the way those battles played out in the originals where your base expansion decisions literally affected how those battles transpired.

The Xcom series was traditionally not the "easy to learn, hard to master," game. It was deliberately complex and much more on the level of a contemporary grand strategy title.

It was comprehensive in its micromanagement aspects (i.e. ammo purchases and squad loadout decisions).

The reboot sold horribly, for a AAA niche game, on consoles in spite of your efforts at historic revisionism.

Deal with it.

Xcom had to be streamlined due to both console limitations and the devs knowing the general mentality of a consolite versus a PC gamer.

Micromanagement with a controller is a pain in the ass and they recognized this fact. They axed certain elements that defined the series because they opted to pursue a multi-plat audience with the reboot.

I think I'll just ignore your ad hominem attacks since they're evidence that you've got nothing left.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension if you believe that I've gone back on my argument that Xcom has "weak legs."

I've stated numerous times now that, in spite of its "streamlining" it remains a niche series on both PCs and consoles and should be assessed as such and it's the arbitrarily decided window that you're using to try and define the "legs" of a niche title which are always going to be front loaded.

I already admitted that I was wrong about Amazon sales not contributing to Steamspy results because I purchased the game through Steam and I haven't bought a physical copy of a game in years.

I knew that Amazon was selling physical copies, but I didn't know that they required Steam activation because I don't purchase physical media anymore.

I never went back on my argument that the reboot was designed with consoles in mind.

I refuted your claim that the game was "designed around consoles," and the implication that consoles were some sort of lead platform for a series already known as cult classic within PC gaming ranks in spite of its OG PS port past.

It was "designed around consoles" in so much as it was designed so that it could actually be played using a console interface and the poor processing/RAM limitations of a console platform.

You claim that, "For a port to console, the console version was profitable," but, unsurprisingly, you never supplied any evidence for actual porting expenses to demonstrate profitability. and, once again, the industry media seems to disagree with your claims.

I also already explained the differences in why PC games tend to have "longer legs" (mods, library spanning decades, etc.).

Yes, you can view Steamspy stats, but they're meaningless when you attempt to compare a AAA niche title to a mainstream AAA title.

I'm actually "ranting and raving" because you continue to rely on your logical fallacy of an appeal to authority while also failing to even support your speculative claims with actual evidence.

Get back to me when you can actually support your arguments.

Nothing in his statement suggested that the porting of the game to consoles was reliant on PC sales or its success on PC. He just said they wanted to focus on PC first before undergoing the process of porting it to console.

120+ team members not including outsourced work is a fairly large team and would be considered a AAA studio, especially when you look at sales figures for Firaxis' previous games. XCOM is a very big budget game as claimed by Firaxis.

You say "mainstream, non-niche titles" as if a company that made Civ 5 and XCOM which sold 9m and 4m copies respectively is niche or even close to it. That's about as mainstream as it gets short of CoD, FIFA, and GTA.

And no, selling less than 1/4 what its predecessor has sold, and a AAA game only selling 800k is not "appearing to have already met its required ceiling for success," and you offer nothing to support this whatsoever.

My "tangential" DOOM argument was not tangential because you said PC games tend to have better legs than console games (and did not back this up whatsoever), so I posted many examples of games that had great legs on consoles, and I couldn't honestly think of more than a small minority of console games that didn't have strong legs. I also chose DOOM specifically as that was the game I was recently discussing with some other PC clown about the same issue about how PC games supposedly have long legs and console games don't, and that was the game we were discussing (so I had already looked up the sales numbers for it).

Again, how many titles PC gets is irrelevant, especially when we are talking about AAA games, and most of the exclusive titles PC gets are very niche indie titles. And again, it doesn't matter WHY PC games have weaker legs (and since you're damage controlling the fact, I'll take it you've already accepted this reality), because that has nothing to do with the discussion, and you damage controlling about "m-muh more games!!! That's why the games d-don't sell as well over time!!" has nothing at all to do with XCOM2's initial sales, XCOM2's legs, or its success.

And actually it is not a reality and it is up for a debate, unless you are arguing that Steam is a zero-sum market where the exact same amount is always spent regardless of how many games are released, and that the same amount of money is spent no matter how many games release. Which is simply not true at all with the years and years of market data we have, both for games and consoles. The amount of software and hardware sales fluctuate quite rapidly from month to month and year to year.

We both don't know the budget numbers, which is why we are using data that we do know such as team size and Firaxis' own statements, as well as using its predecessor's sales and comparing it to games with similar dev team sizes and dev cycles to determine an educated approximation of the amount of sales needed for success.

Solomon's word choice is irrelevant as it is entirely relative, and requires context. What is his baseline that he is comparing to? It doesn't really matter when you can see every single person that worked on the game and see it was 120+ not including outsourcing.

Well, I think XCOM's success speaks for itself. What other turn-based strategy games have sold 4 million, especially as a new or rebooted IP?

So 800k for a AAA PC game is a success to you, but 500-800k for a port of a AAA game is "horrible?" You're not making any sense, and are bordering on delusion right now. And get your dumbass "deal wit it xD" memes out of here, because you're almost trolling at this point.

The game was designed with consoles in mind, but I'm not going to argue semantics about "designed for consoles" or "designed with consoles in mind" or "simplified down for consoles" or whatever the hell you want to call it. A traditionally PC franchise had to be able to work with consoles, so that had to be taken into consideration during development.

And again, there is a massive difference between just porting a game to consoles (that was already designed to have the UI and mechanics work with consoles) than literally developing a full game from the ground up and creating all the assets. Are you seriously trying to argue that a port is anywhere the same cost as the game's development? Are you also seriously trying to argue that 800k is a "success" for the entire development of XCOM2, but a port selling similar numbers is a failure??? What the **** are you on about, seriously? Do you even read the shit you type??

I just feel like this is some elaborate troll effort. You type so much, yet it's just so vapid and baseless and ignorant. You constantly whine about how I don't post sources to things which are common fucking sense (like that a port costs less than developing a game from scratch, or that a budget is based on the dev team size, dev cycle, and the predecessor's sales), and yet you pull data right out of your ass and act as if it is 100% fact.

@StealthMonkey4:

I feel like you might be angry at this point in time.

Just a feeling.

WTF are these wall of texts LOL

Had to wait a while to provide this info obviously, but if ever anyone wanted proof of the "slow burn" on PC, Doom is a good example. 500k at the time of this original quote, 2 months later, over a million sales/owners. http://steamspy.com/app/379720

@jereb31: You had to bump this 2 month old thread just so you can prove to StealthMonkey he was wrong?! StealthMonkey hasn't been seen here like 2 months now.

No, wasn't really aimed him. Thought it was a good example of the PC slow burn sales effect.

seriously..and all this talk about "you need X amount of sales to not an success" is such bullshit..

Was XCOM 2 a flop?

I looked at the Steam reviews and it only has 76% positive reviews

Hahaha. When did steam reviews start dictating if game was hit or flop?

Steam reviews need to be taken with a pinch of salt.