 |
|
|
| |
Take-Two: Mafia II Seeing 'Great Start', Profitability Expected
by Leigh Alexander [PC, Console/PC, Exclusive]
|
|
| |
|
September 2, 2010
|
| |
Thanks to its mixed critical reception after almost six years in development, Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter recently stated Take-Two's Mafia II is unlikely to ever see a profit. Not so, says Take-Two, speaking on a call to investors following positive third quarter results.
"We're very proud of the game," said CEO Ben Feder, describing developer 2K Czech as an "extremely talented studio." Although the company hasn't revealed any unit sales for Mafia II, Feder said simply that "based upon the initial launch, we expect this to be another profitable title for Take-Two." CFO Lainie Goldstein described the game as "off to a great start."
In an analyst note wherein he correctly forecast the delay of LA Noire, Pachter said he observed waning consumer interest in Mafia II, and that the mixed review scores gave him doubts about the profit potential for the title. He reasoned it likely that its two release delays and several years' development time created high costs.
Elaborating to Gamasutra, Pachter explained the basis of his skepticism: "When [Take-Two] bought 2K Czech [then called Illusion Softworks, in 2008], as I recall, the press release said that the studio had 200 employees," he said.
"I haven't read about any staff cuts there, and am not aware of any other projects they have worked on the last five years, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's a huge studio that operates at 50 percent or less of U.S. wages."
"Nonetheless, it's still probably costing them $6-10 million per year to keep the studio operating, so the game's cost had to be $35 million or more," Pachter estimates.
During its discussion today with investors, Take-Two did not comment on any of the analyst's assertions, from development costs to staff size or unit sales. But throughout the call, numerous other analysts peppered Take-Two execs for clarity on its pipeline and timing, and for specifics of its release plans. In its responses the company was careful to describe that its approach to development is not solely beholden to a fixed schedule when it comes at the expense of other factors.
"Red Dead Redemption took down any number of titles that were on budget and on time," noted CEO Ben Feder on the call. He was presenting this example in the context of LA Noire, whose delay was revealed alongside today's results, as he discussed the benefit of investing time and resources in the development of a "groundbreaking" product.
"We always strive for predictability... but if a title needs more time we're willing to give it," said Feder. "We serve no wine before its time."
|
| |
|
|
A publicly traded company has a duty to act so as to make money for its stockholders. But what is more likely to accomplish that goal? Hitting estimated ship dates, even if that means launching without all intended features? Or shipping a feature-complete, polished, and tested game, even if that means missing the holiday window and spending significantly more money than planned?
Obviously you'd like your game to demonstrate both measures of quality. But what if that's not an option?
Who has the better handle on what's most likely to yield a successful game? The analysts focused on stable development processes? Or the developers focused on content?
That five years of development includes preproduction. Before then, Mafia 2 was originally designed (not implemented) as a PlayStation 2 title. The concept and story were refined for two to three years, and then the design had to be revisited when the PlayStation 3 hit the streets in November 2006.
2K announced Mafia 2 in August 2007. Titles are announced after they are signed, so assuming a typical publishing scenario, Illusion Softworks delivered an initial demo to 2K around that time. 2K bought Illusion in January 2008 and renamed the studio 2K Czech. The release of Mafia 2 was later delayed, alongside Red Dead Redemption, from Q4 2009 to Q3 2010 to allow for additional development.
Mafia 2 therefore appears to have been in development by Illusion, under contract to 2K, for a period of less than three years, which seems to be a fairly normal development cycle. Given one or two delays, we can assume that 2K had established a very aggressive schedule.
If 2K was not financing the years of preproduction prior to the August 2007 announcement, Pachter's analysis of the impact on Take-Two is likely inaccurate.
Patcher's analysis may be wrong, but his claim that Mafia II won't be profitable may be correct. I played Mafia II and felt that the critics focused on minute details and that the game was overall a tremendous display of craftsmanship and technology. If anyone is really missing a clue, it's the reviewers, and perhaps all the gamers who skipped over it.
Patcher's minute analysis may be wrong it certain parts, but his overall claim that Mafia II won't be profitable may be correct.
I played Mafia II and felt that the critics focused on insignificant details and that the game was overall a tremendous display of craftsmanship and technology. If anyone is really missing a clue, it's the reviewers, and perhaps all the gamers who skipped over it.
Patcher's conclusion is probably correct even though his reasons aren't 100% valid.