Does More Sim Equal More Sales?

Feature Article

Submitted on: 05/01/2013 by Ben Vollmer

As sports gamers, we often see an excuse so readily pumped out that it seems it has to be true: “a game needs to keep a certain distance from being a true simulation in order to keep 'casual' fans happy.”

That excuse has almost become cliché at this point. After all, “They’re just making it that way to appeal to the casual audience who makes up the largest demographic of customers.”

Unfortunately, this is becoming an excuse simulation gamers really hate to see, because it means that no change geared toward a more accurate simulation is even on the horizon for our favorite games. But I wonder if the excuse of catering to casual players and their needs is a justifiable excuse or not?

Most of us are able to comprehend that the development of sports video games is a business, and making money is at the forefront of the production of said games. Selfishly, we would like the game to be as accurate of a simulation as possible, but that doesn’t make the “sim” demographic any less aware of reality that simulations are hard to produce and cater to an audience even harder to please.

But is it possible that casuals are no longer the largest demographic? Even if they are, what if they too are looking for an accurate simulation of what they see on television? At some point, it becomes fair to believe that simulation gaming is in the best interest of everyone, and not just the more hardcore sports gamers. So to test this theory, I wanted to take a look at the sales numbers for a couple of sports gaming series in relation to their Metacritic scores -- both are standards for which games are judged internally within gaming companies for their quality.

NCAA Football has experienced rising sales alongside more realism.

Given that I don’t have access to the accounting books from EA and Sony, I have opted to use VGChartz which can be as flawed as it is useful for my sales numbers -- but bear with me as I work through the data:

NCAA Football (360 Sales) 

NCAA Football 07 – 710,000 Globally (79 on Metacritic)
NCAA Football 08 – 680,000 Globally (81 on Metacritic)
NCAA Football 09 – 690,000 Globally (83 on Metacritic)
NCAA Football 10 – 920,000 Globally (83 on Metacritic)
NCAA Football 11 – 900,000 Globally (86 on Metacritic)
NCAA Football 12 – 960,000 Globally (82 on Metacritic)
NCAA Football 13 – 940,000 Globally (76 on Metacritic)

The numbers we see here can be explained in a few different ways. The game had a tendency of selling very well after a version of the NCAA series does well critically, which would usually indicate a more accurate simulation. Every time the series improved upon itself from a critical standpoint, sales would take a jump the following year. However, every year the series took a step down critically, the sales would drop. The sales are close enough though, that it’s reasonable to expect that they are within some sort of a margin of error except the notable jump from NCAA Football 09 to 10.

MLB: The Show is held as a standard bearer for realism in our genre.

Let’s take a look at another game in our genre, the critically adored MLB: The Show series:

MLB: The Show

MLB 07: The Show – 300,000 Globally (79 on Metacritic)
MLB 08: The Show – 680,000 Globally (85 on Metacritic)
MLB 09: The Show – 690,000 Globally (90 on Metacritic)
MLB 10: The Show – 680,000 Globally (91 on Metacritic)
MLB 11: The Show – 510,000 Globally (90 on Metacritic)
MLB 12: The Show – 860,000 Globally (87 on Metacritic)

Now what we see here is a very exciting trend. As the MLB series improved, the sales improved with it. Baseball, which has a decidedly smaller market than football, generally hasn’t been this close to the top of the sports video game market since sports gaming first became a genre. Despite the smaller market, MLB: The Show has performed quite well in sales, surpassed NCAA Football on the PS3 in terms of sales according to VGChartz numbers. (NCAA Football had a mere 720,000 sales for the 2013 version).

Because of the fairly small sample size, and with the fact that VGChartz numbers are oftentimes wrong, it’s hard to say for sure that what we are seeing here is a trend towards simulation gaming selling well or perhaps a trend towards more sales as a game reaches a certain quality level.

However, it is a near certainty that MLB: The Show is closer to achieving an accurate simulation of baseball than NCAA Football is for football. That The Show’s sales have spiked recently is not only good news for simulation gamers, but it’s actually great news.

As we near the next generation of game consoles, it’s a hopeful thought that developers are starting to get the message. Not to mention, we’ve seen sales in 2K’s NBA series bolt upwards as it became a better and better game (from 840,000 in ‘08 to 2,540,000 in ’12 according to VGChartz).

Over the last generation, we’ve questioned how much sports game developers are listening to our voices as simulation gamers. While games continue to become more realistic, we haven't yet seen many development teams double down on realism. It does appear that as a game becomes more realistic, it not only gets better reviews, it also tends to sale more games.

And we all know this: money talks, and it talks loudly.

Member Comments

# 1 mestevo @ 05/01/13 12:48 PM

I'd think it would be a much easier case to make that some of these increases year to year are due in large part to more consoles on the market, marketing, and the popularity trends of those sports in that particular year. Especially with NCAA since it's a relatively small change. Not to take all of the credit from the games themselves.

# 2 BenGerman @ 05/01/13 01:01 PM

That certainly has to be taken into account. Sony has done a fantastic job of marketing The Show over the years, so that almost assuredly has to do with the games success. But if we look past just sports video games, you'll notice a trend: people tend not to buy bad games. With reviews and information readily available to us, people aren't going to waste $60 on a game they don't think they will enjoy.

This is a hard correlation to make for sure. But you can bet that developers are going to notice when one game in a similar genre is taking off, when their own isn't having the same success.

# 3 SHAKYR @ 05/01/13 01:06 PM

Yes it does.Many companies can't say different because they never made a game that they can say it doesn't sell. Marketing is BS! Sports fan like to experience their sports as realistic as possible. I have done over a dozen surveys and polls over the years on various sports and gaming sites. Sim/realistic sports gaming was overwhelmingly voted by many of the fans.
Companies are trying to be greedy by making hybrid sports games; by doing this they lose fans in the process. You can't market something as sim and it has a few things on the outside that resembles the sport but the inside is something totally different.
Companies like taking risk with gimmicks, but refuse to take risk with realism of the sport. This companies marketing departments are clueless or they are not trying to find out what fans want.

# 4 onac22 @ 05/01/13 01:14 PM

I switched over to PS3 this year just to play The Show and was not disappointed. Good read.

# 5 Valdarez @ 05/01/13 01:58 PM

It's difficult to enjoy Madden/NCAA for many reasons, with simulation being one of them. They both suffer from hardware / design issues (they give us 21 to 24 frames per second, instead of 30, which has a visual negativity). The sound had been bad from hits, to commentary. Could go on... but for yearly game releases quality is what determines sales, not 'sim'.

# 6 Hooe @ 05/01/13 02:05 PM

In isolation, a "sim" game is not going to sell well. The game must also have pretty graphics (a huge factor in AAA video game sales, for better or worse), the user must feel like he has a direct and obvious affect on the game's outcome, and the game must be accessible to the user via accessible yet deep controls and a reasonable (often adjustable) difficulty curve.

This isn't to downplay the importance of realism; it is an important factor, particularly as the games continue to look more lifelike graphically. My point is that one must not simply consider only that factor in isolation of all else which makes a game great.

# 7 Gramps91 @ 05/01/13 02:10 PM

I think it makes a difference, but maybe not much. There are a lot of arcade players out there including myself at times, but I've always been more of a sim guy and I think most are.

# 8 tril @ 05/01/13 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mestevo


	I'd think it would be a much easier case to make that some of these increases year to year are due in large part to more consoles on the market, marketing, and the popularity trends of those sports in that particular year. Especially with NCAA since it's a relatively small change. Not to take all of the credit from the games themselves.

cosign!!!

I think sales are directly effected by the popularity of said sport in that year. case in point. NBA2k11, not only did it have Jordan on the cover, but basketball was also at the forefront, with Lebron going to MIami. also the accessibilty of sports via the many different outlets would/ will result in an interest in said sports game.

The realignmnet in college football and the playoff format will definetly boost sales in the long run.
However the entry point for gamers is to go the casual experience with true broadcast presentations. Casual fans mostly want the highlight plays in their games. Sim heads want the strategy and intricacies.

I believe that 2k has got it right by making NBA 2 series very casual freindly out the box, but at the same time offer the ability to customize to a sim experience. This is the first year that the SHow has used this approach with the beginner mode, and will benefit them in the long run.

EA football games just lacks the custoimization factor. Until they offer more customization, their games will never please the true sim heads.

# 9 ps3veron @ 05/01/13 03:13 PM

I definitely think that think that Sim=Sales despite what one may think that arcadey titles might appeal to more masses. Just look at the recent Fifa Street and NFL Blitz recently; quite a lukewarm response from the crowd.

Then again I also think that it would pertain to the sport, NBA Street used to sell quite well if I recall.

On a side note: Great to see sales of MLB increasing despite what I had read on another site.

# 10 Only1LT @ 05/01/13 04:18 PM

A sports gaming being more realistic can definitely increase sales. I say that from a marketing standpoint and not even from a hands-on playing standpoint.

Another poster mentioned that sim is just one aspect and that graphical quality is another. I think that in terms of a sports sim, that they are intertwined. You can not have a game that plays realistically, but looks like a Dragon Ball Budokai game and still have it be sim. The players need to look as real life as possible. The only thing that can accomplish that is graphical excellence.

Case in point. How sim can increase sales through marketing alone is by showing a video of the game playing in a commercial. If the game looked like real players, the players moved like real players do, and they were doing things consistent with their real life counterparts, who would not by that game for themselves or for any loved one that has an interest in that particular sport?

If Madden had a commercial of in game footage and you had to scrutinize the video to tell if it was real or a game, would you need to know anything else about the newest version of the game, or would you basically be sold right off of that?

This is basically what Sony's marketing strategy is with the Show. Every commercial is showing footage of the game and has an interviewer talking to an MLB player and asking what it was like to win the Series, win the triple crown, or what ever the case may be, and the MLB player says that didn't happen, it's just a game. Now the Show does not look so real that you can't tell it apart from a real game of MLB, but the implied hook is genius and I think that the way they market it's realism, is one of the biggest reasons that the game is doing better and better each year in sales.

So yes, being more sim will increase sales for a sports game even on the most basic level of capturing the real life essence of the sport in the way that the game looks and moves, before you ever even dive into any realistic aspects in strategy or gameplay.

Even casual fans are not easily fooled. When they look at a commercial for Madden, they might think that it looks pretty good considering it's a videogame, and will chalk up any deficiencies to "this is the best they can do with these systems", but even they know at a glance that the tagline of if it's in the game, is just that, a tagline.

More realistic player models and ESPECIALLY animations in Madden, when seen in a commercial, would do wonders in getting the title back to the sales numbers it used to enjoy as EA's premier title.

# 11 Maverick2790 @ 05/02/13 03:13 AM

What madden can't and never will get right is player identification. Maybe thats a broad term but thats what im calling it, and what i mean is this: Every single player PLAYS and RUNS and MOVES and CUTS exactly the same. This is most notable at the skill positions. Why is it that Hakeem Nicks play's just like Calvin Johnson. Adrian Peterson moves like Reggie Bush and Bush cuts like Frank Gore. I hope im getting my point across. They can't make the game Sim because they replicate player movement correctly. I dont know if they just dont care or there just hasnt been a big enough out cry for it yet. But i know in 2k13 Lebron plays like Lebron and Kobe plays like Kobe. GET it together EA..Thank you for reading my rant/.

# 12 woodjer @ 05/02/13 01:59 PM

I think everyone wants something more sim-like. The casual gamer isn't necessarily looking for something more arcade-like though. When I think "casual gamer," I don't think of someone that doesn't care about realism so much as someone who doesn't play regularly like most around here. The challenge that comes with providing that sim feel is that the controls often become more complicated.

For example...as a kid, some of my favorite video game memories were sitting down and playing Bases Loaded with my dad. We had some fun games and would simultaneously talk trash and encourage each other. We could do that because there were just a handful of controls to learn. Trying to sit down now and play The Show with him would require a lengthy training session on what type of pitching meter is used, analog hitting, advancing a single baserunner, etc. That's not even mentioning the difference in experience (I play a lot, he doesn't) and how much work it would take him to learn the timings and such.

In other words, a really "sim" experience is great but the controls still need to have a "pick up and play" feel to them. Most of the time, they don't or you have to change options to provide some AI assistance.

From a single-player perspective, you also have to cater to people that have limited experience when it comes to strategy. If I don't know the first thing about football and get creamed on the easiest level because I'm not playing a "sim" style, it's likely to turn me off. On the other hand, if I can start winning early and see myself improving, it's more likely to get me into the game initially and I am more likely to become a yearly customer.

# 13 Ketsueki @ 05/02/13 02:38 PM

The more sim, the more fun a game is in my opinion. A long with all of my friend's whom play sports titles. Don't get me wrong I love me some NBA Jam. lol

# 14 SHAKYR @ 05/02/13 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ketsueki


	The more sim, the more fun a game is in my opinion. A long with all of my friend's whom play sports titles. Don't get me wrong I love me some NBA Jam. lol

Many of you know if the choice was presented you would go with sim/realistic. I know producers and developers of sports games watch forums like these and I'm sticking to my guns. Sim sells. Create it and fans will come.

More Links