Can you predict a hit?

No.

Well, yes.  But you have to assume that execution is adequate, and this is a huge assumption.  Many, maybe most games fail based on poor execution alone.  Execution encompasses areas such as interface, controls, bugginess, gameplay balance, and all other areas of production quality.  Execution is the one true wild card.  We engage in folly when we predict if an unreleased game will be a hit, because we cannot predict execution quality.

Well, unless the studio has a tract record of top notch execution, like Blizzard, Valve, and Bioware.  Then it's a well placed bet.

Otherwise, we're back to no, it's not possible to predict a hit.

Execution happens to be the area most disrupted by the publisher's money squeeze, or when they try to rush a game out to beef up revenues in one of their fiscal quarters, to ensure their stock doesn't take a slight tumble and rile investors a wee little bit.  It's really hard to execute on execution when you've got limited time to get things right.  This shortsighted behavior by publishers has sunk more games than perhaps any other development factor in the industry.  Too many games are simply released before they're done.  Eighty percent done does not a hit make.  We all know this, right?

Well, I wish.

So, while it's deadly tough to predict if a game will be a hit, it's actually not nearly so tough to make a hit game.  In fact, I think it's kinda easy.  Except you need to have the time to execute the game to its full potential.  That's quite an "except," and only a handful of studios can do so.  Well, like Blizzard, Valve, and Bioware.  Funny that.

Comments

[Patrick Johnson Jr.]

Predicting a hit is like predicting who's going to win a fight, a football game or a stock car race. You can set a probability in favor of a certain person based on previous trends and evaluating the pros and cons of each factor of the decision.

While you can stack the odds in favor of it being a surefire hit, there's that probability of it going the other way. Betting on the Eagles to win the NFC East again, when there's a probability that the Cowboys (here's hoping), Giants or Redskins win it.

Predicting it is a game of chance, you can either come up with a correct assumption or you can predict wrong.

I agree alot of the publisher causing that unbalance in the force, but there are other factors that can derail it too...

While odds can always be improved, there is always that chance of stinking it up with a dud of a game.

[Anon]

I think there is some fundamental 'element' that greatly increases the chance of success.

Look at 2015. They make an amazing game, MOH that redefines the genre and spawns a ton of WW2 oriented clones. Most of the team subsequently leave to form Infinity Ward. The team members who are left carry on and reform the company to start work on a new game, Men of Valour. EA try to continue the franchise themselves with Rising Sun.

Men of Valour is released to widespread indifference. The title achieves mediocre ratings. The same thing occurs with Rising Sun, although here there seems to be a small spark of greatness. Infinity Ward finish up Call of Duty, a new franchise, which achieves widespread acclaim and popularity, becoming one of the top online titles.

I've mangled the timelines, but the point is there does seem to be some magic ingredient which allows a team to achieve repeated successes. When team members leave, that ingredient can be lost.

[Jeron Moore]

Ah, come on Scott... we all know Valve, Blizzard, and Bioware don't got nothin' on 3D Realms. ;) Actually, all of you guys are great companies making great games that speak to a high level and standard of production. Too many games nowadays are rushed -- it's alot like the pile up of bad movies that come down the pipe. Every now and then a few good ones will sneak out - take Spielberg's latest, War of the Worlds. Holy shit. That's an instant class. In the gaming world, only a handful of developers are going the extra mile and making the extra effort to assure their game is bulletproof. I can say with relative certainty and confidence that you guys, Valve, Blizzard, Bioware... y'all are in the market for instant classics. And you'll do it time and time again, because you know the secret on how to make it happen.

[Tedski]

In this day and age, especially if you aren't 'well known' in the first instance, a major criteria should be to be as 'bug-free' as possible. I can't think of anything else that is more likely to contribute to the relative 'failure' of a game than the necessity to have to patch/download drivers/mess with system settings, simply to get a game to run. I appreciate that what you're saying Scott is, by implication at least, covering this territory, yet I don't think it can be stressed enough. Gamers can, will, do enjoy 'tweaking' things to get better performance, but they don't want to be doing it in the hope of getting their game to run, and word soon gets around.

[Suresh V. S.]

I agree with the point on execution. Just look at what happened to Sin and Half Life 1. They both tried to achieve similar goals in terms of story, characters, scripted sequences etc. Just like Half Life 1, Sin was constantly being praised - right until it was released. Then suddenly, everybody started complaining. So what happened? Surely, the game's story hadn't changed, the characters hadn't changed ... the only thing that changed was how often you ended up being dropped to your desktop while playing. And no game character or story can save your game from that!

[Tadhg]

Wait a second here:

Define 'hit'

[Scott Miller]

Hit = top five percent or so successful seller for a given year, relative to its release platforms.

Kinda hard to define, but we all know what it means. ;-)

[Tadhg]

Not good enough because there are two distinct kinds of game that make that cut. There are those who have a ton of money spent on them in terms of promotion and brand awareness etc, and those that genuinely take the world by storm.

For example, FIFA soccer has millions spent on it every year and sells very well year in year out as a result. Is that truly a hit, or just an average day at the office? We can predict it will do well because of its spend.

On the other hand, a game like Halo, though promoted was uncertain and became a huge success story, a true hit to the extent that it sold tons of consoles.

My point is that there needs to be a distinction between both types of big seller. One is just a successful franchise, but the other is an actual hit.

[Robert Howarth]

It's very easy to predict a hit provided you know the market, what the game offers, and a basic run down of what it can do. Usually it's as easy as seeing a few screen shots...

[Mark]

Funny, when I think of when games started to come out, there was hardly any pressure from publishers(from what I can recall, I was 10 at the time). Ok, so the markets grown and there are a lot of more generic titles. You want a hit game? let the developers take risks and allow creativity. I've recently played Psychonaughts, it has to have one of the most unique level designs I've ever encountered for a platform type game. Been a while where a game has given me that type of "wow, something new" feeling.

[Spot]

I think you are right on here Scott. It is much like normal IT development matters. When you rush something, you will get crap, or at least more crap than if you spent your time. Some company executives do not understand this and pressure their IT divisions to produce and launch much quicker than is advised, then complain when it does not dance like they expected.

I also think that in many cases, producers do not focus and allow time for some of the smaller, yet very important, aspects of the execution process. When the core game essentials are wrapping up, they start pressuring for gold when all the polishing details have not been completed on the ‘first impression’ variables such as interface, menuing, keymapping support, etc. Small things which can infuriate your audience to the point of madness and therefore set off bombs in your viral marketing networks.

[Tadhg]

"I think you are right on here Scott. It is much like normal IT development matters. When you rush something, you will get crap, or at least more crap than if you spent your time. Some company executives do not understand this and pressure their IT divisions to produce and launch much quicker than is advised, then complain when it does not dance like they expected."

All he's saying is 'If you spend the money well, you'll get a return.' These aren't really hits though in the sense that they're not runaway successes and they're not attracting 'hit' levels of profits.

You can't predict a real hit.

[Wilf]

Take the press, marketing and internet away for a moment. We're stuck with old-fashioned stores selling games.
Which do you buy?
The one with the cool graphics?
The one with the buzzword bullshit splattered all over it?
The one with a familiar name/brand/developer/producer on it?

I have a theory that a game is a hit long before it arrives in stores and it begins the sharp descent in to mediocracy the instant it hits the shelves.

A true hit, therefore, is the one that resists the bargain bucket the longest.

Subjective naturally.

[Scott Miller]

I generally think of a hit as a game that sells 1.5 million plus copies, whether on one platform of several combined.

Part of my point in my original post was that execution is critical to success, and the companies that are given the time/money to execute well, seem to be consistent hit makers. By no means is execution everything, there are of course other factors, but I think execution is the factor most often short-changed.

[Anon]

"It's very easy to predict a hit provided you know the market, what the game offers, and a basic run down of what it can do. Usually it's as easy as seeing a few screen shots..."

Wow, someone should sign this guy up to work at a publisher. He can tell a hit from a sell-sheet and a few screenshots.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

It's very easy to predict a hit provided you know the market, what the game offers, and a basic run down of what it can do. Usually it's as easy as seeing a few screen shots.

Sadly, Robert, you're right, and the reason why you're right isn't magic, nor should it be applauded. Very simply, it's a question of looking at what's there, rather than seeing what you want to see, and the fact of the matter is most game designs, marketing, and markets, are predictable, and not in a good way.

Part of my point in my original post was that execution is critical to success, and the companies that are given the time/money to execute well, seem to be consistent hit makers. By no means is execution everything, there are of course other factors, but I think execution is the factor most often short-changed.

At the risk of boring everyone to tears about Zen and strategy, a basic principle of Zen is that you can only directly control yourself, and a strategic principle is not to worry about speed, as speed comes through expertise of execution.

The lessons here are that developers should get more real about their ambitions, and better juggle time and ability to delivery. If that means scaling back ambitions or extending schedules, do it. By putting your head in the sand, you disrespect yourself, your publisher, and your customers.

Looking at the concept of a hit. Here, I think, you've got to seperate the sales and critical aspects, as we all know that a film, such as "War of the Worlds", may be a sales hit and a critical failure, which the vagaries of the market and special interests often obscure.

Myself, I think, a true hit, whether it be an individual work, body of work, individual, or concept, just to broaden things out, is an expression of pent up demand that's invisible to the market, which is why true hits are always a surprise.

A useful comparison is the early Hollywood start system, which took actors with the right qualities and managed and marketed them into a lead position, but the real and enduring stars, like James Stewart or Cary Grant, had a magical X factor.

You do, what you are.

[Wilf]

If you (quite understandably) define a hit as selling a certain amount of games, then let's liken that to the water level.
It's as if we're saying all games start at the floor of the ocean and they strive to breath air at the surface before becoming a "hit".
With every sale they swim upwards. With every negative review they sink.

Some companies are a license to print money. id software and Rare here in the UK once held this license. I believe that to be changing.
But the point is, their titles were lifted from the sea floor the moment their development was announced. By the time the game has hit the shelves some 3 to 4 years later, the internet, marketing and magazines have sold enough for them to breach the surface. An instant hit.

This is severly undermining or side-skipping the issue of the game's content and as you say execution.

Once upon a time, all games were sold by word of mouth. Playground chatter. Who had the high score etc. It used to be important to say that you had completed a game and experienced the special ending (although most were not always so special).

These days a game is not necessarily played to be completed, rather it is played to enjoy a certain element. I think this may well have started with the advent of deathmatch.

I think that gamers have lost that initial focus with games that made them so appealling. The whole picture as it were. The start, the middle and the end.
In reacting to their audience's desires, developers have followed suit.

I know I make a clumsy point, but the point is that I don't think volumes shifted is a reflection of a game's appeal.

[Wilf]

Just to extend my last post.. I guess what I'm asking is, for a game to be a hit, who does it need to be a hit for?

The game playing public or the game's publisher.

UT2003 sold a bucket load but generally speaking it's regarded as a weak title.
The publisher however could argue that the game was a hit. The gamers may disagree.

I should go an enjoy the sunshine now. :)

[PaG]

I think it's a mistake to just blame publishers for developers lacking time to add a high level of polish to their game. Even if the publisher gives more time, there is a tendency from developers to simply make their game bigger in response. Instead of improving the quality of what they already have, developers just increase the scope of what they have.

Both publishers and developers must realise that quality takes time. Developers must realise it so that they choose to make games smaller in scope so that there is time left for polish. Publishers must realise it so that they don't pressure developers into removing all the time for polish out of a fear that developers are just wasting their time.

I think the game industry would gain a lot to move toward a culture of quality over quantity. Right now there's a lot of pressure to create the biggest game possible in the given time, rather than the best game possible.

---
Sacred cows make great steaks -- Fresh ideas on game development: http://www.pagtech.com

[Wilf]

I think the game industry would gain a lot to move toward a culture of quality over quantity. Right now there's a lot of pressure to create the biggest game possible in the given time, rather than the best game possible.

I've read interviews with various Nintendo luminaries who state exactly this. I'm hoping that their Revolution console will be home to some high quality, instantly accessible games as a result.

[Anon]

OK, predict this Mr. Miller: will your next game be a hit? (Indeed, will it even come out this decade?)

[Scott Miller]

God I hate typing in this teeny, tiny edit box. What were the idiots at Typepad thinking?!

Anyway, yes, I think Prey and Duke 4 will both be hits, both critically and sales-wise. But we get to make games without our publisher telling us when our funding runs out, or when the game needs to come out. Plus, for us, we simply refuse to release an unpolished, or unfun game.

Also, when starting a new IP, we are pretty good at innovating in compelling areas, and this is one of the other big factors to making a hit.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

God I hate typing in this teeny, tiny edit box. What were the idiots at Typepad thinking?!

Why do you favour one way when a better one is available?

I'm drafting my reply in Notepad, which gives me acres of space, and could use Word if I had niggles with spelling, and am cutting and pasting the result into the comment box. Sure, it's an annoying workaround to someone else's problem, but it gets the boat to port.

It's funny how we, sometimes, trip over small pebbles.

[Sludge]

So what happens to Bungie? They used to be independent, and released games on their own clock.

I'd speculate Halo 1's Xbox release was relatively easy to achieve. But with Halo 3, they're looking to nail down a specific date -- the launch of the PS3.

In much the same way the third Matrix movie defined whether the second sucked or not, the third Halo game will define whether the series will really put quality first.

But I don't know -- they are using the game as a marketing tool. The reasons for nailing down a launch date are HUGE.

[Tadhg]

"Part of my point in my original post was that execution is critical to success, and the companies that are given the time/money to execute well, seem to be consistent hit makers. By no means is execution everything, there are of course other factors, but I think execution is the factor most often short-changed."

And then there's Driv3r.

[Darius Young]

I tend to think hits are "created" by the consumer. A company with a good marketing scheme can influence the consumer, but it's still up to the consumers to make the game a hit. One word, "hype." Even the weakest game downloads can get enormous amounts of downloads and play time.

[Oliver]

I know I’m light-years behind the last post on this topic, but I’ve only recently discovered this site. Usually I’m a silent observer when it comes to forums and ‘post-it’ sites because my views are, more often than not, voiced and debated by other people. This way, I gain a better understanding of a given topic without even contributing. Pretty sneaky, huh?
Anyway, I read this post and I just had the urge to voice my opinion and expand on something one of the contributors wrote. Forgive me for the proceeding novel. It’s not an important view but it’s something that applies to me. Personally.

Yes, you can predict a hit, and yes, you *can* predict a hit with a ‘sell sheet’ and a few screenshots, but not for the obvious reason of graphics and “having, like, a zillion people playing together on one map”. Also, execution is extremely important in the creation of said hit (I think that point has already been cleared up).

If you look at a screenshot, sure, there’s the instant recognition of whether or not the graphics are good or not. There are, however, other tell-tale signs - signs that give you some indication of the production values and thus, execution.
For an FPS, simple things like the position of the gun (to get an idea of the feel of the game), the intrusiveness of the HUD (or the elegance), how the environment in the screenshot is set out (to get a good idea of level-flow and creativity of the designers), how imaginative the enemies (and objects used for interaction) are (again, to determine creativity), sometimes there’ll be a scene depicting an aspect of gameplay (to give an idea of what you’ll be doing in the game) and other minor things.
These things by themselves don’t really tell me that the execution is good, but it tells me that there are some bright individuals on the team and they know what they are doing *and* have pushed hard enough for the product of their knowledge to be represented in the final game, thus, they ensured their execution was not hampered. The execution on the game was, therefore, good and, because execution basically does make or break a hit, the game has a better chance of becoming a hit (maybe not a commercial hit, but a critical hit).
This method can also be used to ‘pre-judge’ other genres, but I’m mostly in the FPS game myself. I predicted Black and White was to be a hit 3 years before it was released with a low-poly mock up and a 10 word ‘sell-sheet’.

Then there’s the ‘sell-sheet’. If, for example, you read an interview with a developer involved in the production of the game in question, you can very quickly recognize whether or not s/he is being completely honest in their attempt to sell their game. If they reel off a list of features, they usually re-word a feature or two a few times to make it sound like another unique feature. If you ignore these ‘double-posts’ and you concentrate on the real features, and you have a half-insightful mind into the way games work and what is fun and what is not fun, you can tell if a specific feature is something special, or not.
For example, this interview (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=128994) with a Blizzard employee, concerning Starcraft: Ghost. This person re-words about 3 features again and again. “Utilise a wide range of Elite Ghost abilities” is used again, to my count, 5 times. Then there’s the promise to see the Starcraft universe in a way unlike the RTS version. This is re-worded *9* times! And that doesn’t include the ability to play as an ‘Elite Ghost’.
I’m sure Starcraft fans will eat this game up, but these things don’t really appeal to me and so I am inclined to say this will not be a hit, but, commercially, it most likely will be (also attributed to the fact that you play as a female, but I’m not going to go into that).
Bottom line, no-one wants to tell you their game’s one and only feature is that you “basically kill stuff” and when they do, people ‘in-the-know’ will immediately dissect it.

So, here we come to the point of ‘personal hits’.
I have been ‘pre-judging’ games like this for years and I’ve only ever made one mistake; Killzone. *Personally*, I still think I would like that game (I still haven’t played it) because it checked most of the boxes I consider to make a good (‘hit’) game, but reviewers weren’t too thrilled with it (bugs, ‘samey’ enemies and a war-torn world with no war going on, products of stunted execution). I don’t have the sales figures.
Another PS2 shooter I will probably buy a PS2 to play (unless a PC version is released) is Black. I’ve only seen a handful of screenshots and a brief ‘sell-sheet’ and already, I can’t wait. OK, it’s being developed by Criterion, one of the ‘sure-fire’ hit makers, but still. There’s the promise of ‘cinematic’ gun battles and the fact that they’re making the guns the star of the show – so “you basically kill stuff”. This, I predict, will be a hit, but for the same reasons I thought Killzone was going to be a hit, so there’s chance I’m wrong… again.
There are all kinds of ‘hits’; commercial hits, critically acclaimed hits, personal hits and classics. Classics are a whole other sub-form of hits (I personally judge a classic game by whether or not, years down the road, you will enjoy that same game as much as, or more than, the original time you played it… Grim Fandango is a classic, in this regard… personally that is).

Let me finish off this rant (because, I have to admit, it is a rant) by saying everything I have typed here today is my personal opinion. These views and ideas on the world have been a long time in forming, so it would be extremely difficult to change them. That’s another thing people on forums and Typepads the world around should also recognize. Don’t get so over-worked about the fact that someone is disagreeing with you to the point that you start flaming them. After a few exchanges of views, you should have made your point. It is then up to the other person to either adopt your view, or continue with their own. You are comfortable with your view and that is all that matters… or am I being too optimistic?
Oh, also, while I’m preaching, sarcasm is, indeed, the lowest form of wit… ok, toilet humour is the lowest, then sarcasm…

These are my personal opinions. It just so happens that my personal opinions are shared by masses of other game players.

[Marko Kylmamaa]

On the other hand what about games like the Sims? It was somewhat difficult to predict whether such game would be a hit or not, and I believe it's because it taps well to the female audience, which most of us as males aren't very good at predicting. Also the point being, I never understood why UT would be regarded as a weak title, I think it's a big hit regardless of the sales numbers or reviews, personally. But maybe I don't represent the majority then? So taking that you're just one person, how would you predict a hit for a huge untapped market, something that doesn't have a precedent or you don't represent yourself considering that we're talking about *untapped* market which you probably wouldn't belong to? I would say the good execution is a first step, but certainly there's a lot of room for game design or even introduction of new genres as well. I would say there are 2 types of hits, those that tap on the existing market and those are fairly easy to do, it mostly depends on good execution and repeat with a hint of innovation of the existing game mechanics. Then there's a genre defining hit that creates a following of its own which requires a good game design, and a quite good execution, but not as much that as in already cultivated genres. And this is usually a way for new independent developers to break into the market (big-time) since they are almost entirely carried by creative ideas alone without the need, say for example, a huge feature load.

[Joe McGinn]

The funny (or not so funny) thing is that this deathmarch rush to bad products is far from unique to games. Movies have been brought up but music is no different. I was watching an interview with Meatload the other day and he plainly admitted that they'd never done any album as good as Bat out of Hell. "Of course we haven't," he said, "No one knew we were making the first one. It's the only album we didn' have to finish in six months!"