So, in this post i decided to revisit an idea that i brought up in the Business of Game Room post. How have games that have appeared on both XBLA and Game Room fared comparatively speaking?
i consider 10% of unit sales of XBLA titles in Game Room as decent. However, the most recent titles have only been on the service for about 5 or 6 weeks. The revenue picture is a little cloudier.
Ten games have been released on both platforms. i am going to include Rush n' Attack also because MIA was essentially its sequel. The plan was to compare the number of entries on the leaderboards for each game. Did you know you can view leaderboards for XBLA trial games (i didn't)? However, i ran into a problem with the Atari XBLA games that i didn't already own - the leaderboards will load one page of 10 at at time, eventually freezing as when the leaderboards show a few thousand. If anyone knows the number of leaderboard entries on the titles i don't have, i guess i would be interested. If i would have owned the game, i could have simplified things by getting a really low score. These are purely leaderboard number, no intersting manipulations of data. Data can (and will) change over time. For Atari XBLA games with two included, i added together the two Game Room games. Now i'll start...
* Asteroids/Deluxe: XBLA 28,896 / Game Room 24,000 (add 2,000 for the 2600 version of Asteriods and Space Duel)
* Battlezone: XBLA no data / Game Room 4,000
* Centipede/Millipede: XBLA 63,669 / Game Room 23,000 (add 7,800 for the 2600 versions)
* Gyrus: XBLA 31,031 / Game Room 3,000
* Missile Command: XBLA no data / Game Room 4,000 (add 400 for 2600 version)
* Scramble: XBLA 38,627 / Game Room 8,000
* Tempest: XBLA no data / Game Room 10,000
* Time Pilot: XBLA 87,591 / Game Room 5,000
* Warlords: XBLA no data / Game Room 1,000 (add ?? for unranked 2600 version)
* Yie Ar Kung-fu: XBLA 25,475 / Game Room 2,000
* Rush n' Attack: XBLA 40,740 / Game Room 1,000 MIA
Monday, January 31, 2011
Dview: Resonance of Fate (Xbox 360)
The Bottom Line:
Resonance of Fate (known as End of Eternity in Japan) is a relatively unknown and under-promoted title developed by Tri-Ace and published by Sega. This is probably my second favorite RPG on the Xbox 360 despite a kind of weak story.
Grade: B
Extraneous Explanation:
Unlike the other two Tri-Ace games for the Xbox 360 (Infinite Undiscovery and Star Ocean: The Last Hope), Resonance of Fate is less action oriented. There is a bit of a learning curve as the game is a bit unusual. There are two types of damage - one real damage (direct damage dealt by handguns) and scratch damage (machine guns) that essentially weakens the enemies. Both are necessary to win. The battle system is kind of hybrid system. The system does have some intricacies such as bezel shards, hero actions and tri-attacks. As for weapons, there are only two types in the game handguns and machine guns (but a few variations). You can sort of customize your weapons - basically for charge time and charge acceleration (one is by adding scopes/sights, the other is by adding barrel parts). However, the guns must fit in the grid they start in and certain pieces only fit certain ways. You can get some pretty strange looking guns. Hopefully Tri-Ace will release another Xbox 360 RPG using this battle system.
What to Expect:
* It takes a while to get used to the battle system
* Random Encounters do exist, though their rate is reasonable
* Side quests given at the guild (mostly fetch and battle)
* Lots of hexes to clear (the map starts off kind of closed off, you have to add hexes to open up paths), of course the use of hexes after you clear pathways is another level of complexity altogether (though it yields advantages).
* A story that is kind of strange: it is mostly how a group of 3 people got together as hunters and a little back story on the characters. It is broken up into chapters. It also has an ending that is as strange as the story - i guess it sets things up for a sequel.
* A game set in kind of a post-apocalyptic tower with 12 levels
* A difficult bonus dungeon (that i haven't explored yet)
* A pretty thorough Arena (hint: do the arena tutorials before starting off in the game, they explain a lot, though you may not realize it at first).
* Customizable guns (the crafting system in this game is about gun parts) that you really do need to improve
* Leveling: is based off of damage caused with a weapon. There are 3 weapon types: Handguns, Machine guns and thrown weapons (grenades). Your level is the sum of the levels of the 3. Leveling up does give some combat bonuses when using certain weapons.
* This game is somewhat difficult (but you can level grind)
* To get all gamerscore (1,000), it will probably take around 100 hours.
Achievements:
The achievements for this game seem reasonable. They are more along the lines of the achievement philosophy i like. There are achievements for beating levels, doing certain things in combat (this is nothing like Star Ocean 4 battle trohpy stuff), getting to level 100, completing side quests, spending money in the shops, using hexes to clear paths, beating the arena, etc. Oh, if you want to get 1,000 gamerscore on this game - you will need to replay it an additional time (though at Normal setting you keep your level, guns and some items from your first playthrough)
- i had 715 gamerscore 41/48 achievements after beating my first playthrough (109 hours and 46 minutes). You do get a 15 point acheivement for starting your second playthrough.
Resonance of Fate (known as End of Eternity in Japan) is a relatively unknown and under-promoted title developed by Tri-Ace and published by Sega. This is probably my second favorite RPG on the Xbox 360 despite a kind of weak story.
Grade: B
Extraneous Explanation:
Unlike the other two Tri-Ace games for the Xbox 360 (Infinite Undiscovery and Star Ocean: The Last Hope), Resonance of Fate is less action oriented. There is a bit of a learning curve as the game is a bit unusual. There are two types of damage - one real damage (direct damage dealt by handguns) and scratch damage (machine guns) that essentially weakens the enemies. Both are necessary to win. The battle system is kind of hybrid system. The system does have some intricacies such as bezel shards, hero actions and tri-attacks. As for weapons, there are only two types in the game handguns and machine guns (but a few variations). You can sort of customize your weapons - basically for charge time and charge acceleration (one is by adding scopes/sights, the other is by adding barrel parts). However, the guns must fit in the grid they start in and certain pieces only fit certain ways. You can get some pretty strange looking guns. Hopefully Tri-Ace will release another Xbox 360 RPG using this battle system.
What to Expect:
* It takes a while to get used to the battle system
* Random Encounters do exist, though their rate is reasonable
* Side quests given at the guild (mostly fetch and battle)
* Lots of hexes to clear (the map starts off kind of closed off, you have to add hexes to open up paths), of course the use of hexes after you clear pathways is another level of complexity altogether (though it yields advantages).
* A story that is kind of strange: it is mostly how a group of 3 people got together as hunters and a little back story on the characters. It is broken up into chapters. It also has an ending that is as strange as the story - i guess it sets things up for a sequel.
* A game set in kind of a post-apocalyptic tower with 12 levels
* A difficult bonus dungeon (that i haven't explored yet)
* A pretty thorough Arena (hint: do the arena tutorials before starting off in the game, they explain a lot, though you may not realize it at first).
* Customizable guns (the crafting system in this game is about gun parts) that you really do need to improve
* Leveling: is based off of damage caused with a weapon. There are 3 weapon types: Handguns, Machine guns and thrown weapons (grenades). Your level is the sum of the levels of the 3. Leveling up does give some combat bonuses when using certain weapons.
* This game is somewhat difficult (but you can level grind)
* To get all gamerscore (1,000), it will probably take around 100 hours.
Achievements:
The achievements for this game seem reasonable. They are more along the lines of the achievement philosophy i like. There are achievements for beating levels, doing certain things in combat (this is nothing like Star Ocean 4 battle trohpy stuff), getting to level 100, completing side quests, spending money in the shops, using hexes to clear paths, beating the arena, etc. Oh, if you want to get 1,000 gamerscore on this game - you will need to replay it an additional time (though at Normal setting you keep your level, guns and some items from your first playthrough)
- i had 715 gamerscore 41/48 achievements after beating my first playthrough (109 hours and 46 minutes). You do get a 15 point acheivement for starting your second playthrough.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Dview: Nier Xbox 360
The Bottom Line: Nier is a somewhat frustrating below average action game with RPG elements. Your mileage may vary (though the current price is definitely a mitigating factor). This seems to be somewhat of a love it or hate it game.
C-
What to Expect:
* Nier is a bit of a strange game. It has nods to other genres like text adventures, "bullet hell", platformers/puzzle and RPGs. Some people say that the experience is better than the sum of its parts - i disagree. i found the lack of cohesive and standard game play elements problematic and/or frustrating
* Many of the boss fights are multi-staged and annoying.
* Hack and slash: basically, fights are wearing out the X button (attack) or the bumpers (for magic)
* Characters: they aren't really memorable...
- you have the dad character (with an annoying voice) who is the one you actually play as- he is a devoted (allegedly) father and a horrible character model
- the odd female(?) character who wears odd clothing and swears all of the time (NPC who is with you for much of the quest
- a kid who you meet near the end of part 1, he can at least heal you a little from time to time
- a talking book that follows you (and allows you to use magic)
* You controll the dad (whatever you named him). The other characters do not seem all of that useful in a fight (except for their scripted parts). So there really is no party - it is just one character with others occasionally around
* You fight mostly Shades and robots throughout the game. There aren't a ton of different enemies.
* Sidequests that usually give out money - a couple or few give out weapons. There are about 70 side quests in total. None of them are ultimately necessary.
* a game split into two parts - a first part to set things up and a second part that finishes the story up. In the first part, you only have access to one of the three types of weapons (one handed swords)
* 30 weapons total that can be upgraded to level 4 at only one place in the game world. This is acutally one of the worst crafting systems in recent games compounded by the problem of variable drop rates - and one resource in particular, Eagle Egg, that is only available from one specific drop point that eventually vanishes as the story progresses. You will be "grinding" for many of the upgrade resources.
* Fishing and Harvesting: two unnecessary parts of the game. In fishing you basically ignore the directions they gave you - and figure out that some fish will bite on the third pull - then you have to use the analog stick to lean while the fish's HP runs out.
* Inventory: you actually use the start button to find (or up on d-pad for items, other three main directions are for weapons, eventually). For some reason you are only allowed 10 of each type of recovery item (though you can have 99 of resources).
* Graphics: Nier doesn't look horrible, but it isn't exactly raising the bar. It looks somewhat mediocre and occasionally looks a little washed out.
* Soundtrack: Nier actually has a pretty good soundtrack from what i've listened to.
* Game Plus: the game plus inexplicably starts from near the start of part 2. You keep your weapons (and their level) and your level - i forgot to check items. i wish there were an option to start the game over in game plus from the beginning
* Story: a dad trying to save his daughter from a myserious illness, of course not everything is as it seems. Mediocre in my opinion.
* After you get ending D, the game will actually delete your game saves.
Achievements:
- Nier has a horrible achievement list in my opinion. Half of the achievement points are for seeing the four endings. So you need three game + plays after you finish the first time. Though they will probably go faster in subsequent runs - as you might have less extraneous activities (like quests and upgrades) and are higher levels. i had 370/1,000 gamerscore after my first playthrough (and 38 hours in).
* There are collect achievements: weapons (including all upgrades), all of the fish, all of the words
* Timed boss fight achievements
* Quest achievements (though not for the full 70, thankfully)
* Story related achievements (but not enough of them are)
* Beat the game under 15 hours.
C-
What to Expect:
* Nier is a bit of a strange game. It has nods to other genres like text adventures, "bullet hell", platformers/puzzle and RPGs. Some people say that the experience is better than the sum of its parts - i disagree. i found the lack of cohesive and standard game play elements problematic and/or frustrating
* Many of the boss fights are multi-staged and annoying.
* Hack and slash: basically, fights are wearing out the X button (attack) or the bumpers (for magic)
* Characters: they aren't really memorable...
- you have the dad character (with an annoying voice) who is the one you actually play as- he is a devoted (allegedly) father and a horrible character model
- the odd female(?) character who wears odd clothing and swears all of the time (NPC who is with you for much of the quest
- a kid who you meet near the end of part 1, he can at least heal you a little from time to time
- a talking book that follows you (and allows you to use magic)
* You controll the dad (whatever you named him). The other characters do not seem all of that useful in a fight (except for their scripted parts). So there really is no party - it is just one character with others occasionally around
* You fight mostly Shades and robots throughout the game. There aren't a ton of different enemies.
* Sidequests that usually give out money - a couple or few give out weapons. There are about 70 side quests in total. None of them are ultimately necessary.
* a game split into two parts - a first part to set things up and a second part that finishes the story up. In the first part, you only have access to one of the three types of weapons (one handed swords)
* 30 weapons total that can be upgraded to level 4 at only one place in the game world. This is acutally one of the worst crafting systems in recent games compounded by the problem of variable drop rates - and one resource in particular, Eagle Egg, that is only available from one specific drop point that eventually vanishes as the story progresses. You will be "grinding" for many of the upgrade resources.
* Fishing and Harvesting: two unnecessary parts of the game. In fishing you basically ignore the directions they gave you - and figure out that some fish will bite on the third pull - then you have to use the analog stick to lean while the fish's HP runs out.
* Inventory: you actually use the start button to find (or up on d-pad for items, other three main directions are for weapons, eventually). For some reason you are only allowed 10 of each type of recovery item (though you can have 99 of resources).
* Graphics: Nier doesn't look horrible, but it isn't exactly raising the bar. It looks somewhat mediocre and occasionally looks a little washed out.
* Soundtrack: Nier actually has a pretty good soundtrack from what i've listened to.
* Game Plus: the game plus inexplicably starts from near the start of part 2. You keep your weapons (and their level) and your level - i forgot to check items. i wish there were an option to start the game over in game plus from the beginning
* Story: a dad trying to save his daughter from a myserious illness, of course not everything is as it seems. Mediocre in my opinion.
* After you get ending D, the game will actually delete your game saves.
Achievements:
- Nier has a horrible achievement list in my opinion. Half of the achievement points are for seeing the four endings. So you need three game + plays after you finish the first time. Though they will probably go faster in subsequent runs - as you might have less extraneous activities (like quests and upgrades) and are higher levels. i had 370/1,000 gamerscore after my first playthrough (and 38 hours in).
* There are collect achievements: weapons (including all upgrades), all of the fish, all of the words
* Timed boss fight achievements
* Quest achievements (though not for the full 70, thankfully)
* Story related achievements (but not enough of them are)
* Beat the game under 15 hours.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Game Room: Predictions for 2/1/11
i have been playing around with stats as they relate to Game Room. This is not necessarily what i would predict the leaderboards that will go up when i do my next stat check (probably February 1).
However, now i decided to test the paranormalevolence of my Irr method.
Games that will go up a leaderboard level (unless they don't)
* Amidar - to 900
* Beamrider - to 500
* Cosmic Commuter - to 400
* Demons to Diamonds - to 800
* Dodge 'em - to 500
* Dolphin - to 300
* Jungler- to 10,000
* Kaboom - to 900
* Millipede - to 8,000
* Rack 'em Up - to 4,000
* Scramble - to 9,000
* Space Armada - to 8,000
* Star Strike - to 100
* Submarine Commander - to 60
* Super Breakout - to 9,000
* Super Pro Decathalon - to 100
* Time Pilot - to 6,000
* Tower of Doom - to 700
* Tutankham - to 8,000
* Vectron - to 50
* Video Hustler - to 1,000
* Yar's Revenge - to 10,000
My Irr method has issues with game that had significant sales early (then likely dropped off drastically). Some of these are: Yar's Revenge, Super Breakout, Space Armada, Scramble, Rack 'em Up, Millipede and Jungler. There are 22 predicted increases - i wonder how many will actually occur. Last week was the first time i tried this and got 2/21 right. This prediction may become a weekly thing (if i'm really bored for a long period of time). i think i might edit the results in on the bottom of the post.
Edit: so how did my predictions turn out...
* Amidar, Beamrider, Demons to Diamonds, Dolphin, Rack 'em Up, Scramble, Submarine Commander, Super Pro Decathalon, Time Pilot, Vectron and Video Hustler went up (not necessarily by 2/1/11). So i will have be using a 1 month time horizon. 11 Games did not increase (so about 50%). Of those that didn't increase, i was somewhat sure that 5 wouldn't increase. Maybe the numbers have normalized a bit since then.
i will try and have my March leaderboard increase predictions up on or by March 1st (if i feel like doing them).
However, now i decided to test the paranormalevolence of my Irr method.
Games that will go up a leaderboard level (unless they don't)
* Amidar - to 900
* Beamrider - to 500
* Cosmic Commuter - to 400
* Demons to Diamonds - to 800
* Dodge 'em - to 500
* Dolphin - to 300
* Jungler- to 10,000
* Kaboom - to 900
* Millipede - to 8,000
* Rack 'em Up - to 4,000
* Scramble - to 9,000
* Space Armada - to 8,000
* Star Strike - to 100
* Submarine Commander - to 60
* Super Breakout - to 9,000
* Super Pro Decathalon - to 100
* Time Pilot - to 6,000
* Tower of Doom - to 700
* Tutankham - to 8,000
* Vectron - to 50
* Video Hustler - to 1,000
* Yar's Revenge - to 10,000
My Irr method has issues with game that had significant sales early (then likely dropped off drastically). Some of these are: Yar's Revenge, Super Breakout, Space Armada, Scramble, Rack 'em Up, Millipede and Jungler. There are 22 predicted increases - i wonder how many will actually occur. Last week was the first time i tried this and got 2/21 right. This prediction may become a weekly thing (if i'm really bored for a long period of time). i think i might edit the results in on the bottom of the post.
Edit: so how did my predictions turn out...
* Amidar, Beamrider, Demons to Diamonds, Dolphin, Rack 'em Up, Scramble, Submarine Commander, Super Pro Decathalon, Time Pilot, Vectron and Video Hustler went up (not necessarily by 2/1/11). So i will have be using a 1 month time horizon. 11 Games did not increase (so about 50%). Of those that didn't increase, i was somewhat sure that 5 wouldn't increase. Maybe the numbers have normalized a bit since then.
i will try and have my March leaderboard increase predictions up on or by March 1st (if i feel like doing them).
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Western RPGs This Generation
i prefer the Japanese RPG to the Western RPG. However, i still will play the occasional WRPG.
WRPGs seem to be too open/sandbox at the expense of story telling. You are basically playing as a character with little or no personality (and limited back story). JRPGs seem to be more turn-based (my favorite) or hack and slash (action RPG). Western games seem to be more shooter oriented - at least they seem to control more like a FPS. i call titles like Oblivion and Mass Effect shooter RPGs. JRPGs seem to be save the world (maybe from yourself) and overcome a large obstacle. WRPGs tend to be a little different. i prefer the way (cliched some would say) that JRPGs tackle story. i guess it is sort of one is in control and the other is playing a role in a story.
The first struggle with WRPGs is determining if something actually is an RPG. Is it something with some form of leveling - not necessarily. Is it conforming to certain story structures - not really. If something has "RPG elements is it really an RPG? Some of the games i have played that i don't consider RPGs (that some might): Mass Effect 2, BioShock, Overlord, Too Human (which is underrated, but frustrating). Some i barely consider RPGs at all - like Fallout 3.
My personal favorites WRPG so far this generation (Xbox 360 only) are:
* Fable 3 (ok, questionable whether it is an RPG)
* Mass Effect (though 2 seems to have a little better story, but more annoying mechanics)
* Fable 2
* Marvel Ultimate Alliance - it is basically a hack and slash. i guess it might be an RPG.
* Dragon Age Origins - it is farily generic and doesn't really stand out. It is probably the single weakest BioWare game i have played. So why am i consdering getting the ultimate edition with all of the add-ons?
* Two Worlds (well it would be if it wasn't a technical mess plagued by freezing). Once again, a short and weak story that somehow seems inconsequential.
* Fallout 3 - a shooter RPG, with a questionable story and one of the worst endings i have ever seen. It is an interesting premise, but i'm not sure about the execution.
* Oblivion - i really dislike being penalized for leveling up (enemies level up with you). Bethesda games all seem to have annoying bugs when they launch (and freezing/crashing problems).
WRPGs seem to be too open/sandbox at the expense of story telling. You are basically playing as a character with little or no personality (and limited back story). JRPGs seem to be more turn-based (my favorite) or hack and slash (action RPG). Western games seem to be more shooter oriented - at least they seem to control more like a FPS. i call titles like Oblivion and Mass Effect shooter RPGs. JRPGs seem to be save the world (maybe from yourself) and overcome a large obstacle. WRPGs tend to be a little different. i prefer the way (cliched some would say) that JRPGs tackle story. i guess it is sort of one is in control and the other is playing a role in a story.
The first struggle with WRPGs is determining if something actually is an RPG. Is it something with some form of leveling - not necessarily. Is it conforming to certain story structures - not really. If something has "RPG elements is it really an RPG? Some of the games i have played that i don't consider RPGs (that some might): Mass Effect 2, BioShock, Overlord, Too Human (which is underrated, but frustrating). Some i barely consider RPGs at all - like Fallout 3.
My personal favorites WRPG so far this generation (Xbox 360 only) are:
* Fable 3 (ok, questionable whether it is an RPG)
* Mass Effect (though 2 seems to have a little better story, but more annoying mechanics)
* Fable 2
* Marvel Ultimate Alliance - it is basically a hack and slash. i guess it might be an RPG.
* Dragon Age Origins - it is farily generic and doesn't really stand out. It is probably the single weakest BioWare game i have played. So why am i consdering getting the ultimate edition with all of the add-ons?
* Two Worlds (well it would be if it wasn't a technical mess plagued by freezing). Once again, a short and weak story that somehow seems inconsequential.
* Fallout 3 - a shooter RPG, with a questionable story and one of the worst endings i have ever seen. It is an interesting premise, but i'm not sure about the execution.
* Oblivion - i really dislike being penalized for leveling up (enemies level up with you). Bethesda games all seem to have annoying bugs when they launch (and freezing/crashing problems).
The Business of Game Room: Outtakes
There were some topics that came further down the line when associating with the thread.
Profitability: Revenue Split Take One
i may have overstated MSFT's profit position in these games (i think the most fair method would be $1.50-$1.75, or 120-140 points, for every copy of a game sold to the publisher - though that is highly, highly variable), or maybe i didn't. i can't help but think MSFT's take percentage-wise is a little larger (combining both Krome and MSFT) than XBLA as their contracted partner Krome is doing a substantial amount of the actual work. In XBLA, MSFT handles the space to store/list the games, but ultimately there is a publisher that has to be paid. With Game Room, it is like MSFT is the publisher and Krome/Konami, etc is the developer. So, MSFT probably should get a little bigger slice of the pie in Game Room. Don't get me started on the concept of Game Room profit sharing (which i highly doubt exists).
Game Room Promotion: Take One
Misc:
Profitability: Revenue Split Take One
i may have overstated MSFT's profit position in these games (i think the most fair method would be $1.50-$1.75, or 120-140 points, for every copy of a game sold to the publisher - though that is highly, highly variable), or maybe i didn't. i can't help but think MSFT's take percentage-wise is a little larger (combining both Krome and MSFT) than XBLA as their contracted partner Krome is doing a substantial amount of the actual work. In XBLA, MSFT handles the space to store/list the games, but ultimately there is a publisher that has to be paid. With Game Room, it is like MSFT is the publisher and Krome/Konami, etc is the developer. So, MSFT probably should get a little bigger slice of the pie in Game Room. Don't get me started on the concept of Game Room profit sharing (which i highly doubt exists).
Game Room Promotion: Take One
So, what would MSFT rather promote? Would it be some place where they can get 30% of $10 or $15 ($3.00, $5.00) in a much higher exposure area that they built up since the 360's launch or 50% of $3.00 ($1.50) in an area just getting off of the ground (with a smaller target group). The volume in Game Room just isn't there to make up the difference in pricing (and it will never be). Though, as a smaller scale endeavor Game Room probably has better profitability rates. In other words, i suspect that Game Room as a percentage is more profitable (especially if they use flat rate licensing) than XBLA for MSFT, but is dwarfed in absolute dollar sales. The bottom line really is important.
XBLA vs Game Room: The First Round
XBLA vs Game Room: The First Round
Let's illustrate with Centipede (one of the 20K leaderboard games). i would estimate that Centipede sold about 15,000 @ 3.00, for about $45,000 in sales. If MSFT got 50% of that, they would receive $22,500. Now it time for the unfair XBLA comparison (i am using http://www.gamerbytes.com/2010/07/indepth_xbox_live_arcade_sales_11.php ) for the sake of comparison. The game i will use here is Ancients of Ooga. Ancients of Ooga (my favorite style of platformer) had 2,134 people on their leaderboard. If you assume 75% sales like i did with Game Room, MSFT gets Ooga revenues of $4,800. Which means i picked a bad example, these things happen. The difference there was Game Room by $17,700 for a game released for one week in that "reporting period". Now, using that same source - let's look at Puzzle Quest 2 (released the same week as Ancients of Ooga). Using the same 75% of leaderboards as purchase thing i used above, Puzzle Quest 2 sold 15,585 copies for $15 a piece. In that scenario, MSFT (at 30% take) gets $70,132.50. That is Puzzle Quest by over $47,000. Game Room would need 3 Centipede sales level games plus another 1,709 or so sales to equal the Puzzle Quest 2 XBLA revenue in that one week (if you can assume 30% MSFT take for XBLA titles). In other words, the estimated revenue to MSFT from one week of Puzzle Quest 2 (at 30%) would be the equivalent of 46,710 individual Game Room sales (at 50%). If you had the services, what do you chose to promote?
Yeah, i probably should look at a bigger game. What was said was what i was essentially saying on the last paragraph of the last post (from a business sense), with the Puzzle Quest 2 example. i found it interesting that if MSFT got 30% (estimated) of the revenue for sales from XBLA and 50% for Game Room, that it would have taken 46,710 Game Room sales to equal Puzzle Quest 2.
i started a bigger fan of XBLA, but kind of left when they retro stuff dried out and the type of games seemed to have changed (and the prices and file sizes increased). Ok, lets try Limbo (using all of the same assumptions above) - this is going to be scary. i'll assume that Limbo is 1,200 MSFT points. So, if i assume 75% of leaderboards are purchasers, that is about $2.8 million. At 30% of revenue, that would be over $852,000 to MSFT. The equivalent number of Game Room games, for the same revenue to MSFT, would be 568,437 individual Game Room games. To catch up, Game Room would have to more than double cumulative sales and Limbo would have to sell nothing.
i started a bigger fan of XBLA, but kind of left when they retro stuff dried out and the type of games seemed to have changed (and the prices and file sizes increased). Ok, lets try Limbo (using all of the same assumptions above) - this is going to be scary. i'll assume that Limbo is 1,200 MSFT points. So, if i assume 75% of leaderboards are purchasers, that is about $2.8 million. At 30% of revenue, that would be over $852,000 to MSFT. The equivalent number of Game Room games, for the same revenue to MSFT, would be 568,437 individual Game Room games. To catch up, Game Room would have to more than double cumulative sales and Limbo would have to sell nothing.
XBLA vs Game Room: The Second Round
What angle to consider now? Let's go with Game Room vs XBLA
Some of the early projections of Game Room sales were obviously done with previous XBLA releases in mind. By my count (as of August 17, 2010) 10 titles have been released on both XBLA and Game Room. i don't have nearly as much data on these titles as i would like (as i only have 3 of the 10 titles on XBLA). Most of my retro XBLA games are Namco. The three games i have on both are Asteroids/Deluxe, Centipede/Millipede and Time Pilot. i do not have the games Battlezone, Missile Command, Tempest, Scramble, Yie Ar Kung Fu, Gyrus or Warlords for XBLA (i do have them for Game Room). This will be based off of leaderboard entries.
Asteroids/Deluxe had 27,675 leaderboard entries for about 22,140 sales. Using same assumptions in previous posts, that would be a total gross revenue of around $110,700 (about $33,210 going to MSFT). On Game Room, i would estimate that Asteroids and Asteroids Deluxe sales were around 14,080 units combined (for a gross revenue of about $42,240). i estimate Game Room sales of those titles accounted for about 38% of the revenue the XBLA game did.
Centipede/Millipede is a bit better selling story on XBLA. i would estimate that Centipede sold around 46,759 units (for gross revenue of about $233,759). Centipede/Millipede did about the same on Game Room as Asteroids/Deluxe (14,080 units for a gross revenue of about $42,240). The Game Room versions of the Centipede/Millipede would be about 18% of the revenue of the XBLA version.
Time Pilot: the leaderboards for the XBLA game are not conducive to seeing how many spots are on the leaderboard (as a page seems to be 7 scores and you actually have to scroll through them). i scrolled down to about 71,000th place (at about 45,000 pts) before i accidentally hit the thumb stick the wrong way. Time Pilot was also a game that was given away as a pack-in for a controller (and maybe otherwise). So, i'll estimate 100,000 leaderboard entries for about 80,000 sales (about $400,000 in gross revenue). i would estimate that the sales of Time Pilot in Game Room would be about 3,200 units (for gross revenue of about $9,600). That would be about 2.4% of XBLA revenue.
Some of the early projections of Game Room sales were obviously done with previous XBLA releases in mind. By my count (as of August 17, 2010) 10 titles have been released on both XBLA and Game Room. i don't have nearly as much data on these titles as i would like (as i only have 3 of the 10 titles on XBLA). Most of my retro XBLA games are Namco. The three games i have on both are Asteroids/Deluxe, Centipede/Millipede and Time Pilot. i do not have the games Battlezone, Missile Command, Tempest, Scramble, Yie Ar Kung Fu, Gyrus or Warlords for XBLA (i do have them for Game Room). This will be based off of leaderboard entries.
Asteroids/Deluxe had 27,675 leaderboard entries for about 22,140 sales. Using same assumptions in previous posts, that would be a total gross revenue of around $110,700 (about $33,210 going to MSFT). On Game Room, i would estimate that Asteroids and Asteroids Deluxe sales were around 14,080 units combined (for a gross revenue of about $42,240). i estimate Game Room sales of those titles accounted for about 38% of the revenue the XBLA game did.
Centipede/Millipede is a bit better selling story on XBLA. i would estimate that Centipede sold around 46,759 units (for gross revenue of about $233,759). Centipede/Millipede did about the same on Game Room as Asteroids/Deluxe (14,080 units for a gross revenue of about $42,240). The Game Room versions of the Centipede/Millipede would be about 18% of the revenue of the XBLA version.
Time Pilot: the leaderboards for the XBLA game are not conducive to seeing how many spots are on the leaderboard (as a page seems to be 7 scores and you actually have to scroll through them). i scrolled down to about 71,000th place (at about 45,000 pts) before i accidentally hit the thumb stick the wrong way. Time Pilot was also a game that was given away as a pack-in for a controller (and maybe otherwise). So, i'll estimate 100,000 leaderboard entries for about 80,000 sales (about $400,000 in gross revenue). i would estimate that the sales of Time Pilot in Game Room would be about 3,200 units (for gross revenue of about $9,600). That would be about 2.4% of XBLA revenue.
XBLA vs Game Room: Round 3
Before i get to my hunch/"conclusion" regarding the two (without enough data points), let's take another look at the Asteroids and Centipede games. Just for fun, let's add in the 2600 ports.
* Asteroids: that would only add another 400 or so units and bring the estimated gross revenue up to $43,440 (or about 39.2% of the XBLA sales)
* Centipede/Millipede: adding the 2600 ports would add about 5,760 units and bring up estimated gross revenue to about $59,520 (or 25.46% of the XBLA sales).
"Conclusion"/hunch: sales of Game Room titles will probably generate about 5-10% of the revenue that the XBLA version in the near term (first 6-9 months). Some games will generate higher percentages. In the longer term, i would peg 15-25% as the total amount. The amount of games listed on both simultaneously will hopefully increase (as Game Room gets more titles). As far as money to the publishers or MSFT, who knows. However, Game Room sales of a title (like the ones in my example) can, and will, still increase. The leaderboards for Game Room are pretty imprecise. The 3 XBLA titles i used have been out for, or almost 3 years (i don't recall if these were ever discounted).
To answer a previous thread (using leaderboard data), i believe Pac-Man would sell at least 24,000 copies on Game Room in the first 6 months.
* Asteroids: that would only add another 400 or so units and bring the estimated gross revenue up to $43,440 (or about 39.2% of the XBLA sales)
* Centipede/Millipede: adding the 2600 ports would add about 5,760 units and bring up estimated gross revenue to about $59,520 (or 25.46% of the XBLA sales).
"Conclusion"/hunch: sales of Game Room titles will probably generate about 5-10% of the revenue that the XBLA version in the near term (first 6-9 months). Some games will generate higher percentages. In the longer term, i would peg 15-25% as the total amount. The amount of games listed on both simultaneously will hopefully increase (as Game Room gets more titles). As far as money to the publishers or MSFT, who knows. However, Game Room sales of a title (like the ones in my example) can, and will, still increase. The leaderboards for Game Room are pretty imprecise. The 3 XBLA titles i used have been out for, or almost 3 years (i don't recall if these were ever discounted).
To answer a previous thread (using leaderboard data), i believe Pac-Man would sell at least 24,000 copies on Game Room in the first 6 months.
XBLA vs Game Room: Round 4: Newer Data
* Asteroids/Deluxe - 4,000 / 20,000 (est. sales - 21,000)
* Asteroids 2600 - 1,000 leaderboard
* Centipede / Millipede: still the same 20K / 2K (est. sales 19,250)
* Time Pilot - 5,000 leaderboard (4,375 sales est)
* 2600 ports: Asteroids - 1,000 (875 sales set), Centipede - 700 (612), Millipede - 7,000 (6,126 sales est)
My Expectations:
the most simple terms the statement by Ruined is true. i would prefert the phrase "leveraging previously non-performing assets" on the Xbox 360 console, though (to be fair they do leverage titles on Game Room they do use elsewhere).
Based on what Game Room is, it has far surpassed my sales expectations for it (but then, even the recent packs surpass that). To me, Game Room is a runaway success with a very strong start that has normalized since then. As long as MSFT and the publishers can make money on it, i see no reason for Game Room to stop. As soon as i get my new Xbox 360, i will get some games for my secondary account too.
XBLA is like a blockbuster movie (with higher production costs), Game Room is closer to a low budget major studio movie - the expectations are lower and it takes less sales to be a success. It is like comparing Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (XBLA) to Animal House (Game Room), from a sales perspective.
Based on what Game Room is, it has far surpassed my sales expectations for it (but then, even the recent packs surpass that). To me, Game Room is a runaway success with a very strong start that has normalized since then. As long as MSFT and the publishers can make money on it, i see no reason for Game Room to stop. As soon as i get my new Xbox 360, i will get some games for my secondary account too.
XBLA is like a blockbuster movie (with higher production costs), Game Room is closer to a low budget major studio movie - the expectations are lower and it takes less sales to be a success. It is like comparing Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (XBLA) to Animal House (Game Room), from a sales perspective.
Changing Estimate Assumptions:
i decided to change some of my assumptions: the first is that i am now using a point estimate of 87.5% of leaderboard entries as purchases (basically 85% + 2.5% for leaderboards being a little more than what is listed). Someone at gamerbytes (where i started thinking of using data after looking at it) said that they estimate that XBLA titles have 90% purchase rates (i don't believe it, but i'll use a higher number). i have modified my estimates of one medal games to 1% of ranked game totals. i might try to look at how games sales (or the representation given to games increase monthly, or so, for legacy titles - i can't afford to keep up with all of the new ranked games). Misc:
Yeah, it can be tricky with licensing. Some companies seem to get it, some don't. Some companies want the extra money from licensing their properties, while others are content to just sit on them. Unfortunately, XBLA seemed to dry up for these retro releases (now it has to be remixed, remade, or whatever other term you may use). This, literally, is not going to be easy to read.
Price point on Game Room seems less of a big deal than most people seem to think. Let's play the role of publisher of retro content right holder here in completely made up pseudo dialog form.
* MSFT: Game Room titles will sell for up to $5.00 (400 pts) each and will be on Games for Windows Live (GFWL) too, thus reaching a larger potential audience that the Xbox platform. It is the new portal for retro titles for the Xbox going forward.
* Publisher: Wait a second, did you say up to? What is the pricing structure here? What kind of sales do GFWL do?
* MSFT: The price will be $3.00 (240 points) for one game on one platform plus a $.50 (40 points) for one play of a title.
* Publisher: what potential responsibilities do we have and what would we get if we signed on?
Enough of that, since i don't know MSFT's next line. Here is how things would play out if i were an arcade rights holder approached for Game Room.
1) Find out how many games they want (also what games, add a few games to the mix)
2) Set prices: my initial offer would be in three scenarios - $10,000 per game (settle for $5K) / $2.50 per game (settle for $1.50) / $5k per game + $1.50 for every sale over 3,000 (the sales threshold depends on the prices of both). The percentage basis for me would always be based off of the $5.00 per game figure. i would want to be paid monthly or quarterly. i would see if MSFT would give me a guaranteed minimum. i would want the contract to cover at least 25 titles and be for more than $100K (preferably $250+ K in USD, maybe for 50+ games). Never sign an exclusivity deal for retro IP, unless well compensated for it (and release on all the platforms you can).
3) Wait for counter-proposals and accept it if it were in the correct range.
4) Do what the contract stipulates. Profit.
Price point on Game Room seems less of a big deal than most people seem to think. Let's play the role of publisher of retro content right holder here in completely made up pseudo dialog form.
* MSFT: Game Room titles will sell for up to $5.00 (400 pts) each and will be on Games for Windows Live (GFWL) too, thus reaching a larger potential audience that the Xbox platform. It is the new portal for retro titles for the Xbox going forward.
* Publisher: Wait a second, did you say up to? What is the pricing structure here? What kind of sales do GFWL do?
* MSFT: The price will be $3.00 (240 points) for one game on one platform plus a $.50 (40 points) for one play of a title.
* Publisher: what potential responsibilities do we have and what would we get if we signed on?
Enough of that, since i don't know MSFT's next line. Here is how things would play out if i were an arcade rights holder approached for Game Room.
1) Find out how many games they want (also what games, add a few games to the mix)
2) Set prices: my initial offer would be in three scenarios - $10,000 per game (settle for $5K) / $2.50 per game (settle for $1.50) / $5k per game + $1.50 for every sale over 3,000 (the sales threshold depends on the prices of both). The percentage basis for me would always be based off of the $5.00 per game figure. i would want to be paid monthly or quarterly. i would see if MSFT would give me a guaranteed minimum. i would want the contract to cover at least 25 titles and be for more than $100K (preferably $250+ K in USD, maybe for 50+ games). Never sign an exclusivity deal for retro IP, unless well compensated for it (and release on all the platforms you can).
3) Wait for counter-proposals and accept it if it were in the correct range.
4) Do what the contract stipulates. Profit.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Business of Game Room
If you've read this before, i will be surprised (no, i am not plagiarizing myself).
A while back, i decided to try and look and the Game Room service (no, i am not obsessed) from more of a business analyst position. This originally was a series of posts on an unnamed forum. i will try to piece it here a little more coherently. Some of the data used is dated (maybe August). Here is what i came up with....
So, i was looking at all of these doom and gloom Game Room posts. In this thread i would like to take a look at Game Room the business. Basically how i think things work (i'm most likely 98% wrong). You know stuff like how much licensing should cost and how much they should offer specific partners to join. You will see why i do not have a Twitter account. i haven't played around with business analysis for a long time. This is shaping up to be a four post arc (i'll try to keep them a little more readable than i usually do).
A while back, i decided to try and look and the Game Room service (no, i am not obsessed) from more of a business analyst position. This originally was a series of posts on an unnamed forum. i will try to piece it here a little more coherently. Some of the data used is dated (maybe August). Here is what i came up with....
So, i was looking at all of these doom and gloom Game Room posts. In this thread i would like to take a look at Game Room the business. Basically how i think things work (i'm most likely 98% wrong). You know stuff like how much licensing should cost and how much they should offer specific partners to join. You will see why i do not have a Twitter account. i haven't played around with business analysis for a long time. This is shaping up to be a four post arc (i'll try to keep them a little more readable than i usually do).
Ok, so why should a company sign on for Game Room when they could release a compilation disc?
Let's take a look at Namco, shall we (specifically Namco Virtual Museum). According to vgchartz.com (i know not the definitive answer), Namco's Virtual Museum has sold about 190,000 copies worldwide. This is probably a bad example as it includes 9 XBLA games (two of which were 800 pts). The XBLA games were really the sales point here. If the games were sold for $30, that is a respectable 5.7 million in sales. Now you get into the fun stuff like platform holder fees, certification, the retail and wholesale cuts, and more. There was an article on Kotaku that showed the anatomy of a $60 game (http://kotaku.com/5479698/what-your-60-really-buys). So essentially with a $60 game 45% ($27 goes to the publisher). i don't know the price history on Namco Virtual Museum so i can't definitively say anything about that. If you assume a $35.00 price point on all copies (highly doubtful) then the publisher gets about $15.75 per copy of the game sold. The real number is probably closer to the $10 mark per game area.
Let's split the difference and say it is $13 to the publisher for every compilation title sold. The compilation is going to likely sell more, but what has the better profit percentage? So, $13 for a disc containing 31 (actually 34 games), Namco is maybe getting $.42 per game on the disc. If Namco could get $1 per game sold on Game Room (licensing is the next post), that would be a gain of $.48 per game. On a per-unit basis it makes sense to at least try Game Room (and other downloadable distribution systems), keeping in mind the scale is much smaller. The usable stuff on Namco Virtual Museum would probably sell more than 75,000 individual games on Game Room.
So why forsake the "big money" for Game Room. The answer is you don't have to. Companies could still release a compilation if they wanted to (Game Room is not completely direct competition). It appears that traditional compilations have been replaced by "remix" versions, as compilations struggle to sell many copies anymore. Game Room is probably the best chance a company has at cashing in on retro properties on the Xbox platform (with XBLA drying up except for "remix"/remakes). Companies wouldn't want to have non-productive assets on their hands would they? Game Room may not net the million dollar returns for the rights-holders, but 6 figures is virtually guaranteed (at least for arcade games, and might be contractually guaranteed).
So, Namco, Taito, Midway and Capcom try Game Room out as a distribution platform (try 25 games each and see how you do). That sounded entirely too much like an add, oh well.
Let's take a look at Namco, shall we (specifically Namco Virtual Museum). According to vgchartz.com (i know not the definitive answer), Namco's Virtual Museum has sold about 190,000 copies worldwide. This is probably a bad example as it includes 9 XBLA games (two of which were 800 pts). The XBLA games were really the sales point here. If the games were sold for $30, that is a respectable 5.7 million in sales. Now you get into the fun stuff like platform holder fees, certification, the retail and wholesale cuts, and more. There was an article on Kotaku that showed the anatomy of a $60 game (http://kotaku.com/5479698/what-your-60-really-buys). So essentially with a $60 game 45% ($27 goes to the publisher). i don't know the price history on Namco Virtual Museum so i can't definitively say anything about that. If you assume a $35.00 price point on all copies (highly doubtful) then the publisher gets about $15.75 per copy of the game sold. The real number is probably closer to the $10 mark per game area.
Let's split the difference and say it is $13 to the publisher for every compilation title sold. The compilation is going to likely sell more, but what has the better profit percentage? So, $13 for a disc containing 31 (actually 34 games), Namco is maybe getting $.42 per game on the disc. If Namco could get $1 per game sold on Game Room (licensing is the next post), that would be a gain of $.48 per game. On a per-unit basis it makes sense to at least try Game Room (and other downloadable distribution systems), keeping in mind the scale is much smaller. The usable stuff on Namco Virtual Museum would probably sell more than 75,000 individual games on Game Room.
So why forsake the "big money" for Game Room. The answer is you don't have to. Companies could still release a compilation if they wanted to (Game Room is not completely direct competition). It appears that traditional compilations have been replaced by "remix" versions, as compilations struggle to sell many copies anymore. Game Room is probably the best chance a company has at cashing in on retro properties on the Xbox platform (with XBLA drying up except for "remix"/remakes). Companies wouldn't want to have non-productive assets on their hands would they? Game Room may not net the million dollar returns for the rights-holders, but 6 figures is virtually guaranteed (at least for arcade games, and might be contractually guaranteed).
So, Namco, Taito, Midway and Capcom try Game Room out as a distribution platform (try 25 games each and see how you do). That sounded entirely too much like an add, oh well.
In finance there is something called the "pure play" method (at least i think there was). This is where you use the cashflows of a similar endeavor as a way to project future cash flow streams of another project. There is a potential problem in that companies used XBLA as a proxy for Game Room sales. That makes a certain amount of sense if you tweak it somehow - maybe saying 25% of the revenue on XBLA classics (when they still had them) is about equal to the high range estimate on a Game Room title. When i first heard of Game Room, i was thinking that maybe it would get sales about 5,000 on the high end. Of course, it turns out i may have underestimated that. That being said, what do i consider a normal arcade sales amount - 1,000 in the first couple months (and eventually 2,000-2,500 in the long term). Atari games i would put in the 300-600 short-term (and 1,000 long term for the average game - sports games not included).
Licensing?:
With all that stuff mentioned, it is time to tackle the idea of licensing as it relates to Game Room. i should mention that there is one pretty significant wild card here: Play Anywhere. If you included the Play Anywhere option, these games are the exact same price of the earlier XBLA retro releases. MSFT will surely make a push on this in the future.
Scenario One: Money Per Game Sold:
Scenario One: Money Per Game Sold:
So how does Game Room license games? The answer is that i don't know. There have been several likely models brought up - such as one price or the $1.00 per game method. Let me say that i do not believe the $1.00 per game for a minute. Companies like cash flows (at least positive ones) with limited variability/consistency. That is why you have stuff like a discount rate in capital budgeting. In order to be more predictable, they may not be fans (thought there is always a combo possibility - guaranteed money + a royalty percentage). i think that the most likely option of all is a flat rate for licensing all of a particular type of game. There is also a possibility of licensing certain games at a higher rate, but this just complicates things. You could justify a higher rate on arcade games as opposed to Atari games.
Let's look at the $1.00 per game sold idea for a minute... This is assuming that all three parties receive the same amount (the straight-line method). i find this to be unrealistic. For one, you essentially have Krome working on a contract. This contract was likely stipulated as a set amount of payments at pre-defined intervals (like maybe yearly, monthly, etc). That cost can essentially be written off as a time zero expenditure. The way i see it is as closer to a 60/40 split between MSFT and the publishers (or a 60/30/10). i went through the fee per game angle at several different levels. Keep in mind that my (bad) estimates show unit sales of 208,621 (which may actually be low). Instead of using an interval i used an approximate point estimate for unit sales. At $1 per game MSFT would be making in excess of $400,000. With those estimates a $.25 increase in the "royalty" rate redistributes $52,155 to the publishers. At $1.50 that amount would be $312,932 (or a little over $3,000 a game to MSFT). At $2.50 MSFT would only be getting about $1,000 per game. MSFT does have some leeway if they pay their licensing that way (thought it is highly influenced by abnormally strong early sales). At $1.50, i suspect MSFT would be making only 15-25K per game pack for the more recent ones.
i want Game Room's content to "turn over" every 4-6 months. What does that mean? Basically, it means new games and (hopefully) new partners. Even if someone like Taito signed on, they should not just go and release everything all at once. Sign them up for 25-30 games and then rotate partners as necessary. The novelty of a changing Game Room will be helped out by switching partners to make it seem fresher. Furthermore, there should be a two month supply of finished games in the pipeline at all times.
* Licensing: speaking of Taito, Namco, Midway and Konami ... Offer them $3,000 - $5,000 per arcade game. License 25-30 games from each publisher during a cycle. Also use a "release by" clause in the contracts where all titles will be released by a certain end date (unless "catastrophic" circumstances occur). The licensing fees paid out should be about 30-45% of Game Room receipts (though sales can beat estimates). Use the estimate that arcade games will sell about 2,000-2,500 units over the long run and Atari 2600 games will be closer to the 1,000 mark (with exceptions). Going forward, use tiered licensing structure with Atari 2600 licensed games going at $1,000-1,500 per licensed game. If SEGA comes on in the future with the Master System and/or Genesis, set the rate at $1,500 - 2,000 per game. Or you can license how you want to - just bring some new blood on.
* Store: eventually Game Room is going to start using the store for more than games and mascots. i think of something along the lines of paid themes, floors, props, etc. In order to get more content, Krome/MSFT are going to need to monetize areas in Game Room they haven't yet (or aren't in Game Room yet).
* Add-ons: try for one add-on every 6-9 months. This could be things like usable arcades, theme packs, publisher game packs, improvements and expansions to the service.
* Allow for off-pack games: this probably will not come into play. What i am saying here is to allow things like Pac-Man to be released on Game Room outside of a regular game pack (or its own small game pack). The opportunities to capitalize on this would be things like "remixes" or remakes of "classic games" - like Pac-Man Championship Edition DX, Space Invaders Infinity Gene and that new Rush n Attack or Contra Game.
* Game Packs: this is something i have a little problem with. Game packs as they are currently construed lessen the sales tales on games. They do make Game Room slightly more visible. However, Krome - after you release enough free themes to fill an arcade stop putting them in the game packs for free and start selling them (except for any publisher added themes) for 40-120 points. Allow companies to purchase time on the video screens in your arcades (if they want to) - showed as featured games from a feature publisher or something like that.
Let's look at the $1.00 per game sold idea for a minute... This is assuming that all three parties receive the same amount (the straight-line method). i find this to be unrealistic. For one, you essentially have Krome working on a contract. This contract was likely stipulated as a set amount of payments at pre-defined intervals (like maybe yearly, monthly, etc). That cost can essentially be written off as a time zero expenditure. The way i see it is as closer to a 60/40 split between MSFT and the publishers (or a 60/30/10). i went through the fee per game angle at several different levels. Keep in mind that my (bad) estimates show unit sales of 208,621 (which may actually be low). Instead of using an interval i used an approximate point estimate for unit sales. At $1 per game MSFT would be making in excess of $400,000. With those estimates a $.25 increase in the "royalty" rate redistributes $52,155 to the publishers. At $1.50 that amount would be $312,932 (or a little over $3,000 a game to MSFT). At $2.50 MSFT would only be getting about $1,000 per game. MSFT does have some leeway if they pay their licensing that way (thought it is highly influenced by abnormally strong early sales). At $1.50, i suspect MSFT would be making only 15-25K per game pack for the more recent ones.
Scenario 2: Fixed Game Amounts/Compilation
So, in the last post i mentioned the royalty based system where the company got X dollars per game as a licensing scheme. This post touches on fixed amounts per game. There is another wrinkle here (aren't there always). There are two types of fixed schemes - the one size fits all (all games cost the same price) and the tiered pricing scheme. The fixed pricing scheme is more along the lines of MSFT paying a publisher $1,000 per game. The tiered scheme is a little different. One example would be doing something like paying $1,000 for Juno First, but $5,000 for Road Fighter (thought the sales for that one are mind boggling). Now, lets use Atari in an example: there could be one (or several) different rates for arcade games and a different scale for 2600 games. i'm not saying that Atari 2600 games should have a lower licensing cost - wait a minute, yes i am. There may even been a compilation license purchase for X games for Y dollars - like licensing all of Activision Anthology for something like $100,000.
So, now i have to go and play with numbers again... Let's say that every arcade game was licensed for $1,000. That would yield the arcade publishers (again according to my estimates, which you should assume most of the numbers are) $153,900. In other words, Konami 79,000 and change and Atari 74,000 and change. i initially assumed that was the case. However, much like the $1 per game figure this seemed a little off. For one thing, i don't think Konami and Atari return your calls if the money is less than $100,000 total. At $1,000 per game, a game would have to sell 333 copies to just recoup the amount paid for licensing. At $2,000 a game it would be 666. At 3,000 a game it would be about 1,000 copies. Keep in mind that my estimates put the average of Konami games at about 3,900 games. So with Konami as the example, licensing a game for $1,000 would lead to Konami getting $20,000 and MSFT/Krome getting $217,600 (trust me, this will come up again). From MSFT's standpoint, this would be a pretty good deal. From Konami's standpoint, it would be time to renegotiate. If Konami were getting $10,000 per game (highly unlikely), MSFT would only get an estimate $37,600 from the sale of Konami's games on the service. The point at which MSFT and Konami would go 50/50 is at $5,940 a game.
Scenario 3: Combo Licensing
So, now i have to go and play with numbers again... Let's say that every arcade game was licensed for $1,000. That would yield the arcade publishers (again according to my estimates, which you should assume most of the numbers are) $153,900. In other words, Konami 79,000 and change and Atari 74,000 and change. i initially assumed that was the case. However, much like the $1 per game figure this seemed a little off. For one thing, i don't think Konami and Atari return your calls if the money is less than $100,000 total. At $1,000 per game, a game would have to sell 333 copies to just recoup the amount paid for licensing. At $2,000 a game it would be 666. At 3,000 a game it would be about 1,000 copies. Keep in mind that my estimates put the average of Konami games at about 3,900 games. So with Konami as the example, licensing a game for $1,000 would lead to Konami getting $20,000 and MSFT/Krome getting $217,600 (trust me, this will come up again). From MSFT's standpoint, this would be a pretty good deal. From Konami's standpoint, it would be time to renegotiate. If Konami were getting $10,000 per game (highly unlikely), MSFT would only get an estimate $37,600 from the sale of Konami's games on the service. The point at which MSFT and Konami would go 50/50 is at $5,940 a game.
Scenario 3: Combo Licensing
Now, for the combo method - a one time licensing fee plus a percentage. Let's use Road Fighter for demonstration purposes. Suppose MSFT paid an initial licensing fee of $2,500 (i actually suspect that might be the amount) to Konami to have the game on the service with an additional 10% of sales over 5,000 units. What would Konami receive in payment for my current estimate of 15,000 sales? That would be (here hoping i don't mess up the math) $5,500 (the initial $2,500 + 3,000 - 10% of 30K). MSFT/Krome would get about $39,500 for it. That number seems a little more potentially unfair than it should (but i am sure sales obliterated expectations).
Atari 2600 games are a different beast. 2600 games seem to sell far less (maybe that is just because there are so many 1 medal games where i massively understated sales amount). A $1,000 per game flat licensing fee makes a lot more sense here. You may occasionally have your Millipede (2600) and you Pitfall, but that level of sales seems to be uncommon among the Atari 2600 set. Suggestions/Recommendations:
Now it is my turn to make suggestions for the operation of the Game Room service. Ready for another wall of text, yeah! "Trust me, I know what I'm doing."Atari 2600 games are a different beast. 2600 games seem to sell far less (maybe that is just because there are so many 1 medal games where i massively understated sales amount). A $1,000 per game flat licensing fee makes a lot more sense here. You may occasionally have your Millipede (2600) and you Pitfall, but that level of sales seems to be uncommon among the Atari 2600 set. Suggestions/Recommendations:
i want Game Room's content to "turn over" every 4-6 months. What does that mean? Basically, it means new games and (hopefully) new partners. Even if someone like Taito signed on, they should not just go and release everything all at once. Sign them up for 25-30 games and then rotate partners as necessary. The novelty of a changing Game Room will be helped out by switching partners to make it seem fresher. Furthermore, there should be a two month supply of finished games in the pipeline at all times.
* Licensing: speaking of Taito, Namco, Midway and Konami ... Offer them $3,000 - $5,000 per arcade game. License 25-30 games from each publisher during a cycle. Also use a "release by" clause in the contracts where all titles will be released by a certain end date (unless "catastrophic" circumstances occur). The licensing fees paid out should be about 30-45% of Game Room receipts (though sales can beat estimates). Use the estimate that arcade games will sell about 2,000-2,500 units over the long run and Atari 2600 games will be closer to the 1,000 mark (with exceptions). Going forward, use tiered licensing structure with Atari 2600 licensed games going at $1,000-1,500 per licensed game. If SEGA comes on in the future with the Master System and/or Genesis, set the rate at $1,500 - 2,000 per game. Or you can license how you want to - just bring some new blood on.
* Store: eventually Game Room is going to start using the store for more than games and mascots. i think of something along the lines of paid themes, floors, props, etc. In order to get more content, Krome/MSFT are going to need to monetize areas in Game Room they haven't yet (or aren't in Game Room yet).
* Add-ons: try for one add-on every 6-9 months. This could be things like usable arcades, theme packs, publisher game packs, improvements and expansions to the service.
* Allow for off-pack games: this probably will not come into play. What i am saying here is to allow things like Pac-Man to be released on Game Room outside of a regular game pack (or its own small game pack). The opportunities to capitalize on this would be things like "remixes" or remakes of "classic games" - like Pac-Man Championship Edition DX, Space Invaders Infinity Gene and that new Rush n Attack or Contra Game.
* Game Packs: this is something i have a little problem with. Game packs as they are currently construed lessen the sales tales on games. They do make Game Room slightly more visible. However, Krome - after you release enough free themes to fill an arcade stop putting them in the game packs for free and start selling them (except for any publisher added themes) for 40-120 points. Allow companies to purchase time on the video screens in your arcades (if they want to) - showed as featured games from a feature publisher or something like that.
Video Game What Do i Play?
It dawned on me that maybe i should reveal some of my biases in video games. So, what games and genres do i like? Why do i feel like i am no longer in the targeted demographics?
What i play:
* RPGs - i prefer turn-based Japanese style. Lost Odyssey is my pick for the best RPG this generation. One of my favorite games of all times is Lunar: Eternal Blue. Some action/RPGs are better than others (though i prefer JRPGs). Unfortunately, the term RPG has been spread to games that maybe it shouldn't. Are games like Nier and Mass Effect really RPGs (the second Mass Effect, i would say no)? To me, Western "RPGs" with their emphasis more on sand-box style and character customization seem to have weaker stories. i do not mind JRPG cliches (when is something not a cliche?) and archetypes. i'll probably have another post or two on this later.
* Action/Platformer - i linked these two together for some reason. The Maw is probably my favorite platformer this generation. This is a varied genre that could be basically anything. Banjo Nuts and Bolts was a bit of a disappointment. This can be anything from Assassin's Creed, Lego games, Alan Wake to Kameo. i could use a good Kinect platformer.
* Music Games - ok, so i only really use one Lips. i spent a lot of time playing this game (an excuse for singing i guess). It is not the best genre for apartment living. i am not a big fan of plastic instruments.
* Retro - other than Lips, Game Room is probably my most expensive game. i am a fan of the simpler gameplay mechanics of the older games. These are also indelibly linked to the era they came from. i am not good at these games though (they tend to be kind of hard - the arcade ones anyway). Unfortunately, i missed most of these 80s arcade games in the 80s (a little young and living outside a small town).
* Casual titles - these can be stuff like XBLA games (the Maw, Ancients of Ooga, Bejeweled, etc), they can be games like the Lego games, they can be stuff like Viva Pinata or Kinect games.
i am not really a fan of shooters (too short, too much focus on multi-player). i am not a fan of racing games - but i have both Forzas this generation (i play it like an RPG, sort of).
What i play:
* RPGs - i prefer turn-based Japanese style. Lost Odyssey is my pick for the best RPG this generation. One of my favorite games of all times is Lunar: Eternal Blue. Some action/RPGs are better than others (though i prefer JRPGs). Unfortunately, the term RPG has been spread to games that maybe it shouldn't. Are games like Nier and Mass Effect really RPGs (the second Mass Effect, i would say no)? To me, Western "RPGs" with their emphasis more on sand-box style and character customization seem to have weaker stories. i do not mind JRPG cliches (when is something not a cliche?) and archetypes. i'll probably have another post or two on this later.
* Action/Platformer - i linked these two together for some reason. The Maw is probably my favorite platformer this generation. This is a varied genre that could be basically anything. Banjo Nuts and Bolts was a bit of a disappointment. This can be anything from Assassin's Creed, Lego games, Alan Wake to Kameo. i could use a good Kinect platformer.
* Music Games - ok, so i only really use one Lips. i spent a lot of time playing this game (an excuse for singing i guess). It is not the best genre for apartment living. i am not a big fan of plastic instruments.
* Retro - other than Lips, Game Room is probably my most expensive game. i am a fan of the simpler gameplay mechanics of the older games. These are also indelibly linked to the era they came from. i am not good at these games though (they tend to be kind of hard - the arcade ones anyway). Unfortunately, i missed most of these 80s arcade games in the 80s (a little young and living outside a small town).
* Casual titles - these can be stuff like XBLA games (the Maw, Ancients of Ooga, Bejeweled, etc), they can be games like the Lego games, they can be stuff like Viva Pinata or Kinect games.
i am not really a fan of shooters (too short, too much focus on multi-player). i am not a fan of racing games - but i have both Forzas this generation (i play it like an RPG, sort of).
Why i am Not Going Next-Gen
This could always change and something could change my mind - like winning the lottery. So, why am i not thinking of jumping in to the inevitable next-generation console race?
One reason is diminishing returns. Previous generations had seemingly big leaps in graphical fidelity, sound, storage medium, etc. The codecs and middle ware may have changed/improved, but the games really haven't. i am at the point where i am not really seeing a big improvement - Xbox to Xbox 360, most of the improvement is in the digital distribution space.
Graphically, HD looks nice. However, with my questionable eye sight - 720P is all i am expecting. i don't have a big TV and am not sold on 1080P (or Super HD whenever that comes out). What the developer can focus on is the games not having as many graphical problems - like screen tearing and irregular frame rates.
True, there may be an impending problem with disc space. However, it wasn't a problem in the Play Station 1 days. In fact, back then i would look for RPGs with multiple discs. i am fine with multiple discs if a game has to be released that way, but games aren't big enough to justify something like Blu-Ray as a default media. If i had my say, next-gen would go to 8-24 GB flash memory.
The games... this generation, the games have been disappointing. Sure there have been some unexpected standouts (for me: BioShock, Lost Odyssey, etc), but for the most part the games seem stale and the "stories" (provided games have them anymore) are derivative. Like the movie industry, it feels like everything has already been done and there is not much place for any real innovation. Part of the problem is that games do seem stale and overly complicated. i think to myself, great - why do i have to use every freaking button on the controller to perform actions that do not strengthen the experience.
On-line play... this seems to be one of the two breakthrough categories this generation. On-line in the new buzz term. It seems like companies are jumping on the bandwagon to try and add legs to the gaming experience. So, you have some companies taking resources from the single player experience and tacking it on to games that really should have no multi-player components. This is a disturbing trend that seems to be picking up steam with publishers. The theory being that on-line modes extend the play length value to consumers (so they won't trade in their games for store credit as soon). Not every game needs on-line interactions. However, i do like the network interface of gamerscore, avatars and a persistent on-line identity.
With that being said, the other breakout component of this generation has been the digital marketplace. XBLA has been a breakout success. In addition to XBLA, you have the game marketplace where add-ons can be purchased. This is another ploy to get you to hold on to your games and pick up some additional revenue as the game ages. Some add-ons extend the experience by hours (or minutes at a time). The value a person places on that varies from person to person. Digital distribution is the future, but people need to be spoon-fed the way it works. Unfortunately, XBLA is what happens when you have a smaller service make it big. The earlier, smaller games have gotten edged off the service in favor of the more "blockbuster" games - larger, more expensive to by and with higher budgets. XBLA was the perfect place for some of these more offbeat titles. So, i kind of see XBLA turning into a service for not quite viable commercial games, not what it used to be.
To sum it up, it is not like i feel there will be another video game crash... However, i feel that the current generation is doing what it was supposed to do (outside console failures). Kinect is a nice of pace change that will expand this generation for me several years. The next generation will likely include higher prices and higher game budgets - for little (if any) improvements in gaming experience. At this time, i cannot justify the initial expenditure it will take for a next generation console amid my growing disillusionment of a medium experiencing growing pains and an identity crisis.
One reason is diminishing returns. Previous generations had seemingly big leaps in graphical fidelity, sound, storage medium, etc. The codecs and middle ware may have changed/improved, but the games really haven't. i am at the point where i am not really seeing a big improvement - Xbox to Xbox 360, most of the improvement is in the digital distribution space.
Graphically, HD looks nice. However, with my questionable eye sight - 720P is all i am expecting. i don't have a big TV and am not sold on 1080P (or Super HD whenever that comes out). What the developer can focus on is the games not having as many graphical problems - like screen tearing and irregular frame rates.
True, there may be an impending problem with disc space. However, it wasn't a problem in the Play Station 1 days. In fact, back then i would look for RPGs with multiple discs. i am fine with multiple discs if a game has to be released that way, but games aren't big enough to justify something like Blu-Ray as a default media. If i had my say, next-gen would go to 8-24 GB flash memory.
The games... this generation, the games have been disappointing. Sure there have been some unexpected standouts (for me: BioShock, Lost Odyssey, etc), but for the most part the games seem stale and the "stories" (provided games have them anymore) are derivative. Like the movie industry, it feels like everything has already been done and there is not much place for any real innovation. Part of the problem is that games do seem stale and overly complicated. i think to myself, great - why do i have to use every freaking button on the controller to perform actions that do not strengthen the experience.
On-line play... this seems to be one of the two breakthrough categories this generation. On-line in the new buzz term. It seems like companies are jumping on the bandwagon to try and add legs to the gaming experience. So, you have some companies taking resources from the single player experience and tacking it on to games that really should have no multi-player components. This is a disturbing trend that seems to be picking up steam with publishers. The theory being that on-line modes extend the play length value to consumers (so they won't trade in their games for store credit as soon). Not every game needs on-line interactions. However, i do like the network interface of gamerscore, avatars and a persistent on-line identity.
With that being said, the other breakout component of this generation has been the digital marketplace. XBLA has been a breakout success. In addition to XBLA, you have the game marketplace where add-ons can be purchased. This is another ploy to get you to hold on to your games and pick up some additional revenue as the game ages. Some add-ons extend the experience by hours (or minutes at a time). The value a person places on that varies from person to person. Digital distribution is the future, but people need to be spoon-fed the way it works. Unfortunately, XBLA is what happens when you have a smaller service make it big. The earlier, smaller games have gotten edged off the service in favor of the more "blockbuster" games - larger, more expensive to by and with higher budgets. XBLA was the perfect place for some of these more offbeat titles. So, i kind of see XBLA turning into a service for not quite viable commercial games, not what it used to be.
To sum it up, it is not like i feel there will be another video game crash... However, i feel that the current generation is doing what it was supposed to do (outside console failures). Kinect is a nice of pace change that will expand this generation for me several years. The next generation will likely include higher prices and higher game budgets - for little (if any) improvements in gaming experience. At this time, i cannot justify the initial expenditure it will take for a next generation console amid my growing disillusionment of a medium experiencing growing pains and an identity crisis.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Game Room: The Search for More Accurate Estimation - Part 2
i tried to refine the concepts i used in the previous post (basically using the average) a little. True, using the average is still a little off (but i don't have enough relevant data points). So, this time i decided that i would try things a little more difficult. This is actually trying to "guess" the true leaderboard amount. i went to my trusty Excel and came up with this...
The Irr method:
- i take the number of weeks a game has been on the service (the number of weeks in 2010 + weeknum(today()). So it updates the averages and weeks automatically.
- Using that number of weeks, i have a scale (sort of), where i set the first week of release equal to 1.4 x Average. (the average is in my previous post -leaderboard level / # weeks on service). i have it decrease week over week by 1/(number of weeks - 1).
- i plug the relevant "first week data" (leaderboards started in late August) in the corresponding week. After that leaderboard
- After that i just summed the first week with the relevant (or not) series of "estimates" for subsequent weeks. So, in some ways this sort of resembles a reverse NPV (but not quite). What, you thought that Irr was a reference to internal rate of return?
- The numbers will change from week to week
Example: Activision Decathalon
- 26 weeks on Game Room
- Average weekly leaderboard growth estimate 38.46
- First week numbers i have: 601 on September 16 (week 17, missing 8 weeks of data)
- Start with 1.4 number week 25. Input the 601 number at week 17 (but do not multiply by 1.08), multiply the next week (week 18) by 1.00 (as the decrease per week is 1.04)
- Add the 600 with the sum of the weeks below it (or just sum the range)
- Optional: Realize that you forgot to added newer data and adjust your numbers
- Look at the result (1,071 truncated) and see if it fits the range 1,000-2,000. If it does - good. If it doesn't oh well.
Now look for data in the other 107 ranked games - i know it sounds really exciting.
Then you add some kind of spreadsheet link to your blog post ... eventually .....
Look for the link in part one... i added an example of the method to page 2 (Irr Ex), page 3 is the two results i had (so far?) using that method.
The Irr method:
- i take the number of weeks a game has been on the service (the number of weeks in 2010 + weeknum(today()). So it updates the averages and weeks automatically.
- Using that number of weeks, i have a scale (sort of), where i set the first week of release equal to 1.4 x Average. (the average is in my previous post -leaderboard level / # weeks on service). i have it decrease week over week by 1/(number of weeks - 1).
- i plug the relevant "first week data" (leaderboards started in late August) in the corresponding week. After that leaderboard
- After that i just summed the first week with the relevant (or not) series of "estimates" for subsequent weeks. So, in some ways this sort of resembles a reverse NPV (but not quite). What, you thought that Irr was a reference to internal rate of return?
- The numbers will change from week to week
Example: Activision Decathalon
- 26 weeks on Game Room
- Average weekly leaderboard growth estimate 38.46
- First week numbers i have: 601 on September 16 (week 17, missing 8 weeks of data)
- Start with 1.4 number week 25. Input the 601 number at week 17 (but do not multiply by 1.08), multiply the next week (week 18) by 1.00 (as the decrease per week is 1.04)
- Add the 600 with the sum of the weeks below it (or just sum the range)
- Optional: Realize that you forgot to added newer data and adjust your numbers
- Look at the result (1,071 truncated) and see if it fits the range 1,000-2,000. If it does - good. If it doesn't oh well.
Now look for data in the other 107 ranked games - i know it sounds really exciting.
Then you add some kind of spreadsheet link to your blog post ... eventually .....
Look for the link in part one... i added an example of the method to page 2 (Irr Ex), page 3 is the two results i had (so far?) using that method.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Game Room: Game Pack Profiles: 011-013
Game Pack 011
* Release Date: October 27, 2010
* Estimated Ranked Unit Sales: 2,101
Ranked Games
- Arcade: Jackal
- Console: Breakout (2600), Kabobber
Non Ranked games:
- Console: Double Dunk (2600), Golf (2600), Human Cannonball (2600), Miniature Golf (2600), Skiing (Intellivision), Slap Shot: Super Pro Hockey (Intellivision), Space Battle (Intellivision), Space Cadet (Intellivision), Space War (2600), Sprint Master (2600), Super Football (2600)
Interesting Games you may not have heard of:
_________________________________________________________________________
Game Pack 012
* Release Date: November 24, 2010
* Estimated Ranked Unit Sales: 5,724
Ranked Games
- Arcade: Amidar, Detana TwinBee, Food Fight, M.I.A., Pooyan,Trick Trap 1771, TwinBee
- Console: Off the Wall (2600), Vectron (Intellivision), Warlords (2600)
Non Ranked games:
- Arcade: Blades of Steel
- Console: Pitfall II: Lost Caverns (2600), Thwocker (2600), Volleyball (Intellivision)
Interesting Games you may not have heard of: Food Fight, Off the Wall, Pooyan, TwinBee (both of them)
Note: Sunset Riders (Arcade) was allegedly in the pack, but never released.
______________________________________________________________________
Game Pack 013
* Release Date: December 22, 2010
* Estimated Unit Sales: 1,532
Ranked Games
- Arcade: Devastators, Iron Horse, The Main Event
- Console: Desert Falcon
Non Ranked games:
- Console: Code Breaker, Football, Real Sports Baseball, Slam Dunk Basketball, Surround, Tennis, Ventian Blinds
Interesting Games you may not have heard of: Devastators, Iron Horse, Venetian Blinds (kidding on that one)
________________________________________________________________________
Game Pack 014?
* Release Date; ????????????????????
* Release Date: October 27, 2010
* Estimated Ranked Unit Sales: 2,101
Ranked Games
- Arcade: Jackal
- Console: Breakout (2600), Kabobber
Non Ranked games:
- Console: Double Dunk (2600), Golf (2600), Human Cannonball (2600), Miniature Golf (2600), Skiing (Intellivision), Slap Shot: Super Pro Hockey (Intellivision), Space Battle (Intellivision), Space Cadet (Intellivision), Space War (2600), Sprint Master (2600), Super Football (2600)
Interesting Games you may not have heard of:
_________________________________________________________________________
Game Pack 012
* Release Date: November 24, 2010
* Estimated Ranked Unit Sales: 5,724
Ranked Games
- Arcade: Amidar, Detana TwinBee, Food Fight, M.I.A., Pooyan,Trick Trap 1771, TwinBee
- Console: Off the Wall (2600), Vectron (Intellivision), Warlords (2600)
Non Ranked games:
- Arcade: Blades of Steel
- Console: Pitfall II: Lost Caverns (2600), Thwocker (2600), Volleyball (Intellivision)
Interesting Games you may not have heard of: Food Fight, Off the Wall, Pooyan, TwinBee (both of them)
Note: Sunset Riders (Arcade) was allegedly in the pack, but never released.
______________________________________________________________________
Game Pack 013
* Release Date: December 22, 2010
* Estimated Unit Sales: 1,532
Ranked Games
- Arcade: Devastators, Iron Horse, The Main Event
- Console: Desert Falcon
Non Ranked games:
- Console: Code Breaker, Football, Real Sports Baseball, Slam Dunk Basketball, Surround, Tennis, Ventian Blinds
Interesting Games you may not have heard of: Devastators, Iron Horse, Venetian Blinds (kidding on that one)
________________________________________________________________________
Game Pack 014?
* Release Date; ????????????????????
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Game Room: The Search for More Accurate - Estimations Part 1
i have long wondered how to better estimate Game Room sales. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer (and for me no answer correct enough). i am not really satisfied with calling 87.5% of leaderboard entries sales (it is probably higher).
The real problem here is that Game Room uses a plateau leaderboard system that overlooks a potentially large amount of sales - so i am going to estimate how high the leaderboard should be. That is the real challenge.
So how are some of my early estimates progressing? Well maybe i should put up a link.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmQylLb0REoBdHp2ZVlUUjVWWEVJUVV6TWtMcEFSZlE&hl=en
In this spreadsheet (so far) i divided the current leaderboard level by the number of weeks the game has been up on Game Room. To estimate the average weekly leaderboard growth. Some results look better to me than others. However, there is the slight problem that this uses a straight-line method where every weekly total is the same - that is not too realistic. There are 27 out of 108 titles that are over-estimated using this method.
Does anyone have any hints on how to estimate current ranked game sales by leaderboard numbers (where the numbers have to fall in specific ranges)? i have one or two ideas that i may try.
The real problem here is that Game Room uses a plateau leaderboard system that overlooks a potentially large amount of sales - so i am going to estimate how high the leaderboard should be. That is the real challenge.
So how are some of my early estimates progressing? Well maybe i should put up a link.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmQylLb0REoBdHp2ZVlUUjVWWEVJUVV6TWtMcEFSZlE&hl=en
In this spreadsheet (so far) i divided the current leaderboard level by the number of weeks the game has been up on Game Room. To estimate the average weekly leaderboard growth. Some results look better to me than others. However, there is the slight problem that this uses a straight-line method where every weekly total is the same - that is not too realistic. There are 27 out of 108 titles that are over-estimated using this method.
Does anyone have any hints on how to estimate current ranked game sales by leaderboard numbers (where the numbers have to fall in specific ranges)? i have one or two ideas that i may try.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Kinectimals Impressions
Kinectimals is a game about the player and their "pet" wild cat. The starting predators are a: tiger, lion, panther, cheetah and leopard. Supposedly, you can unlock a few more species as you progress. i am looking forward to unlocking the Saber tooth tiger. Basically, this is a mini-game collection masquerading as a pet sim.
The game centers on challenges to get the score up enough to unlock stage challenges. If you unlock the challenges, then you can move on to the next stage. Some of these challenges are stuff like:
* kicking a soccer (football in the rest of the world) ball
* driving an RC car (or Warthog) on a course (sometimes knocking down items)
* Volleying a volleyball
* Spinning a jump rope (harder than it seems)
* Throwing a Frisbee (maybe knocking stuff down)
* Spraying targets with a squirt gun
* Catching butterflies in a net
* Highlighting buried treasure so the cat can dig it up
* Having your pet perform tricks: which can be done with gestures or voice recognition
* Tossing an item (like a ball, a toy or a boot)
* Obstacle course - where you may have to run, duck, jump or balance
You get some form of in-game currency that you can spend on stuff like collars, variations of toys and decor for your house. Yes, you can decorate your house. There is also a scan stone that can be used to scan in the special tags on certain Kinectimals plush toys.
This games seems to be one of the better Kinect launch titles. Some mini-games control better than others. The camera control takes a little bit of getting used to, stepping a certain direction moves the camera the other direction. If you just sit around, the animal will bring a toy to you to play with. So, in that way, the experience is kind of "on rails". For some reason, i can't get the tossing one to work all of the time. Basically, you go around the island earning exploration points by playing mini-games which unlock parts of the island (like challenge sections or new places). i would probably put this as the number 4 best launch title (after Adventures, Sports and Dance Central). Graphically, it is colorful and looks decent. Kinectimals is probably the only launch title to actually incorporate voice commands. If only they would release a non-cat add-on (like maybe bears and wolves)... Kinectimals seems to be targeted towards a younger demographic (but the more chronologically advanced kids can have fun with it too).
Motion: this is not Kinect Adventures or Sports that require a ton of movement. The games here seem to be more along the lines of holding your hand out, throwing a flying disc (or sombrero), tossing a toy underhand, some running in place and jumping, controlling a RC car (Joy Ride style, sort or) and a little kicking. The lateral movement is mostly to change the camera. So, basically - standing in place and moving your upper body (with occasional jumping or kicking).
The game centers on challenges to get the score up enough to unlock stage challenges. If you unlock the challenges, then you can move on to the next stage. Some of these challenges are stuff like:
* kicking a soccer (football in the rest of the world) ball
* driving an RC car (or Warthog) on a course (sometimes knocking down items)
* Volleying a volleyball
* Spinning a jump rope (harder than it seems)
* Throwing a Frisbee (maybe knocking stuff down)
* Spraying targets with a squirt gun
* Catching butterflies in a net
* Highlighting buried treasure so the cat can dig it up
* Having your pet perform tricks: which can be done with gestures or voice recognition
* Tossing an item (like a ball, a toy or a boot)
* Obstacle course - where you may have to run, duck, jump or balance
You get some form of in-game currency that you can spend on stuff like collars, variations of toys and decor for your house. Yes, you can decorate your house. There is also a scan stone that can be used to scan in the special tags on certain Kinectimals plush toys.
This games seems to be one of the better Kinect launch titles. Some mini-games control better than others. The camera control takes a little bit of getting used to, stepping a certain direction moves the camera the other direction. If you just sit around, the animal will bring a toy to you to play with. So, in that way, the experience is kind of "on rails". For some reason, i can't get the tossing one to work all of the time. Basically, you go around the island earning exploration points by playing mini-games which unlock parts of the island (like challenge sections or new places). i would probably put this as the number 4 best launch title (after Adventures, Sports and Dance Central). Graphically, it is colorful and looks decent. Kinectimals is probably the only launch title to actually incorporate voice commands. If only they would release a non-cat add-on (like maybe bears and wolves)... Kinectimals seems to be targeted towards a younger demographic (but the more chronologically advanced kids can have fun with it too).
Motion: this is not Kinect Adventures or Sports that require a ton of movement. The games here seem to be more along the lines of holding your hand out, throwing a flying disc (or sombrero), tossing a toy underhand, some running in place and jumping, controlling a RC car (Joy Ride style, sort or) and a little kicking. The lateral movement is mostly to change the camera. So, basically - standing in place and moving your upper body (with occasional jumping or kicking).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)