User login

Navigation

Recent Forum Posts

I Think Capcom's Target For RE7 is 4M units sold and not shipped (And this clear the confusion for RE6)

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 1118.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_display::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_display.inc on line 1707.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_display_page::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin_display::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_display_page.inc on line 479.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_display_block::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin_display::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_display_block.inc on line 184.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_display_attachment::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin_display::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_display_attachment.inc on line 228.
  • strict warning: Declaration of panels_plugin_display_panel_pane::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin_display::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/panels/panels_views/panels_plugin_display_panel_pane.inc on line 351.
  • strict warning: Declaration of date_plugin_display_attachment::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/date/includes/date_plugin_display_attachment.inc on line 34.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_field_broken::ui_name() should be compatible with views_handler::ui_name($short = false) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_field.inc on line 590.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort_broken::ui_name() should be compatible with views_handler::ui_name($short = false) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 82.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 584.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 584.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_broken::ui_name() should be compatible with views_handler::ui_name($short = false) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 608.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_many_to_one::init() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::init(&$view, $options) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_many_to_one.inc on line 61.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_term_node_tid::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/modules/taxonomy/views_handler_filter_term_node_tid.inc on line 288.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 61.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home3/projectu/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 61.
16 replies [Last post]
Joined: 03/12/2017
Posts: 4
User offline. Last seen 21 weeks 5 days ago.

Thinking about it , When I looked back at Capcom's Expectations and Results documents for RE6 , If we still believe that what capcom targets in their Expectations is "Shipped" and not "sales" then in RE6 case there is an obvious Big contradiction between the "4.5M" day one shipment and the Official numbers written in their documents , which led me to believe that capcom target "sales" in their documents and not "shipped"

-Lets take it in Chronological order , in Fiscal Report 2011 Capcom's expectations for RE6 was 5M Sales copies ( I Know it is the revised one and it was 7M before they edit it ) , Until now we don't know what they mean by sales

http://imgur.com/lKUXZtK.jpg

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/pdf/explanation/2011/full/explanation_2011_full_01.pdf

Following the release of the game , Capcom announced that the game has "shipped" 4.5M copies in launch

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/news/html/e121004.html

-Now Lets take a look at Capcom's Report for Q2 2012 which has the data for the initial shipments and initals sold units and thats were the Big contradiction happens

http://imgur.com/YbcsWC3.jpg

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/pdf/explanation/2012/2nd/explanation_2012_2nd_01.pdf

As you can see , They clearly put the "sales" numbers in the table which is 3.7M and put the shipment number as a note at the bottom of the page which is 4.5M

-Now lets take a look at Capcom's report in for Q3 2012

http://imgur.com/aywOG1t.jpg

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/pdf/result/2012/3rd/result_2012_3rd_01.pdf

They said that sales until Q3 2012 is 4.8M and based on the previous report then we know for sure that 4.9M is "sales units" and not "shipment" , also take a look at the top of the page , they say that in Q3 RE6 sold 1.1M which lines perfectly with the previous sales numbers and the new sales numbers (3.7+1.1=4.8) so that means All the numbers released for RE6 "except the 4.5M day one shipment" are the sales numbers and not the shipment numbers and Therefore the spreading talk that RE6 Shipped only 400K from launch to March 2013 (Six Months) is a false one

-Now Fast Forward to RE7 , The nearly exact Scenario happens

In their Q3 2016 Report , The expectations number in the same table is 4M copies , and going by the previous RE6 example then that is the "sales" numbers and not "shipment" numbers

http://imgur.com/Meh0ZMe.jpg

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/pdf/explanation/2016/3rd/explanation_2016_3rd_01.pdf

-Now the same Post-Launch statement happens , and RE7 Shipped 3M copies

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/news/html/e170210.html

The Difference is between them until now is : Capcom in RE6 clearly mentioned both the "initial shipment" numbers and "sales" numbers and Clearly "sales" numbers as their target while in RE7 case they only mention "Shipment" numbers and are yet to reveal the "sales" numbers , And even If Capcom's target for RE7 is 4M shipments and not sales then that is a lot worse for RE7 compared to RE6 which had a "sales" target not "shipment"

Wesker Child
Weskers Report's picture
Joined: 02/24/2017
Posts: 221
User offline. Last seen 5 days 13 hours ago.

Yeah...As far as Capcom is concerned 'shipped' means sold but of course if those shipped copies don't sell then they just sit on the shelves and no new shipments go out.

nice detailed post!

I know at least for RE 7 they have yet to include digital sales.

Joined: 03/12/2017
Posts: 4
User offline. Last seen 21 weeks 5 days ago.

Weskers Report wrote:

Yeah...As far as Capcom is concerned 'shipped' means sold but of course if those shipped copies don't sell then they just sit on the shelves and no new shipments go out.

nice detailed post!

I know at least for RE 7 they have yet to include digital sales.

Thanks :)

Regarding RE7 Sales numbers then we don't even know how much it sold retail-wise let alone Digital-wise , The only Number we have is the Shipments numbers as of 10 Feb

Joined: 12/18/2013
Posts: 80
User offline. Last seen 7 hours 53 min ago.

"Commercial success" is determined by if a game managed to recoup its development costs and profit.

That's all.

RE7 has been reported to have done just that, so any further sales is just more profit to this game.

Failing sales goals, not fulfilling its role as a driver for sales expansion, etc. are just goal-post pushing bullshit from people who want a game to fail, yet don't know anything about the industry and make shit up as they go along.

I think Gregaman from Capcom said it clearly that fulfilling sales goals does not guarantee sequels and missing sales goals doesn't necessarily mean a game doesn't have sequels.
Business is ever evolving and adapting.

In a fantasy realm where "RE7 is only developed by 120 people", "Capcom only has $152 million left in the bank" or "Capcom wanted RE6 to attract CoD fans", maybe sales goals is so important that failing it will drag a game's reputation down for years to come.

But in the real world, it's something to be taken with a pinch of salt and doesn't mean shit in the long run (especially if the game managed to sell millions and profit).

 

This goes both ways, whether it's an RE6 hater or an RE7 hater.

Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 136
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 1 day ago.

Yeah, Resident Evil 6 didn't meet sales expectations but it was probably profitable, nonetheless.

However, how RE6 was received probably had an impact on the developement of future titles. It's clear that Capcom doesn't want to invest as much money on an RE title as they did with 5 and 6. The development cost was significantly reduced with RE7 to minimize negative impact in case the game was met with lukewarm reception. 

 

Wesker Child
Weskers Report's picture
Joined: 02/24/2017
Posts: 221
User offline. Last seen 5 days 13 hours ago.

Grem wrote:

Yeah, Resident Evil 6 didn't meet sales expectations but it was probably profitable, nonetheless.

However, how RE6 was received probably had an impact on the developement of future titles. It's clear that Capcom doesn't want to invest as much money on an RE title as they did with 5 and 6. The development cost was significantly reduced with RE7 to minimize negative impact in case the game was met with lukewarm reception. 

 

 

this is a good thing. Always remember, lower budget forces people to be more creative.

And now with the new RE Engine fully developed Capcom will make even more profit on future titles.

 

Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 136
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 1 day ago.

I have no problem with lower budget titles for the reasons you mentioned. 

However, it could become detrimental if the series is less successful commercially speaking. Ultimately, the series could be discontinued if they don't manage to expand the fan base. But no point to worry about it right now. 

Joined: 12/18/2013
Posts: 80
User offline. Last seen 7 hours 53 min ago.

Grem wrote:
However, how RE6 was received probably had an impact on the developement of future titles.

In the making of RE7, Jun Takeuchi said that RE6 made a lot of players happy.
In one interview with Masachika Kawata, he said that RE6 is a "success from a business perspective".
The inside report for RE7 talked about how "many fans responded positively" to RE6.

I have yet to see any straightforward comment from the staff that they deemed RE6 as a complete failure or hated by many.
All the "hate" you see about the game probably comes from the world's loudest minority.

Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 136
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 1 day ago.

Did you read what I posted ?

I'm not saying the game was a failure or that it was "hated". To the contrary, I said it was probably profitable for Capcom. But it had an impact on other games, nonetheless. 

RE6 wasn't as successful as they thought it would be. It was a AAA and they wanted to reach 7 millions unit sold. They spent a lot of money and manpower to achieve that but they didn't meet their goals. While not a failure, they had to avoid repeating that kind of development policy because it was not as profitable as they thought it would be. 

I remember Kawata saying jokingly that previous characters were not in RE7 because it was too expensive to design them. That's the kind of mindset they have after RE6 and it's huge budget. They don't want to spend a lot of money to impress anymore because it's unecessary. 

When Takeuchi and Kawata are saying that RE6 was a great game, blah blah blah.....it's just PR talk in order to appear respectful towards the team that worked on it before and to the fans that liked that game. Nothing more. 

Joined: 12/18/2013
Posts: 80
User offline. Last seen 7 hours 53 min ago.

Grem wrote:
But it had an impact on other games, nonetheless.

"Impact" maybe an exaggeration.
Their official explanation is that they just felt like toning down after the large scale of the previous game left them with nowhere else to go.

Quote:
When Takeuchi and Kawata are saying that RE6 was a great game, blah blah blah.....it's just PR talk in order to appear respectful towards the team that worked on it before and to the fans that liked that game. Nothing more.

They never had a problem talking negatively about previous games before, so why would they have any now?

You could find quotes from Shinji Mikami where he says that his reason for the changes in RE4 is due to having enough of the classic format after playing RE0 (calling it "more of the same") or when he refers to the REmake's sales as a "commercial failure".

And then there's Hiroyuki Kobayashi who described the classic games as "stuck in a cookie cutter mold" and "shackles holding us down".

Isn't this blatantly showing disrespect to the other staff involved and the players who enjoyed these games?
Honestly, as somebody who played the older games, I never saw it as "disrespectful" to me, since I also thought that the first few games have gotten old.

If RE6 or the action format did "impact" the team or created an overwhelming negative backlash somehow, the staff would have mentioned it.
If anything, Koshi Nakanishi actually mentioned specifically to third-person action fans of RE that they still haven't given up on the format and asked the fans to look forward their future efforts.

Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 136
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 1 day ago.

If the reception of RE6 didn't influence the development of RE7, why would they bother giving the game a lower budget than before ? And why would they return to survival horror ? That's simple logic. 

And yes, this is PR talk. RE6 reception was mixed and that's a fact. There are lots of fans who enjoyed it just as thera are lots of them who hated it. With these statements, they just don't want to tarnish RE6 reputation even more. They also wanted to say that despite the backlash, RE6 was still a "good" action game. 

You mentioned Mikami, but you forget that this guy isn't much of a PR guy. He doesn't give a shit about politics or business and speaks his minds all the time. He hates interviews. Takeuchi and Kawata are real producers, you won't hear them talk shit of terrible games like Operation Raccoon City or Umbrella Corps. They will always try to justify the orientation of failed attempts in the series.

You also forget that there were tons of interviews from Cacpom representatives sayin' that RE6 felt "bloated" and that they needed more "focus" for the next entry. And that's precisely what they did with 7.

I also remember that the very same Kawata said that after RE6, his views on how to approach the series changed and that a return to horror was something he had in mind. 

Joined: 12/18/2013
Posts: 80
User offline. Last seen 7 hours 53 min ago.

Grem wrote:
If the reception of RE6 didn't influence the development of RE7, why would they bother giving the game a lower budget than before ?

My educated guess: Because Jun Takeuchi was insistent on "no delays" throughout the development.
They spent a portion of development just to create the engine from scratch on 2014 and then added VR support the following year.
A staff even pointed out that it was like making two games.

If delays were allowed, maybe they would put a longer campaign, bigger changes to the choices made (between Zoe and Mia) and more enemy variety.

But instead they settled for what they managed to squeeze out within 2.5 years and then follow it up with a free DLC campaign.

Quote:
And why would they return to survival horror ?

Because they wanted to.
Nowhere did they ever say "the backlash of RE6 caused us to change".

Quote:
You mentioned Mikami, but you forget that this guy isn't much of a PR guy. He doesn't give a shit about politics or business and speaks his minds all the time. He hates interviews. Takeuchi and Kawata are real producers, you won't hear them talk shit of terrible games like Operation Raccoon City or Umbrella Corps. They will always try to justify the orientation of failed attempts in the series.

Now you're just making things up as you go along to discredit the positive statements for RE6.
And what about Hiroyuki Kobayashi? Is he also "not much of a PR guy" since he called the old-school style "shackles holding us down"?
Anyone saying things you don't like are automatically "not much of a PR guy"?

Quote:
You also forget that there were tons of interviews from Cacpom representatives sayin' that RE6 felt "bloated" and that they needed more "focus" for the next entry. And that's precisely what they did with 7.

That never happened.
Capcom simply relayed what they heard from feedback.
The staff themselves never said that "RE6 felt bloated".
And it was only one interview that was mirrored around.

Quote:
I also remember that the very same Kawata said that after RE6, his views on how to approach the series changed and that a return to horror was something he had in mind.

Oh, that's just some PR stuff he made up to please the execs so that you think he's doing it on his own free will.

See what you're doing?
We're both proving our points using developer quotes and you're just discrediting anything that doesn't go your way.
What's stopping me from doing the same?

If you wanna use staff quotes, you can't be selective.
You can't say the ones that agrees with your point of view as being the correct one, while claiming that the ones you disagree with are "PR talk" or nonsense like that.

Joined: 04/21/2009
Posts: 136
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 1 day ago.

C'mon now, you're starting to take these things too seriously.

I'm not trying to descredit anything at all cost. We started arguing because I thought RE6 reception had an influence on RE7 development one way or another. Frankly, I don't really care much if you happen to be right.

If you choose to believe that producers saying that RE6 was a good game is not PR talk, then so be it. No need to quibble. 

As for the "selective" quotes, to the contrary, I was trying to show that with staff statements it could go either way and you can't rely on them too much. That was my point. 

I just think you may be in a bit of denial if you honestly think that RE6 mixed reception from critics and fans alike had zero impact on the development of RE7. That's about it. 

Joined: 03/12/2017
Posts: 4
User offline. Last seen 21 weeks 5 days ago.

Grem wrote:

If the reception of RE6 didn't influence the development of RE7, why would they bother giving the game a lower budget than before ? And why would they return to survival horror ? That's simple logic. 

On Paper and in Official Interviews , The Reason RE7 is polar opposite from RE6 is that this is a "Design" Choice and they wanted to make a Survival Horror game again and it has nothing to do with RE6 Reception , Capcom didn't state once it is due to RE6 Reception , The Series was already in the Category "Final Fantasy - Witcher - Metal Gear Solid - Batman Arkham - Uncharted - Mass Effect - Tomb Raider " type of sales "Between 5-10M" , and the Sales of the Remaster of RE4/5/6 showed that if they made another game of the same style but learned from their mistakes and solved it then it would remain on that category

Now outside papers and official interviews , If we spectulate , Capcom Probably wanted to try an expirement , They wanted to see if they can achieve a large percent of RE6 sales with a much lower development costs using huge marketing hype like "returning to the roots" and "Full VR Experience" and a standalone Demo that caters to nowadays Non-RE Youtube FP Horror fans , Looking at the situation right now ( No New announcement although they celeberated and made a press release about Shipping 2.5M and 3M and recouping the development costs + The game had discounts everywhere the two weeks before 31 March and those discounts suddenly stopped after 31 March ) , I highly doubt they made above 4M Unit sales and they likely in the 3M's region , Making its sales category decrease from the "5-10M' like the above games into another category which is " Dark Souls - Dishonored - Dragon Age " type of sales " Between 3-5M " , Which in the long run isn't a good thing for a mainline franshise for a company in the size of Capcom , you may say that it may had the same profits as RE6 because RE6 had way higher development costs , but What if a fixed " controlable lower costs " RE6 released as RE7 made the same sales numbers as the vanilla RE6 ?

Joined: 12/18/2013
Posts: 80
User offline. Last seen 7 hours 53 min ago.

The discussion is already over, it's just that due to the board messing up, the last few concluding posts were wiped out.

Joined: 01/29/2017
Posts: 17
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 3 days ago.

It seems they have now reached their goal! Innocent

Body Horror Enthusiast
Joined: 08/11/2017
Posts: 28
User offline. Last seen 6 days 14 hours ago.

Neurotoxin wrote:

It seems they have now reached their goal! Innocent

Yay!

__________________

We will all be made one. Make us whole. - The Marker