| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (99)

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:02PM Special Agent Steve said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I really hope it's released in April.... finished.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:37PM TheDarkWayne said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yeah i was really looking forward to it, I hope it doesn't fall apart when it's almost done!
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 5:50PM eat it said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
hopefully at worst it's technically close to GTA4 quality. As for story...I'm scared about that now.

but ya never know...all this noise could be coming from 1 or 2 pissed off employees
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 6:53PM Special Agent Steve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Space
That's what I think the whole issue is revolved around. A couple (more like 5 or 6) really dis-like the management system there and are hoping to get some changes- therefore, the have to be very vocal, and even put the studio at risk.
And as Rockstar said, the studio is still hard at work- and I think it can recoup those 5 million sales easy. Heck, Assassins Creed II just sold 8.4 million and I have yet to buy my copy*

*I usually buy in bulk, so add an extra million or two when I purchase in March.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 7:53PM den69 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
AC2 hasn't sold 8 million yet - it's predicted to sell that much.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 9:26PM Special Agent Steve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Den-69
Oh, right lol. But it WILL sell that much- which is important.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It sounds like a damn disaster. Ouch.

It may have been able to sell 3.5 million copies before, but with all this news coming out about development issues, I don't think it will make that much any more.

Way to go, Rockstar.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:24PM Special Agent Steve said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Actually, I doubt this will affect sales as much as you'd think. Some bad press usually doesn't warrant a game a death sentence. I feel that Rockstar will be OK, as long as the game receives good scores.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe. It's hard to say.

Of course, not promoting it might kill the game too.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:45PM SpaceFox said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Well, I know I sure won't buy this RDR anymore. Feel bad for all the employees who are suffering from this, but my purchase sure won't make a difference to their working conditions and I don't want to support a company who lets this happen to it's employees.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 6:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I have a couple of buds that work there, and the real story is the developers want to do what's best for the game, the management want what's the most profitable.

Specifically, the devs are sick and tired of having to gimp the PS3 version just to make it work on Xbox (all Xbox, even the HDD-less ones). Their time is better spent writing great code, not exploring workarounds for silly limitations.

That was their exact words. However I know this will get marked down into oblivion, but that's how it is. The Xbox is holding this gen back (at least for Rockstar).
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 9:13PM TheyDidItFirst said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@MikeMonroe

Just like I have no patience for a game on PS3 being noticeably worse technically because developers claim that the PS3 is harder to work with than the 360, I'm not sure I really support the claim that the 360 is that much weaker than the PS3. At least, I certainly haven't seen anything to prove it. Anyways, shouldn't an open world game like this benefit from the shared memory architecture of the 360?
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 9:18PM TheyDidItFirst said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
unless you're just complaining about the fact that Microsoft didn't build in a hard drive. If that is the case, then my previous statement is void and I agree with you completely
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 9:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's completely valid. I know Matt Noguchi, one of Bungie's top guys, said that Bungie pushed Microsoft as hard as they could to make an HDD always be included, but it didn't work. He said that it wasn't until August of 2007 that they even managed to get Halo 3 to work without an HDD, because the game was designed around caching and all those media and map making options demanded a hard drive.

Ifalldownstairs

Yeah, the shared architecture is a slight advantage, but the Cell also has the advantage of having 256MB directly on the processor die. And the GPU can use some of that RAM, though not without cost.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 10:00PM den69 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ifalldownstairs

Sub-processors.

Have you seen how good Killzone 2 looks online? And it can have 32 players in a match? It's all down to the sub-processors helping the processor and gpu.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:04PM mylittlepwny said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's disappointing to hear, from what theyve showed it looks amazing, and I had no previous interest in the series. Their version of bullet time looks really cool.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2010 3:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I want to know how they will sell 8 million copies when hardly anyone has ever heard of this game.... literally every person i talk to about this game has never heard of it.. i hope they turn up the p.r. campaign before its too late!
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The trailers I've seen for this game look great. I have faith in Rockstar.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:05PM HTCEVO said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like Sega's Dreamcast/Saturn days. Sigh.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:08PM Revving Injuns said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
This is heartbreaking if it gets delayed. I hope the guys can't figure it all out.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:40PM MrAlex said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You hope they CAN'T?

You Jerk.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 5:27PM Revving Injuns said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
ROCK STAR I AM SORRY!!!!!!
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:09PM dantebk said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"... to make that back and just break even you need at least $80 million in sales; 1.75 million units. For profit: $160 million/3.5 million units."

This is an honest question, and I'm hoping someone with a better understanding of economics can explain it to me. If you need to sell 1.75M to break even, then wouldn't ANY additional units signify a profit? Why does it have to be double? What sort of state between even and profitable are they in if they sell 2.5M for example?
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Probably on a curve. If they sell more, it costs more initially. Does sound a bit odd, though.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:14PM Vidikron said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
LOL... good question. Maybe the first number is strictly to recoup development costs, while the "for profit" figure includes distribution and marketing? Seems like it would just be more clear to say they need to sell 3.5M to make a profit and leave it at that.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I was an econ major and I was thinking the same damn question. I knew I should have paid more attention in class...
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:22PM Courtney said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I wonder if instead of profit he maybe meant to be a financial success. With my business, I have an expectation with some product lines that I need to turn a 100 percent profit in a certain amount of time in order for that product to be considered successful and for us to continue carrying it. Anything less than that isn't really a success even if it turned a profit, because we could have sunk those time and resources into something that would have turned a larger profit.

The phrasing of that is just a little weird.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:26PM samfish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's a weird way to say it.
I'm pretty sure that he meant total revenue - total expenses, which in this case would be making back x 100% that $80 million investment.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:29PM Neon Jebus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Could it be to help pay for a portion of the next project?

Meaning make enough to pay for a majority of the next project without falling back into the red as quick?

Anything over the $80mil helps make a small profit but you can't expect to run a business on such a low lever of profit. $160mil helps continue and grow business in the future. Though 50 points of margin is pretty rich.

I don't have a clue what the normal expected profit margin is for a game release.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:30PM butaneko said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You don't know? After you break even the first 100 percent of profit goes to our lord Satan. After that game developers get the cash.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:31PM Mwendel said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Patcher is probably referencing a cost of goods sold percentage that either Rockstar or the industry shoots for. In this case, 50% is cogs, 50% profit to equal the returns desired = 160 Million dollars/3.5 million units.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:37PM samfish said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
JOYSTIQ!!!!

Email THE PACH and tell him we need him to post in this thread!
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:47PM Rockhurst said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This analysis is flawed on many levels.
1) $80M in sales to "break-even" @ 1.75M units...that gets you to an avg. retail price of ~$46...that seems awfully low given at least the 1st 1/2 to 1/3 of that would be north of $55.
2) I don't think it's fair to assume the same avg. retail price at 1.75 units vs. 2x that. To hit that volume it's either got to have a gang-busters launch raising the avg. retail price (see MW2), or a very long shelf-life with a lower avg. retail price.
3) T2's gross profit (revenue less development costs, royalties, licenses, & other product costs) is only 33%. That's BEFORE marketing and sales costs. $80M in sales x 33% = $26M...no where close to the $40M development cost (and that doesn't even account for sales channel costs like Gamespot).
4) You are absolutely correct. Anything above break even is profit. Yes, there are still licenses, royalties, revenue shares, etc. so the units above break even aren't pure profit, but assuming you're not operating under negative variable margins (which you would hit break-even if you were) you are making a profit.

On a side note, while it's interesting for us to read about these things the person who leaked this should've really rethought it first. Even if he/she isn't still employed, this may very well cost them sales which means his/her friends still there just got a little closer to the chopping block themselves.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 5:18PM aristokrat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think what's implied here is that $80M/1.75M units is required just to recoup the costs accrued by the studio over the development time, to say nothing of the then further costs related to actually producing, distributing, and selling the physical copies of the game (including the retailers cut, etc.). With all costs, both sunk (development) and current (distribution), T2 needs $160M/3.5M units in order to actually profit from selling this game.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 5:25PM Fweak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Basically what butaneko said...

Typically the way it works is the Developer proposes the idea to the Publisher who hands off an amount of cash to pay for development. After release, the Publisher gets ALL profit from sales until their original investment is remade. At this point it depends on the Publisher, but some do 80% 20% (developer) after they get their money back, or they set a line (IE: Original cost 100mil. They get 100mil + 50mil and then start giving money to the developer)

It is very rare that developers make very much money off their games. Usually they just get a higher budget for the next game if it does well.

Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 5:40PM Benjamin Gilbert said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's to say it'll be considered a profitable title at that sales level. Making just a little bit more than breaking even doesn't make it a very worthwhile investment, from a financial perspective.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:09PM Hooch said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Fuck me, this is getting worse everyday >.>
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:25PM Special Agent Steve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My friends call be Turner. Let's do this.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:27PM wocyob said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Hooch is crazy
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow.

I'm expecting it to be content complete in April but likewise it's probably going to be so horribly fucking bugged to death if reports like these are anything to go by.
Reply

Posted: Jan 14th 2010 11:50AM rubadub72 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm afraid that's what is going to happen, the trailer looked to be running in sub 30 fps most of the time. I thought it was a common unpolished state of the beta, but i wonder how many more glitches and issues are there, it seems like a huge game.

sad to read this, i'm still looking foward to it, although with less enthusiasm.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:12PM butaneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like a bitter employee -- this game will rule!
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:13PM OriginalWeJo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This looked fantastic at PAX. I hope they can turn it around.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:14PM s ls said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have alot of faith in this game to bring something new and fresh which I haven't played before. I'm really hoping it can pull it off.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:18PM hahnchen said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
If working conditions are so poor, why are they still there? Why does it have to take a "spouse" to speak out anonymously?

If you're going to act like a doormat, you'll get treated like one.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When you mentioned doormat, you made me think of this.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=132
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:27PM samfish said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Have you tried looking for a job since, oh say...2007?

Being a doormat is sadly the only option for a lot of folks (myself included :\ )
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 6:05PM hahnchen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I actually switched companies in 2009, but I get your point. It's a recession, the employer holds more cards.

These working practices would be impossible in every other industry. If you want me to work a weekend, I better get overtime, I better get expenses. Or else it isn't happening. Unless the guys at San Diego are getting paid bucketloads, which I doubt, then it shouldn't be happening there either.

Developers are highly skilled individuals, they are very flexible, and can find other jobs, even in a recession. Sure, a contracting position in corporate IT may require you to wear a suit, and it might be as boring as hell, but hey - it sounds a hell of a lot better than 6x12 hours every week.

If the staff are too pathetic to even care for themselves, why would the management start?
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:18PM KungFuChaosNinja said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I love nearly every game Rockstar puts out, but their company is a complete cluser**** these days, sadly. Bad management, no doubt.
Reply

Posted: Jan 12th 2010 4:19PM The Albatross said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd really be hurt if this game didn't deliver... it looks freaking awesome, and it's precisely a game that I want. I'm actually shocked to hear this... I didn't associate the problems with Midnight Club team to apply to the RDR team.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW