Sections

BioShock 2 was not “hugely successful,” admits Feder

Monday, 28th June 2010 16:16 GMT By Patrick Garratt

bioshock2

Take-Two CEO Ben Feder has admitted that BioShock 2 wasn’t the smash it should have been.

“It was ultimately successful, but not hugely successful,” he said, talking to VentureBeat at E3. “We are also looking forward to other hits coming this year.”

Feder added, though, that the game had made money.

“BioShock 2 is profitable for the company and is a great success. The franchise is viable and has a lasting impact on consumers,” he said.

The exec pointed towards a lack of “surprise” as a reason for the relative flop.

“The surprise factor is always going to be there,” he said. “Sometimes they work for you and sometimes they work against you. Our goal is to have them work for us. More often than not. We are in the business of creating huge franchises and launching hits.”

BioShock 2 released on February 9 for 360, PS3 and PC. The 360 version scored 562,900 sales in the US in its launch month, while the PC and PS3 versions failed to chart.

Take-Two said at the beginning of March that more than 3 million units of the title had shipped to retailers.

Breaking news

27 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. The Hindle

    This is weird, didnt Bioshock 2 sell like 3m or something?

    #1 4 years ago
  2. Erthazus

    Because it was just a Bioshock 1.5 without that atmosphere.

    It’s not a Bioshock 2.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. StolenGlory

    @Erth.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Dralen

    @2 agreed. They shouldn’t have rushed it out the door so quickly. Instead they should have put more time into it and then hyped it up by showing it at a game convention a few years down the line.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. blackdreamhunk

    same guy blaming his sales on PC when the game just bombed! how is that drm doing these days? This very reason I am spending less money on games these days!

    with all the new tech out there I need Microsoft less and less too thank god!

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Aimless

    I think it’s a better game than the first in a lot of ways, its main issue is that the first game exists so the sequel didn’t have the shock of the new.

    It doesn’t help that the opening is probably the worst part of the game. Somewhat ironic, really: the first game had an amazing intro but petered out towards the end, whereas the sequel has a grand finale but starts off very humdrum.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. AHA-Lambda

    shame actually as unnesscary as it was i highly enjoyed it =/

    #7 4 years ago
  8. The Hindle

    When this first came out Take 2 were saying it was a massive success now they have backtracked strange if you ask me.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. Goliath

    I enjoyed Bioshock 2.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. Quiiick

    Blame it for being another boring “prequel”-game.
    Make proper sequels and while you’re at it, add something innovative to the table …

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Quiiick

    @ 8
    Just look how fast the price of Bioshock 2 was lowered on Amazon.uk.
    You can get it for £14.99 already.
    This is always an strong indication for initial bad sales.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. NGCes26294BIV

    What’s the point of posting comments on this site when wordpress then tells you to log in with an admin pass, then tells you that you’re posting too quickly.

    You lose your entire post, and your patience.

    Fix it already.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. Tourette syndrome guy

    @12. yeah, i thought it was just me. that shit sucks. fix it already.

    FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    #13 4 years ago
  14. Goliath

    @ Quiiick

    Bioshock 2 wasn’t a prequel. It was set 10 years after the events of the first. The problem was that what made the first game great, the setting and the protagonists, were underwhelming in the second. The setting and gameplay was familiar and the story and protagonist were underdeveloped and plodding.

    #14 4 years ago
  15. StolenGlory

    @12 They are in the process of fixing it. In the meantime, just do what I do; before you submit your comment just highlight it all and copy it to clipboard.

    That way if you get the message that you’re posting too quickly (which you’re not), just paste the copied comment back in and hit submit.

    Works for me.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. Egon Superb

    “Shipped” is very different from “sold”. A certain Olympics title shipped something like 800,000 copies, I’m told – but only sold 20,000 in its first week. Announcing how many you’ve shipped is a good, confusing tactic – it tells retailers and the market you’ve got confidence in the product, whilst making the consumer think it’s selling well and must be awesome.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Hunam

    I enjoyed Bioshock 2 more than Bioshock 1.

    The biggest problem is when you start playing the game you think that using rapture again was a cheat and that the place really was tapped out in the first game and by the end you are thinking that actually, there is so much more to rapture than before and wouldn’t mind seeing it again.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. MushroomStamp

    I disliked the retro feel. The graphics were not improved over the first. I did not like playing a slow trodding robot (big daddy). Enemies were more of the same. The environment seemed to be a rehash with less life/atmosphere. The multi-player was fun 1 time, then after that it was dead. The story was convoluted and had no “feeling” to it. Didn’t care about the antagonist or why things were the way they were. I played thru the single player and thankfully it was short because going into the 4th hour I had already seen it all and was bored fast. Tedious comes to mind.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. theevilaires

    Was with my girlfriend she loved it :D

    #19 4 years ago
  20. chronoss2

    I liked the first, but not B2. I bought it anyway day one but i couldn’t play it more than an hour. It’s technically behind!

    #20 4 years ago
  21. mington

    the AI partner and the prison level at the end was good, but it was too little too late by then.

    for me it failed the second they made you a big daddy, it might have worked if they made it more of a horror game…but they went the action route :(

    #21 4 years ago
  22. Malmer

    I really liked Bioshock 2. Now the difference between them wasn’t that big, but it was a solid game worthy of purchase.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Dannybuoy

    If truth be told I didn’t like Bioshock. I’m really not keen on art deco so it tainted the game for me. Yeah, I really don’t like art deco

    #23 4 years ago
  24. fearmonkey

    I thought story wise, Bioshock 1 was better, but the combat was better in Bioshock 2.

    #24 4 years ago
  25. Joe_Gamer

    GFWL and Securom = no sale

    #25 4 years ago
  26. hitnrun

    I was disappointed with BS2.

    The new studio managed – beyond all my expectations – to tackle the problem of making a sequel to the complex and allegorical BS1, namely by sidestepping the political issues completely in favor of a paternal love story. The shallow ethos they end up with is not very challenging (“Political extremism is bad” – thanks for that insight guys), but it came out better than the cheap imitation I had expected.

    The problems lay in the many awful design decisions. The gameplay didn’t change one iota – the weapons and plasmids were either the same or simple reskins. Hypos, ADAM, Medkits, Vending Machines: all identical. The Little Sister Defense game, while creative, is forced and forced until it becomes a tedious chore. The story never delivers any kind of revelation, despite 10+ hours of build up, and in fact (due to the way the game ends) the entire last two hours end up feeling like a huge waste of time.

    Going back to Rapture, in particular, felt like finding out that Emperor Palpatine had survived the Death Star explosion and had decamped to Endor, converting the Ewoks into an army of evil teddy bears to await Episode 7.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. frostquake

    The Early Spring saw a TON of game releases, I bought the Game day one, but had a ton of new games coming out before and after, and it just sat on the shelf….Maybe not put a game out along with a ton of other new games, at the same time, stagger them out.

    It seemed liked Feb, March was like a Christmas of Game Releases. If I recall right…Feb and March 2010 saw more game releases then Dec. 2009…Which is odd considering…Last year it was kind of a Dry spell of games in Spring of 2009.

    #27 4 years ago