did you actually look at those numbers before posting them? No Data between 1998 and 2012, and even the numbers for 2012 onwards seem way, way off. IIRC, both SC and WCIII sold more than a million copies in the first weeks after their release and have both broken the 10 million barrier a few years ago.
Yeah obviously they combine the numbers for sales before the website launched and thus (not existing) couldn't track the year by year. Also, you're right that it is up to 11 million now (for SC, WC3 still hasn't sold much, also you were thinking that SC sold 1.5 in the first year, WC never was close to that) but most of that is post profitability margin. Once they drop the price of the game to production costs it doesn't count toward values, that's like mixing in DVD sales for movie profits.
Yeah obviously they combine the numbers for sales before the website launched and thus (not existing) couldn't track the year by year. Also, you're right that it is up to 11 million now (for SC, WC3 still hasn't sold much, also you were thinking that SC sold 1.5 in the first year, WC never was close to that) but most of that is post profitability margin. Once they drop the price of the game to production costs it doesn't count toward values, that's like mixing in DVD sales for movie profits.
I don't think you understand what production costs are. Development costs are usually big. Production costs are comparatively "drop in the bucket"ish. For every dollar earned in sales, less than 10% is Production cost.
I don't think you understand what production costs are. Development costs are usually big. Production costs are comparatively "drop in the bucket"ish. For every dollar earned in sales, less than 10% is Production cost.
I don't think YOU understand what production costs are. It isn't the 15 cents for the DVD and cardboard. It's marketing (to the retailers), distribution, and labor mainly, but usually has some advertising and in the case of Battle.Net maintenance, as well.
I don't think YOU understand what production costs are. It isn't the 15 cents for the DVD and cardboard. It's marketing (to the retailers), distribution, and labor mainly, but usually has some advertising and in the case of Battle.Net maintenance, as well.
Marketing is not a production cost, since it is not persistent or required throughout the production lifetime. You can stop advertising but still keep selling.
Either way, Blizzard made metric sh*t-tons of money from every copy of StarCraft. No copy was ever a loss to them.
Remember, they sell to the stores and the stores sell the product. If anyone loses money on unsold merch, it's the store.
I don't think YOU understand what production costs are. It isn't the 15 cents for the DVD and cardboard. It's marketing (to the retailers), distribution, and labor mainly, but usually has some advertising and in the case of Battle.Net maintenance, as well.
Your correct the amount of cash it takes to produce said DVD is far less then what it will actually sell for.
Captialism at work......Problem? we all get trolled by big business lol
Marketing is not a production cost, since it is not persistent or required throughout the production lifetime. You can stop advertising but still keep selling.
Either way, Blizzard made metric sh*t-tons of money from every copy of StarCraft. No copy was ever a loss to them.
Remember, they sell to the stores and the stores sell the product. If anyone loses money on unsold merch, it's the store.
Economics 101.
No, they do include marketing to the retailers, which is harder than marketing to consumers because they have to convince retailers (usually on a corporate level) of the value of older games, especially considering your point that they lose money if it doesn't sell. But any business management class will tell you that your marketing team is absolutely a liability, which absolutely plays against revenue on the balance sheet.
EDIT: Oh yeah and I forgot, it's business not economics. Economics is the study of the whole process, not just manufacturing but all the way through consumption and across production generations.
No, they do include marketing to the retailers, which is harder than marketing to consumers because they have to convince retailers (usually on a corporate level) of the value of older games, especially considering your point that they lose money if it doesn't sell. But any business management class will tell you that your marketing team is absolutely a liability, which absolutely plays against revenue on the balance sheet.
No retailer would look at Blizzard and say "StarCraft? Pfeh, no one's going to buy that." Add to that the wonder of direct download games, which now cut out the physical disc. Since 2009, they very likely haven't spent more than a few pennies on the dollar.
No retailer would look at Blizzard and say "StarCraft? Pfeh, no one's going to buy that." Add to that the wonder of direct download games, which now cut out the physical disc. Since 2009, they very likely haven't spent more than a few pennies on the dollar.
Well yeah, I completely agree with that. But we are talking about profitability before WoW. No Direct Downloads back then and frankly video games were rare in standard retailers as it was back then.
No, they do include marketing to the retailers, which is harder than marketing to consumers because they have to convince retailers (usually on a corporate level) of the value of older games, especially considering your point that they lose money if it doesn't sell. But any business management class will tell you that your marketing team is absolutely a liability, which absolutely plays against revenue on the balance sheet.
EDIT: Oh yeah and I forgot, it's business not economics. Economics is the study of the whole process, not just manufacturing but all the way through consumption and across production generations.
...uh, yeah, no, yeah. That's economics. Remember that the studio has to make back the money they spent to make the game in the first place. Which they did. In the first month.
And then they kept making money.
For 12 years.
They're STILL making money off StarCraft.
Well yeah, I completely agree with that. But we are talking about profitability before WoW. No Direct Downloads back then and frankly video games were rare in standard retailers as it was back then.
When were we talking about profitability before WoW?
Well, either way, W*rCraft III (when did that become a swear word?) and StarCraft earned back their production cost in the first month. A million sales, remember, was enough to make Nintendo and Sony in 1998 go OMG HOLY SH*T EVERYONE THINKS THIS GAME IS THE DOG'S BALLS and immediately wrap it in gold and sell it for 20 bucks to the poor people. Because they made back their money, and enough to roll around in the profits naked.
You would have to be appallingly naive to believe that WoW is crowd-designed. In fact Blizzard has a notorious reputation for ignoring player feedback until they see internal metrics that align with that feedback.
There's so much history here that disproves your bare assertion, it's hard to know where to start. But I suppose it wouldn't be bad to start with pointing out that WoW was one of the first games designed to treat gameplay frustration/reward as a Skinner box... The development and design of it has been analyzed and talked about from both the inside and outside for many years, and some of those are still available to you with some adept google-fu if you are interested.
Comments
Yeah obviously they combine the numbers for sales before the website launched and thus (not existing) couldn't track the year by year. Also, you're right that it is up to 11 million now (for SC, WC3 still hasn't sold much, also you were thinking that SC sold 1.5 in the first year, WC never was close to that) but most of that is post profitability margin. Once they drop the price of the game to production costs it doesn't count toward values, that's like mixing in DVD sales for movie profits.
Along with the fail, the flounder, and the big mess.
I don't think you understand what production costs are. Development costs are usually big. Production costs are comparatively "drop in the bucket"ish. For every dollar earned in sales, less than 10% is Production cost.
I don't think YOU understand what production costs are. It isn't the 15 cents for the DVD and cardboard. It's marketing (to the retailers), distribution, and labor mainly, but usually has some advertising and in the case of Battle.Net maintenance, as well.
Marketing is not a production cost, since it is not persistent or required throughout the production lifetime. You can stop advertising but still keep selling.
Either way, Blizzard made metric sh*t-tons of money from every copy of StarCraft. No copy was ever a loss to them.
Remember, they sell to the stores and the stores sell the product. If anyone loses money on unsold merch, it's the store.
Economics 101.
Your correct the amount of cash it takes to produce said DVD is far less then what it will actually sell for.
Captialism at work......Problem? we all get trolled by big business lol
No, they do include marketing to the retailers, which is harder than marketing to consumers because they have to convince retailers (usually on a corporate level) of the value of older games, especially considering your point that they lose money if it doesn't sell. But any business management class will tell you that your marketing team is absolutely a liability, which absolutely plays against revenue on the balance sheet.
EDIT: Oh yeah and I forgot, it's business not economics. Economics is the study of the whole process, not just manufacturing but all the way through consumption and across production generations.
No retailer would look at Blizzard and say "StarCraft? Pfeh, no one's going to buy that." Add to that the wonder of direct download games, which now cut out the physical disc. Since 2009, they very likely haven't spent more than a few pennies on the dollar.
Well yeah, I completely agree with that. But we are talking about profitability before WoW. No Direct Downloads back then and frankly video games were rare in standard retailers as it was back then.
...uh, yeah, no, yeah. That's economics. Remember that the studio has to make back the money they spent to make the game in the first place. Which they did. In the first month.
And then they kept making money.
For 12 years.
They're STILL making money off StarCraft.
When were we talking about profitability before WoW?
Well, either way, W*rCraft III (when did that become a swear word?) and StarCraft earned back their production cost in the first month. A million sales, remember, was enough to make Nintendo and Sony in 1998 go OMG HOLY SH*T EVERYONE THINKS THIS GAME IS THE DOG'S BALLS and immediately wrap it in gold and sell it for 20 bucks to the poor people. Because they made back their money, and enough to roll around in the profits naked.
There's so much history here that disproves your bare assertion, it's hard to know where to start. But I suppose it wouldn't be bad to start with pointing out that WoW was one of the first games designed to treat gameplay frustration/reward as a Skinner box... The development and design of it has been analyzed and talked about from both the inside and outside for many years, and some of those are still available to you with some adept google-fu if you are interested.