Creative Assembly Business Practice Discussion Thread (Attila)

[the_eye]

No actually they were talking about new releases and specifically singled out TWR2 and Football manager.

The "weak sales" quote was regarding new releases across all platforms - 49 SKUs over 8 platforms 32 SKUs over 7 platforms.*

It sold the most copies but how many did they project when they approved a 40% bigger budget? That's how you get disappointing results, when you plan for 1.5 - 2 million sales but you get 1.1 instead.

Just to be clear I don't think CA's going anywhere anytime soon. They'd need Warhammer and Alien to fail for that to happen.

We don't know exactly how many copies of Rome II they expected to sell, but we do know the number of units of new PC titles they expected to sell - 2,580,000, as reported as a full year forecast in the Full Year 2013 Results (page 21), Q1 2014 Results (page 15), Q2 2014 Results (page 17) and Q3 2014 Results (page 16). They actually achieved sales of 2,640,000 units. Rome II was also the only packaged title ever singled out for a positive comment during the year (Q2 2014 Results, page 16 - 'Overseas: Sales of "Total War: Rome II" are solid.'). The combined sales of Rome II, Football Manager and Company of Heroes 2 contributed 2,600,000 of those 2,640,000 units. So if Rome II significantly underperformed its sales target then that implies that one or both of Football Manager and Company of Heroes 2 must have significantly overperformed their sales targets. But if so, why weren't they singled out for comment?

*The original figures were erroneously taken from the FY2015 forecast rather than the FY2014 results.

[Huberto]

Some people really wants to see CA fails because Rome 2 is not what they have expected. Just like some Metallica fans used to say that by releasing music video (One) and using Bob Rock as producer (Black Albulm) Metallica will fail since they become 'commercial'.

Are you too scared to read page 19 of the link? Because it will totally undermine your pre conceived belief about TWR2?

There's actually a good argument to make that ETW outsold TWR2 over the course of its first year following release because it was outselling it in the first month after release and there was less pre-order effort for ETW.

[Huberto]

The "weak sales" quote was regarding new releases across all platforms - 49 SKUs over 8 platforms.

No it's 21 titles 32 SKU's (I didn't count the platforms but PC is by far the biggest).

So if Rome II significantly underperformed its sales target then that implies that one or both of Football Manager and Company of Heroes 2 must have significantly overperformed their sales targets. But if so, why weren't they singled out for comment?

You make an excellent point which is that SEGA beat it's PC forecast.

However, 'solid' TWR2's sales were at 9-30-2013, they were slightly less than ETW's for a similar (+30 days after release) period. That had to disappoint SEGA and CA. I don't know why FB Manager or CoH2 weren't singled out, probably because they sell less overall than TWR2? They certainly are mentioned in the reports.

All in all, if TWR2 had exceeded expectations it should have been highlighted as such in the annual results because PC is such a big driver in packaged games and TW was the biggest. The only thing highlighted was new releases were disappointing.

[SandraDevilGirl]

so, when are CA gonna announce that they are gonna give Atthila 60% higher budget just for AI compared to Rome 2?

When are we gonna see photoshoped pictures and modified ingame videos to fool us to pre-order Atthila?

Ohh, I forgot...when are you gonna fix the AI for Rome 2?

And last....let me guess...this is a modified Shogun 2 motor right? (because why spend money on a brand new one when we can polish the turd we already have...)

you guys (not pointing fingers at ANYONE) make me sick.....the only persons I feel that really gives their soul and love to the TW series, are the modders....no one els.

[LestaT]

Are you too scared to read page 19 of the link? Because it will totally undermine your pre conceived belief about TWR2?

There's actually a good argument to make that ETW outsold TWR2 over the course of its first year following release because it was outselling it in the first month after release and there was less pre-order effort for ETW.

No. For me I don't care. I don't have personal share with CA/SEGA though I do not wish them to fail because the only games I play are Total War. You can continue to deny what have been presented by others of course if that makes you happy. If you believe that Total War Rome 2 sales are not solid then so be it. The question is 'Do you buy it' ? If yes, then you probably need to buy more copies since their sales are not yet solid, whatever that means.

[Huberto]

No. For me I don't care. I don't have personal share with CA/SEGA though I do not wish them to fail because the only games I play are Total War. You can continue to deny what have been presented by others of course if that makes you happy. If you believe that Total War Rome 2 sales are not solid then so be it. The question is 'Do you buy it' ? If yes, then you probably need to buy more copies since their sales are not yet solid, whatever that means.

I think we all realize that CA is not going to fail because of TWR2 or Attila. The question about TWR2 is whether in the eyes of SEGA it was unqualified commercial success as some here seem to believe. "Solid" sales one month after release doesn't tell us that.

I'm pushing back on folks who post here that TWR2 was an unmitigated sales success. It certainly doesn't appear to have been. It was the single biggest new release for a period in which SEGA characterized sales of new releases as disappointing.

[Lionheart11]

Ok my business complaint: **Both Atilla and Rome 2 related**

First the game on release of Rome 2 was utter tripe, a total and blatant rip off!. We endured the horror faces and lack of Ai for like 9 months.

Que the angels singing* "there appears patch 15", Some kind of miracle for Ai and some remote hope. That patch was so good CA decided to rename the game to Emperor edition haha, oh it also added some missing graphics thats was seen 12 months ago before release. These guys at CA are fantastic are they not?, i mean if they didn't fix Rome 2 it would be all sweet right?.

Now we come to my ATILLA complaint, I put it too you that if CA did not rename Rome 2, putting out Atilla would have killed them. I also have no doubt people can see straight thru this, and for all its worth. To me they have basically with held content and are now passing it all off as separate content. I don't care if the ERA is different im looking at content.

I am sure they're lawyers gave them advice and that's why this term "Emperor edition" was used, but it still does not make it ethical and people do see this. Give existing Rome 2 owners %50 off Atilla for all they endured and are now seeing unfold, Emperor is still crap and just basic, Rome 2 is still unfinished, we all know you had to fix the Ai and frame rate of that game.

I resent you making so much money from fans, over %50 of players are not happy about Rome 2(even Emperor edition). Now you are doing a massive backflip over design, the streamlining design everyone complained about and you said no its cool. Well now after all this time you put it all majically back in like nothing was wrong, no apologies to the community or nothing, no promise to still fix Rome 2. You just want more money and that's it and Rome 2 was basically a troll to buy this Atilla now.

The Mentality was what?, put out some utter crap so later they will buy just some regular crap?, where is the great CA i once knew?.

[LestaT]

I think we all realize that CA is not going to fail because of TWR2 or Attila. The question about TWR2 is whether in the eyes of SEGA it was unqualified commercial success as some here seem to believe. "Solid" sales one month after release doesn't tell us that.

I'm pushing back on folks who post here that TWR2 was an unmitigated sales success. It certainly doesn't appear to have been. It was the single biggest new release for a period in which SEGA characterized sales of new releases as disappointing.

Just look it this way. If Rome 2 failed, then why SEGA gives the green light for CA to developed Attila ?

Think.

[RogueLeader]

Just look it this way. If Rome 2 failed, then why SEGA gives the green light for CA to developed Attila ?

Think.

Because they are a business and they have to continue to put out product and make money. They cant curl up in a ball and hide. The shareholders would not be very pleased about that.

[LestaT]

Because they are a business and they have to continue to put out product and make money. They cant curl up in a ball and hide. The shareholders would not be very pleased about that.

Why would they continue to sell failed product ? Doesn't make any business sense. You do agree that Total War series makes money, don't you ?

[iWarsaw]

Rogue is more to the point. They have to release something.

[LestaT]

Rogue is more to the point. They have to release something. The Total War series must make money of course.

True but they reported loses on other product. Why do still continue with Total War ? They can't release something indefinitely if they keep on losing. Of course we here don't care about other products since the discussion is about Rome specifically and other TW titles in general. Because if Total War series if not commercial success as some would love to believe then there's no reason for SEGA to keep on financing all these games all these years.

We can't say Rome 2 is not a financial success because we don't like the game, because we have bought the game in the first place before deciding it's worth an hour or 500 hours playing time, which in the end does not matter to SEGA how long one plays their game. In fact, from a business point of view a game that one can enjoy above 500 hours may not be good because if people are enjoying existing game too much they may not incline to get the next game as soon as it goes out. Those who like the game a bit and play maybe up to 50-100 hours are the one that will always buy the game early just to see what the new product feels like and these are what formed as the major market target.

[karamazovmm]

True but they reported loses on other product. Why do still continue with Total War ? They can't release something indefinitely if they keep on losing. Of course we here don't care about other products since the discussion is about Rome specifically and other TW titles in general. Because if Total War series if not commercial success as some would love to believe then there's no reason for SEGA to keep on financing all these games all these years.

We can't say Rome 2 is not a financial success because we don't like the game, because we have bought the game in the first place before deciding it's worth an hour or 500 hours playing time, which in the end does not matter to SEGA how long one plays their game. In fact, from a business point of view a game that one can enjoy above 500 hours may not be good because if people are enjoying existing game too much they may not incline to get the next game as soon as it goes out. Those who like the game a bit and play maybe up to 50-100 hours are the one that will always buy the game early just to see what the new product feels like and these are what formed as the major market target.

While I disagree with the reading of the FY2014 report claiming that the game wasn't a success*, the reception and replay value of the game interfere with the sales of the DLC

and to that point I disagree with you.

it is in their interest that the people that play the games play them quite often and as many hours as they can, so that way they can release more DLC

this also create a chain effect that people that were interested in that particular game, will also go and buy the new title.

However, Im not convinced that the view point of a few individuals in this community is actually substantial regarding sales and what the consumer wants from the titles.

*Lest I remind you that the FY goes from march to march, meaning that it accounts for 6 months of sales of Rome 2, which outsold the far more known COH2

[LestaT]

Well DLCs are ancillary income. Main income are preorders and within the first 3 months of release. Consider DLC sales as dividen and bonus for shareholders/employees. The trick is to make people like the game enough but not too attach to it. Besides hardware issue, there are still people playing old Medieval until now because they like the game so much and not even interested in the 'new' (in 2004 of course) 3D Total War introduced by the old Rome.

p/s: since this is business thread I'm trying to portray my thoughts base on the sellers point of view, not consumers point of view. This does not mean that I have any shares with CA/SEGA whatsoever (not that you guys will know even if I'm SEGA's chairman anyway. )

[Abdülmecid I]

it was well reviewed

Well reveiwed compared to what? Not the other TW titles, that's for sure. Rome II score of reviewers and gamers (on Metacritic, which is the site that defines how CA design their games): 76, 4.1 Shogun: 84, 8.7 Medieval: 88, 8.7 Rome 1: 92, 9.1, Medieval II: 88, 8.9 Empire: 90, 6.9 Napoleon: 81, 7.9 Shogun 2: 90, 8.3 FotS: 86, 8.4. ==> So much for the "all the releases are welcomed by a butthurt" slogan.

Just look it this way. If Rome 2 failed, then why SEGA gives the green light for CA to developed Attila ? Think.

I think and I still don't understand how the develpment of a new standalone game is related to how successful Rome2 was. Anyway, Huberto's link has pretty much ended the debate and I don't think he claims that Rome2 wasn't profitable. It just wasn't as profitable as they expected it to be. As a last note, it's not concrete proof, but the release of free dlcs like wolf-men and croco-priests impy that their DLCs sales were underwhelming.

[LestaT]

I think and I still don't understand how the develpment of a new standalone game is related to how successful Rome2 was. Anyway, Huberto's link has pretty much ended the debate and I don't think he claims that Rome2 wasn't profitable. It just wasn't as profitable as they expected it to be. As a last note, it's not concrete proof, but the release of free dlcs like wolf-men and croco-priests impy that their DLCs sales were underwhelming.

Simple business strategy. Sell what can be sell. Why would Huberto's claim ended the debate ? It's just different interpretation from a negative point of view.

[WoollyMammoth]

True but they reported loses on other product. Why do still continue with Total War ? They can't release something indefinitely if they keep on losing. Of course we here don't care about other products since the discussion is about Rome specifically and other TW titles in general. Because if Total War series if not commercial success as some would love to believe then there's no reason for SEGA to keep on financing all these games all these years.

We can't say Rome 2 is not a financial success because we don't like the game, because we have bought the game in the first place before deciding it's worth an hour or 500 hours playing time, which in the end does not matter to SEGA how long one plays their game. In fact, from a business point of view a game that one can enjoy above 500 hours may not be good because if people are enjoying existing game too much they may not incline to get the next game as soon as it goes out. Those who like the game a bit and play maybe up to 50-100 hours are the one that will always buy the game early just to see what the new product feels like and these are what formed as the major market target.

As long as TW is making a profit (e.g. cost to produce, overhead, taxes, etc. vs. gross income), then SEGA would be hesitant to remove an AAA title with a long history on the market. It is at the point that TW titles will begin making a loss that the plug could be pulled. CA, did a smart move, by releasing Alien because this can offset any losses to Attila and TW. SEGA possibly gave CA Alien because (it knew before hand) the other studio performed so bad, and CA has a history of releasing award winning games, or some such. That does not mean the overall company of CA is healthy, they could be threading water, and if able to fix that, pull through. Or not, as one could have a successful company and successful product yet still not have enough sales to make a sustainable profit (or alternatively have successful product but unsuccessful company).

If both Alien and Attila sales are disappointing, then CA will have to fight hard to keep in existence, depending on its buffers, and the question will be if they can re-invent themselves enough to do so. Them putting out shoddy products on release does not help them in any case. Especially in these difficult economic times. Do you really want to spend money on a game which you know has a high change of bugginess? So most people will wait.

CA is taking a large risk publishing two titles whose predecessors did not live up to expectations. (Alien Colonial Marines and Rome II) Even though CA has been developing Alien for years before Colonial Marines was released, which they are smart to make sure gets out there, and rightly so if that is the case.

They may well hit record sales with both, and the question is whether that will convince CA to continue on their current business strategy, and if it is prolonging the inevitable. That is that CA is actually getting by with the skin of its teeth, when in actually it needs to seriously look at the customer feedback, on for example buggy releases of pre-orders. Yes, they fixed (most of) it, and nothing but probs for that. But there is a large difference between selling a game at full price or at sale price (although it is possible these calculations have already been made).

Or could be just SEGA execs milking a cow, until it runs dry. Not caring about long term because they are pulling out of the PC market, if that is the case. In which case it could be that CA is trying to get out of it's contract with SEGA and continue, under Ubisoft or as a standalone studio for example. Can't imagine CA being happy with being underneath a failing publisher, or they could be wanting to get out of the strategy genre, and see that as a good moment, to continue with games such as Alien.

So, yeah, CA has it work cut out for itself, and it is not helping itself by its current business practices some would say, but this is the business model they chose, for better or worse.
There is an old saying: 'Don't fix it if it ain't broke'. Shogun II was one of their renowned titles, yet they're deviating from that by going back to Empire and Napoleon style of packaging, which was arguably one of their most controversial.

[LestaT]

Point is that Total War is making profit, right ? A point that has been tried to be denied by some here.

[WoollyMammoth]

Is it making a profit though? Honestly, I don't know. I can't see the books of CA, and what their end of year balance is. Given that they had (needed?) a bigger budget for Rome II, could well be that they are making a loss, with all the Free-LC and bugs, etc., and if sales are less than expected, as stated above may possible be the case. Also we would need to look at the entire product cycle on the TW3 engine/ Rome Era release cycle (in case if engine is switched), and the profit/ loss margin release for each individual product. Could well be that Rome II makes a loss, but subsequent titles make a profit, the opposite of that (Rome II making a profit/ Attila, etc making a loss), or a variation of that (Rome II a profit, Attila a loss, third title a profit for example.) Or that cost of investment for the engine is returned only when Empire II comes out in 10 years or so. Writing a new engine from scratch is expensive, because of all the bugs and testing needed for example. Could well be that they factored this in their budget of course (give or take some unexpected expenses).

Given the current business trajectory and looking at the past business trajectory it is possible that 12-18 months after Attila, Total War Alexander will be released as a standalone edition, focusing on the Greek Period. Each will have their own DLC/ Free-LC similar to Rome II, e.g. campaigns of generals in that period. Each will continue to improve on the TW3 platform. All this was probably decided before work was even begun on Rome II. The family tree was possibly brought back into the business plan, after all the wishes for customers to do so. So CA has a main platform from which after each release they will implement improvements.

So the best decision from a customer purchase price point of view might be to wait for a year or so after Alexander (and if it's bugs are fixed) comes out, and buy EE, Attila, and Alexander on sale (if bugs are fixed). This given that at present CA takes about a year to fix bugs, although as CA have stated for Attila a number of bugs have already been fixed in the engine because of Rome II.

After that it is anybody's guess what the next Total War will be. Could be that after Alexander they will release the engine for 64bit for example. That would be a 2017/ 2018 release then.

A complete Greek/ Rome era experience would be available for a sale price around 2017. If the operating system for example still supports the game then.
So it is in CA own interest for sales to release as bug free as possible, and with a high customer satisfaction (better/ equal) as their previous release, if they want customers to continue to buy their games. At present it is basically a similar customer satisfaction path as Windows Vista (Empire), Windows 7 (Shogun II), and Windows 8 (Rome II). Which would possibly make sense of the situation.

[Aenima]

Sorry look at page 19 (SEGA's page, not the PDF reader page).

Got a link to that?