Real-time strategy game StarCraft II sold over 3 million units in its first month worldwide, publisher Blizzard said Wednesday, as the game continues its reign as PC leader in retail game sales for 2010.
The July follow-up to 1998's original StarCraft sold 1 million copies day one and 1.5 million units in its first two days, the publisher said, citing a mix of company records, public data and reports from distributors. Blizzard said it's the fastest-selling RTS game of all time.
The game launched worldwide on July 27 in most major territories. During its opening month at U.S. retail alone, the game sold 721,000 units according to NPD Group, not including digital download sales via Blizzard's Battle.net.
NPD Group said the game drove a 103 percent year-on-year rise in PC game dollar retail sales during July in the U.S.
In emerging regions such as Brazil and Russia, Blizzard offers the game at a lower price, but after 60 days users have an option to pay a monthly fee to continue to play the game. Gamers in those regions also can by the game with unlimited access for the standard U.S. price of $60.
"We appreciate all the enthusiasm that players around the world have shown for StarCraft II," said Blizzard Entertainment CEO Mike Morhaime in a statement. "It was important to us to deliver an overall gameplay experience that was accessible, balanced, and fun, and it's been gratifying to see how strongly the global community has already embraced the game."
Media giant and Activision Blizzard parent Vivendi on Wednesday announced a dip in quarterly profits for the June period, but raised its outlook for the full year thanks to video game growth.
For a game that took more than a decade to be prepped by tons of employees and shipped afterwards, I have to admit that I was attending something better than this.
However it is a good and polished game and I can understand why 3M units were sold; a decade of patience is a lot... What will be Diablo 3? Diablo 2 with 3D graphics and make you feel that it is a new game but ultimately the same?
I am amazed that publishers have focused so heavily on console gaming when there is still such a huge audience on PC. I understand that pirating is a huge problem, but if PC games that are developed arent broken(like most are), don't include ultra restrictive DRM, and its a well made game...the game will sell...most PC games seem half assed and thats why no body is paying for them...make a quality game...and you get results--PC gamers only pirate when they are punished because of the wrong doing of a few individuals.
"The July follow-up to 1998's original StarCraft sold 1 million copies day one and 1.5 million units in its first two days, the publisher said, citing a mix of company records, public data and reports from distributors."
^That tells me they're referencing units sold as they would only need to consult their own records to determine a units shipped number.
It goes to show that when you're reputation is as stellar as Blizzard's, people will buy your game even if the Amazon reviews become a battleground and the game isn't perfect. Activision could probably sell many more copies of other titles if their reputation wasn't looking so grim these days.
I'm sure that $100 million also included some development for the next 2 installments--Now that they have the foundation--the rest should be fairly straight forward and won't cost nearly as much--and you are correct--people play the hell out of Blizzard games...for a LONG time.
I may be missing something but, what do you mean by that? If they've sold 3 million copies at $60 each (I know this isn't the universal price, but just for simplicity sake) then that's $180m. I'm guessing you were referencing the rumored $100m dev cost but...even adjusting for the regions where the price isn't $60, they'd still be anything but a 'considerable ways' from the $100m mark, no? Or am I misinterpreting? (Entirely possible since I'm quite drowsy atm)
Not that it matters much, but there are probably a ton of additional costs involved...not just the $100m for development. And with the breakdown of costs between manufacturing, publishing, developing, advertising/marketing, administration etc--profits are going to be much different than the gross based off $60 price point---they have most likely covered all of their costs and made money.
I do understand that gross != net. I was just aiming for simplicity of illustration. Additionally, I have no reference point for guessing the kind of margins that they'd get or what their extra costs would be, but even subbing some numbers off the top of my head the remark didn't make sense to me so I thought I'd ask. Lets' say that the net profit was only 50% of the gross and that next month they sell 75% less units (yeah right)...they're still easily breaking $100m. So yeah, I was curious.
However it is a good and polished game and I can understand why 3M units were sold; a decade of patience is a lot... What will be Diablo 3? Diablo 2 with 3D graphics and make you feel that it is a new game but ultimately the same?
^That tells me they're referencing units sold as they would only need to consult their own records to determine a units shipped number.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870346730457538344334307 1562.html?m
od=googlenews_wsj
3 million copies at $60 a pop is $180 million. Or am I not understanding your comment about a long ways to 100 million?
Anyways, I would have bought this game if it had a $49 price point, so now I'm just waiting for the price to drop a bit.