Most games these days aim to make it into at least the Top 10, and are budgeted to do so. Most games, by nature, cannot do that, obviously. The majority of games published, therefore, can be considered to be "bombs". But when a game does make it into the Top 5 or Top 10, the gains there offset the misses on other titles. That's why the megapublishers are getting bigger and the other guys are going away. The megapublishers can keep putting out titles and absorb the risks involved waiting for that one game to break out. The smaller publishers cannot do this. They need every game to hit. The market in 2015 cannot support this. It's the classic, recognized, dilemma of AAA publishing in the modern era.
Yes, there are lots of variables, but nobody talks about whether a game bombed or not in NPD threads by looking at the product's revenue and gross margin.
I've seen a lot of posts lately bemoaning a lack of information that stops us from speaking with certainty. It's true, but I think we know enough.
Well I'm not arguing against it being disappointing, or even really disappointing, or even horrible results. Going up against Fallout was a questionable decision to say the least, and going exclusive at launch was certainly going to limit the audience.
I'm just offering ideas as to why the results might not be as bad as they might look at first glance.
It's like your point on the Top 5 and then everyone else. The prima facie take on results could look terrible, but relative to the rest of the market they could be not so bad.
The last business anyone should want to start these days is becoming a developer or publisher of disc based Console games. Terrible investment.
