|
The Wall Street Journal has published a little story about Starcraft 2 and its business potential to Blizzard.
It had a few tidbits I hadn't heard about:
1. Blizzard spent more than $100 million developing SC2.
2. They expect a *profit* of between $500 million and $1 billion in operating profit over the lifespan of the game.
3. One of the main points of beta testing was to "migrate" WoW players to play SC2.
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
My own thoughts: At $60 a pop, assuming a marginal cost per box of $5, you need to sell about 11 million units to make back the $100 million development cost and make the low end profit expectation of $500 million.
That excludes marketing costs, which can be huge. Television commercials, banners on websites, viral campaigns, whatever. Call marketing another $100 million.
Now Blizzard needs to sell 12.7 million units to meet the low end profit expectation, and 21.8 million units to meet the high end.
To get some perspective on 12.7 million units and 21.8 million, the original Starcraft sold 11 million units total over its 10+ years of life. (the article below says so.) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is the best selling game in history, and it sold 15 million units (Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/14/business/la-fi-warfare-game14-2010jan14)
My point with all this? I think that Activision/Blizzard has pretty much announced to Wall Street that Starcraft is going to be the best selling game of all time by a wide margin.
+ Show Spoiler +Activision Bets Big on PC Game
Company Has Spent More Than $100 Million Developing 'Starcraft' Sequel
By DAN GALLAGHER
[Blizzard] Blizzard
'Starcraft II' is a sequel to a science-fiction strategy game that was released 12 years ago. The videogame goes on sale July 27.
Game developers at Blizzard Entertainment have been putting the finishing touches on "Starcraft II," a sequel to a science-fiction strategy game that was first released 12 years ago.
Although videogame sales are in a slump, expectations for "Starcraft II" are high. Blizzard's parent company, Activision Blizzard, has spent more than $100 million developing the computer-based game.
Analysts expect it will sell several million units globally this year, giving a profit boost to Activision's bottom line.
"There is no shortage of consumers for 'Starcraft'," Activision Chief Executive Bobby Kotick said in an interview last month. "For a game that is more than 10 years old, there's millions of people still playing it."
At a meeting of analysts last month, Mr. Kotick described Starcraft as one of the company's seven "pillars of opportunity." He said each pillar has the potential to deliver between $500 million and $1 billion of operating profit over its life span.
"Starcraft II" goes on sale July 27 for $60. The game and its predecessor are set around a battle between three species in the 26th century.
The first "Starcraft" has been one of the best-selling titles for the PC, having moved more than 11 million units since its first release.
Blizzard President Mike Morhaime said the company may be able to migrate some fans of its blockbuster "World of Warcraft" franchise to the game.
"We've brought in a lot of new players in the beta testing who've been playing 'World of Warcraft' but have never tried Starcraft," he said in an interview at the company's headquarters in Irvine, Calif.
The release of "Starcraft II" plays into a larger trend by Activision and other videogame makers to seek growth outside the traditional console-based, retail games business, where momentum has been slowing of late.
For the first five months of this year, sales of game software in the U.S. fell more than 6% compared with the same period in 2009, according to data from the NPD Group, which tracks sales of game products through traditional and online retail channels.
U.S. sales of videogame hardware, software and accessories for June fell to approximately $2.2 billion from $2.3 billion a year earlier, according to NPD.
Analysts say NPD doesn't cover other channels in the game market, most notably games that are sold in digital formats over online services such as Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network.
NPD says it has started to measure spending outside the traditional retail channel, including used games, rentals, subscriptions and digitally delivered content.
Such channels are becoming increasingly important to the sector. Activision's March quarter was driven in large part by online play of its blockbuster "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" and the downloadable expansion pack called "Stimulus Package."
Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan expects the PC game segment to offset declines in the console game business this year—thanks mostly to the "Starcraft II" release and a coming "Warcraft" expansion.
Game publishers have been pushing to build out their digital businesses, but Activision has a leg up on the competition through Blizzard, a maker of online games that merged with Activision in 2008. The "Warcraft" multiplayer online franchise brings in a steady stream of monthly subscription revenue.
While "Starcraft II" won't use a subscription model in the U.S., the game will offer subscriptions in other markets such as Korea. Plus, PC games offer larger profit margins than console titles, as revenue doesn't need to be shared with console manufacturers.
Eric Handler, analyst at MKM Partners, said Activision is focusing on franchises that not only have the potential for strong retail sales, but the most opportunities for additional revenue from digital initiatives like downloadable content and microtransactions.
"I think it's a very sound strategy for them," he said.
Write to Dan Gallagher at dan.gallagher@dowjones.com
|
you forgot that they're selling sc2 in a trilogy as well 
|
3 games coming out and DLC = $
|
I wonder if they're counting the "expansions" as part of those game sales as well. Because as we all know, they should all be one game anyway.
|
That's because it is going to be the best selling game in its full lifespan. Lifespan=both expansions + however long the pro scene goes for. Which, if you look at BW, will be for quite a long time. So Blizzard fighting!!! Thanks for the article though, good read.
|
Man, no wonder there's no lan if they spent that much on it. Any significant piracy would screw them hardcore.
|
On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
hopefully this will open developers eyes on the fact that making 10 shitty games instead of 1 quality game doesnt sell. there is a reason battle chest was 15th most sold computer game in USA in 2009, 11 years after release.
|
On July 16 2010 13:13 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
hopefully this will open developers eyes on the fact that making 10 shitty games instead of 1 quality game doesnt sell. there is a reason battle chest was 15th most sold computer game in USA in 2009, 11 years after release.
We only have 2 PC gaming companies that's worth a shit right now: Valve and Blizzard. But the problem with both is that they release games very slowly and not very often, but all the games they make are quality games. Hopefully companies like BioWare and others can step to the plate and make quality PC exclusive games (which is important).
|
I hate all those activision managers and their greed. They couldn't give 1 shit about the actual game.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Well I'm sure alot of the development cost was the new BNET. They were going to have to make that anyway at somepoint, and that platform will likely host all there games for at least the next 10 years.
|
Is it really possible to get 21.8 million copies total? I find that number quite too much, I mean that's almost twice the number of WoW subscribers of 11.5 million. Perhaps if you count all the trilogy, i think that number is reachable, but by this WOL alone, it's really unrealistic.
|
I don't think 11 million units is a lot for SC2, probably not even in the low range of Blizzard's estimated sales. However, the cost of SC2 may be higher than the OP's estimate, since the maintenance cost of servers are pretty significant, especially over a 10 year cycle.
I think a major bulk of the profits that Activision has estimated, that we've not considered, is from the licensing royalties that they can expect from channels like KESPA or other professional eSports hosts. Furthermore, if the popularity of SC2 is higher than SC1, the network effect will cause many LAN shops/cybercafes around the world to purchase it, which could push the sales to far higher than SC1's 11 million. That may partially explain why Blizzard is so keen to appeal to casual gamers (think Farmville's 80 million+ players).
Is it really possible to get 21.8 million copies total? I find that number quite too much, I mean that's almost twice the number of WoW subscribers of 11.5 million. Perhaps if you count all the trilogy, i think that number is reachable, but by this WOL alone, it's really unrealistic.
If you are considering WoW's subscribers as 11.5 million, you should note that the quoted number only counts the ACTIVE players. I would not be surprised if there were over 20 million copies of WoW sold in its lifetime.
|
Looking at the figures, I can't avoid the comparison to WoW. WoW makes significantly more than that per year, so by plain economics it make sense to develop subpar games. WoW is a social game that appeals to the masses, so by subpar I mean it has a poor effect on its players, compared to Starcraft. I'm not absolutely confident in this opinion, though, so it can by taken with a grain of salt.
|
On July 16 2010 13:24 Vinnesta wrote:I don't think 11 million units is a lot for SC2, probably not even in the low range of Blizzard's estimated sales. However, the cost of SC2 may be higher than the OP's estimate, since the maintenance cost of servers are pretty significant, especially over a 10 year cycle. I think a major bulk of the profits that Activision has estimated, that we've not considered, is from the licensing royalties that they can expect from channels like KESPA or other professional eSports hosts. Furthermore, if the popularity of SC2 is higher than SC1, the network effect will cause many LAN shops/cybercafes around the world to purchase it, which could push the sales to far higher than SC1's 11 million. That may partially explain why Blizzard is so keen to appeal to casual gamers (think Farmville's 80 million+ players). Show nested quote +Is it really possible to get 21.8 million copies total? I find that number quite too much, I mean that's almost twice the number of WoW subscribers of 11.5 million. Perhaps if you count all the trilogy, i think that number is reachable, but by this WOL alone, it's really unrealistic. If you are considering WoW's subscribers as 11.5 million, you should note that the quoted number only counts the ACTIVE players. I would not be surprised if there were over 20 million copies of WoW sold in its lifetime.
they did say over the lifespan of the game...meaning the triology which would be enough. but i wonder why they want WoW players to switch over O_O
dont they make alot from WoW? like TONS?
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Your estimate of 21.8 million units assumes that they have no other monetization plans. Obviously they do...esports, DLC, partnering with peripheral companies (razer, steelseries, coke cans in korea, doritos in china who knows), Deals with media companies, all sorts of other shit, etc. I read that they expect to ship 5 million in the first year.
You took a piece of thread and pulled into "Blizzard is saying this will be the best selling game of all time".....what?
|
The 2nd two games will be the real money makers since the core development tools and balance are mostly finished and all they have to do for the next 2 games is use the existing engine to make more content.
Even if Wings of Liberty operates on a loss (unlikely), the next 2 games should be hugely profitable.
Now, just imagine how much money they are investing in the unannounced MMO =O
|
I dont think its this simple guys, theres probably lots and lots of other variables that we don't factor in simply because were on in their business.
But do trust me when I say they WILL MAKE ALOT OF MONEY.
|
On July 16 2010 13:35 Kennigit wrote:
Your estimate of 21.8 million units assumes that they have no other monetization plans. Obviously they do...esports, DLC, partnering with peripheral companies (razer, steelseries, coke cans in korea, doritos in china who knows), Deals with media companies, all sorts of other shit, etc. I read that they expect to ship 5 million in the first year.
You took a piece of thread and pulled into "Blizzard is saying this will be the best selling game of all time".....what?
OK, OK I agree with all the naysayers.
Yes, I didn't account for the trilogy aspect.
Yes, I didn't include other streams of income (although eSports income is pretty speculative. I had the impression Blizzard didn't really make anything from SC1's popularity.
I agree with all the above comments. I shouldn't try to instigate stuff. =)
|
How do you figure $5 marginal profit per box shipped? It costs them like $0.02 in cardboard and ink, and $0.05 for the DVD. Once the game is developed, shipping a new copy is almost free. Download-only users are even cheaper.
Then again, you have to consider server costs.
|
Actually I'm pretty sure that The Sims is the best sellin PC game of all time, with 16mil units or thereabouts:
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/feb/1114806.htm
But yeah, considering SC1 sold 11mil and Blizzard's empire has grown considerably since then, I would say 15mil units would definitely be on the radar for SC2 at least.
|
Seems like very reasonable expectations to me. I can see Blizzard meetings those milestones without a hitch. This is over the lifetime of the game. They have 2 more expansions, they are taking in revenue with some of their partners for tournaments eg korean air, steelseries etc. Like you said they have 12 million or so WoW subscribers that aren't necessarily gonna have to purchase the game if they sub to WoW (skorea.) They have a lot of interest in China and those guys are playing as much as anybody else plus they have tournaments that are running right now for the end of the beta. I'm not even gonna start with the others regions like europe and other markets that will likely bring in more sales. Don't start doubting those numbers at all. The price for the expansions could be higher when they are released and not the $60 dollar rate they are right now. Some places the price is higher.
|
Modern Warfare is not the best selling game in history. Many classics, especially those of Nintendo outsell MW.
|
What I got from that is Blizzard is going to have sell a record setting number of copies. Seems like this might hinder Blizzard's enthusiasm for incorporating cross realm play without purchasing extra accounts/copies.
|
people are saying a lot about 3 parts, but they forget to mention that those games will cost a lot to make and balance as well, as well as marketing and what not.
however blizzard hopes to reap what they sow in several ways.
in some cases it sounds like they are going to charge monthly fees. they plan on having small chunks of tournaments, they also plan on having small chunks of user-created content that sells.
if another game like DOTA is created, blizzard will make a killing, especially if people are willing to buy it, the question is whether or not people are willing to sell a product, if they can get more people interested in it for free, and have paypal donations instead.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
I'd say StarCraft II is going to sell ~8.3m copies over the course of 5-6 years which will be it's lifespan, they are also going to sell 13m expansion packs.
Reasons for that mainly are that the game isn't very good (IMO), the genre isn't very popular, it doesn't fit the current Guitar Hero/CoD:MW generation, the original pool of SCBW players is too old, and mainly that PC gaming sales are on all time low with the exception of MMOs.
|
Also Blizzard could offer the WoW playerbase a free mount with purchase of Sc2 to drive up sales if they wanted to. I can see that happening cause they are homogenizing their playerbase for the games and services they offer by integrating facebook, cross game chat etc. A bunch of people bought that glitter pony.
|
On July 16 2010 14:21 Baarn wrote:
A bunch of people bought that glitter pony.
It was a winged star pony that flies!
|
Regardless of how many units they sell the fact that they're forecasting $500 mill - $1 billion in profits is pretty damn huge.
|
I'd say StarCraft II is going to sell ~8.3m copies over the course of 5-6 years which will be it's lifespan, they are also going to sell 13m expansion packs.
Reasons for that mainly are that the game isn't very good (IMO), the genre isn't very popular, it doesn't fit the current Guitar Hero/CoD:MW generation, the original pool of SCBW players is too old, and mainly that PC gaming sales are on all time low with the exception of MMOs.
They're going to sell more expansions than the game itself? Why would you buy just the expansion? o_O
Anyways, I disagree, SC2 is going to sell a LOT of copies. Lots of people who've only played one or two Blizzard games are looking forward to SC2. (Diablo, WoW, WC3) Some of these people haven't even played RTS' but they'll consider anything Blizzard puts out because they have a reputation for making damn good games.
In a lot of non-gaming forums I've seen discussion about buying new computers and making sure that can run SC2.
I noticed this weekend that the Wal-Mart in the town I grew up in (15,000-20,000 people) has a HUGE "Coming Soon" banner for SC2.
|
No offense but your summary is kind of retarded :/
3. One of the main points of beta testing was to "migrate" WoW players to play SC2.
Actual quote
"We've brought in a lot of new players in the beta testing who've been playing 'World of Warcraft' but have never tried Starcraft," he said in an interview at the company's headquarters in Irvine, Calif.
One is a statement of results, the other is a statement of intents -_-.
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
Actual quote
sales of game software in the U.S. fell more than 6% compared with the same period in 2009, according to data from the NPD Group, which tracks sales of game products through traditional and online retail channels.
U.S. sales of videogame hardware, software and accessories for June fell to approximately $2.2 billion from $2.3 billion a year earlier, according to NPD.
Revenue from console games dropped last year, the PC games market grew 7% worldwide (admittedly mainly from casual games, but still)
Its almost like you're deliberately trying to sensationalize this or something. werd huh?
|
@Half: Good post.
It also doesn't make any sense to extrapolate from expected profits to unit sales since we don't know how much of those numbers come from milking bnet.
|
On July 16 2010 13:35 Polar_Nada wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:24 Vinnesta wrote:I don't think 11 million units is a lot for SC2, probably not even in the low range of Blizzard's estimated sales. However, the cost of SC2 may be higher than the OP's estimate, since the maintenance cost of servers are pretty significant, especially over a 10 year cycle. I think a major bulk of the profits that Activision has estimated, that we've not considered, is from the licensing royalties that they can expect from channels like KESPA or other professional eSports hosts. Furthermore, if the popularity of SC2 is higher than SC1, the network effect will cause many LAN shops/cybercafes around the world to purchase it, which could push the sales to far higher than SC1's 11 million. That may partially explain why Blizzard is so keen to appeal to casual gamers (think Farmville's 80 million+ players). Is it really possible to get 21.8 million copies total? I find that number quite too much, I mean that's almost twice the number of WoW subscribers of 11.5 million. Perhaps if you count all the trilogy, i think that number is reachable, but by this WOL alone, it's really unrealistic. If you are considering WoW's subscribers as 11.5 million, you should note that the quoted number only counts the ACTIVE players. I would not be surprised if there were over 20 million copies of WoW sold in its lifetime. they did say over the lifespan of the game...meaning the triology which would be enough. but i wonder why they want WoW players to switch over O_O dont they make alot from WoW? like TONS?
Just because they play Starcraft II does not mean a WoW-addict will stop playing WoW. (ex, alot of WoW players play Warcraft III and Diablo II)
|
Isn't part of that profit margin expected to come from Blizzard dipping its pockets into the pro gaming competitive scene?
|
On July 16 2010 13:49 MangoTango wrote:
How do you figure $5 marginal profit per box shipped? It costs them like $0.02 in cardboard and ink, and $0.05 for the DVD. Once the game is developed, shipping a new copy is almost free. Download-only users are even cheaper.
Then again, you have to consider server costs.
Also, theres some profit lost distributing said hardcopies to stores like Best Buy and Gamestop; they don't do it for free.
|
I'd say StarCraft II is going to sell ~8.3m copies over the course of 5-6 years which will be it's lifespan, they are also going to sell 13m expansion packs.
Reasons for that mainly are that the game isn't very good (IMO), the genre isn't very popular, it doesn't fit the current Guitar Hero/CoD:MW generation, the original pool of SCBW players is too old, and mainly that PC gaming sales are on all time low with the exception of MMOs.
1. edit: Cake is good.
2. You are mis-informed because Steam has 22 million ACTIVE users, and therefore PC gaming is alive and people are just switching to digital distribution technologies. Those "numbers" you see on the XBOX forums are incorrect because they dont take into account Steam sales, D2D sales, and other digital sales.
3. Guitar Hero is not popular anymore, if you listened to the Activision press conference you would know that music game sales are dropping, that fad is over.
4. You're acting like Call of Duty is a competitor, when in reality its not because its a completely different genre and Blizzard / Activision have the same parent company.
5. Exception of MMO's? I think you mean the exception of World of Warcraft. If you look at the top 100 selling games of 2009, you will see Starcraft: Broodwar was there, and therefore people are obviously interested in Starcraft II.
6. Why would you go on a Starcraft II forum section and then say Starcraft II is not good, you obviously want to get e-harassed.
7. Supreme Commander and Command & Conquer are both very popular PC titles and do not match the skill, popularity, and dedicated fans that Starcraft has.
The 7 Reasons why you are wrong. =]
|
On July 16 2010 15:11 Skee wrote:
1. You're saying the expansions will outsell the main game? uhhh. WTF, you need the main game to play expansions.
There are two expansions comin, so 13millions divided by 2 ist 6.5million, so the expansion will NOT outsell the maingame ;-)
|
On July 16 2010 15:22 Thargor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 15:11 Skee wrote:
1. You're saying the expansions will outsell the main game? uhhh. WTF, you need the main game to play expansions.
There are two expansions comin, so 13millions divided by 2 ist 6.5million, so the expansion will NOT outsell the maingame ;-)
It's irrelevant because I suck at math =P. Anyway, I still don't like that guy.
|
That's the total population size of a couple of average-sized European countries. And they need to get that number from predominantly teenage-to-midage range. This means they need very heavy success in all parts of the world really.
I'm kinda shocked that SC2 costs $100 million. That's... what is that i can't even
|
^ same sort of budget as a hollywood movie, im not suprised.
|
On July 16 2010 15:37 WAAA wrote:
^ same sort of budget as a hollywood movie, im not suprised. For Hollywood blockbusters yes, I was just uninformed about how big the budgets of some video games have become in the recent years. Around SC1 that could have been a square root of the same number.
I don't think you need that much for some really good gameplay, which is what we all care about. Example is Severance, which still has probably the best engine in its genre, even though the company bankrupted (what a shame).
|
I wonder were they got the 100 million development costs from. Im sure it wasnt cheap to develop, but that seems high. GTA4 cost 100 million to develop supposedly. Does the 100 million include the work on Bnet 2.0 and the cost of the development of future expansions? Wasnt WoW less than 75 million? Im really curious if they got the figure from Blizzard or if they are taking an estimate.
|
Profit needs to be realized in the base year's dollars, so you're going to have to adjust for inflation. I doubt the price of the game will rise by 3% each year.
Their main source of income will probably be from royalties for televised games. This makes sense, as they have done their most intensive advertising from Korea.
In all honesty, after taking the distributor's cut and inflation into account, I think blizzard will be fortunate to recoup 100 million 2006 dollars (arbitrarily chosen) over the lifespan of sc2 based on game copies sold.
The real money will be from DLC and royalties.
|
On July 16 2010 13:20 holy_war wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:13 Sfydjklm wrote:On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
hopefully this will open developers eyes on the fact that making 10 shitty games instead of 1 quality game doesnt sell. there is a reason battle chest was 15th most sold computer game in USA in 2009, 11 years after release. We only have 2 PC gaming companies that's worth a shit right now: Valve and Blizzard. But the problem with both is that they release games very slowly and not very often, but all the games they make are quality games. Hopefully companies like BioWare and others can step to the plate and make quality PC exclusive games (which is important).
You forgot id Software 
|
I am so angry that this article is slanted towards Activision being the hero and mighty makers of the game.
|
On July 16 2010 17:23 shinwa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:20 holy_war wrote:On July 16 2010 13:13 Sfydjklm wrote:On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
hopefully this will open developers eyes on the fact that making 10 shitty games instead of 1 quality game doesnt sell. there is a reason battle chest was 15th most sold computer game in USA in 2009, 11 years after release. We only have 2 PC gaming companies that's worth a shit right now: Valve and Blizzard. But the problem with both is that they release games very slowly and not very often, but all the games they make are quality games. Hopefully companies like BioWare and others can step to the plate and make quality PC exclusive games (which is important). You forgot id Software
ummm, they release their games on XBOX. What he forgot was Crytek, but they are switching to multiplatform as well with Crysis 2 being on the XBOX, PS3 and PC.
|
Business isn't as simple as the OP states. There are other sources of revenue aside from the initial $ spent on buying the box/cd and cd key.
Either way, $100 million is nothing. This game is a global event and will generate fans that will be loyal to the product for several years.
Oh, and here is a side note of how much it cost to produce Avatar by James Cameron (wikipedia.org)
Budget $237,000,000
Gross revenue $2,730,850,547
Turning a 1000% profit isn't that hard to do these days, especially with an already established customer base with sound business principles and a strong company with a good reputation behind it. Yeah, there are alot of people crying shame about Activision on TL.net, but I myself am a huge Activision fan. I loved Mechwarrior 2, 3 and 4. Aside from Activision, who really doesn't have that much to do with Blizzard than most may think, Blizzard itself is even stronger and has an even stronger fan base.
A movie that nobody knew shit about until 6 months before generated close to 3 billion in revenue world wide.
A game that everybody knew about and has had 2+ years of hype and 10+ years of anticipation can easily generate 1 billion in revenue if done correctly, which I have faith in Blizzard will do.
|
What is the cut of retailers like Gamestop and Walmart anyway? People always seem to forget that when they discuss these things in a forum.
My take is that some hardcore gamers on sites like TL tend to forgot how small a minority they are. Digital distribution and esports aren't as big as most think it is. Most of the profits should still come from retail sales and retailers take a huge chunk out of that.
|
I think the comparisons that are made with the casual gaming and how blizz is looking to tap into that market when in my eyes this is an RTS focused on competitive multiplayer and has a pretty steep learning curve compared to your standard fps. I also think the comments about piracy are interesting because blizzard has always had one of the best anti-piracy methods known to man, a great, free, multiplayer service that requires a unique CD key.
I wont be supprised at all if this game breaks sales records, I dont think its gonna beat halo 3 or GTA's records cause there arnt as many PC gamers as there are console tards but blizz could make more money with the lower sales then rockstar because they dont need to share it with M$ or sony
|
On July 16 2010 13:35 Polar_Nada wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:24 Vinnesta wrote:I don't think 11 million units is a lot for SC2, probably not even in the low range of Blizzard's estimated sales. However, the cost of SC2 may be higher than the OP's estimate, since the maintenance cost of servers are pretty significant, especially over a 10 year cycle. I think a major bulk of the profits that Activision has estimated, that we've not considered, is from the licensing royalties that they can expect from channels like KESPA or other professional eSports hosts. Furthermore, if the popularity of SC2 is higher than SC1, the network effect will cause many LAN shops/cybercafes around the world to purchase it, which could push the sales to far higher than SC1's 11 million. That may partially explain why Blizzard is so keen to appeal to casual gamers (think Farmville's 80 million+ players). Is it really possible to get 21.8 million copies total? I find that number quite too much, I mean that's almost twice the number of WoW subscribers of 11.5 million. Perhaps if you count all the trilogy, i think that number is reachable, but by this WOL alone, it's really unrealistic. If you are considering WoW's subscribers as 11.5 million, you should note that the quoted number only counts the ACTIVE players. I would not be surprised if there were over 20 million copies of WoW sold in its lifetime. they did say over the lifespan of the game...meaning the triology which would be enough. but i wonder why they want WoW players to switch over O_O dont they make alot from WoW? like TONS?
It doesnt have to be a switch. All they have to do is buy SC2 and that doesn't mean that they cancel their WoW account to do so. In short, alot of WoW players can be enticed into checking out SC2 because of their esperiences with a Blizzard title. It'll be like how WoW got a lot of interest from Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo players because Blizzard made it.
|
Maybe there hoping to make some profits from the -esports scene?
|
I guess everyone already mentioned WoW, but yea theres no way Modern Warfare has more sales than WoW considering WoW has 11.5 ACTIVE subscribers (I'd be willing to bet most of these players are not the same millions of players from early WoW).
On July 17 2010 05:42 FindingPride wrote:
Maybe there hoping to make some profits from the -esports scene?
I'm guessing this may be one of their main ideas though.
|
MW2 is not the best selling game of all time, and it sold over 20 million units. SC2 will also have additional bnet associated profit revenue.
|
On July 17 2010 05:28 andrewlt wrote:
What is the cut of retailers like Gamestop and Walmart anyway? People always seem to forget that when they discuss these things in a forum.
Retailers don't make jack shit from games, or at least wal-mart doesn't. I would guess that the others don't do much better either.
I worked at a wal-mart for over a year. Those hand held scanners you see the employees with, well they contain a ton of info about the products, including the profit margin.
Some things, like baked goods are 100%+ profit margin. On something like a pc game their profit is in the single digits. What they really want you to buy is the tv or the pc, not necessarily the game or the movie.
|
relative to Blizzard's MMO properties it is questionable whether or not SC2 has been a correct investment... and as we know from how Actvision deals with its developers the bottom line is all that matters... there are dozens of Kotick quotes to this effect...
Morhaime is no longer the #1 Blizzard contact with Activision-Blizzard... he reports to a Blizzard COO who then reports to Activision-Blizzard
Mike Morhaime announced this is the best RTS game Blizzard has ever made.
of course he is influenced to announce this "fact" with SC2 being far more expensive to produce than any other RTS game they've ever made.
the pressure is now on the "RTS fans" to make this game extremely profitable
or risk Activision-Blizzard stating they "can not rationalize continued investment in the RTS genre with 2 MMOs constantly requiring resources, in effect `Blizzard really is a company that makes MMOs` "
SC2's profitability will be compared (investment $) for (investment $) against Blizzard's other properties and Activision-Blizzard could care less whether its an MMO game, RTS game or pong.
SC2 could be the most profitable RTS game in the history of the genre and still evaluated as a failure by Activision-Blizzard...
if Activision-Blizzard can bury Infinity-Ward they can bury Starcraft and not even blink.
Hopefully, SC2 will be profitable relative to Blizzard's other active properties and Bob Kotick (the fox) will be kept out of the Blizzard development hen house.
|
On July 17 2010 07:56 Dr.Smoke wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 05:28 andrewlt wrote:
What is the cut of retailers like Gamestop and Walmart anyway? People always seem to forget that when they discuss these things in a forum.
Retailers don't make jack shit from games, or at least wal-mart doesn't. I would guess that the others don't do much better either. I worked at a wal-mart for over a year. Those hand held scanners you see the employees with, well they contain a ton of info about the products, including the profit margin. Some things, like baked goods are 100%+ profit margin. On something like a pc game their profit is in the single digits. What they really want you to buy is the tv or the pc, not necessarily the game or the movie.
The cost retailers show their employers is not exactly accurate. Best buy does the same thing.
Their actual cost is only known to the suits. However, most of the accessory listed costs are supposedly accurate.
|
Would be so sick if blizzard lost money on sc2 and dropped it.
|
On July 16 2010 15:05 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:49 MangoTango wrote:
How do you figure $5 marginal profit per box shipped? It costs them like $0.02 in cardboard and ink, and $0.05 for the DVD. Once the game is developed, shipping a new copy is almost free. Download-only users are even cheaper.
Then again, you have to consider server costs. Also, theres some profit lost distributing said hardcopies to stores like Best Buy and Gamestop; they don't do it for free.
as if, are you saying that blizzard is PAYING these said stores to sell their games? or did i misunderstand your sentence? =S
I'm pretty sure these stores BUY the games off blizzard AS WELL as the RIGHTS to SELL the game. and then they mark up the prices and sell back to US at a higher price to cover their own profits..
|
there is a part of me that hopes sc2 doesnt make money
|
Starcraft 2 isn't as popular as people think outside of the 'niche' RTS gaming community and from all the eSports games. RTS games in general have been on the down slope since the console explosion and games like CoD & Halo. Casual gamers have games like Grand Theft Auto, Halo, Battlefield & CoD on their wishlists, not so much Starcraft.
|
To everyone who complains that Blizzard is going to nickel and dime you by splitting the game into 3 games or with micro-transactions or whatever, I've got an idea. If this is bad for you, it must be great for Blizzard, so hedge your position as their customer by becoming part-owner and buy some stock. I did (although this was a while ago) = D
|
You have to remember, starcraft 1 has been illegally downloaded and torrented millions of times over.
On the other hand, you won't be able to do it with starcraft 2 for years after the release. So even if assuming only the people who played starcraft1 will buy starcraft 2. That is still a huge market pool
|
I don't think many WoW players will transfer over to sc2, simply because WoW is a game for the lazy mind and an RTS like Sc2 is blunt force trauma to their heads...
|
On July 18 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:So even if assuming only the people who played starcraft1 will buy starcraft 2. That is still a huge market pool
I would say thats a significant assumption.
|
Sometimes people don't think about all the goes into the business transactions involved in them swiping the credit card and carrying a game home from the store. As has been pointed out, the retail outlet gets a cut, and there are shipping, order fulfillment, packaging, marketing, and a ton of other costs involved. To say that Blizzard ends up with $55 per copy straight to the bottom line seems naive.
Also I don't doubt the $100 million figure at all -- figure just in several years' salaries for developers, artists, animators, sound and voice-over people, testers/QA, hardware guys, network guys, customer service people, and all the back office expenses as well. Add on buying servers, paying for bandwidth, and painting jetliners, and suddenly you're talking about real money. 
|
On July 18 2010 00:47 jester121 wrote:Sometimes people don't think about all the goes into the business transactions involved in them swiping the credit card and carrying a game home from the store. As has been pointed out, the retail outlet gets a cut, and there are shipping, order fulfillment, packaging, marketing, and a ton of other costs involved. To say that Blizzard ends up with $55 per copy straight to the bottom line seems naive. Also I don't doubt the $100 million figure at all -- figure just in several years' salaries for developers, artists, animators, sound and voice-over people, testers/QA, hardware guys, network guys, customer service people, and all the back office expenses as well. Add on buying servers, paying for bandwidth, and painting jetliners, and suddenly you're talking about real money.
Don't forget taxes! They mentioned in the article that SCII gets better profit margins than most of Acti-Blizz other video games (probably not true for WoW?), so lets look at A-B profit margins. They have been all over the place in recent history, but have an average of around 12-15%. So let's say Starcraft makes 20% margins. There you have it $60*.2= $12 per copy sold that Activision-Blizzard will realize in net profit. Obviously an estimate but probably not too far off from the truth.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
Blizzards are rightfully aiming for WoW players, not only it's one of the most dedicated gaming audiences ever, but it also falls under 'regular customers', as a large % of them also tried/bought previous blizzard games, same applies for SC and War3 audiences and customers of every single AAA game developer.
|
|
|
On July 16 2010 13:20 holy_war wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:13 Sfydjklm wrote:On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
hopefully this will open developers eyes on the fact that making 10 shitty games instead of 1 quality game doesnt sell. there is a reason battle chest was 15th most sold computer game in USA in 2009, 11 years after release. We only have 2 PC gaming companies that's worth a shit right now: Valve and Blizzard. But the problem with both is that they release games very slowly and not very often, but all the games they make are quality games. Hopefully companies like BioWare and others can step to the plate and make quality PC exclusive games (which is important).
imo Infinity Ward USED to be on that list, since their games showed that they did care.........then they kinda got owned on modern warfare 2, and in addition to them getting owned by it....activision killed the game (at least on PC...but i dont use console so idc about how well it did there)
|
Kotick killed Infinity Ward by forcing them to make a game that catered to the console fanboys instead of retaining the PC gaming roots that made them respected in the industry because it gave them bigger margins for less development costs.
|
On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
Most analysis don't have any Steam numbers other than a top10 list put out by Valve every month. It includes no hard numbers, so it's impossible to tell how up or down PC gaming is. Most developers are pleasantly surprised when they release games on Steam at how much they actually do sell.
Just a minor nitpick.
|
All of the calculations in the op are completely unfounded, but it's still a good article.
|
On July 18 2010 03:28 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general. Most analysis don't have any Steam numbers other than a top10 list put out by Valve every month. It includes no hard numbers, so it's impossible to tell how up or down PC gaming is. Most developers are pleasantly surprised when they release games on Steam at how much they actually do sell. Just a minor nitpick.
On that topic, I wonder why blizz is nt putting any of their games on steam. they would make tons more monney.
Anyone know a logical explaination as to why Blizz would refuse extre $$$ just so they can have control of the sales with their own webstore?
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On July 18 2010 03:28 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general. Most analysis don't have any Steam numbers other than a top10 list put out by Valve every month. It includes no hard numbers, so it's impossible to tell how up or down PC gaming is. Most developers are pleasantly surprised when they release games on Steam at how much they actually do sell. Just a minor nitpick.
Doesn't really matter. You can make up sales numbers Steam generates with 22 million active users, add all conventional PC game sales, all MMO sales and it still will be lower than console sales for the corresponding period, and by consoles in this case i only mean PS3 and 360, not even the Wii, Ps2 (which is very alive still) and portables.
Both these numbers combined (console and PC) get simply trumped into the middle of next week by the amount of downloads from the 15-20 world's most popular torrent trackers alone.
On that topic, I wonder why blizz is nt putting any of their games on steam. they would make tons more monney.
Anyone know a logical explaination as to why Blizz would refuse extre $$$ just so they can have control of the sales with their own webstore?
Because when you are launching an exclusive unified platform for all Multiplayer, social and financial interaction throughout all your games for the next decade you probably don't want to use the one of your competitor.
|
Best selling game of all time? lets hope so.
|
On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
1. Blizzard spent more than $100 million developing SC2.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was grossly exaggerated, as is usually done by video game companies.
Do you even realize what 100 million dollars are ? It's a third of the selling price of a SKYSCRAPER, meaning 100M can very well mean half its building value.
There is just no way a game, no matter how good looking or innovative it is, costs this much. I can see this kind of money being shelled in super high-end software like Maya or 3dMax but definitely not a game (much less starcraft 2 which isn't really technologically impressive).
For example Heroes of newerth, which has on-par if not better physics, more or less the same graphical quality and a MUCH better netcode cost approx 4 millions.
|
On July 18 2010 03:47 Santriell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
1. Blizzard spent more than $100 million developing SC2. I wouldn't be surprised if this was grossly exaggerated, as is usually done by video game companies. Do you even realize what 100 million dollars are ? It's a third of the selling price of a SKYSCRAPER, meaning 100M can very well mean half its building value. There is just no way a game, no matter how good looking or innovative it is, costs this much. I can see this kind of money being shelled in super high-end software like Maya or 3dMax but definitely not a game (much less starcraft 2 which isn't really technologically impressive).
Businesses don't grow linearly; when there is more success there is also more improvement to take advantage of that success.
Halo 3 which broke all the records when it was released 3 years ago cost 60 million to make. You're right that it's always overestimated, but it's not exactly out of the ballpark anymore.
|
On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
It had a few tidbits I hadn't heard about:
1. Blizzard spent more than $100 million developing SC2.
2. They expect a *profit* of between $500 million and $1 billion in operating profit over the lifespan of the game.
3. One of the main points of beta testing was to "migrate" WoW players to play SC2.
4. All of this occurs against a backdrop of falling sales and profits in PC gaming in general.
Yes, all 4 points making sense, especially the third point, lol. These can all be speculated.
On July 16 2010 13:11 Kvz wrote:you forgot that they're selling sc2 in a trilogy as well ...which costs money too to develop.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On July 18 2010 03:47 Santriell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
1. Blizzard spent more than $100 million developing SC2. I wouldn't be surprised if this was grossly exaggerated, as is usually done by video game companies. Do you even realize what 100 million dollars are ? It's a third of the selling price of a SKYSCRAPER, meaning 100M can very well mean half its building value. There is just no way a game, no matter how good looking or innovative it is, costs this much. I can see this kind of money being shelled in super high-end software like Maya or 3dMax but definitely not a game (much less starcraft 2 which isn't really technologically impressive). For example Heroes of newerth, which has on-par if not better physics, more or less the same graphical quality and a MUCH better netcode cost approx 4 millions.
It's simple maths, 7 years, 40-50 developers (including B.net 2.0) @ 60k/yr minimum (prolly avr 70-80), 10$m+ on promotion (could easily be double that), sound, animation (Avatar-like animation costs ~$40k per frame or $1 million per minute) and int property on writing.
It's not the first game to cost ~$100m and certainly not the last one, you can Google the most expensive games, SW:TOR is next one with $100m budget, WoW was $60 million and that was 6 years ago (5 years development) and there really were no graphics.
Also HoN looks no way near as good as SC2, more like the third War III expansion.
|
On July 18 2010 03:58 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2010 03:47 Santriell wrote:On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
1. Blizzard spent more than $100 million developing SC2. I wouldn't be surprised if this was grossly exaggerated, as is usually done by video game companies. Do you even realize what 100 million dollars are ? It's a third of the selling price of a SKYSCRAPER, meaning 100M can very well mean half its building value. There is just no way a game, no matter how good looking or innovative it is, costs this much. I can see this kind of money being shelled in super high-end software like Maya or 3dMax but definitely not a game (much less starcraft 2 which isn't really technologically impressive). For example Heroes of newerth, which has on-par if not better physics, more or less the same graphical quality and a MUCH better netcode cost approx 4 millions. It's simple maths, 7 years, 40-50 developers (including B.net 2.0) @ 60k/yr minimum (prolly avr 70-80), 10$m+ on promotion (could easily be double that), sound, animation (Avatar-like animation costs ~$40k per frame or $1 million per minute) and int property on writing. It's not the first game to cost ~$100m and certainly not the last one, you can Google the most expensive games, SW:TOR is next one with $100m budget, WoW was $60 million and that was 6 years ago (5 years development) and there really were no graphics. Also HoN looks no way near as good as SC2, more like the third War III expansion.
ROFL What? People bringing in HoN into the discussion?? Seriously. "HoN has better physics than SC2"? Are you freakin serious? SC2 uses Havoc. And HoN didn't pull of anything but a WC3 clone, specifying in DotA, with another net-code architecture (potentially better) and updated graphics.
Also sorry Go0g3n for directly quoting you.. I think that you were needed in the post too.
|
I'm sorry cocosoft but if you compare units vs units (counting HoN's heroes as actual units), the animations, texturing and overall quality of the models are far superior to SC2.
For instance the few firsts units in HoN were the disciple and magebane, contrast that with say the marine and the marauder and try to honestly sell me that they're designed/look better ?
Your clone argument is illogic seeing as more than half of SC2 is a direct clone of the first one, only with a better engine so they didn't "pull much" either :-|.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On July 18 2010 04:48 Santriell wrote:
the animations, texturing and overall quality of the models are far superior to SC2.
It is not by far, not just far but very very far, just pull 2 random screens from both next to each other.
|
On July 18 2010 04:48 Santriell wrote:
I'm sorry cocosoft but if you compare units vs units (counting HoN's heroes as actual units), the animations, texturing and overall quality of the models are far superior to SC2.
For instance the few firsts units in HoN were the disciple and magebane, contrast that with say the marine and the marauder and try to honestly sell me that they're designed/look better ?
Your clone argument is illogic seeing as more than half of SC2 is a direct clone of the first one, only with a better engine so they didn't "pull much" either :-|.
I'm not sure were I said anything about units vs units visual design compared to HoN. But I've played HoN, and the graphics is not better than in Starcraft 2.
|
On July 18 2010 05:02 cocosoft wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2010 04:48 Santriell wrote:
I'm sorry cocosoft but if you compare units vs units (counting HoN's heroes as actual units), the animations, texturing and overall quality of the models are far superior to SC2.
For instance the few firsts units in HoN were the disciple and magebane, contrast that with say the marine and the marauder and try to honestly sell me that they're designed/look better ?
Your clone argument is illogic seeing as more than half of SC2 is a direct clone of the first one, only with a better engine so they didn't "pull much" either :-|.
I'm not sure were I said anything about units vs units visual design compared to HoN. But I've played HoN, and the graphics is not better than in Starcraft 2.
Well, HoN isnt trying to be some graphical powerhouse. So thats a given.
|
On July 18 2010 05:11 starcat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2010 05:02 cocosoft wrote:On July 18 2010 04:48 Santriell wrote:
I'm sorry cocosoft but if you compare units vs units (counting HoN's heroes as actual units), the animations, texturing and overall quality of the models are far superior to SC2.
For instance the few firsts units in HoN were the disciple and magebane, contrast that with say the marine and the marauder and try to honestly sell me that they're designed/look better ?
Your clone argument is illogic seeing as more than half of SC2 is a direct clone of the first one, only with a better engine so they didn't "pull much" either :-|.
I'm not sure were I said anything about units vs units visual design compared to HoN. But I've played HoN, and the graphics is not better than in Starcraft 2. Well, HoN isnt trying to be some graphical powerhouse. So thats a given. Read the whole discussion. Santriell was counter-arguing that HoN has better graphics than SC2, when I haven't said a thing about graphics-comparison. I argued that Physics is better in SC2 than in HoN, as it uses Havoc.
|
100 mil sounds like a high fixed cost necessary for the two sequels. I was a bit more worried about the repeated hints of increasing amounts of "micro" transactions.
|
On July 16 2010 13:11 RandomBS wrote:
I wonder if they're counting the "expansions" as part of those game sales as well. Because as we all know, they should all be one game anyway.
I disagree. We don't know that. In fact, having worked in the games industry for the better part of the last decade, I know that developing single player content takes a lot of time, resources and ultimately, money. I think the decision to develop the game as a trilogy is beneficial for everyone. From our perspective, it means the first installment of the single player mode will probably be very polished, and it means we'll get two more brood war-type content additions in the future. Sounds good to me. From Blizzards perspective, it means a continuted stream of revenue for several years.
So that means the only way this is bad for anyone is if you don't think the installments present enough value for money. But seriously, it's like what, 60 bucks? Pfft...
|
If my math is anywhere near correct, they will only need 555,555 people to buy every game in the trilogy to make 100 million. They announced last BlizzCon (maybe two ago?) that B.Net had 11 million active users and WoW had 12 million. If they have 23 million people that play their games and hear their hype and all of them buy all three games, that's 4.1 BILLION DOLLARS. It's certainly within the realm of possibility to make 500 million I'd say.
|
On July 16 2010 14:21 Baarn wrote:
Also Blizzard could offer the WoW playerbase a free mount with purchase of Sc2 to drive up sales if they wanted to. I can see that happening cause they are homogenizing their playerbase for the games and services they offer by integrating facebook, cross game chat etc. A bunch of people bought that glitter pony.
Aren't they already offering a mount for WoW I don't play WoW , but that thor thing isn't that some WoW item??
|
I expect SC2 to make more money for Blizzard from sources outside actually selling boxes. Look at how tightly they're sinking their teeth into eSports, they smell tons of profit there. How much money has OGN and MBC made over the years?
|
On July 20 2010 05:13 Bob300 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 14:21 Baarn wrote:
Also Blizzard could offer the WoW playerbase a free mount with purchase of Sc2 to drive up sales if they wanted to. I can see that happening cause they are homogenizing their playerbase for the games and services they offer by integrating facebook, cross game chat etc. A bunch of people bought that glitter pony. Aren't they already offering a mount for WoW I don't play WoW , but that thor thing isn't that some WoW item??
A pet. Not compelling enough to spend 100 on. The celestial steed was only 25.
|
They dont have to spend as much on the next 2 games, but they will also sell over 10 million each, so they will make that money back easily.
|
On July 18 2010 03:47 Santriell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
1. Blizzard spent more than $100 million developing SC2. I wouldn't be surprised if this was grossly exaggerated, as is usually done by video game companies. Do you even realize what 100 million dollars are ? It's a third of the selling price of a SKYSCRAPER, meaning 100M can very well mean half its building value. There is just no way a game, no matter how good looking or innovative it is, costs this much. I can see this kind of money being shelled in super high-end software like Maya or 3dMax but definitely not a game (much less starcraft 2 which isn't really technologically impressive). For example Heroes of newerth, which has on-par if not better physics, more or less the same graphical quality and a MUCH better netcode cost approx 4 millions.
They have been working for YEARS ON IT.
Employee salaries and benefits. Equipment, etc. Do you realize how much payroll is for large companies?
|
On the popularity of games, VGchartz has a good list, unfortunately you now have to register to get the all time totals, but last time I checked, in the top 50 games sold of all time, the only PC games in there were the sims, WoW and starcraft. half life and gta made it in on page two. Note that this is broken up by platform, so MWF2 360/ps3/PC are considered three separate titles, meaning they might combined compete a bit better, though as someone has already mentioned, WoW and the Sims both have sold significantly over 16 million units.
amusingly, the top ten went something like
wii sports
wii fit
pokemon gold/silver
nintendogs
SMB
mario kart
etc.
nintendo had like the top 15, and about 80% of the top 50.
|
On July 20 2010 05:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2010 03:47 Santriell wrote:On July 16 2010 13:09 Random_0 wrote:
1. Blizzard spent more than $100 million developing SC2. I wouldn't be surprised if this was grossly exaggerated, as is usually done by video game companies. Do you even realize what 100 million dollars are ? It's a third of the selling price of a SKYSCRAPER, meaning 100M can very well mean half its building value. There is just no way a game, no matter how good looking or innovative it is, costs this much. I can see this kind of money being shelled in super high-end software like Maya or 3dMax but definitely not a game (much less starcraft 2 which isn't really technologically impressive). For example Heroes of newerth, which has on-par if not better physics, more or less the same graphical quality and a MUCH better netcode cost approx 4 millions. They have been working for YEARS ON IT. Employee salaries and benefits. Equipment, etc. Do you realize how much payroll is for large companies?
Isn't the current Tab on Star Wars The Old Republic about 100 million?
|
Ok, may be a noob question, what is DLC?
|
On July 20 2010 17:51 Reignyo wrote:
Ok, may be a noob question, what is DLC?
Downloadable content for a game, typically chargable. For example, Map packs for Modern Warfare 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
