Note that you have to take into account the value of the company. Despite CP77 generated money for the game itself, CDPR stocks dropped more than 50% therefore the company lost more than gained by CP77 sales.
Agreed. This just reinforces my point that it's important to look at more than just "copies sold."
Originally Posted by Maerd
You're forgetting that BG3 is in EA where the rest of them are in full release... BG3 hasn't even been really marketed.
I have not forgotten. See the underlined "of EA" of my post. This is why, to get total copies, I multiply the BG3 copies sold in the first 2 weeks of EA by ~10-20, whereas I multiplied WotR first-2-weeks-of-RELEASE by only ~6-8. And I used googled "typical AAA budget" to get the expected cost, which should cover lifetime marketing expenses - including post-EA.
Originally Posted by Maerd
Your calculation are wrong. The profit counts in absolute value minus expenses. Your logic is that investing $1 and getting $20 over a span of a year is more successful than investing a $1M and getting $2M. I'll take such "less successful" route any day. And, by the way, Owlcat is registered in the tax haven to avoid taxation, I would be surprised if they pay their employees more than $20k-25k per year, more like $15k-$20k (on average) with no benefits. So, I guess, it makes them even more successful.
But we're talking about companies with different amounts of money and # of employees. You have to use some relative scale or else any comparison becomes useless. Going with your example, you could say that someone who invested $1 and got $1M has performed the same as someone who invested $1M and got back $2M. Technically both people made the same amount of money, sure. But guy #1 clearly did much better. There's probably some sweet spot where you take into account both absolute profit and relative profit, but I'd argue the more accurate metric is closer to the relative profit side.
I'll take your word on the tax haven thing; $15-20k salaries would indeed vastly cut down on expenses.
