00:00I found another interesting topic to talk about, and the basis of it is this article.
00:05It says, stop judging games by their sales figures. And if you read about what Harada
00:10is talking about, I think that he is making a point that's often misunderstood. He is not saying
00:16sales don't matter. He's basically saying sales shouldn't be the only lens through which we
00:22evaluate games or the people who make them. Thing is, the problem is that here are really
00:27two different questions. First one being, was the game commercially successful? And second one being,
00:34was the game creatively or artistically successful? And while these two questions are related,
00:40they are not the same. Take Dark Souls for example. It wasn't an instant blockbuster on the level of
00:46today's biggest releases. It did build an audience over time however, established a new subgenre,
00:52influenced countless developers and ultimately helped pave the way for Elden Ring, which became
00:58a massive commercial hit. So if you would have judged the team solely on early sales, you might
01:04never have gotten Elden Ring. On the other hand, Harada's statement can also be taken too far.
01:10For example, for publishers, investors and studio executives, sales absolutely matter. Games cost
01:17enormous amounts of money to make. And if a game costs let's say 20 million and sells 5 million copies,
01:24that's likely a huge success. However, if the game costs 300 million and sells 5 million copies,
01:30that could actually be disappointing. And those numbers determine whether a studio survives,
01:36whether developers keep their jobs and whether a sequel gets funded. So if you are going to ignore
01:41commercial performance, that's not really realistic. Now, where I think Harada is most correct is when
01:48people use sales as a shortcut for quality. For example, if you pick a random game and that game
01:55sold 20 million copies, automatically it should be objectively better. But that logic doesn't hold up.
02:02There are many reasons why a game can be popular. For example, stronger marketing, brand recognition,
02:08releasing at the right time, platform exclusivity, accessibility, multiplayer appeal for example,
02:15and obviously the most important one, word of mouth. I mean, obviously quality certainly helps,
02:21but it's only one ingredient. And as an example, there are plenty of fantastic games in my opinion
02:27that sold modestly. Stuff like Prey, Titanfall 2, and Okami for example. And you could never say that
02:33any of the games that I've listed were failures from a design perspective just because they didn't
02:39become mega hits. At the same time, we have hugely successful games that receive plenty of criticism,
02:45but continue to sell because they are attached to an established franchise or have exceptional marketing.
02:52So what should we use instead? Well, it's rather simple when you think about it. This is a multi-variable
02:58thing, so you cannot use one metric and the different metrics will answer different questions.
03:04For example, if you're analyzing commercial success, you'll probably check sales, revenue, or profit.
03:09When it comes to player reception, you have user reviews, retention, recommendation rates, stuff like
03:16that. If you are interested in critical success, well, you go for reviews, awards, industry recognition.
03:22And as for creative impact, you might ask questions like, did the game introduce new mechanics?
03:27Did other developers copy that? Or is the game still discussed years later?
03:33And final metric that you could use is obviously studio success. As in, did the project improve
03:38the team skills or did it establish tech that benefits future games? And I think last point
03:44is what Harada is really getting at. One thing, however, that I would push back on is Harada's comment
03:50that people who judge by sales have never actually developed games. That's a bit dismissive because
03:56consumers don't need development experience to discuss whether a game justified its budget or
04:01whether a publisher made a sound business decision. Because those are legitimate conversations too.
04:07However, some of you might say, yeah, it's all nice and fine, but if people don't see the potential
04:12of the game and just look at sales numbers, which again, they should because you don't have an infinite
04:18supply of money to invest into future projects, then what can you do? And I think this is the
04:23uncomfortable reality of game industry. You cannot expect publishers to fund potential forever.
04:29And this is where the developer perspective and the business perspective will naturally diverge.
04:35I mean, when you think about it, Harada is speaking like someone who spent decades making games.
04:39From that perspective, you can see progress that isn't obvious from the outside. Maybe your AI
04:44system is vastly improved and your pipeline is better and your writers are finding their voice.
04:50Or your combat designers finally nailed something special. And those are investments that may not
04:55pay off until the next game. But if you're a publisher, you had to ask questions. For example,
05:02can we afford to wait for the payout? And sometimes the answer is simply no. To illustrate things a bit
05:08better, let's take a hypothetical studio. Game A loses 30 million. Game B loses 20 million but is better
05:16reviewed. And then game C might finally become the breakthrough. So if you're a publisher that's
05:22already down 50 million, would you gamble another 100 million? I mean, maybe, but only if you genuinely
05:30believe game C has a realistic chance of succeeding. Otherwise, you're risking the entire company. And that's
05:37why publishers rely on sales. But they are one of the few objective indicators available. So where I
05:43think people go wrong is assuming poor sales always mean a poor game. You have many reasons why games fail.
05:51And it has nothing to do with the game itself. It could be that you launched at a terrible time.
05:57Maybe your marketing is ineffective. Maybe you released it on the wrong platform. Or maybe you priced it
06:03poorly. Again, similar to launching at a terrible time. Maybe the game was overshadowed by bigger
06:09release. Or simply you didn't find the audience until years later. And then on the other hand,
06:16a game can sell incredibly well because it's part of an established franchise, just like I said before,
06:22even if it's widely considered a weaker entry. A good example that I would single out here is Cyberpunk 2077.
06:29It's launch was heavily criticized, yet it sold extremely well because of the anticipation surrounding
06:35it. And if you judged it only by sales, you'd conclude everything was fine. And in reality,
06:41CDPR spent years rebuilding trust through updates and the Cyberpunk 2077 Phantom Liberty expansion.
06:48So sales alone didn't capture the whole picture. Ultimately, I think Harada is arguing against
06:54reductionism, reducing a game's entire value to a spreadsheet. But if he's arguing that publishers
07:01shouldn't care much about sales, I don't think that's actually realistic. The harsh truth is that
07:07potential is valuable only if someone can afford to invest in it. Every great studio eventually has
07:13to prove that its creative growth translates into commercial sustainability. Otherwise, even talented
07:20teams can run out a runway. And that's not because their work lacked merit, it's because game development
07:26is extraordinarily expensive and no publisher has unlimited resources. It's a harsh reality, but
07:33reality nonetheless. And that's basically my take on this news. Thanks very much for watching, and as
07:39always, like, share, subscribe, comment, all that good stuff. And that's it from me, until the next one.
Comments