Gaming Devolved?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Hence attempts to link Gaming Evolved with failure of games.

3.4 million copies of Tomb Raider have been sold in four weeks, publisher Square Enix has revealed, which is not enough to hit the game's sales target.

Fellow Square Enix title Hitman Absolution sold 3.6 million units since its launch in November last year, while Sleeping Dogs sold 1.75 million since last August.

There's no mention of what the company's internal sales expectations were for the trio, just that all three missed their respective marks.

Square Enix expected 14.9 million retail game sales from North America and Europe combined in its six-monthly forecast last September. Considering the fact that Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution and Sleeping Dogs were the only big releases for these regions and accounted for a combined 8.75 million sales worldwide, it's clear that their targets were a good deal higher.

Today's numbers, published in Square Enix's latest financial report, do not count digital sales.

The figures are predicted totals for the current financial year. With five more days to go, they're unlikely to change very much unless you personally go out and buy 500,000 copies of Tomb Raider right now.

The business' North American sales momentum was singled out as being particularly "ineffective". The continent recorded just two thirds of Europe's sales. Back in September, Square Enix had forecast that North American sales would be higher than Europe's.

Price protection - where a publisher is forced to compensate retailers for any games shifted at cut cost - added to Square Enix's woes.

The company revealed earlier this morning that its net sales and total profits would be significantly lower than expected for the current financial year.

In large part this is due to a restructuring of its games business, a measure necessary due to lacklustre sales of its console game portfolio. Company president Yoichi Wada has also been replaced.

Square Enix has shed its president and announced an "extraordinary loss" for this financial year.

Slow sales of its console games in the West are to blame, Square Enix said in a statement to investors today.

Outgoing boss Yoichi Wada had been in the job since 2000. He's been replaced by Yosuke Matsuda, formerly company president. Square Enix has made no mention of a new role for Wada.

Profit forecasts have been slashed in the wake of plans for "major reforms and restructuring" at the company - an effort that will cost 10 billion yen (£69.87 million).
1

Wada you mean I'm fired?

Although console game sales are the cause for the company restructure, it's the reforms themselves which will plunge Square Enix so far into the red this year.

The company expected to make 3.5 billion yen (£24.4m) profit, but will now make a 13 billion yen (£90m) loss.

Major titles released in the past financial year include Sleeping Dogs, Hitman: Absolution and the just-released Tomb Raider reboot.

Square Enix's future is currently looking very Final Fantasy heavy. Upcoming titles include Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy 13, Final Fantasy 10 and 10-2 HD and the relaunch of failed MMO Final Fantasy 14: A Realm Reborn. There's the mysterious (vapourware) Final Fantasy Versus 13 project, too.

The company will also publish Eidos Montreal's new Thief title, although that game's vague 2014 release date may mean it misses the next financial year.

Eurogamer has asked Square Enix for comment on the reports. We'll update when we hear back.

In 2010,digital PC game sales were higher than boxed sales:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/20/digital-downloads-more-popular-than-boxed-sales-in-us/

American analysts NPD have released a report showing that digital sales for PC games have outstripped retail for the first half of 2010.

As reported by MCV, Steam holds the lion’s share of digital downloads, with Direct2Drive, EA.com, WorldofWarcraft.com and Blizzard.com pulling up the rear. According to NPD there were three million more digital downloads than boxed copies sold in the first half of the year, with 8.2 million PC games being sold in shops. Digital downloads seem to be cheaper, too, with boxed copies still accounting for 57% of total revenue.

I dimly remember a time, long ago, when I used to buy games in shops. There were other people there, and loud music, and rows and rows of games, and I could never find what I wanted. A part of me slightly misses those big old boxes with their hefty, impenetrable manuals. But what about you? Do you buy your games at retail, or online? Let us know in the comments.

So,looking at the evidence posted so far,the OP has failed hard.

So,are the supporters of whatever crap he is smoking.

edit - oh wow, big red text, excellent debating technique

The point you seem to be missing, is that if these games were considered failures on console platforms, it's unlikely the PC counterparts were a rip roaring success story and in fact were likely just as poorly performing. Something that's not good for any of us, however big and red you want to post about CONSOLES ONLY

Its for people who cannot seem to read. Hence big RED letters will help them.

What you don't seem to understand(on purpose),is the OP is attempting to link the AMD Gaming Evolved program to the failure of the games.

There is no evidence to indicate this and those who are trying to warp the figures,and in some fantasy land.

Even Square Enix THEMSELVES said consoles. Not PCs.

CONSOLES.

So,read what they said before trying to automatically think it is down to PCs.

 

[Kenai]

Yes, well done, some more big red text and even pictures.

Perhaps next time you could post it bigger and redder? I'm sure that would help me understand your non-point.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yes, well done, some more big red text and even pictures,so I can into my head.

Perhaps next time you could post it bigger and redder? I'm sure that would help me understand what the articles are saying and what the management of Square Enix also said.

 

[Kenai]

Sorry, not enough big red text. Trying to amusingly edit my post content would be more amusing if you didn't miss words out when you did it too but nevermind, A for effort.

You seem to be missing the point though, so perhaps it's you struggling to read. Why attribute my position to 'trying to automatically think it is down to PCs' when i've said nothing of the sort?

If you have comprehension trouble, let me know and i'll try and explain the difference between the viewpoint of 'If console sales were bad, PC ones probably were too, and wouldn't be able to make up a shortfall even if they were great' and the viewpoint 'it's all the fault of PCs'.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Sorry, not enough big red text.

You seem to be missing the point though, so perhaps it's you struggling to read. Why attribute my position to 'trying to automatically think it is down to PCs' when i've said nothing of the sort?

If you have comprehension trouble, let me know and i'll try and explain the difference between the viewpoint of 'If console sales were bad, PC ones probably were too, and wouldn't be able to make up a shortfall even if they were great' and the viewpoint 'it's all the fault of PCs'.

Actually you seem to be the one having massive comprehension troubles.

Lets repeat it again.

Slow sales of its console games in the West are to blame, Square Enix said in a statement to investors today.

Is there any mention of poor PC sales from Square Enix??

Don't see any myself.

Here are the actual official statements:

http://www.hd.square-enix.com/130326.pdf

http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/news/pdf/130326slides.pdf

There seems to no statement about poor PC sales,anywhere by Square Enix.

Surely,if PC sales were bad,they would mention this? Have they stated PC sales have not hit target??

So,all you are doing is making up assumptions backed by no evidence.

No linked to Gaming Evolved either,which is what the OP is about.

The article is about the games failing on consoles.

 

[Kenai]

Actually you seem to be the one have massive comprehension trouble.

Lets repeat it again.

I can read it just fine, i'm not the one completely misrepresenting your position. I just figured from how grossly you've misunderstood my position that you struggled with comprehension a bit, there's no shame in it if so.

You can repeat it a thousand and one times but it doesn't change the point i'm making - if the sales were poor on one platform, it's likely they were on all platforms. It's rare a game will flop on one but rocket on another. Poor sales all over on fantastically rated games isn't good for anybody.

Regardless of PC sales (maybe if I put this in big red text you might understand better?) the fact the publisher considers these games a failure isn't good for any of us, whether we're console or PC gamers - why? Because it demonstrates clearly unrealistic targets and makes you wonder how they will address what they consider weak performance of some very good games.

Personally, whilst the article makes no mention of it, I doubt bundling games has a positive effect on titles unless they're more reliant on long term purchasing/subscriptions. Something like Sleeping Dogs I think can only have suffered from how heavily it was bundled - sure people are playing it but publishers want people buying, not just playing. If they're having to get involved in this payment protection malarky too, then so freely flooding the market with bundle copies is only going to hurt their bottom line as it will drive prices down.

Try and note this time, that nowhere in the above is the following opinion contained or even hinted at: "It's all because of PCs and it's all AMDs fault"

edit - did you ever consider that digital sales were excluded because they were unsure how many 'sales' were free bundle copies and how many were sold copies, thus making it more difficult to attribute a definitive income from them in the same manner as the console sales?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I can read it just fine, i'm not the one completely misrepresenting your position. I just figured from how grossly you've misunderstood my position that you struggled with comprehension a bit, there's no shame in it if so.

You can repeat it a thousand and one times but it doesn't change the point i'm making - if the sales were poor on one platform, it's likely they were on all platforms. It's rare a game will flop on one but rocket on another. Poor sales all over on fantastically rated games isn't good for anybody.

Regardless of PC sales (maybe if I put this in big red text you might understand better?) the fact the publisher considers these games a failure isn't good for any of us, whether we're console or PC gamers - why? Because it demonstrates clearly unrealistic targets and makes you wonder how they will address what they consider weak performance of some very good games.

Personally, whilst the article makes no mention of it, I doubt bundling games has a positive effect on titles unless they're more reliant on long term purchasing/subscriptions. Something like Sleeping Dogs I think can only have suffered from how heavily it was bundled - sure people are playing it but publishers want people buying, not just playing. If they're having to get involved in this payment protection malarky too, then so freely flooding the market with bundle copies is only going to hurt their bottom line as it will drive prices down.

Try and note this time, that nowhere in the above is the following opinion contained or even hinted at: "It's all because of PCs and it's all AMDs fault"

edit - did you ever consider that digital sales were excluded because they were unsure how many 'sales' were free bundle copies and how many were sold copies, thus making it more difficult to attribute a definitive income from them in the same manner as the console sales?

You should look at yourself in the mirror. Read the OP again. You accuse others of not comprehending things,and you repeatedly do the same. Again,where is the evidence to show they had poor PC sales?? Its all speculation on your part.

There is no evidence at all.

They talk about consoles sales in their official documents as the main problem due to weak US demand.

This is not some conspiracy,the company themselves have told us the reason.

 

[andybird123]

I'd give up mate, CAT et al dug their trench and no amount of reasonable thinking will get them out of it

 

[Kenai]

You should look at yourself in the mirror. Read the OP again.
You accuse others of not comprehending things,and you repeatedly do the same. Again,where is the evidence to show they had poor PC sales??
There is no evidence at all,and instead you go on how you are great at comprehension.

Why does the lack of explicit evidence on one sales set preclude us from discussing and speculating on the performance of that set and subsequently the effect of the publishers opinion on all the platforms?

I'm comprehending just fine, you seem to refuse to acknowledge that any opinion or discussion can exist outside of ONLY CONSOLES LOL ANYONE ELSE JUST THINKS PCS ARE TO BLAME. Maybe if you tried to apply a bit of your own thought you could contribute beyond just parroting the same bit of text over and over again without actually thinking or saying anything yourself.

Do you think if console performance for these games was poor, that PC performance was likely to be the polar opposite? Do you think it's a good thing that these games have been dubbed a failure even disregarding any potential good performance on PC?

Personally I don't think it's a good thing that a game can and is clearly being condemned in such manner.

 

[Uncle Petey]

*Looks at Andy's sig and wonders no more at the double standards he frequently employs*

 

[TheRealDeal]

I can read it just fine, i'm not the one completely misrepresenting your position. I just figured from how grossly you've misunderstood my position that you struggled with comprehension a bit, there's no shame in it if so.

You can repeat it a thousand and one times but it doesn't change the point i'm making - if the sales were poor on one platform, it's likely they were on all platforms. It's rare a game will flop on one but rocket on another. Poor sales all over on fantastically rated games isn't good for anybody.

Regardless of PC sales (maybe if I put this in big red text you might understand better?) the fact the publisher considers these games a failure isn't good for any of us, whether we're console or PC gamers - why? Because it demonstrates clearly unrealistic targets and makes you wonder how they will address what they consider weak performance of some very good games.

Personally, whilst the article makes no mention of it, I doubt bundling games has a positive effect on titles unless they're more reliant on long term purchasing/subscriptions. Something like Sleeping Dogs I think can only have suffered from how heavily it was bundled - sure people are playing it but publishers want people buying, not just playing. If they're having to get involved in this payment protection malarky too, then so freely flooding the market with bundle copies is only going to hurt their bottom line as it will drive prices down.

Try and note this time, that nowhere in the above is the following opinion contained or even hinted at: "It's all because of PCs and it's all AMDs fault"

edit - did you ever consider that digital sales were excluded because they were unsure how many 'sales' were free bundle copies and how many were sold copies, thus making it more difficult to attribute a definitive income from them in the same manner as the console sales?

You do realise that the op posted this in the graphics card section. This is why the op is getting stick for the title which is clearly aimed at amds gaming evolved game bundles. Its now been moved to the pc games section when the article is clearly about poor console sales. The op posted it in the graphics card section to get this reaction and suceeded.

 

[Kenai]

You do realise that the op posted this in the graphics card section. This is why the op is getting stick for the title which is clearly aimed at amds gaming evolved game bundles. Its now been moved to the pc games section when the article is clearly about poor console sales. The op posted it in the graphics card section to get this reaction and suceeded.

I only ever saw it in the PC Games section, I don't post in the graphics card section because of the retarded blinkered arguments, of which it seems one has made it's way into PC Games and i've inadvertently become a part. Explains a lot, I may as well bail on the thread now as I don't expect to find any sense in it knowing that.

 

[Final8y]

CAT-THE-FIFTH you have explained it more than clear enough and a good job you have done of it, either its all going over there heads or its deliberate, either way there is not point in carrying on with them.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

NVM.

CAT-THE-FIFTH you have explained it more than clear enough and a good job you have done of it, either its all going over there heads or its deliberate, either way there is not point in carrying on with them.

Your right.

 

[Kenai]

NVM.

You still seem to be under the impression i'm saying something completely removed from what i'm actually saying (well before you just rage-deleted your own post), so there's really no point us carrying on is there?

I'm not going to sit here and argue points that i'm not even making, just because you can't or won't read what i'm posting.

 

[andybird123]

Its now been moved to the pc games section when the article is clearly about poor console sales.

it doesn't matter, poor sales failing to recoup production costs are poor sales on every platform

if I develop a product that comes in red green and blue, it doesn't matter if I sell loads of red ones but none of the green and blue ones, if the combined sales across all 3 colours are not enough to cover my costs then I'm not making any more of any colour, it's not like I'll say to myself "next time I'll only make red ones" because I already know that just selling red ones also won't cover my development and advertising costs that I was hoping green and blue ones would help to cover

granted my title was sensationalist, but the actual problem here isn't changed by the title or some people's reaction to it

 

[tommybhoy]

*Looks at Andy's sig and wonders no more at the double standards he frequently employs*

Obviously some feel gutted/beeling that times have changed and AMD is stronger than ever being the most popular weapon of choice at the moment be it here at OcUK or everywhere else:

the HD 7970 GHz Edition was outselling the GTX 680, the first time an AMD card had accomplished such a feat since Kepler was released. In the grand scheme of things, that’s an impressive accomplishment and gamers were obviously excited about receiving up to $170 worth of games for free.

Gaming Evolved has been nothing but a soaring success tied in with Never Settle/Reloaded anyway, the next ones on it's way too.

Doesn't matter if anyone tries to pour doubt on it, just kidding themselves on and pouring hate on the only company putting in an effort in open standards helping to further PC gaming no matter their choice of hardware.

 

[spoffle]

it doesn't matter, poor sales failing to recoup production costs are poor sales on every platform

if I develop a product that comes in red green and blue, it doesn't matter if I sell loads of red ones but none of the green and blue ones, if the combined sales across all 3 colours are not enough to cover my costs then I'm not making any more of any colour, it's not like I'll say to myself "next time I'll only make red ones" because I already know that just selling red ones also won't cover my development and advertising costs that I was hoping green and blue ones would help to cover

granted my title was sensationalist, but the actual problem here isn't changed by the title or some people's reaction to it

The issue is how you're trying to relate this to the Gaming Evolved programme when it's not at all.

We all know this and you do too, but you did it on purpose didn't you?

 

[andybird123]

The issue is how you're trying to relate this to the Gaming Evolved programme when it's not at all.

We all know this and you do too, but you did it on purpose didn't you?

well the first thing that struck me when I read the articles was, I wonder how giving away lots of free copies of the games affected profit margins (without knowing what the deal was between the two)

I'll admit there was a certain cantankerous joviality to the thread title

however, at my first opportunity to come back on the board, I did expand on my intention of posting the core information, though obviously I didn't really expect it to explode the way it did, but given that it did, I'm not very surprised that people are having a hard time expecting a sensible discussion now

I don't understand why anyone would feel happy or gutted towards a company though, AMD and Nvidia are just both companies, they make and sell products, I have no emotional attachment to either... I frequently recommend AMD products to people that want to buy them and Nvidia products to people that want to buy those... sometimes I buy from both and post up my experience with either as it happens, I have been ****ed at nvidia over the pcie 3.0 on X79 debacle, I've also been unhappy with AMD over not supporting a game I like

if anything, it is personal insults being thrown at me by staunch AMD supporters that leads me to present information in a particular way if it amuses me to do so

competition is good, the customers need AMD and Nvidia to be in competition to drive hardware forwards... one of these companies is making 160 million plus losses per quarter, the other is making 170 million plus profits... this isn't good for consumers anywhere

 

[tayto_0]

I honestly hope the nvidia fanboys on this forum are not adults, really the lengths they go to is embarrassing.