Counting Rupees: Selling out without selling out
Each week Jeff Engel and Geoff Brooks contribute Counting Rupees, a column on the business behind gaming:

Earlier this week, Next Generation published a list of the top 100 selling games of last year. Some sites used the list as an opportunity to analyze the impact of review scores on video games, or to alternately lament or exalt the state of gamers' sophistication, but I'd like to address one of the more perennial issues of the gaming community: Whether artistic and financial success are ultimately incompatible in this industry.
This isn't a new debate for most of us. The conventional wisdom is that, with few exceptions, the market rewards the common denominator: Cheap, quick, and easy games will beat sophisticated titles any day of the week and twice on Sunday. You can see variations on this theme throughout the gaming media; the notion that indie games can't make money, that gamers are violence- and sex-obsessed children, that stories and ideas just don't matter. Yet I'd argue that this conventional wisdom is wrong, and getting more so by the day.
Take the Next Gen list. According to the New York Times, a game needs to sell about a half-million copies to earn "a significant profit;" conveniently, the list seems to start at about that. Now, it's certainly true that the list has plenty of filler on it ... but even so, I think there's a fair amount of evidence that a notable proportion of top-selling games from this past year have attempted to tackle new, interesting, and even provocative styles or topics on a much more frequent basis.
Some of these differentiate themselves on their storytelling. For example, take Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction (600,000 copies, #83 on the list): although the series may seem like a standard – albeit imaginative – action shooter, reviews most positively cite its creative writing and strong voice acting in identifying what makes the series stand out. Or The Darkness (660,000 copies, #74); a game whose appeal rested primarily on its dark, subversive storyline. Other games stand out because of the unusual themes that they tackle. BioShock (1.7M copies, #29 on the list) is probably the most pre-eminent example of this particular attribute, and clearly demonstrates that when coupled with strong game play, a title can be both provocative and successful at the same time. Yet you can find similar sophistication in a game like Mass Effect (1.4M copies, #34) or the Orange Box's Portal (1.1M, #44). And finally, games have been extending the creativity of their game mechanics even further over the past few 12 months – games like the incredibly fresh Super Mario Galaxy (4.1M copies, #9) or innovative Rock Band (1.5M, #32).
Even the games that seem like cookie-cutter ghosts of ages past have vastly improved in almost any of these areas; God of War II was cinematic and compelling. Even Call of Duty 4, the best-selling game from 2007, has managed to overcome the pre-defined standards of its genre to craft a compelling gaming experience with a surprisingly good plot. These games are a pretty sharp rebuke to those who claim that sequels are unable to advance the state of the industry, even if they don't do so as quickly as some indie titles.
Now, you may have differing views on how good these games actually are – or complaints that the artistic vision realized in BioShock can't compare to that of a truly independent game like, say, Crayon Physics. But this, I would argue, reflects a misunderstanding about how fast or how significantly the industry can and should change. At heart this industry is a business: It's not enough to be creative and provocative, you need to produce a game that people like enough to pay for. And so artistic merit isn't rewarded for its own sake. Yet as I think this list illustrates, you can certainly make a profit and a statement at the same time.
As co-editors of A Link To The Future, Geoff and Jeff like to discuss, among many other topics, the business aspects of gaming. Game companies often make decisions that on their face appear baffling, or even infuriating, to many gamers. Yet when you think hard about them from the company's perspective, many other decisions are eminently sensible, or at least appeared to be so based on the conditions at the time those choices were made. Our goal with this column is to start a conversation about just those topics. While neither Geoff nor Jeff are employed in the game industry, they do have professional backgrounds that are relevant to the discussion. More to the point, they don't claim to have all the answers -- but this is a conversation worth having. You can reach them at

This isn't a new debate for most of us. The conventional wisdom is that, with few exceptions, the market rewards the common denominator: Cheap, quick, and easy games will beat sophisticated titles any day of the week and twice on Sunday. You can see variations on this theme throughout the gaming media; the notion that indie games can't make money, that gamers are violence- and sex-obsessed children, that stories and ideas just don't matter. Yet I'd argue that this conventional wisdom is wrong, and getting more so by the day.
"A notable proportion of top-selling games from this past year have attempted to tackle new, interesting, and even provocative styles or topics" |
Take the Next Gen list. According to the New York Times, a game needs to sell about a half-million copies to earn "a significant profit;" conveniently, the list seems to start at about that. Now, it's certainly true that the list has plenty of filler on it ... but even so, I think there's a fair amount of evidence that a notable proportion of top-selling games from this past year have attempted to tackle new, interesting, and even provocative styles or topics on a much more frequent basis.
Some of these differentiate themselves on their storytelling. For example, take Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction (600,000 copies, #83 on the list): although the series may seem like a standard – albeit imaginative – action shooter, reviews most positively cite its creative writing and strong voice acting in identifying what makes the series stand out. Or The Darkness (660,000 copies, #74); a game whose appeal rested primarily on its dark, subversive storyline. Other games stand out because of the unusual themes that they tackle. BioShock (1.7M copies, #29 on the list) is probably the most pre-eminent example of this particular attribute, and clearly demonstrates that when coupled with strong game play, a title can be both provocative and successful at the same time. Yet you can find similar sophistication in a game like Mass Effect (1.4M copies, #34) or the Orange Box's Portal (1.1M, #44). And finally, games have been extending the creativity of their game mechanics even further over the past few 12 months – games like the incredibly fresh Super Mario Galaxy (4.1M copies, #9) or innovative Rock Band (1.5M, #32).
"These games are a pretty sharp rebuke to those who claim that sequels are unable to advance the state of the industry ..."
|
Even the games that seem like cookie-cutter ghosts of ages past have vastly improved in almost any of these areas; God of War II was cinematic and compelling. Even Call of Duty 4, the best-selling game from 2007, has managed to overcome the pre-defined standards of its genre to craft a compelling gaming experience with a surprisingly good plot. These games are a pretty sharp rebuke to those who claim that sequels are unable to advance the state of the industry, even if they don't do so as quickly as some indie titles.
Now, you may have differing views on how good these games actually are – or complaints that the artistic vision realized in BioShock can't compare to that of a truly independent game like, say, Crayon Physics. But this, I would argue, reflects a misunderstanding about how fast or how significantly the industry can and should change. At heart this industry is a business: It's not enough to be creative and provocative, you need to produce a game that people like enough to pay for. And so artistic merit isn't rewarded for its own sake. Yet as I think this list illustrates, you can certainly make a profit and a statement at the same time.
As co-editors of A Link To The Future, Geoff and Jeff like to discuss, among many other topics, the business aspects of gaming. Game companies often make decisions that on their face appear baffling, or even infuriating, to many gamers. Yet when you think hard about them from the company's perspective, many other decisions are eminently sensible, or at least appeared to be so based on the conditions at the time those choices were made. Our goal with this column is to start a conversation about just those topics. While neither Geoff nor Jeff are employed in the game industry, they do have professional backgrounds that are relevant to the discussion. More to the point, they don't claim to have all the answers -- but this is a conversation worth having. You can reach them at











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Freelance @ Apr 18th 2008 7:39PM
Honestly, which one is more likey to appeal to mean and women?
MosquitoControl @ Apr 18th 2008 7:40PM
Steam stats can't be included, I'd guess. I pretty much assumed The Orange Box broke a million on the PC alone.
Mr Khan @ Apr 18th 2008 7:44PM
Of course there's nothing to worry about. All the examples listed sold. Other ground-breaking ideas sold, as well: Crackdown, Metroid Prime 3, Uncharted, Virtua Fighter 5, Super Paper Mario, Phantom Hourglass, Skate, all kinds
potato @ Apr 18th 2008 7:52PM
This doesn't mean squat for "sophistication" of the average gamer. Orange Box, Bioshock, and Ratchet all had *massive, MASSIVE* ad campaigns for it. This is more a proof of the power of good marketing than it is proof that gamers are becoming better in their game choices.
Foetoid @ Apr 18th 2008 8:08PM
Well i bought MySims and i quite like it. It's a bit different and i like different. Same with Super Paper Mario. I love unique gameplay which is why i'm in love with the Wii. I can guarantee tho that more people have Bioshock simply because it's downloadable for PC. Piracy FTL!
JakubK666 (Ninja Defence Force) @ Apr 18th 2008 8:12PM
Well I do torrent a game every once in a while and considering that Bioshock is at least 6gb big, a lot of people won't even bother.
Paranoised @ Apr 18th 2008 8:32PM
Yes, because piracy only exists on PCs...
Foetoid @ Apr 18th 2008 9:59PM
Of course it's not only for PC's, but it's much more accessible.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Apr 19th 2008 6:36PM
Most piracy starts on a PC, and you know it.
M @ Apr 18th 2008 8:40PM
Unique,Stylish,inovative,fun,artistic,great etc .Those are things in good games,more or less.
Then you have the shovelware,from decent to horrible,from games not worht the money to complete rip offs.
Right now it seems balanced,you got some pop for the masses but we are still getting quality content,and ive expresed my fear of devs giving up totaly or atleast partialy on their efforts with good games for the cheaper easier options.
For every mario galaxy,how many mario partys or other stuff we gota see in retail? for example.
rasgueado @ Apr 18th 2008 8:52PM
Machiavelli called it the "Tyranny of the weak."
Kujel @ Apr 18th 2008 9:16PM
I personally like titles with these traits in this order: Game Play;fun, interesting, relatively simple to jump into (for an experienced gamer anyway). Story; a great story makes a game so much more satisfying, great plot or/(even better and) characters only it a more complete package. Graphics; polygons have their place but it's the graphics style that really matters, just look at StarCraft.
The point I'm making is sales aren't what makes a game great, financially successful yes but not necessarily great, it's more about the content. Still the masses need to look more for the quality games and less for that cheap shovelware some Devs try and feed us.
On a side note the reason that shit sims is even on the list is all those girls went out and bought it because their boyfriends don't find them as interesting if they wont play games with them so they went out and grabbed a pretend life in which they can have their way (unlike reality).
el serpiente @ Apr 19th 2008 2:05AM
"all those girls went out and bought it because their boyfriends don't find them as interesting if they wont play games with them so they went out and grabbed a pretend life in which they can have their way (unlike reality)."
Sounds like you've never had a girlfriend before...
Kujel @ Apr 19th 2008 2:57AM
Actually I've been going steady with the same girl for 12 years and it seems to me like your are scared of facing reality and actually doing what you pretended to in that simulator.
el serpiente @ Apr 19th 2008 1:00PM
I never played the sims, but I commented because what you wrote struck me as particularly dumb and typical of an underage misogynist.
Do people really say "going steady" anymore? Last time I heard that was on the "Facts of Life" when Tootie got a new boyfriend and Natalie was jealous because Tootie was spending less time with her.
Kujel @ Apr 19th 2008 2:02PM
I use a lot of older terminology compared to kids today. Still the only guys I've met who even like the sims are gay and the women who I've met who are obsessive are single (for similar reasons to the ones stated above).
SamuraiD @ Apr 20th 2008 8:26AM
"Actually I've been going steady with the same girl for 12 years and it seems to me like your are scared of facing reality and actually doing what you pretended to in that simulator."
Then you have had a miserable 12 years by the looks of things. My girlfriend and I play games quite a lot and we both get involved with them. Right now, it's Phantom Hourglass and we'll be starting on FFCC: Ring of Fates soon. I suggested we should pick up MySims for the Wii because it looks cute and quite immersive given the type of sim it is. Seems to me that you're in a pretty crappy relationship given the opinion you've got.
"Still the only guys I've met who even like the sims are gay and the women who I've met who are obsessive are single (for similar reasons to the ones stated above)."
Here's where you get presumptuous and a prick basically. Now you're saying this game is only appealing to homosexuals and obsessive, single women. Gtfo.
Here's some advice... you being with a girl for 12 years equates to nothing apart from making you form such an obscure opinion. In that case, reconsider the 12 years you've wasted. Also, get some counciling.
Joeshie @ Apr 18th 2008 9:20PM
Here is what I have observed and IS JUST MY OPINION. You have a few key demographics: the core gamer, the casual gamer, and then the in-between gamer.
Core gamer is the kind of person who stays in touch with the industry and is greatly concerned by the quality of product they buy. They will research their purchases. These are the kind of gamers that GENERALLY buy artistic and high quality games.
The casual is less concerned with quality (I know some of you might disagree, but if you look at the overall trends, casuals are less concerned with quality). They range from housewives to frat boys who only buy Madden and Halo to people who only buy games based on IPs (movie-tie ins). They are the ones who generally push the low-quality game sales, of course they can also occasionally push high-quality game sales (Guitar Hero 2).
The in-betweeners are kind of a mold of the two, where they might not closely follow the industry, but still wish to find a high quality game. They tend to push sales of high quality and low quality games.
These are just general trends I have noticed and aren't necessarily true for everyone.
mr mobius @ Apr 19th 2008 12:01PM
I'd be an inbetween gamer. I don't have the time for many games so I make sure that any games I am playing will be well researched and almost guranteed to be good most of the time.
Ronshatmycarl @ Apr 18th 2008 11:49PM
Just because a game is not the top selling game of the year doesn't mean that it is not a success. Sometimes even taking a loss in creating an IP can be worth it.
Marketing is unfortunately becoming a bigger and bigger part of game sales, but if games want to go mainstream then this is the way it will have to be.
Assassin's creed and Halo 3 are probably the biggest benefactor's of marketing, but neither was particularly great.
hvnlysoldr @ Apr 19th 2008 1:55AM
As long as game companies are profitable enough to make more games I like it doesn't quite matter how many they sell as long they stay in business.
Schmobu @ Apr 19th 2008 2:20AM
These numbers seem about right, and just incase no-one gets it Halo is the winner, having sold 8 mil on 1 platform, compared to COD4 selling 200k more but over 4 platforms. What orange box only sold 1 mil but Portal was easily the best game of last year, it was so well made.
Paul B @ Apr 19th 2008 2:25AM
My view is simple on this matter. Video games are a form of entertainment, and the general population does not merit the more sophisticated with their entertainment budget or time.
One only needs to look at the highest rated American television show (American Idol) to see proof of this.
Don't over-analyse this. At the end of the day, the wheat for video gamers is keep up by the chaff of the casual gamers. Because of that, i love the casual gamers of the world.
Mecandes @ Apr 19th 2008 5:40AM
Don't forget to consider a game's price, because the games which hardcore gamers favour are also the most expensive. A lower priced family title might sell more units, but not necessarily make more money.
nuero @ Apr 20th 2008 2:56PM
"The point I'm making is sales aren't what makes a game great, financially successful yes but not necessarily great, it's more about the content."
Nobody made an opposing point. Who are you arguing with?
Kevin Ghadyani @ Apr 22nd 2008 6:37AM
I can't believe you said Rock Band was innovative. In what way? Taking what Konami made already and doing it again? That's not innovative, that's improving a design specification for an American audience. Just sayin'