Lost Planet lost $40 million to find success
A Forbes report states that Capcom spent $40 million on Lost Planet. That may seem like a nice chunk of change, but it's not the kicker. The thing is that Lost Planet, the actual game, cost $20 million. Another $20 million was spent on the advertising, marketing, parties and promotions. Spending as much on marketing as the cost of developing the game, now that is hardcore and it was all worth it.
Capcom already shipped 1 million units of Lost Planet before the game's Jan. 12 launch, probably feeling confident following Dead Rising's success, which was based far more on old-school buzz post-E3 (may she rest in peace). The new-school approach by Capcom, according to Forbes, is the work of Mark Beaumont.
Beaumont, 51, has been around the ad biz for a bit. He changed the way Capcom marketed in the West, Beaumont says, "They advertised like it was 1985 ... It was all very formulaic." According to Forbes, gaming magazines have lost relevance and MTV isn't hitting the right demographic. Beaumont wanted the Lost Planet demo on Xbox Live, commercials in movie theaters showing Casino Royale and other places of relevance. That Beaumont may be a sneaky fellow, but he's getting sales results out of a pretty unremarkable game.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sub @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:34PM
So 1,000,000 x 60 = 60,000,000... I'm amazed that a game that cost 40 million could actually make a prophet tbh.
Arno @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:48PM
#1, all that money that's go back to Capcom. Don't quote me but I think the figure is somewhere around the 30's of what they actually get out of the 60 bucks.
dork @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:51PM
the game is worth every cent, better be another one or :(
Korova @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:01PM
Man, they gotta sell another 1 mln to get some money back. Tough business.
DirtDevil @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:07PM
Saying that Lost Planet is "unremarkable" is an understatement.
VampireHunter Z @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:08PM
If you think about it, it's still a better business than the movie industry. There are $100M budgets with just one actor getting $25M. Only to make $110M at the box office. I think game makers are turning in a higher profit.
Anonymous @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:20PM
Lost planet is alright, but does it seem worth 40 million dollars? Definatly not. The 20 million that was spent on marketing would have been better spent on bug testing, or additional weapons and levels. Then again, I remember seeing Hi-Def Lost Planet commercials during some football games etc, and I doubt that many people would have known to buy it if they hadn't seen them, so maybe this is the "Sweet Spot" for a video game as far as how to make a profit while still making a good game (I'm looking at you Madden, and your constant "New" games that are basically just tweaks of the last game, that bring in millions and millions of dollars yearly)
Wii360dsPSP @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:23PM
The didn't lose anything. They invested 40 million in making their mark and ended up with one of the fastest selling games to appear on the 360 console.
I really enjoy the campaign and the multiplayer. It's filled with neat moments. Visually, it's impressive and just looks and plays differently than anything out there. And oh yes, it runs 1080p.
J.Goodwin @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:47PM
They've certainly broken even on it at the moment. I think it's an accomplishment that Capcom can make a really large budget game and have it cover.
Because the alternative is more megaman collections.
If they're covering on their 360 projects, that means more of them will be greenlit, and given that, apparently, both of their large budget new IP games have covered, that has got to give them a lot of faith in the platform and should give the developers reign to do more new IPs, handing off the inevitable sequels to 2nd string teams.
Edge of Blade @ Feb 3rd 2007 1:54PM
Sorry, but treating Lost Planet as "unremarkable" is a shaky idea. The game is great if you take the time to play multiplayer and appreciate it's well balanced design. Yes, the single player story blows. WE KNOW. That's why I don't play the single player game. Niether Achievements nor curiosity will get me to play the campaign past the third mission I'm at.
It's about time this industry's fans got back to playing a game for it's stimulating action and creative tactics, rather than for pre-rendered cutscenes and poorly constructed narratives. The payoff for many gamers these days is not dynamic, but manufactured. You are being fooled into paying $60 for a 25 minute "movie". Why not pay $60 for 100 hours of great online gameplay.
I don't get what turned off so many people to this game. It is an amazing game, in my opinion.
JJ @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:00PM
Well edge maybe it has to do with the fact that just like not everyone has HDTV's not everyone cares or wants to play games online.
Sure a lot do, but not EVERYONE buys a game for its online component, personally i think the single player should be as fleshed out, if not more so than any multiplayer component. Because to me a solid single player campaign is very indicative of a solid multiplayer mode but trhen thats not always true, some games blow single player (Gears of War comes to mind) but more than makes up for it in multiplayer and some games suck multiplayer but make up for it in a great single player component.
I guess what i'm trying to say, in this day and you can skimp on single player JUST to make a good multiplayer, a solid games needs to stand on both legs not just one.
But still gratz to capcom for shipping a million. (and no i'm not gonna get into the whole shipped/sold thing, shipped is sold to a manufacturer in most cases)
Mr Khan @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:00PM
@ Edge of Blade
Exactly, good story should be lower down on the list of things that make a game great (tied with sound for 3rd place in importance i say, because older FF games had bad sound made up for by good storytelling)
But according to your train of thought, no one should be complaining about paying so much for VC or XBLA titles, since you're paying as much as you would for a 2 hr movie in theatres for well more than 2 hrs of play (hopefully, i know i've gotten more than 2 hrs out of ToeJam & Earl and Bomberman '93)
And i'm surprised no rabid Nintendo fanboy has jumped in and made some comment about high dev costs for the 360...
Jim @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:01PM
Gears was 10m USD. How can they burn the double amount? And what is this craziness with marketing? 20m USD and I haven't seen a single ad on TV/cinema?
Capcom has to learn a lot in the west, it seems.
Jdoki @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:05PM
I think it's a bit harsh that every mention of Lost Planet has the word 'unremarkable' thrown in. I enjoyed it, (which is all that matters I guess) - it's never going to top my all time fave list, but I certainly feel I got my money's worth and would happily buy any sequels.
Anyway...
In terms of the marketing, I'd have to say from personal experience that it worked, and worked well.
I know one person who went out and bought an Xbox360 and the game on the strength of the adverts, and y'know what, they are now also interested in Dead Rising... I don't see many people desperate to buy a PS3 after seeing the _amazing_ cup stacking or BMX ads in Europe!
Does it matter if Capcom turn a profit from sales of Lost Planet? It's hard to tell, the total number of copies Capcom needed to sell might have been fairly low if Microsoft contributed to the advertising budget, or lined Capcom's pocket to keep it exclusive.
Also, if Lost Planet makes the jump to PS3 I'm sure it'd sell well, mainly down to the buzz generated by the 360 version and any tweaks or extras that could be thrown in.
Either way, I'm happy Capcom are supporting the 360 so well; they are one of the few (only) Japanese developers that seem to have realised that while the 360 may not be a success in Japan there's a fair few million units in Europe and the US.
Pyronite @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:23PM
"I guess the whole idea of just making a good game that doesn't need advertising to sell is passe?"
Since when has this been the case, really? The hardcore gamers might search out the best of the best, but unless that game is an FPS (or other casual gamer-friendly genre), it's unlikely that a "good game" alone will equate to good sales.
Spartan 1308 @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:39PM
First of all, the single player game is great. There are things that I believe could be improved, but hopefully that will be done in Lost Planet 2. I get the feeling that people have either not played the game or quit b/c it isn't a walkthrough like Gears of War. You have to be decent at playing video games to get through this one. Besides the fact that it's unique and fun to play, it is one of the most beautiful games out there.
Second, the ad campaign was over the top. I didn't need ads in theaters or tv to know I wanted to buy this game. I got the first E3 demo on Live and I knew I wanted the game. The costs should probably have been split 3/4 dev and 1/4 marketing.
Finally to the guy who is saying Gears only spent 10 million, that figure is probably way off. The marketing for Gears altogether was likely higher than what was spent on LP. Capcom probably had to pay for all of their marketing. Epic probably paid for next to none of their marketing. Microsoft paid to hype Gears beyond belief and that game is overrated. I liked Gears, but it was short(b/c it was a walkthrough) and the multiplayer sucks(b/c they chose not to have more game types or a decent matchmaking system).
Shagittarius @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:42PM
I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that Lost Planet is an 'Unremarkable' game. I think its game of the year so far...I definately enjoy it more than Gears of War.
Heres my lame review from Gamerankings:
This is a fantastic game. I question the reasons behind some of the lower scores that it has achieved. I'm honestly much more pleased with this game than I am with Gears of War. I do believe Lost Planet is the better game.
What makes Lost Planet such a great game? There are very few games that while playing you forget your playing a game. Lost Planet totally accomplishes this most convincingly in several important areas.
The thing that most drives this game for me is the collision detection. Not many games boast a physics engine this robust and this well intergrated with the collision detection. Creatures that roll into you, run over you, and genrally mess up your day do so with pixel perfect collision detection. You will never feel cheated when you get hit by something. Its an amazing difference when your in a battle with many creatures and you are being realistically knocked around by all the enemies. This game creates the kind of tension you would experience while watching the movie 'Aliens' and its mostly due in my opinion to how solid the world feels due to physics and collision detection.
The next area where the game excells is certainly in gameplay. There are more gameplay mechanics going on as you play this game than are offered by many of its modern contemporaries, mechanics that all flow naturally out of a perfect control scheme. None of the mechanics ever feel forced or required, it always manages to maintain an air of authenticity in the pioleting of various mechs and firing of numerous weapons. Theres a lot to think about while your playing this game but none of it really hits you over the head, it all feels very natural and intuitive.
Suffice to say the graphics are excellent, especially for the amazing boss battles that occur at the end of every level. Thats right your treated to some downright huge and amazing bosses most of which have unique enough attacks and defenses to make fighting each one feel like an original experience. Even though completely different in scope I was reminded of Megaman style boss battles, on a much grander scale. I never found myself upset even when having to face one of the bosses (The green eye) at least 15 times before I passed him. It was all amazing fun the entire time.
I've had more fun with this game than the entire time I played Gears of War, not that I thought GoW was a bad game, just that after playing Lost Planet I definately think LP is the better game.
There is a negative; the story is boring and disjointed and adds little to the over all experience. Trust me however you'll be having so much fun playing the game that you won't even care about whats happening in the cut scenes, but its a shame they didnt try harder with the story.
Cryoakira @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:53PM
Some ppl around here make crazy math.
1- GoW does NOT just cost 10 millions USD because this figure do not include the development cost of the engine (UE3).
2- At the opposite, the 20 millions of LP do include the dev cost of the Next-Gen capcom engine, that is also used for DMC4, for instance, and probably other projects.
3- The 20 millions in advertising are huge, but you have to realize it's not about one game, but about one FRANCHISE. There will be more Lost Planet episodes, and when the installed base of consoles will be twice (or more) what it currently is, there will be ROI.
Diman @ Feb 3rd 2007 2:54PM
Just to let you know, retailers buy games at $45 each, mark it up to $50 for employees and $60 for customers. Also 1 million [b]shipped[/b].
Grunge @ Feb 3rd 2007 4:11PM
Completely agree that it's an unremarkable title. For the guy that called it Game of the Year ... this game has way too many flaws to be considered GotY. If they wanted to capture my attention, they should have spent more time on the single player mode. Walking through the snow shouldn't make me frustrated with the sloppy controls.
bootsielon @ Feb 3rd 2007 4:15PM
40 million dollars... that's too much. Do final fantasy titles cost more?
Anyway, if Diman is correct, then I guess Capcom gets 45 million dollars for a million sold. I don't think a 5 million dollar profit over a 40 million dollar investment is that much. In fact, I doubt that without all the hype this title has generated it would have sold so much (but admittedly, that kind of hype wouldn't have been generated without those extra 20 million dollars). This title is ok, but it's not excellent. 80 by metacritic. Hardly a 60 dollar value.
A 12 percent profit on the game seems too little to me. Of course it'll go over time, but I don't think it'll reach 20% annualized profit. Unless they port this to PS3 of course... hmm, juicy profit, Capcom. Resident Evil 4 anyone?
Mr Khan @ Feb 3rd 2007 4:26PM
I'd agree that anyone who says GoTY for this game is crazy
With the solid fare for the 360 alone, it has no chance of even being 360's GoTY
Between all the titans for all the platforms, it has no chance for shooting for GoTY
toki9 @ Feb 3rd 2007 4:29PM
Money spent on marketing is never a clear number...that $20MM may include a lot of subsidies/support from Microsoft, for example...and the $20MM in development cost include assets that can be leveraged on other properties (like DMC4 as another poster has already pointed out)...in any case, with the shipped/sales numbers of 1MM, Capcom has probably established a franchise, so it's not that bad a price...
Aex @ Feb 3rd 2007 4:45PM
Hmm, lets see, Lost planet hasnt even been out a month and, at $45 to retailer, Capcom has made $5 million on it? Yea, that is horrible, why even try Capcom? If you are only going to make $5 million in a month, you might as well stick to Resident Evil and Megaman.
Lost Planet may not have been great, but it is far from mediocre or unremarkable. I love the boss battles at the end of each mission, not to mention the first time I shot a rocket flying at me with a sniper rifle. It isn't like a normal FPS, it has a good amount of enemies on screen at once (enemies that can't aim) but it makes it rather fun as a non-stop kill fest action shooter game.
LongshotX @ Feb 3rd 2007 5:09PM
I don't care. It ain't my money.
DeezNuts420 @ Feb 3rd 2007 5:09PM
@11 "I don't get what turned off so many people to this game."
The main reason MOST people I know hate this game is because of SHITTY CONTROLS. The Graphics and Gameplay are very fun, but without solid controls the game is a complete waste. But that can be fixed with an update if it isn't all ready to late!
Jim @ Feb 3rd 2007 5:12PM
Thx @ Cryoakira.
1- GoW does NOT just cost 10 millions USD because this figure do not include the development cost of the engine (UE3).
2- At the opposite, the 20 millions of LP do include the dev cost of the Next-Gen capcom engine, that is also used for DMC4, for instance, and probably other projects.
----
UE3 was already finished if I'm not mistaken when development on Gears began?
I thought so that Capcom does some fancy mathematics with that 20m figure but they don't have a clue about costing if they calculate all the development costs into this single game - If they use it for other games as well, then they should at least have "kostenwahrheit" and do not say LP costs 20m when this is not true.
carg0 @ Feb 3rd 2007 6:22PM
"but he's getting sales results out of a pretty unremarkable game."
Well duh. =\
Welcome to EA's world. How do you think they've stayed on top for as long as they have, consistantly pushing out ports of the same titles you bought the previous year?
I didn't buy LP myself but having played it I can honestly say there's a lot of potential there and deserves a sequel, just like Dead Rising before it. Which is more than anyone can say about EA.
Dirk Dorkelson @ Feb 3rd 2007 6:41PM
Hey Edge (and others who've skipped the single-player game),
The single-player game isn't great, but missions 7 and 8 are pretty damn fun. It's worth playing through some of the early missions just to get to those.
Frankie @ Feb 3rd 2007 7:31PM
That was a risky move on Capcom's part, spending $40 on a mediocre game. It seems like a brilliant plan now but Capcom could have lost money on this franchise and we wouldn't be praising it as much as we do now.
The business model is also rather unsustainable, and Lost Planet was probably an exception rather than a rule. Lack of other compelling titles(that sells system) and riding on GOW's coattails, are probably some of the reason it initially sold well. The hype(the other $20M) deffinitely helped but I still don't think it has the legs to pull off a GOW and I expect the sales number to plummet this month.
Evan @ Feb 3rd 2007 8:00PM
I really don't like the idea of game budgets approaching those of Hollywood movies. With so much money on the line, Hollywood studios are too timid to try unproven concepts, keep the writers and directors on tight leashes, "dumb-down" movies in order to widen their appeal. The higher the budget, the more the suits try meddle with a movie or game in their attempts to avoid risk!
puddlejumper @ Feb 3rd 2007 8:07PM
lost planet is the undeserved overhyped game, not gears of war.
Korova @ Feb 4th 2007 2:37AM
You know 'Stiq got a slice of that $20 mm pie with the cover art contest and all. Its all good.
Grunge @ Feb 4th 2007 3:46AM
They don't make $45 on a $60 game. Besides the cost of development & advertising, there are other costs to consider. A poster on Kotaku put up these numbers (not sure how accurate they are): "Retail makes 15-20% of a games final price. Distributors make 1-2%. Microsoft makes 10-12% for each game sold. Manufacturing discs is 4-5%". So that would mean 30-39% of the game's cost, which means Capcom would get $42-37, and would have to sell 950k-1080k. Now, of course there are other things to consider here, such as the fact that it's exclusive to 360 (and Capcom gets paid for that) and the fact that they've made something that they can use later on, including both the franchise and the engine(s).
That said, it's still probably a shitty ROI. Just goes to show that a large amount of advertising can't really save an unremarkable game.
Strangler @ Feb 4th 2007 7:21AM
I wonder how much it costs to make duke nukem forever.
MonocularJack @ Feb 4th 2007 4:39PM
The game is a blast, I have no idea why people are finding issue with it. It beats the pants off of a majority of the games out there, looks pretty, has a solid control scheme, interesting environments, etc.
Do yourself a favour and rent it, try it out yourself.
GhaleonQ @ Feb 4th 2007 6:18PM
Trust me, Beaumont's output was overrated. With the exception of the utterly obvious demonstration solution (the environments in which could easily sell players on the entirety of the game), no external evaluations have verified his claims. In fact, judging by the fact that he got a story out of this, he's doing a much better job at marketing himself than he did for the game.
James @ Feb 5th 2007 12:39PM
I agree. Gears of War is a very solid game but Lost Planet is much more fun for me. Gears of War has better acting and graphics but it's a lot more repetitive. The cover system is great but it feels like that's all you do. You go from room to room killing all the enemies from behind cover, move on, and repeat. Lost Planet feels less like a confined action game and more like an adventure. The boss battles are great fun. The more I think of it the more I realize this is probably made by the same people as Megaman Legends. Gears is good and I understand why it's so popular but Lost Planet is more fun despite its flaws.
Brandon Paddock @ Feb 5th 2007 8:49PM
I've *really* enjoyed Lost Planet. I don't know how you could possibly call it "unremarkable" - easily one of the best games I've bought in the last year (and it's been a good year for games).
Richard Osborne @ Apr 17th 2007 2:16PM
Lost Planet has excellent multiplayer. I'm so sick of these silly, unprofessional journalists rating a game based on the single player component. Learn your craft better and stop rating a game based on 50% of its content. Lost Planet is a good first gen title for the 360. And what the journalists fails to realize Capcom is reusing their engine to produce future titles saying they spent $20 mil on Lost Planet engine is so short sighted. Horrible article