540°

Square Enix Reportedly Lost $200 Million on Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy

The two Marvel games lost Square Enix $200 million in a little under two years and were responsible for the sale of western studios to Embracer, according to an analyst.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
phoenixwing759d ago (Edited 759d ago )

I'm sorry but if guardians of the Galaxy didn't sell enough they paid too much for royalties to Disney I'm thinking. In any case square is a terrible manager if their dev cost and marketing cost isn't offset by how well gotg sold.

Edit: I did some research and it sold at least one million five hundred thousand as of last October. Not to mention 5 to 10 million dollars from Microsoft for game pass. Square is crap at budgeting imo after finding this out.

2nd edit: I fear for the final fantasy franchise and square as a company if they're this incompetent

Eonjay759d ago

The cost of making AAA games has skyrocketed. 1.5 million copied is not enough to cover the cost of production, and advertising. Yes 100 million is pretty standard (if not low) for a AAA game. And selling 1.5 million won't even cover the cost.

VersusDMC758d ago

And i remember the game was half off in Canada for Black Friday. One month after release. So most of those sales aren't even at 60.

FinalFantasyFanatic759d ago

After years and years, many years, I'm just more convinced that SE is just incompetent at time management and development.

GoodGuy09759d ago

Well I've been fearing for the ff franchise since xiii lol.

Michiel1989759d ago

ahhh, a microsoft board member, good to see you here lad.

chronoforce759d ago

1.5m is pretty bad for a game that probably exceeded 100m in development costs. It is a shame as GOTG is good a game. Given how often both CD and Eidos underperformed according to SQNX their sale was inevitable.

AuraAbjure758d ago (Edited 758d ago )

GOTG seemed pretty cool, better than Avengers.

Blackcanary759d ago (Edited 759d ago )

If I remember correctly they have been losing money on FF games after ether FF10 or 12. It's the main reason why they doing the FF7 remake which cover's practically every game that is connected with FF7. Its the one of the main games in the FF franchise that made the most money for them. Not including FF11 and FF14 i think thats done quite well for them financially.

EvertonFC758d ago

Guardians of the galaxy is a great game but sadly 90% of gamers only play f2p, GaaS games these days.
So of course games will suffer. I've said it many times "be careful what you wish for". And in a few years gaming will be shite full of nothing but GaaS and f2p nonsense and gamers will wonder where it all went wrong.

758d ago
thesoftware730758d ago (Edited 758d ago )

5-10 mill from MS? is that a factual #?

SE is becoming a shell of their former selves, they need to sell to Sony and get some direction.

shinoff2183758d ago

Ive feared for final fantasy since 12 came out. All down hill imo

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 758d ago
-Foxtrot759d ago

Well maybe Guardians would have sold more if people weren’t put off with how shit the Avengers was

Godmars290759d ago

Designs closer to the movies/actors probably would have helped too.

senorfartcushion759d ago

It never does. People moan about all sorts of things nowadays. The same people would have moaned about them looking too much like the actors.

1Victor759d ago

@godmars you have to understand guardians even on the comics is a obscured comics and it got to a small spotlight by the movie they thought that since the movie did good the game would too but the truth is that marvel space opera is very niche in the comics with multiple cancellations over the years and returns with different members same for the avengers comics

-Foxtrot759d ago

I liked how the Guardians looked more like the comic book designs

anubusgold758d ago

The avengers should have used the comic book character looks instead of the butt ugly ones they used trying to copy the movie look. It works well in the cartoons and no one complains about it.

VivaLaManual758d ago

I actually really liked how the characters weren't like the movie ones.

Vader82758d ago

The games voice actors were as good as the movies in their own right. The interactions were wonderful.

CrimsonWing69758d ago

I actually prefer the game characters over the actors for Guardians, but I’m sure I’m in the minority on that one.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 758d ago
Profchaos759d ago

It wasn't clear what it was either. Was it a action game was it a online only clone that killed it into and turned me off the game until it was out for a year and appearing on countless goty lists

DaleCooper758d ago (Edited 758d ago )

This, for sure. I avoided Guardians after playing Avengers. I did eventually buy it on a sale due to the great reviews. Way better than the monotonous Avengers live-service game.

Seraphim758d ago

while I agree there is more to it. I think a large part of the problem is simply that Guardians doesn't have the same following as your typical Marvel hero/groups. Personally speaking many of my friends who game have never even watched the two movies. I sent one friend a copy of the game free of charge and he hasn't even bothered checking it out. I love the IP, the movies, characters, etc, but it simply doesn't have the broad appeal nor does it have time on market like other super hero's. Though dropping what was Avengers was undoubtably a major blow to any success Guardians may have had otherwise but there's more to it. I picked Avengers up for $10 after playing Guardians and good grief was it mediocre at best and the live service/leveling/rewards system was disgusting.

Lastly, I do have a feeling Disney is charging too heavy of a price for use of their IPs but that is obviously just a guess. I would be interested to know what kind of money Disney requires for use of their IPs though. But look at, say, Good Smile Company and their Nendoroid line of figures. Venom is something like $95!! Most, if not all Marvel characters are quite a bit more than most other nendoroids. And something tells me Goodsmile isn't setting the prices higher simply because they can.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 758d ago
Muigi759d ago

Guardians got the short end of the shtick, all thanks to the shit show that was The Avengers.

ClayRules2012758d ago (Edited 758d ago )

For real, it’s a darn shame too because Guardians has some of the best and most entertaining in-game dialogue (while you’re just walking around with your crew mates in different areas) that I’ve seen since Uncharted and the Last of Us. Avengers was crap.

Not even just that, the story overall is so freaking great, with tons of laughs and emotional moments throughout the well done campaign.

VersusDMC758d ago

I agree... but the gameplay was so meh to me that i finda wished it was a telltale type game. It was a chore.

ClayRules2012758d ago

@VersusDMC

I understand that, I do. The gameplay is the one area that I felt needed A LOT more work! It got stale quickly and if the story was just “OK” I honestly wouldn’t have kept going, but I really came to like these characters early on and for story I felt was neat and headed somewhere interesting, and my goodness it all shocked me with how much I came to love the characters and story as everything progressed.

I love telltale and their past games, but I love the game how it turned out, for the most part lol. But I get what your saying. But I’m glad it wasn’t made in that form of style. Did you play the telltale Guardians of the Galaxy game?

A real blast and gem of a game.

WGAF758d ago

Gotg combat section would have been much more entertaining if you can switch to other party members like tails or tri-Ace games. Their combat repertoires are already limited (just 5 members total) and unable to switch make it even more repetitive (you hardly notice others effect when u just focusing on your own attack). I guess they going more like Mass Effect types of combat? Either way, everything else were actually pretty solid, especially all the quarrels between parties members were brilliantly hilarious.

AnotherGamer759d ago

FFXIV is their biggest money bank right now, I think the game is fine.

PapaBop759d ago

It is, they have already said they have already finished the story for post Endwalker and now working on the story for the next expansion.

Gardenia758d ago

Looks like FFXV, so not that good. They should make JRPG's games like they did back in the 90's. But quality and creativity has been long gone from gaming with a few exceptions.
Games nowadays are made by money an investors who tell developers what to do. Sad really.

peppeaccardo759d ago

Got on the hype band vagon of Guardian and I surelly enjoyed its writing and story, which I thought was quite convoluted and fun overall. The excution was a little MEh even thought the models were alright and the environments not bad at all. Movements felt a bit tiff but ok overall. It was a decent game with a big budget soul. I did not play Avengers but I guess it felt into the "wanna be AAA at all costs" trap !

kikicub759d ago

I love everything about the game, except the combat that got stale.

But it sure is a gorgeous game, especially with ray tracing on.

ClayRules2012758d ago

Yeah, the combat was stale (got that way rather quickly) but man, that story, the characters, that helped me push through the gameplay and at times, the dialogue in the combat at points in the campaign had me enjoying certain fights again and again, regardless of the repetitiveness, put a little spark back into it’s diminishing flame in that one specific weak area in the game.

dumahim758d ago

I bought into the hype. Everyone was talking it up like it was such a great game. Got it and felt very underwhelmed. Didn't really care for the combat at all. Everyone just felt so underpowered and like you said, it felt a bit clunky. Allowing you to pick who you played as in combat would have helped. Drax just didn't feel like the Drax from the movie very much and I tired of Rocket's whining. The story didn't hit with me. I mentioned it somewhere a couple months ago and someone commented "oh, wait until chapter X" and that was still like 3 chapters away from where I was, and way past the halfway point. With all the other games that came out recently, I just never went back.

peppeaccardo758d ago

Totally understand. As for the story I guess it can be fairly subjective to personal taste. Overall teh game has decent to good production value. I can tell a decent amount of time was used to create the models of everything in the game; locations, characters, objects etc. Texture work is also quite nice with lighting that could use a bit of improvement. My biggest problem are the animations which are fairly robotic. I loved the fact that the characters talk among themselves during teh gameplay and make the whole thing a little more beliavable, nad jokes included. I personally liked tha game despite these minor issues, I don't think I would go back to play it again to get all the collectables like I would do with Spidermand or Ratchen and Clank for example. Too bad the dev and publisher lost money as we might not see another iteration of these game anytime soon. Take care

Show all comments (76)
70°

Every PlayStation Studios game available now on Windows PC

Windows Central writes: "Many PlayStation Studios games that are ported to PC get dedicated PS5 DualSense support, which allows users to experience haptic feedback and adaptive trigger support without actually having to own a PS5.

According to Hermen Hulst, head of PlayStation Studios, it's still the company's intent to launch the bigger single-player games on PS5 first, before later bringing the games to PC. This might not be the case for multiplayer games however, which are considered okay to launch simultaneously on console and PC."

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
ocelot077h ago

My guess is after god of war. Probably last of us 2 that's a almost 4 year old game now and by the time it's released on pc it will be more than 4 years old or close to 5.

Elda1h ago

Every old Playstation game that is now on PC.

200°

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie. This is something of a homecoming, as Microsoft owns Activision.

Read Full Story >>
engadget.com
Obscure_Observer17h ago

Very very early in development. Still, fantastic news!

Let´s GO!!!

Lightning7715h ago

I guess.

How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )

At least it wouldn't be MS of all ppl destroying them.

MS really should let go Tango go like they did TFB here.

darthv7215h ago(Edited 15h ago)

one was under Bethesda (Tango) the other under Activision (TFB). Clearly each one handled the separations of their subordinates differently.

Obscure_Observer14h ago(Edited 14h ago)

"How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )"

Perhaps because Zenimax and ABK handles such matters differently based on their own internal policies as "independent" publishers.

Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future. Which could also be the reason why they ensured an exclusive partnership with TFB and its new game, before anyone else.

Sad and disgusting. But it is what it is.

Lightning7711h ago(Edited 11h ago)

"Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future."

MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB.

It's inexcusable, they have options on how to handle studios they don't want anymore with killing jobs. Not just MS but the rest of the industry also.

Sad and disgusting sure how many will get shut down next year or this year even?

I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another.

Obscure_Observer3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

"MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB."

Imo, MS separated from TFB because they didn´t had a game associated with Xbox yet, unlike Tango.

"I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another."

Fair enough. It was indeed an epic dumb move from them to close Tango.

Still, all to be forgotten, like always have. This is not the first time a big publisher shuts down a beloved and/or successful studio out of nowhere and certainly won´t be the last. Do you remember Lionhead? Do you remember Evolution Studios? Yeah... both were beloved studios and yet, those companies kill those studios in q blink of an eye and got away with it.

anast1h ago(Edited 1h ago)

The studio boss made some money from this transaction. Once the game releases, the studio will get chopped up.

-Foxtrot17h ago

Manages to buy their freedom especially after all the shit Microsoft has been doing with its studios lately

...

Goes right back to them as partners.

Okaaaaaay...

darthv7215h ago

Id venture a guess that TFB working directly with MS was a better outcome than working through Activision to get to MS.

VersusDMC13h ago

From the article...

"Toys for Bob spun out as an indie back in February after Microsoft instituted sweeping layoffs that impacted 86 employees, which was more than half of the staff"

I doubt those 86 employees enjoyed the Microsoft experience over Activisions.

Inverno13h ago

MS shuts down studios because of lack of resources and then helps these guys by giving em resources. Also MS is what forced them to buy their freedom in the first place? What kind of logic 😂

Chevalier9h ago

The best thing is that the company that is worth $3 trillion and owns the company instead of Xbox lacks resources. How the hell does a company worth $3 trillion making a measly $70 billion purchase they 'can't' support. Lol

Sciurus_vulgaris15h ago(Edited 15h ago)

Xbox’s gaming division seems to still function as 3 semi-autonomous sub-divisions, Xbox Studios, Bethesda and ABK. The three main sub-divisions can seemingly shut down or build studios and set up partnerships independently. This would explain why Bethesda can recently shutdown studios, while ABK spins off one studio, while building a new one. Plus, Toys for Bob could be spun off by ABK, only to immediately re-partner with Microsoft.

Chevalier9h ago

That's absolutely 💯 BS. Any sane 'autonomous' company would NOT put their games on Gamepass day 1 like COD will lose probably billions.

Also they're all under Xbox game studios so any autonomy is an illusion.

Elda9h ago

Either a kiddie game or something uninteresting.

Obscure_Observer3h ago

Don´t worry. You won´t be playing it anyway since their next game will possible be a next gen Xbox console game.

Elda2h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Don't worry about my comments.

Show all comments (20)
190°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
mandf20h ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic20h ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv7220h ago(Edited 20h ago)

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop16h ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv7215h ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander197214h ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

fr0sty8h ago

MS started lumping gold subscribers in with those GP numbers... keep in mind.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 8h ago
shinoff218319h ago(Edited 19h ago)

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv7219h ago(Edited 19h ago)

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje18h ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg17h ago(Edited 17h ago)

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils13h ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick17h ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb13h ago(Edited 13h ago)

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

gamerz9h ago

Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.

DivineHand1259h ago

Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.

My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.

KevtheDuff5h ago

There were savings on subs and controllers here in the UK? I bought a controller yesterday in the sale..
It would be weird if those deals were not in other territories too?