Sales Comps for Your Game: How Not to Do It

This analysis examines the methodologies and pitfalls of using sales comparables to estimate the return on investment for PC and console games. The primary thesis suggests that while "comps" are essential for budgeting and pitching, developers and publishers often rely on outdated or overly optimistic data. To improve accuracy, stakeholders should prioritize recent releases within specific subgenres rather than "evergreen" hits, as older titles benefited from lower market saturation and years of post-launch updates.

The findings highlight distinct strategic approaches based on a stakeholder's role. Publishers typically manage risk through a portfolio lens, seeking the top 20% of titles that can fund the rest of the slate. Conversely, developers pitching for funding are encouraged to present a mix of high-performing and realistic mid-tier comps, while self-funded creators must adopt a conservative risk profile with clear contingency plans. Beyond traditional comps, the analysis advocates for using launch-day Steam wishlist counts as a more reliable predictive metric, noting a rough conversion ratio where Steam followers multiplied by ten equals total wishlists.

The scope of the data covers the global PC and console market, with specific focus on Steam and the Epic Games Store during the 2020s. Supplemental data points include a 22.9% year-on-year decline in Nintendo Switch hardware sales due to supply chain issues and a significant $700 million revenue dip for Activision Blizzard. Methodology involves the synthesis of Steam API data, public Epic Games Store rating counts, and historical sales trends. The analysis concludes that realistic anchoring—combining recent subgenre performance with wishlist-based projections—is vital for sustainable game development.