Rob Fahey
Contributing Editor
Friday 14th January 2022
A fairly common source of frustration, not only among game consumers but also for many people within the industry, is the perceived illogicality of decisions made by publishers and platform holders about how to treat certain IPs.
Whether to fund sequels, create a broader franchise, or abandon a game after a single outing can sometimes seem like a decision that's somewhat random and capricious. Throw into the mix the occasional public complaint from a developer or producer who feels aggrieved at the process, and you end up with a situation where the whole process by which publishers evaluate commercial performance and IP value can seem obscure, unfair and even conspiratorial to the outside observer.
It's worth taking a moment, therefore, to discuss some of the misconceptions about how games' commercial performance is assessed, and how this process actually works, for the most part; though it differs from publisher to publisher, there are commonalities around the industry about the way this evaluation and decision-making process works.
What constitutes a 'unit sale' is much more complex than it ever used to be
Perhaps obviously, the decision to talk about this topic stems from the revived confusion about why Sony seemingly chose not to move forward with a sequel to its PS4 title Days Gone, despite the game -- allegedly -- having comparable or even better unit sales to another late-PS4 era title, Ghost of Tsushima, for which Sony has enthusiastically greenlit a PS5 re-release, a sequel, and a movie adaptation. I don't want to engage with the specifics around Days Gone too much, but it's a useful example of some of the decision-making processes publishers use that can look
Read more on gamesindustry.biz