Blood Money Sales - Why didn't they happen?

Nah. That is where you’re wrong. Blood Money didn’t sell, because as you said in the other thread, the franchise was going on for its 4th installment in 8 years, with barely any change in them since Silent Assassin, and the people got tired of the series because they felt it didn’t change enough. To the average audience, Silent Assassin, Contracts, Blood Money and Absolution seem to be the same game, only one is newer, shinier and has better graphics.

Silent Assassin was new at the time, Absolution was fresh and there hadn’t been a Hitman game in 6 years. That is why those games sold better. The actual gameplay in those games does not reflect the sale number, and Absolution would have sold just as well, if not better, if its gameplay were far more like Blood Money.

Blood Money and Contracts combined sold less than Silent Assassin alone. It wasn’t a failure to bring in new audiences, it was losing it’s existing audience.

Because of the reasons above. Which I notice you didn’t dispute.

Again: No.

Silent Assassin was a new concept (Codename 47 didn’t come out for consoles) that excited people and got them to buy it and try it out, it was well regarded at the time and people enjoyed it.

Contracts was often criticized for just being more of the same, a rehash, so not as many people were interested. It also only came out 2 years after Silent Assassin.

Blood Money came out 2 years after Contracts, 4 years after Silent Assassin, same deal, not as many people were interested, the engine looked to be the exact same, to the naked eye, to the eye that isn’t a fanatic of these games, it’s just more of the same. In other words, only the people that really really really liked the Hitman games kept with the franchise, whereas people who tried out the Silent Assasin game kind of moved on. That is why those two games sold worse.

Absolution came with its brand new engine, 6 years after a Hitman game had been released, it was again a new thing that got the interest of the average audience.

That is why those two games sold well and the other two games sold badly, not because of your subjective opinions on the gameplay changes.

People just aren’t as well informed as you think they are, they don’t know all the kinks, nooks and crannies of the gameplay elements of each new iteration of the series. They sure as hell wouldn’t have been able to tell those if they didn’t buy the game and played it themselves. How can Blood Money sell worse because of its gameplay elements if the people that didn’t buy the game didn’t even know of said gameplay elements? Because they didn’t buy the game, because they weren’t interested. In other words: Because those weren’t the reasons they didn’t buy the game.


I didn’t say they were informed, in fact a large part of my argument is that they’re not informed because the games that didn’t sell didn’t make them interested enough to get informed. You don’t need to consciously understand why something is making your riveted or bored to know how you feel. That’s why people study movies and games, and now teach in colleges how to make movies and games.

But it’s good to see you’ve reversed your stance and are now championing innovation rather than just rehashing games over and over.

Because since about 2000 a major factor in games sales was word of mouth. People had the Internet now and they could see what people all around the world were saying - even before Facebook if you wanted to know if a game was good you could go to like Gamespot forums and see what people were saying about it. You could hear about really cool games through sites like Livejournal, DeviantArt, etc.

Also, before people worried about Metacritic scores - people actually used to read what reviewers said. If a game had confusing mechanics or processes that didn’t make sense - then it didn’t matter what score he gave it, the game sounded dumb. Likewise if you were at a friend’s place or talking to a friend and he was trying to explain it, you might decide to buy or not buy a game based off what you saw and heard.

People’s peer groups have massive impacts on what they buy, if one guy in a group of eight buys a game and really likes it, he can end up essentially selling it to the other seven. If he hates it, he can deter them from buying it.

1 Like

Jarbinger, there’s really not much to discuss here, I’m not sure what you want anyone to add to this thread. You made your revisionist history known. It’s wrong. You argued that Blood Money and Contracts sold worse because of their gameplay aspects. I told you far better reasons why those games didn’t sell well which you just promptly ignored. You might as well close this thread and sticky it.

1 Like

Your “better” reasons are unfounded speculation that hinges on a lot of assumptions - specifically that hardware has more to do with sales than content. However this makes no sense for numerous reasons:

  • Content being critical is why consoles will subsidize development of particular games in exchange for making them exclusive to that console
  • The console with the best specs hasn’t been the one that’s done the best in any of the recent generation wars, or any generation war I can think of
  • If content didn’t matter then we wouldn’t bother discussing it

So if you disagree with the points above - feel free to contribute to the discussion by adding informative posts disputing them.

1 Like

So are yours. You’re arguing that the reason why Blood Money sold worse than Silent Assassin is because of the “worse” (in your opinion) gameplay, which was supposedly spread by word of mouth and that’s why the majority of people didn’t buy the game.

The actual quality of a game is not always indicative of sales, I’m sure you yourself can think of many examples of games you enjoy that sold poorly and games you dislike that sell like hotcakes. There are a lot other factors that go into how well a game sells, unfortunately we don’t live in a world where quality always equals sales value. One such example being the perfectly reasonable idea of Silent Assassin being a new game, Absolution being made on a brand new engine with a pause of 6 years between iterations on the franchise and Contracts and Blood Money being seen as “rehashes” by the general audience, due to poor marketing, not to mention a very poor demo in Blood Money’s case.

You offer speculation, I offer a rebuttal speculation.

I mentioned marketing in there. I also mentioned various flaws in the gameplay that specifically made it harder to sell to people.

There are a lot of points in there you could discuss.

You claimed that it’s just a matter of hardware differences and now don’t want to talk about it when someone brings up a counter-point. That’s not helpful to discussion and is basically what you’re accusing me of doing.

1 Like

He pointed out a lot of the problems he found in the gameplay, which I feel are true. He also made arguments to support his opinion. Try arguing against those by bringing up facts and building upon them.

It wasn’t. It was a follow up to Codename 47.

Besides, if being a new game was such a big factor, why did Codename 47 not sell so well, and why did Silent Assassin sell more than any Hitman game?

I’m not interested in arguing over Jarbinger’s opinion of Blood Money’s gameplay flaws, that is something I’d happily debate somewhere, sometime else, but in this case the context at which it has been brought upon is that “The game sold poorly because of it”, and that’s solely what I’m arguing against.

That is not why the game sold worse…

Seriously? Because Hitman: Codename 47 was a PC exclusive. Silent Assassin came out for xbox, playstation 2 and gamecube as well as PC. It had four times the market. Come on man!

But why not here? He’s just saying that people didn’t have an interest in Blood Money because of several reasons, some being the gameplay. You could argue about how those aren’t problems.

But then Blood Money was released on four consoles, and it had a much larger market than Silent Assassin. Yet it sold worse. So I won’t accept that as the reason.

You don’t debate the shades of the sky if you can’t even agree on its main color.

Yes, and that’s when it wasn’t new at the time anymore. Remember? The argument that you were just quoting here?

The fact that it being a new game and concept was such a big factor, whereas it was not when Contracts came out 2 years later on the same engine looking like the same, and Blood Money came 2 years after that, also on the same engine looking like the same? That argument that you were just talking about in the very post above?

But it wasn’t new. It was a sequel to Codename 47, which had got lukewarm reception on the one platform it was on. Silent Assassin got good reception on all the platforms it was on.

Same could be said for Silent Assassin though. There are several reasons why Contracts didn’t sell. Sure, it was a rehash, but if it gave more of the same that people liked in Hitman 2, it should still have sold well regardless. Note how people complain about Assassin’s Creed rehashing its formula in every game, and yet every game sells well?

What main colour? Jardos is saying that there are potential reasons Blood Money didn’t sell, some of it being based on the gameplay. Many people wouldn’t be appealed by a game that sounded like you just ran around till you found something, and had hits that were just ridiculous and relied on bad logic. See, part of the problem of Blood Money not selling is that it’s hard to summarize it in an attractive manner. People aren’t enticed by huge levels and multiple methods alone, they often need something else to hatch onto. Else, a game with gray areas and lots of weapons would sell.

Madden NFL 07, New Super Mario Bros and Kingdom Hearts II weren’t “new” and they were the top selling games of 2006. World of Warcraft wasn’t “new” but it was the top selling PC game of 2006.

Final Fantasy XII was released in March 2006, certainly wasn’t new and is one of the top selling PS2 games of all time.

The Harry Potter Collection they released in 2006 was definitely not knew and it sold more units than Blood Money did.

Your hypothesis is not supported by facts.

1 Like

Are you even keeping up with what you’re arguing with? It was new to majority of the audience that bought it.

Oh my god. No it couldn’t, because Codename 47 was an exclusive to PC, it was new to the majority of people, not everyone has a PC, almost everyone who is a gamer had at least one of PC, XBox, PS2 or Gamecube back in the day. It was new to them. We’re talking about an audience at least 3 times bigger. This is simple math I’m doing here.

Assassin’s Creed cost 20 million dollars to make. At least 3 million of those were spent on marketing the damn game. Assassin’s Creed 2 cost 24 million dollars to make, at least 3 million of those were spent on marketing the game.

Hitman 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not even close to being in the same breed. They didn’t spend nearly as much money marketing. Same deal with Nintendo, same deal with Kingdom Hearts, don’t even get me started on Madden, you want a good time go looking for the absurd amount of money that is spent on launch parties for those games alone (not anymore, but back in the early 2000’s) and also what the fuck you’re comparing Hitman with Madden, how dishonest can you get?

They’re not the same kind of breed, and it’s stupid to treat them as such.

My hypothesis is supported by facts, you can twist them all you want.

Do you have any evidence of the marketing budget for Blood Money? Because aside from the fact that the marketing was immortalized due to the “Beautifully executed” scandal - it got trailers and Eidos marketed it heavily since it was one of their flagship franchises (along with Tomb Raider and Deus Ex).

At that point Eidos was making and selling Hitman everything - so I’d like to see some evidence to your claim it wasn’t issued a fair marketing budget.

1 Like

All you’ve been saying is “It was new, that’s why people bought it.” But Codename 47 was also new to people at the time, and still it had a lukewarm reception. So it’s not just a case of being new.

As for saying that it’s not fair to compare it to Madden, Jardos talked about it before:

You can read more:

Bolded part is what I’ve been trying to emphasize. As I said many times in this thread, there are a dozen different factors that play into a game selling well or not, and one of them, undeniably, is the publisher. That being Eidos. And they are far more, and I mean, to an extreme degree, far more to blame for Blood Money’s poor selling than the actual gameplay inside the game is.

That is my point.

You do realise that publishers get involved in the development process and part of the reason that Hitman: Absolution was so different was because of Square Enix?

Also that from Contracts to Blood Money period we had not just IO-Interactive, but Eidos employees on the forums. So if Eidos was to blame for the marketing, that was mentioned above, they probably had a lot of involvement in all the other much more important flaws that you deny exist.

1 Like