branded games- really worthwhile for publishers?

For my maths coursework I did a reasonably extensive look into industry statistics for the ps2, where I compared sales figures for origonal games (e.g. gran turismo) to branded games (e.g. james bond games etc). I also looked at the relation between sales figures and review scores in both branded and non branded games; I thought the results were pretty surprising.

You might expect on the ps2 that on average branded games would sell better, after all its the home of licensing etc. However, the median sales figures for the top 200 games in both the non branded and branded games were within a few thousand units of eachother. I.E. they sold , in general equivalent amounts. This would suggest its just as profitable make a non branded game as a branded game, and that in fact if developers like EA focused on creating some origional content using their vast resources, they could still generate the same sales figures, and probably really contribute something worthwhile to the industry.

Pretty surprisingly, there was a stronger relationship between review score and sales figures for branded games than non branded games; however, in general, there wasnt that strong a relationship in either case. This would indicate that UK gamers dont really care how good a game is in all cases.

Additionally, to many, the ps2 has been considered a good starting point for developers- its easier to shift units on. However, the data for the sales figures in both categories was extremely positively skewed; what this essentially means is that most games sold very little, with only a few doing very well. This would indicate that the ps2 is actually not such a safe environment to start up your development company, if you dont have strong backing, because games are certainly not sure of good sales figures, even if they are good games.

Anyway, I cant exactly say this is definitive, however, I did get my data direct from ELSPA (which is why I cant actually post it up, because I signed a non disclosure agreement with them), so it should be prett accurate. And no, I didnt choose the ps2 because I like it more, I chose it because its easier to make predictions about- and there are more branded games.

Good summary, and it sounds as I'd expect it in regards to review scores and sales figures. People don't care what a game is like if it's 'branded' and will buy it in their droves if the brand is popular enough.

I hope you did well on your coursework with it, as well.

Nice work

Just because there are more total customers doesnt mean there are more potential customers...

Mason wrote:
Good summary, and it sounds as I'd expect it in regards to review scores and sales figures. People don't care what a game is like if it's 'branded' and will buy it in their droves if the brand is popular enough.

I hope you did well on your coursework with it, as well.

thats the thing- there was a stronger relationship between review scores and sales figures for the branded games than the non branded games. Its the opposite of what one would expect; but what it does show is that people are still buying the games based on their quality rather than the brand, and thus perhaps its more worthwhile for publishers to make sure developers make good games, rather than just hoping a license will shift units.

Good idea and interesting results - shame EA wouldn't care about them

It isnt too surprising to hear that only a few PS2 games excell and the others dont do so well (I rhyme :tongue.

You only (well I only) ever hear about the big games, i.e Vice City, etc etc.

Did the ps2 have far more games released on it compare to other consoles?

well I only took my sample from the top 500 games sold in 2004, but I imagine it does have more games released on it yes.

Ooh, I apologise, I mis-read it as being the other way round. That IS surprising. It's kind of comforting to know that quality still over-rides a brand name even in this industry. It really doesn't make sense, if you think about it; you'd have thought that the non-branded ones, where the public as a whole know nothing about them, would be the ones whose sales depend on them actually being good.

mm.. good thing my hypotheses didnt have to be right to get good marks

< Edited by GR781 on 2005/3/23 19:51 >

stats coursework? i hated that... damn maths...

oh yah it sucked.. 12 pages of pure unadulterated "hilarity"...
still, my subject was pretty interesting at least.

edit: and i get to give it up at the end of the year!

< Edited by GR781 on 2005/3/23 20:06 >

the key issue is: how many branded games and non-branded games came out on ps2. Or more to the point: how much money was invested in the making of branded & non-branded games.

Going by your figures, its possible that 1/4 of the games are branded, but they still make up half of the sales...

i gave it up too GR! wooooooooow

thats pretty irrelevent; I took two averages, one of branded games, one of non branded games, the samples they were taken from were of equal size, and were random samples, and they indicated that in general branded games do not actually sell better or worse than non branded games. Weather or not the majority of games on the ps2 are branded is irrelevant.
edit: thats in reply to duffman..

< Edited by GR781 on 2005/3/23 20:24 >