I don't understand Capcom - how are RE6 sales "disappointing"?

#1Steve_TeddiePosted 2/4/2013 8:56:24 PM
They sold 4.8 million copies of RE6 through the end of 2012, so let's say 5 million now.

That means that's 300 million raw dollars.

Let's say they only keep 45% - that's still 135 mil. Even assuming the game's budget was 100 mil, that's still a tremendous profit, with plenty of time for more sales.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/04/resident-evil-6-sales-cross-48-million
---
http://i.imgur.com/J7RZm.gif http://i.minus.com/jdhz8Qk44JjS5.jpg http://i.minus.com/ibvmrm7irgmmJM.gif
#2StrangerSirKaiPosted 2/4/2013 9:00:30 PM(edited)
They're disappointing because the game had no legs. They shipped 4.5m copies on launch week. For the next three months they only shipped an additional 0.3m copies. That's abysmal. Just like FFXIII, the game sold strongly initially but word of mouth and generally negative reception killed it. RE4 and 5 were considered greater successes because they probably didn't have budgets nearly as large, marketing campaigns that weren't as expensive, and because they had more consistently strong sales over greater periods of time since people actually liked those games. No one was buying RE6 after week 2.
#3SolidStryderPosted 2/4/2013 9:01:41 PM
Well, it's kinda like having a kid. The doctor pops it out, and you see all of your dreams for the future in that kid.


Then your wife dies in childbirth, 30 years pass and your son is a fat slob who makes extremely poor documentaries and is just a fraud in general.

You were just expecting something more, you know? And **** you Michael Moore.
#4Blackmarvel79Posted 2/4/2013 9:01:49 PM
they told there investors 6 million and didnt happen. It affected there year end target for there stockholders. While they made profit it wasnt what they promised there investors. So in business its a failure. Though ultimately it was there fasting selling title in the series.
---
Still playing The Mass Effect Trilogy for the forseeable future. I may be addicted.
#5Steve_Teddie(Topic Creator)Posted 2/4/2013 9:03:25 PM
I know it didn't hit 6 mil (yet), but even conservatively it's a massive profit for them - and that's not counting download sales, and all the DLC with it.
---
http://i.imgur.com/J7RZm.gif http://i.minus.com/jdhz8Qk44JjS5.jpg http://i.minus.com/ibvmrm7irgmmJM.gif
#6IlDankoPosted 2/4/2013 9:05:27 PM
Well, we're not counting with the digital downloaded games aren't we??
---
I will suffer, I will burn, let hate prevail enslaved my soul but I'll never surrender
PSN: Dan21993
#7Blackmarvel79Posted 2/4/2013 9:08:35 PM
How many publishers would kill to have a game sale 1.5 million copies? 1 mill generally gets you a sequel if they reuse the engine the game ran on. 4.8 million is only listed as a disapointment because they fudged the number and the investors lost out on that cash.
---
Still playing The Mass Effect Trilogy for the forseeable future. I may be addicted.
#8ZeeDoggePosted 2/4/2013 9:10:08 PM
-demanding asian father meme-
#9Blackmarvel79Posted 2/4/2013 9:15:05 PM
Not that the sales really matter we all know Resident evil 2 is the best game in the series.
---
Still playing The Mass Effect Trilogy for the forseeable future. I may be addicted.
#10Dark SymphonyPosted 2/4/2013 10:56:49 PM
Let's say they only keep 45% - that's still 135 mil. Even assuming the game's budget was 100 mil, that's still a tremendous profit, with plenty of time for more sales.

If you look at that statement above you can see a few problems. First, "let's say" isn't a way to get a foothold in a conversation about business performance and why a game would be considered "disappointing." Second, "assuming" a budget doesn't give you much ground to work with either.

When you create a product to sell you don't get to "keep a percentage." You have a budget. You have your expenditures. Anything short of those numbers is a loss.

If you make $20 off a product that cost you $25 to create there is no percentage to take from that.

Let's consider some other things...

Sales projections play a big role in how much money will be budgeted for a game. They play a big role in stock holder satisfaction. And it's not simply about making a "profit" but making a good one. Let's look at some examples.

A 10 million dollar budget yields 2 million in profits. A 20 million dollar budget yields 2 million in profits. Which one is better? The first one. Why? They still made the same amount of money, right? Well, the second one likely had higher projections. Because they were going through more resources to create the product. They were freezing up more assets to create the product. They were taking bigger risks to create the product.

Now stockholders see a company that takes risks that don't lead to returns. Decision makers see that they could have had the same success with half the budget and lament that they didn't just make two 10 million dollar games.

You spend more money because you want to move a franchise or IP forward into higher recognition with greater market share and the ability to generate more money. If you run twice as fast for twice as long and you don't get any further than you did before would you be happy with those results?