Making 567 dollars off of 50 million in sales (7 million more than their development costs) says to me that either the numbers are wrong or theyre incredibly inefficient at converting sales into profit. Or both. Like... they could have had a stream of their own game make more than that.
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
40 points (87.0% liked)
Games
16806 readers
939 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
When something that big barely turns a profit, I immediately suspect Hollywood accounting.
But if true, they made a game, covered their costs, left the company with an asset that can keep making sales, and probably developed their in-house talent and tooling along the way. That's a lot of points in the "win" column.
Wise leaders understand that, in business, victory means getting to try another project with the same team, next year. Failure means disolution of the business. Earn enough years and projects with the same team in a row, and maybe you take one of the big wins one of those years.
I mean it only looks bad if you believe in endless growth. It cost some money to make and it made it all back, all the employees were paid for their time. I see no problem.
That's a shame, I played sunset overdrive over quarantine, knowing it wasn't a huge success but weirdly got sucked into the world. I played it pretty much every day until I beat the final boss and had a great time with the world traversal mechanics. It kind of felt like a Saturday morning cartoon version of a Just Cause game.
This game is fantastic.
Huh. I knew the game wasn't a runaway success but I'm surprised that it barely turned a profit. I suppose it makes sense why they pivoted to doing Marvel games. At least we know from the leaks that they haven't given up on doing new and original IPs.
If they'd opt-in to GeForce Now I would buy this on Steam in an instant.
Doesn't the game run on any potato by now? Why GeForce Now then?
I'm on a 2013 Macbook Pro so it's not just potato city but potato city in MacOS country. I run a decent amount of games but Firewatch was about the most it could handle and it wasn't exactly a smooth experience. Even something as low-demanding as SOMA is all just stutters and choppy frames moving in slow motion at the lowest settings. Bootcamp was pretty much just taking up space because of that.
With GeForce Now I'm actually playing games I wouldn't have even thought about otherwise (just got 100% on Jedi: Fallen Order the other week and it all looked and ran beautifully). For me it makes it so I can actually run the games, plus they actually look really good, plus it means I can play those "Windows only" games without having to take up space with bootcamp (which again, would struggle immensely with something like Sunset).
Obviously I'd love better hardware but being able to hop on GeForce for free for an hour to play a game I picked up for a few bucks is a much more reasonable option until I get a lot more money.
I’m on a 2013 Macbook Pro so it’s not just potato city but potato city in MacOS country.
Should be able to dual boot into Linux perfectly. :) If it's a MBP with a dedicated GPU, it should be OK but a 2013 Intel iGPU is likely not enough.
Alternate option: The game is published by Microsoft, so it's on GamePass. Alternate option B: Save for a Steam Deck LCD. Sure, it costs money but you'll get there much sooner than a powerful modern notebook or gaming desktop.
I had this same thought when I started playing games again but found out what you mentioned, which is that the Intel integrated graphics processor was just not having it. I remember having the money back in 2013 to go dedicated but since I wasn't gaming at that time I said "nah it'll just distract me into wanting to play games again." Five years later I get back into it with massive disappointment in my past decision.
I do only play for about an hour or two so I really like the free version of GeForce for helping limit it to that (or at least forcing me to take a break and get up and walk around every hour when I do swap out sleep for more playtime). There's been a couple times I've thought about getting GamePass for a month and smashing through a couple games but I know I can't trust myself to play that much right now and will end up just paying for another subscription service but not using it often like a schmuck.
But Alternate option B...my goodness have I been eyeing that Steam Deck. I usually try to save five or 10 bucks or so here and there to build up for "fun stuff" and I've wondered if I could build it up long enough for one. I think you've just inspired me to make that a goal, or at the very least cut that into two separate batches so I still can do fun stuff or buy a cheap game on sale every now and then while still building up a Steam Deck fund.