Edit: Made an error in my calculations. Correlation should be squared, so the sales per day per review score is now much smaller. I want to clarify that despite this change, I still feel there is a significant (and profitable) correlation.
Taking the top-100 games between March 13th, 2007 and March 13th, 2008, as reported by Next-Gen.biz
, I did some number crunching to find some correlations. Keep in mind that the conclusions drawn are only appropriate to the games and timeframe stated, and that I did make certain assumptions along the way (like treating re-releases as different games). Plus my math isn't so hot, but you get the idea.
Here are my findings:
And you can download the excel file here
What I found is that there is a 0.28
correlation between daily game sales (DS
) and Metacritic score. Is this alot? That I cannot tell you, but what I can point out is that this is (surprisingly) higher than the correlation between DS
and the # of SKUs the game was released on, which was 0.20
based on the data.
You may notice that there is a negative correlation of -0.13
between total sales numbers and days since release. This is not a mistake. Because the timeframe ends not long after the holiday season, this season's blockbusters actually have higher total sales than games released after the last holiday season. This goes to show how important that season is. I am aware that the # of sales decreases at an exponential rate after release, so keep in mind that DS
is probably weighted higher for more recent releases.
Dividing the mean DS
by 100 possible Metacritic points and then multiplying by the correlation squared, I guesstimate that last year each +1%
to the Metacritic score was worth 7.67
sales per day (for the top-100 selling games). Is that worth it to developers and publishers? Without more data on budgets and per SKU revenues, it's hard to tell. One thing to notice is that no top-100 game scored below 30%, so I would think the DS
per Score would be slightly higher.
Similar to Chris Pruett's article
(except that I corrected for number of days released and extrapolated correlation) I conclude that a good score does not guarantee sales. I'd clarify his observation that there are no bad games over a million units by saying that companies who make bad games wouldn't have the budget to attempt a million sales. Scores are important for selling blockbusters, but that doesn't mean you need to make great games to make money. Sadly, the majority of games just need to be between 50% and 95% to sell well.
In the future, I would like to further refine this data, using platform marketshare and total SKUs, as well as including IP vs. non-IP into the discussion.