What Constitues Good Game Sales Figures Today?

VG Republic Writes: Games today are either sink or swim, and it is all dependent on the sales that they generate not the review scores that are handed down. With the rising costs of game development and studios who’s success hinges on every single copy of their game’s sales it is inevitable that every time a major title hits the market fans have to shutter with the thought that it could the last time that we see the franchise. What constitutes for a good sales figure in the market today? What marks that success of a game’s sales that would invoke more titles to supersede the prior? Is there a certain goal or number that each franchise should strive for in sales to ensure that the publisher is satisfied with it to produce or request more? This is quite the loaded set questions, and we’ll look at all of the proper avenues that constitutes good game sales or at least all of the factors that tend to go into making up such a complicated equation.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
aLucidMind1954d ago

Anybody trying to sell anything that actually knows business will say that the best figures are roughly triple what the product cost to make and distribute it. Double is good, but obviously anything over triple should be phenomenal in the seller's eyes since they paid off the cost, can put at least that much into the next game, and then still have enough to do whatever with.

FarCryLover1821954d ago

That sounds right to me.

But in modern day publishers eyes:

Less than 1 million = super failure
2 million - 5 million = failure
6 million - 10 million = moderate success
11 million + = success

ATi_Elite1954d ago

So by your strange Logic every Sony Exclusive is a SUper Failure, Failure or GT5 and UC2 being the only Moderate success!

by your strange logic 90% of all games are failure!

MidnytRain1954d ago


He said, "in modern day publishers' eyes..."

aLucidMind1954d ago

Thing is, many AAA games cost between $20M and $100M to make. So if, say, Tomb Raider were to have sold less than $1M then it would certainly would have been a colossal failure due to the cost. Analysts say that the game's cost requires 5M sales to break even, meaning it would have cost roughly $100M to make ($40 of a $60 game's price is retailer profit and advertising costs).

So Square Enix wasn't out of this world in their minds for considering making around 10M sales their goal. It is all very relative.

FarCryLover1821954d ago

Well, I mean this is what Square-Enix believes I guess. Hitman and Tomb Raider both in the 2-5 million range and got a big old "failure" from SE associated with them.

1954d ago
+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1954d ago
ATi_Elite1954d ago (Edited 1954d ago )

Good points you made! Triple the profit vs. cost to make is success!

The Cost of video games increasing is NOT TRUE! Devs/Pubs just have bad visions or make too many changes and blow the budget. If they properly plan and then don't all of sudden decide they need a COD MP CLone then low budgets but big quality can be achieved.

3 guys are making Starforge a very ambitious PC Exclusive and the game technically and gameplay wise is beyond anything I ever played at least all wrapped up in one game.

A FPS-RTS-Minecraft Planetary plus Space combat MMO game with Voxel terrain and procedural universe plus Physics. Seriously I need 5 games for all this stuff and they have it in ONE!

They are working outta their house and if they sell 350k units at $40 a unit they will be Rich and have cash to improve Starforge and make Starforge 2 and get better equipment etc..

So it's all about planning and staying within your budget.

Tontus1954d ago


Actually God of War III sold over 6 million so that's 3 moderate successes! (I hope you're not looking at Vgchartz data, naughty, they're guess is as good as my mothers). UC3 will pass 6m by the end of the year bringing Sony's successful games up to 4 this generation! If we count a third party exclusive (MGS4) it could be 5!

It's a shame that Infamous, Resistance, LittleBigPlanet, Killzone etc, all failed. ;P


lol, I know you're joking but it really is terrible how much people and publishers expect games to sell nowadays, especially when they don't even make an effort with marketing. Not everything is going to sell like Halo, CoD & Mario but not everything should have to just to be profitable.

josephayal1954d ago

games need to innovate to survive, examples

2.journey of duty '4' first game in the series not to be set during WW2
4.little big planet

aLucidMind1954d ago

Not necessarily; you should never try to fix what isn't broken, especially if it is well-received. More of the same, but improved in every way is usually better than innovation for the sake of it. What games need to survive is developers/producers who know where the line that calls for innovation is and what doesn't need fixing.

Problem is, many developers and publishers don't know where that line is. Look at CoD, very little innovation and is the epitome of "don't fix what ain't broke", and the same is becoming true of Assassin's Creed. Because they're not innovating enough, it's becoming stale. Now look at Saints Row 3; they went and changed what ain't broke and alienated many fans. While all three are very successful financially, they're talked down about due to those fundamental reasons.

TopDudeMan1954d ago

It all depends on the budget. Some studios can be happy with a few tens of thousands of copies sold if the game was relatively cheap to make.

1954d ago Replies(1)
Realplaya1954d ago

That's why games need high replay value minus the dlc. Does anyone remember games like tecmo bowl, street fighter II, Metroid, Super Mario brothers, Altered beast, golden ax Space harrier, Final Fight, Blades of Steele, Double dribble, Sonic the hedgehog. We all played the hell out of those games because they focused on one thing fun factor. I remember playing Mario bros for countless hours trying to get through without dying then finding hidden pipes and who remembers the 100 man trick.

What about contra when you died and you stole your buddies extra man trying to get the best gun. Streets of rage that game was bad ass.

Over time these developers lost there damn mind they made games with these graphics that required us to have to save up a month to buy. by the time you can the reviews are out and you buy the game second hand because someone beat it in a week and it had no replay at all.

I propose that these developers stop ripping us off with low quality games that we have to spend $20.00 on top of $60.00 to enjoy.

I always have proof to back up my long rants so todays example is the NEO GEO Expensive system and games were to expensive. At what point do companies go back to their roots and give us what we need and not what we want?

Show all comments (19)