inherit
1706
0
Jul 2, 2020 11:11:56 GMT -6
14
DaNastyMan
13
Aug 31, 2016 16:46:21 GMT -6
August 2016
danastyman
|
Post by DaNastyMan on Aug 31, 2016 18:15:49 GMT -6
Before I begin this, I am a DARK GRIMOIRE + DIGITAL GAME level backer, so know I actually am Looking forward to this game but do want to sort something out. While I know this has calmed down a lot since the campaign ended I'd like to point out "Guess Konami didn't want all this 5.5 million" isn't the right tact to take with this game. 5.5 million dollars sounds like a lot, so does the reported 4.5 million that IGA secured before the kickstarter. But when you consider all that is going to game development , the Rewards & Fees and not actually profit. As that's the money Konami would have spent to make Bloodstained as "Castlevania Blood of the Night" or whatever it may have been called. Now you may be saying "well they would have gotten this 5.5 anyway" No, they'd probably only get around 3.89 Million. I say that because that's the amount of money if everyone who backed (64,867 people) this game bought this game at retail or digitally for 60 dollars. That's 1.61 million dollars short of the 5.5 and doesn't cover the 4.5 million of the previously secured... now this is where Konami and most other publishers are looking. If you spend 10 and only get back 4 you're losing 6 no matter how you slice it. This unfortunately the harsh reality of the situation. It'd never be profitable under normal circumstances, only extreme situations where we knew this was the only way we'd ever get this game. And before you say "Well what about the sales after that." There's some debate to those but generally and unfortunately Castlevania games don't sell all that well. Don't believe me? What if I told you the 3 castlevania games that had made over 1 million in sales are: SotN, the original NES release of Castlevania 1 & Lords of Shadow 1. Outside of that everything else fell below with All of the DS and GBA igavania titles not even hitting over half a million. Mind you this is using NPD data which were publicly available until 2012 and doesn't account when discount and bargain sales occurred to add to that number of units sold. For those who are doing the math in their head and on their calculators yeah with those numbers you can make 10 million(easily). But even if you made all 10 million dollars in sales back...you only broke EVEN, this is where you start making profit. Iga stated in the "Kinda Funny" stream the reason why Konami even said no was because his games were no longer profitable to point of making sense for them to keep making. A kickstarter to fund a sequel for bloodstained may be necessary for this reason regardless of how you feel your money was spent on this one because of this very reason. If you think i'm talking out of my a** I'd like to hear from you. |
|
purifyweirdshard
Administrator
Administrator 
Calling from Heaven
Posts: 3,789
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Example 2
inherit
Administrator
210
0
1
Oct 25, 2024 0:03:05 GMT -6
3,660
purifyweirdshard
Calling from Heaven
3,789
Jun 29, 2015 7:24:38 GMT -6
June 2015
purifyweirdsoul
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Example 2
|
Post by purifyweirdshard on Sept 1, 2016 8:35:10 GMT -6
Well...yeah. You're pretty much right. These games are in a pretty tight spot. They're not cheap to make, but only a niche audience really wants them. Crowdfunding really was a smart way to go because of that, because the people that -do- want them -really do-. You can get a few hundred dollars out of a smaller group of consumers to make up for larger numbers of only putting forward $20-60.
Konami wasn't objectively wrong in that decision regarding money, no, but I think that another portable entry would have done well. At the very least, a straight to digital 3DS title along the lines of Ace Attorney 5 and on. A console game, they probably wouldn't have been for.
|
|
Kale
New Blood
Posts: 83
inherit
1687
0
May 15, 2017 13:22:25 GMT -6
43
Kale
83
Jul 30, 2016 0:01:31 GMT -6
July 2016
kale
|
Post by Kale on Sept 1, 2016 13:36:17 GMT -6
I'd like to say...... I doubt Konami is creating all new assets like Iga is with this game. There are times they are *or I suspect they are anyway), like CotM, but a lot of the other games have very familiar assets in them.
|
|
Clear
Global Moderator
[TI0] お疲れ様でした、ＩＧＡ！
Posts: 351
inherit
975
0
1
Oct 26, 2019 10:58:24 GMT -6
287
Clear
[TI0] お疲れ様でした、ＩＧＡ！
351
Dec 14, 2015 20:00:39 GMT -6
December 2015
clear
|
Post by Clear on Sept 1, 2016 15:26:18 GMT -6
You are not talking out of your a** DaNastyMan. Your reasoning is sound. I would really love to see a Bloodstained 2 done without the need for any sort of kickstarter funding. The surefire way for this scenario to occur is to have had Bloodstained sell a LOT of copies, enough to amass a good amount of profit. So don't forget to grab a few extra copies once Bloodstained hits store shelves everyone!  |
|
inherit
ReDead
1077
0
Sept 14, 2021 15:00:37 GMT -6
42
Ramzo Wily
45
Jan 21, 2016 11:11:36 GMT -6
January 2016
ramzowily
|
Post by Ramzo Wily on Sept 2, 2016 8:42:51 GMT -6
It's really nice to have someone point this out. A lot of people see the "5.5 million dollars" and go "man that's so much money this game is gonna be the most amazing thing ever!" but for a video game being made by a company, and not just one or two people, that is actually a pathetically small budget. And this game wouldn't have made it that far without all the sweet incentives and bonuses it offered in the kickstarter (and had konami greenlight a new CV there is NO chance whatsoever they would have done a kickstarter for it so that would not have been an option). To link this to another topic on this board, this is exactly why I support a kickstarter for them doing a sequel. People keep saying "I would hope it would sell well enough to not require a kickstarter," but that reasoning is so bogus. Considering that a very large number of people who would have actually bought this game after it was out have already bought it (and many of those likely already have bought more than 1 copy) - and that money is going into development rather than recuperation - this game would have to sell better than pretty much any other castlevania game ever in order to make enough of a profit to fully guarantee a sequel (and allow it to improve on this game).
That all said, pretty much every Castlevania game in history has come out on but a single system, and many of those on handheld systems only. Probably a very large part of why LoS sold as much as it did was because it was both on home consoles and on multiple systems (though Hideo Kojima's name being attached to it and being billed as a reboot probably didn't hurt too much either). This will be the first time that, day one, this kind of game will be available in so many different formats (PC, Wii U, XB1, PS4, PSV). It also has a lot of positive media behind it despite all the negative media kickstarters have been getting lately. So I think this game does stand a really good chance of doing a lot better in sales than most Castlevanias tend to do.
Here's hoping, anyway.
|
|
BahamutKaiser
New Blood
[TI0] Behold the horror, we must wait and pine u.u
Posts: 37
inherit
816
0
Sept 20, 2019 1:51:25 GMT -6
20
BahamutKaiser
[TI0] Behold the horror, we must wait and pine u.u
37
Sept 21, 2015 17:35:53 GMT -6
September 2015
bahamutkaiser
|
Post by BahamutKaiser on Sept 8, 2016 15:55:44 GMT -6
Flawed accounting. A publisher would typically have to invest a large sum of money beforehand, than make money back in sales. A Kickstarted project has the benefit of making PART of the sales beforehand, they don't have to invest as much because the sales come ahead of production, but they also gain further sales after the fact.
Primarily, this game can look forward to producing way more income when it releases, padding out the profits.
Beyond that, major studios have a ton of assets and programs already developed saving time and money. If they for instance simply repurposed the assets from Mirror of Fate, they could have bypassed the overwhelming majority of the production cost.
The money is there, they could collect easily if they respected their consumers.
|
|
keiya
New Blood
Posts: 10
inherit
1322
0
Mar 2, 2018 13:03:05 GMT -6
11
keiya
10
Jun 13, 2016 17:21:09 GMT -6
June 2016
keiya
|
Post by keiya on Sept 8, 2016 19:54:28 GMT -6
Another thing I'd like to point out is the sheer scale of the profits of other projects. MGSV may have had almost a hundred million dollar budget, but made money for Konami hand over fist by selling more than six million copies, and earning back (conservatively estimated) double the amount that was spent on it. The first Lords of Shadow also probably sold way more than it cost to produce it. The return on Konami's investment is always in the tens of millions. And let's not get started with Winning Eleven and PES.
Compare that to the Igavania games, and the fact that even if they make money, it's most likely a fraction of what those games earn. It was an industry insider who told me that companies like Konami are headed by accountants, and thus they only see games and game franchises as sheer numbers. If you only think in numbers, it makes perfect sense why Igavania games got the axe. And that's not even getting into mobile games. Why spend a million on a series that only breaks even, when you can invest it in mobile and rack in a hundred million in microtransactions?
|
|
LeoLeWolferoux
Wielder of Emptiness
Fifty Storms 
[TI0] ...an intellectual with no room for feelings...
Posts: 673
inherit
Wielder of Emptiness
1573
0
Jun 8, 2024 22:55:53 GMT -6
438
LeoLeWolferoux
[TI0] ...an intellectual with no room for feelings...
673
Jun 25, 2016 1:34:49 GMT -6
June 2016
leolewolferoux
|
Post by LeoLeWolferoux on Sept 17, 2016 14:23:26 GMT -6
Well...yeah. You're pretty much right. These games are in a pretty tight spot. They're not cheap to make, but only a niche audience really wants them. Crowdfunding really was a smart way to go because of that, because the people that -do- want them -really do-. You can get a few hundred dollars out of a smaller group of consumers to make up for larger numbers of only putting forward $20-60. Konami wasn't objectively wrong in that decision regarding money, no, but I think that another portable entry would have done well. At the very least, a straight to digital 3DS title along the lines of Ace Attorney 5 and on. A console game, they probably wouldn't have been for. It makes me sad that these are only for a 'niche' audience. Sure, the games aren't for everyone, but I feel as though the legacy should have been built up from the beginning, and the fan horizon should be a bit more broad. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree with everyone here. :( Though...one shining ray of light is the fact that they WERE able to secure 5.5 million. I think that goes to show just how dedicated the fans are; though fewer in number. I saw that there were outrageous amounts of money poured into some of the slacker titles, 5,000, 6,500, 8,500...ETC. And I also saw how numerous the backers were for these slots. And it warmed the cockles of my heart. Though one certainly can't blame Konami for their decision, one has to at least see things from their standpoint. Just at the end of the day. |
|
Olrox
New Blood
IGA Take my energyつ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 89
inherit
299
0
Jun 20, 2019 7:42:51 GMT -6
88
Olrox
IGA Take my energyつ ◕_◕ ༽つ
89
Jul 11, 2015 11:24:24 GMT -6
July 2015
olrok
|
Post by Olrox on Oct 24, 2016 0:08:54 GMT -6
Well...yeah. You're pretty much right. These games are in a pretty tight spot. They're not cheap to make, but only a niche audience really wants them. Crowdfunding really was a smart way to go because of that, because the people that -do- want them -really do-. You can get a few hundred dollars out of a smaller group of consumers to make up for larger numbers of only putting forward $20-60. Konami wasn't objectively wrong in that decision regarding money, no, but I think that another portable entry would have done well. At the very least, a straight to digital 3DS title along the lines of Ace Attorney 5 and on. A console game, they probably wouldn't have been for. It makes me sad that these are only for a 'niche' audience. Sure, the games aren't for everyone, but I feel as though the legacy should have been built up from the beginning, and the fan horizon should be a bit more broad. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree with everyone here.  Though...one shining ray of light is the fact that they WERE able to secure 5.5 million. I think that goes to show just how dedicated the fans are; though fewer in number. I saw that there were outrageous amounts of money poured into some of the slacker titles, 5,000, 6,500, 8,500...ETC. And I also saw how numerous the backers were for these slots. And it warmed the cockles of my heart. Though one certainly can't blame Konami for their decision, one has to at least see things from their standpoint. Just at the end of the day. Yes this is really awesome, I myself upped my tier once after the main campaing ended and I'm planning on doing it again soon. So I can only imagine we are probably close to $6M atm just from crowdfunding itself. My only real worry is how sales are going to be the first month, most people that really wanted the game already payed for it with their donation. This means that the real hardcore fandom isn't going to boost initial sales, so if a good marketing campaing isn't done, the sales are going to be mediocre. This will not be because it's a bad game, but because the true fandom already gave it's fair share just to make the project. Now it's up to 505 games to mass advertise Bloodstained so it reaches more people. Going a little bit off topic for a moment but this is why I would love bloodstained to be on the newly released nintendo switch and not for the Wii U. it's a perfect title for the console as well as a good oportunity to create new fans for the genre which we are in dire need of getting, if we expect IGA to be able to release a sequel by itself without the need of crowdfunding. The Wii U is on it's way out this year so taking an insane amount of the budget just to port it to a dead system isn't a smart thing to do. Yes I know the moral and ethical implications of not delivering this version, I'm just shedding some light onto why keeping that version alive is not recomendable if we are looking out for the best future of this franchise. Mind you this all of this is asuming Bloodstained is any good at all in the first place. Really this title needs stellar reviews from both gaming sites and the people itself. With excelent reviews then more people will flock toward it and boost sales. Average results aren't good enough here. Bloodstained needs to blow critics out of the water if it doesn't want to flop economically. This is the hard truth. I really, really can't imagine the pressure that is within IGA right now to deliver a proper game. Right now he is doing it not just for us, not just for the future of kickstarter games, now basically the whole genre rest on his back. I'm almost sure if Bloodstained doesn't do well we are bounded to only get Metroidvania gothic type games off indie developers, never again a publisher will invest big sums of money into this kind of genre. Let's just hope for a good game, because if someone has showed me that he can consistently deliver good Metroidvania games it is my man IGA. Damn this was a little bit sad to write.  |
|
hex
New Blood
Posts: 19
inherit
1739
0
Jul 5, 2019 16:28:42 GMT -6
15
hex
19
Oct 20, 2016 2:18:59 GMT -6
October 2016
hex
|
Post by hex on Nov 1, 2016 7:55:08 GMT -6
Soooo, what about that $4.5M investor money? Correct me if I'm wrong here: I mean, there is somebody, let's call them Company X, who put $4.5M investment in this. Even if Company X didn't have any demands in terms of the content of the game, they at least want their money back - with a tiny interest for their loan most likely(?). Let's just say they want $5M back on their $4.5 loan. And they aren't being paid back from the crowdfunding money either. So first of all, whatever Bloodstained sells, ArtPlay is gonna pay Company X back their money, right? At $35-60 price point per game, $5M to cover is something like 85,000-145,000 titles. And that's not taking into account any other expenses like promotion and distribution fees for the platform holders (20-30% of the retail price on a digital storefront). In physical retail there's of course distribution and retail expenses in addition to platform holder fees; altogether something like 50% of the retail price. If these numbers are close to realistic, they would break even if they sold something like 200,000 copies (100,000 on digital storefronts and retail each) on an average $40 price point, and could then start collecting profits for their next title.
They can manage that. That, or Company X is cool and does not want their money right away. They... simply own a minority piece of Bloodstained, and everybody's OK with that.
In any case, looking at companies like inXile and Harebrained Schemes, I'd say IGA might consider crowdfunding for the sequel too.
|
|
LeoLeWolferoux
Wielder of Emptiness
Fifty Storms
[TI0] ...an intellectual with no room for feelings...
Posts: 673
inherit
Wielder of Emptiness
1573
0
Jun 8, 2024 22:55:53 GMT -6
438
LeoLeWolferoux
[TI0] ...an intellectual with no room for feelings...
673
Jun 25, 2016 1:34:49 GMT -6
June 2016
leolewolferoux
|
Post by LeoLeWolferoux on Nov 1, 2016 12:57:30 GMT -6
Soooo, what about that $4.5M investor money? Correct me if I'm wrong here: I mean, there is somebody, let's call them Company X, who put $4.5M investment in this. Even if Company X didn't have any demands in terms of the content of the game, they at least want their money back - with a tiny interest for their loan most likely(?). Let's just say they want $5M back on their $4.5 loan. And they aren't being paid back from the crowdfunding money either. So first of all, whatever Bloodstained sells, ArtPlay is gonna pay Company X back their money, right? At $35-60 price point per game, $5M to cover is something like 85,000-145,000 titles. And that's not taking into account any other expenses like promotion and distribution fees for the platform holders (20-30% of the retail price on a digital storefront). In physical retail there's of course distribution and retail expenses in addition to platform holder fees; altogether something like 50% of the retail price. If these numbers are close to realistic, they would break even if they sold something like 200,000 copies (100,000 on digital storefronts and retail each) on an average $40 price point, and could then start collecting profits for their next title. They can manage that. That, or Company X is cool and does not want their money right away. They... simply own a minority piece of Bloodstained, and everybody's OK with that. In any case, looking at companies like inXile and Harebrained Schemes, I'd say IGA might consider crowdfunding for the sequel too. If nothing bloodstained will at least make a statement. I can only hope a sequal would be crowd funded, even though I feel its unnecessary and unlikely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
397
0
Nov 21, 2024 11:12:40 GMT -6
Deleted
0
Nov 21, 2024 11:12:40 GMT -6
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 8:10:07 GMT -6
This is one of those silly threads where TC thinks they've made some brilliant deduction and want to share it with the world, but they actually made no such thing.
TC wraps up all the negative responses targeted toward Konami in one little sentence and then focuses on a single (out of multitude) interpretation of it. They follow it all up by equating backer numbers to the grand total of guaranteed sales that the game would have had if Konami released it and that comparison simply doesn't work.
The closest thing to backing a game is pre-ordering and if you have 55k of those on the mere announcement of a game with a 10 mil budget, it's pretty darn certain you'll make a (sizable) profit.
|
|
inherit
1706
0
Jul 2, 2020 11:11:56 GMT -6
14
DaNastyMan
13
Aug 31, 2016 16:46:21 GMT -6
August 2016
danastyman
|
Post by DaNastyMan on Dec 12, 2016 18:33:25 GMT -6
This is one of those silly threads where TC thinks they've made some brilliant deduction and want to share it with the world, but they actually made no such thing. TC wraps up all the negative responses targeted toward Konami in one little sentence and then focuses on a single (out of multitude) interpretation of it. They follow it all up by equating backer numbers to the grand total of guaranteed sales that the game would have had if Konami released it and that comparison simply doesn't work. The closest thing to backing a game is pre-ordering and if you have 55k of those on the mere announcement of a game with a 10 mil budget, it's pretty darn certain you'll make a (sizable) profit. I didn't think it was brilliant or else I'd not have been as self-effacing as I was with my last sentence. Mainly i expected reactions to be more like yours . also i didn't wrap all the negative responses I wrapped the single negative response in the title and only that one. Now your numbers don't show their work namely where the rest of the 7.3 million (because if 55k pre ordered at announcement and actually did pick it up day one that'd be 3.30m) would come from? Are you extrapolating from previous numbers of the castlevania series? Because I'd point out how OoE only sold 360k. Which if it sold as 60 dollar retail/digital title would result in 21 million net or 11 million in pure profit if they sold as much on this title, and that's best case of everyone bought it at 60 and not during sales. Mind you this money isn't in all at once but gradually in waves as well, And they still have monthly operations cost and patch team cost so by the time all the profit rolls in they may have spent a million or more on keeping the office open, lights on and the current game patched and working. Bringing them back to 10 million or less... Meaning they'll lose more than they gained in the long run. I am by no means brilliant but I do love numbers and the numbers don't lie. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
397
0
Nov 21, 2024 11:12:40 GMT -6
Deleted
0
Nov 21, 2024 11:12:40 GMT -6
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2016 14:21:48 GMT -6
Reread what I wrote.
If you can't figure out the misstep I'm pointing out, I certainly won't be wasting my time on this discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1794
0
Nov 21, 2024 11:12:40 GMT -6
Deleted
0
Nov 21, 2024 11:12:40 GMT -6
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2017 4:03:45 GMT -6
Truth be said, Konami is check-mated, lately. From considering to go full mobile, to restarting beloved franchises with ambiguous results (make old fans hate and new fans like), to transforming into a new thing that no one of us old timers recognize anymore, all the way to charging both arms and both legs for a mediocre game (like yugi oh on steam costing 120$ approx)...
No one would be willing and readily inclined, to back that company up and buy from it, both full price and right away! Sad as is, this great project could be viable only through kickstarting! It is a shame that the copyrights don't lie with Iga, but no matter, it is just as good, having also the potential to be even better, that way (because expectations, hype and criticism of end product are going to be trimmed)!
Indie devs also have more room to be creative, assume liberties and pour part of their soul into the game, whereas (big) companies (viable only from making profit and being certain about it) put strict restrictions and actively meddle in production, usually cutting off interesting features, aspects, elements.
I myself went right away in "Shut up and take my money" mode, as soon as i saw "Michiru Yamane" and rest of team members. I confess, had i seen the name "Konami" instead first thing, i wouldn't even be inclined to pirate the game, just so as to be honest with you. Respect is earned and usually through developers' talent, dedication to a product, delivering to the fanbase, fanservice sometimes (yes, why not?); not ambiguous practices and cynical profiteering, albeit we should all recognize Konami their right to it (or else they might go bankrupt, like countless others).
I am more than happy with turn of events! Kickstarting is the future of old, classic style games and their one way ticket to salvation and survival!
|
|
inherit
1706
0
Jul 2, 2020 11:11:56 GMT -6
14
DaNastyMan
13
Aug 31, 2016 16:46:21 GMT -6
August 2016
danastyman
|
Post by DaNastyMan on Jan 25, 2017 21:03:33 GMT -6
Truth be said, Konami is check-mated, lately. From considering to go full mobile, to restarting beloved franchises with ambiguous results (make old fans hate and new fans like), to transforming into a new thing that no one of us old timers recognize anymore, all the way to charging both arms and both legs for a mediocre game (like yugi oh on steam costing 120$ approx)... ...It is a shame that the copyrights don't lie with Iga, but no matter, it is just as good, having also the potential to be even better, that way (because expectations, hype and criticism of end product are going to be trimmed)! Indie devs also have more room to be creative, assume liberties and pour part of their soul into the game, whereas (big) companies (viable only from making profit and being certain about it) put strict restrictions and actively meddle in production, usually cutting off interesting features, aspects, elements. I myself went right away in "Shut up and take my money" mode, as soon as i saw "Michiru Yamane" and rest of team members. I confess, had i seen the name "Konami" instead first thing, i wouldn't even be inclined to pirate the game, just so as to be honest with you. Respect is earned and usually through developers' talent, dedication to a product, delivering to the fanbase, fanservice sometimes (yes, why not?); not ambiguous practices and cynical profiteering, albeit we should all recognize Konami their right to it (or else they might go bankrupt, like countless others). I am more than happy with turn of events! Kickstarting is the future of old, classic style games and their one way ticket to salvation and survival! Actually am a fan of the direction Konami has been going, I'll be picking up MG Survive day one and liked the Lords games, though LoS2 more from the perspective of story and how it uses Lore and turns it on head. I don't touch YuGiOh at all but clearly there's enough of a market for them to keep going. I'm actually not a fan of the Igavania style, I'm much more a classicvania person overall to the point where I only put in as much as I did at the announcement Of a classic mode, mainly because I want to see If iga can pull off one since he hasn't made an original one since his work on Rondo of Blood(He was producer on Chronicles & Adventure Rebirth, which were both remakes of previous games, though Adventure was more an overhaul.). So to give Iga the rights is a sure way to stop me from contributing to this franchise. I'd much rather see the franchise in other hands than Iga. Also this has caused Iga to get inventive and thus create bloodstained which mixes elements he's already done with a new narrative and artistic direction under a franchise he owns. This is something I like and want to see more of and am approaching myself, hell I have a Classicvania style game I'd love to make someday.. |
|
yey