"The games that are not triple-A are not profitable anymore."

[j_factor]

So says some dude from Ubisoft (http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-only-triple-a-games-are-profitable-182821.phtml).

This raises a lot of questions, though. I mean, what does "triple-A" really mean, anyway?

Does anyone else remember last year's E3, when Ubisoft spent a substantial portion of their keynote talking about how successful their Imagine series has been? Does this guy think the Imagine games are "triple-A"? Or have they suddenly ceased to make any profit? Is Just Dance a "triple-A" title? Or did Ubisoft figure out a way to lose money on it?

How does he reckon companies like Taito, Treasure, The Adventure Company, Agetec, et al stay in business?

[buzz_n64]

This is Ubisoft, who cares. They lost my cred after the whole used games, and licensing debacle.

[TonyTheTiger]

"Triple A" seems to be the video game equivalent of "Hollywood blockbuster" in films. It's whatever game is big budget and heavily advertised.

[G-Boobie]

I think we can chalk this up to another executive opening his mouth when his PR handlers were too far away to stop him. Considering games like Castle Crashers, Monday Night Combat, Limbo, Everyday Shooter, Braid, Puzzle Quest, the Tell Tale adventure games, Shatter, the Pixeljunk games, Canabalt, Angry Birds, Etrian Odyssey, Persona, Tilt To Live, Espgaluda II, Pain, I made a game with zombies in it, Dishwasher, Shank, Deadly Premonition, Earth Defense Force 2017, Onechanbara, Demon's Souls, 3D Dot Game Heroes, and Y's 7 exist, we can be fairly certain he's mistaken.

[kupomogli]

2D Dot Game Heroes

3D Dot Game Heroes had a prequel?

Ubisoft is crap though. Whenever they release anything it's just another game that I won't give a second thought about picking up(atleast until I see them actually release something good.) The only thing I commend Ubisoft on this generation is releasing Armored Core For Answer but I would have rather have had Agetec do the publishing.

[Manhattan Sports Club]

Ubisoft sucks. Their only respectable titles for me are the first two Rayman games and maybe Beyond Good & Evil (I only hear its an exceptional game, haven't actually played that one yet, however.) Most of their games probably won't even be profitable in the near future, because most of their shit is just like every other modern game series.

[Rev. Link]

Ubisoft is responsible for my favorite new series this generation, Assassin's Creed, but this is still a really stupid thing for this dude to say.

Triple A titles are still the big money makers (duh), but just like independent films, smaller games still do really well.

[BHvrd]

Look heres the deal..... I could make a Hanna Montana game and poop in the box and sell it at retail for $59.99, and people would buy the sequel regardless I pooped in the box....why?

Cause people buy games from name recognition alone! Not everyone cares about triple A, this guy is a moron and i'm sure he has pooped in a few boxes and made profit. Maybe he just needs to start coming up with some more clever names for his poopy games like Super Mole Goes to Party Town or something like that, that would turn a few heads and i'm sure Mole people would buy it.

[Cobra Commander]

Any company that cancels Beyond Good and Evil 2 doesn't deserve attention.

[Vlcice]

Any company that cancels Beyond Good and Evil 2 doesn't deserve attention.

That was just a rumour. The game's still in development, just keeping quiet for now.

[Icarus Moonsight]

No one is going to mention the 800lb gorilla in the room, shovelware?

Doh!

If it not profit, it would cease to exist. The shovelware is definitely out there. It's unstoppable!

This is what a company that invests their budget mainly into "AAA" treated games wants you and stockholders to think. So when they blow a huge load of development and marketing on a Trip-A-Turd it has a predefined justification and they can keep their jobs.

Ubisoft and THQ, comrades in bullshit.

Harry Cohn was quoted to say, "The shorts fund the features." at Columbia Pictures in the 30's.

What they need is to give something bargain priced like shovelware, but with more quality and value for the same price while keeping the cost to a minimum. Call it spadeware.

[Bojay1997]

So says some dude from Ubisoft (http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-only-triple-a-games-are-profitable-182821.phtml).

This raises a lot of questions, though. I mean, what does "triple-A" really mean, anyway?

Does anyone else remember last year's E3, when Ubisoft spent a substantial portion of their keynote talking about how successful their Imagine series has been? Does this guy think the Imagine games are "triple-A"? Or have they suddenly ceased to make any profit? Is Just Dance a "triple-A" title? Or did Ubisoft figure out a way to lose money on it?

How does he reckon companies like Taito, Treasure, The Adventure Company, Agetec, et al stay in business?

It seems like this thread should be merged with the other thread on used games. The lines of argument are pretty similar since several people took the position that the way to be profitable is to make smaller games.

In any event, companies like Treasure, The Adventure Company, Agetec, etc...may be somewhat successful small businesses, but unless you expect EA, Ubisoft, Sega, etc...to lay off hundreds or even thousands of people, they are not viable business models for larger companies.

[jonebone]

He's exactly right. Look at a title on Wii called "Little King's Story". Read reviews on it, everyone gives it a 9/10 if not better. Everyone that plays it rants and raves about how good it is.

Yet that didn't translate into sales and it will probably go without a sequel. It's a shame because everyone that plays it wants a sequel, yet there are no sales to justify it. It's better in every way, shape, and form than Pikmin (a similar 1st party Nintendo game) but yet Pikmin got a sequel and may even have a 3rd incarnation on the Wii.

Look at the post above which lists plenty of good games. But how many of those games were profitable? None. Companies don't really care about how good the game is, they care about how many games it sells. Every publisher would rather make the next CoD that sells millions of copies rather than some sleeper hit that gets 9/10 stars and sells a hundred thousand.

[Snapple]

I don't really care what Ubisoft says. Their asshole stance on piracy has made me weary of supporting their games. I'll still probably pick up Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood for PS3, but any new IPs I'll be less likely to pick up if I see Ubisoft on the cover. Especially if it's a PC game.

[exit]

I've lost respect for Ubisoft after that rather mediocre reboot of Prince of Persia game they released, so I take what they say with a grain of salt.

[ubersaurus]

He's exactly right. Look at a title on Wii called "Little King's Story". Read reviews on it, everyone gives it a 9/10 if not better. Everyone that plays it rants and raves about how good it is.

Yet that didn't translate into sales and it will probably go without a sequel. It's a shame because everyone that plays it wants a sequel, yet there are no sales to justify it. It's better in every way, shape, and form than Pikmin (a similar 1st party Nintendo game) but yet Pikmin got a sequel and may even have a 3rd incarnation on the Wii.

Look at the post above which lists plenty of good games. But how many of those games were profitable? None. Companies don't really care about how good the game is, they care about how many games it sells. Every publisher would rather make the next CoD that sells millions of copies rather than some sleeper hit that gets 9/10 stars and sells a hundred thousand.

THIS.

How many GREAT games have not translated into sales? Dozens this generation, probably even more. Boy and His Blob, Zack and Wiki, Deathsmiles, BlazBlue, Madworld, etc.

If they aren't even selling enough new copies to cover their licensing/development costs, then that game is a failure, no matter how good it is. Blockbuster games, assuming they don't crash and burn, do pay for themselves, and allow the companies to put out these other games that do crash and burn. Put out too many of the latter without enough of the former, however, and your company is in trouble.

[Vlcice]

No one is going to mention the 800lb gorilla in the room, shovelware?

Doh!

If it not profit, it would cease to exist. The shovelware is definitely out there. It's unstoppable!

This is what a company that invests their budget mainly into "AAA" treated games wants you and stockholders to think. So when they blow a huge load of development and marketing on a Trip-A-Turd it has a predefined justification and they can keep their jobs.

Ubisoft and THQ, comrades in bullshit.

Harry Cohn was quoted to say, "The shorts fund the features." at Columbia Pictures in the 30's.

What they need is to give something bargain priced like shovelware, but with more quality and value for the same price while keeping the cost to a minimum. Call it spadeware.

Actually, I find this all interesting given that Ubisoft seems to be doing exactly that. They were behind the very indie-feeling Scott Pilgrim game, and recently announced the wonderful-looking Outland (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/65421) - not exactly AAA games. That the Ubisoft CEO is saying this now is strange to me, and either means that he's divorced from the parts of the company that makes those decisions or that it isn't panning out for them financially.

[Gameguy]

He's exactly right. Look at a title on Wii called "Little King's Story". Read reviews on it, everyone gives it a 9/10 if not better. Everyone that plays it rants and raves about how good it is.

Yet that didn't translate into sales and it will probably go without a sequel. It's a shame because everyone that plays it wants a sequel, yet there are no sales to justify it. It's better in every way, shape, and form than Pikmin (a similar 1st party Nintendo game) but yet Pikmin got a sequel and may even have a 3rd incarnation on the Wii.

Look at the post above which lists plenty of good games. But how many of those games were profitable? None. Companies don't really care about how good the game is, they care about how many games it sells. Every publisher would rather make the next CoD that sells millions of copies rather than some sleeper hit that gets 9/10 stars and sells a hundred thousand.
I haven't even heard of Little King's Story before, and it's apparently made by Cing(a company who's games I mostly enjoy). They really need to advertise their games better, then more people would buy them. The only game by them that has a wide distribution is Hotel Dusk, every other game by them isn't promoted that well.

[BetaWolf47]

I haven't even heard of Little King's Story before, and it's apparently made by Cing(a company who's games I mostly enjoy). They really need to advertise their games better, then more people would buy them. The only game by them that has a wide distribution is Hotel Dusk, every other game by them isn't promoted that well.

You're a little late for the party. Cing is dead now.

Also, at the OP, Taito is alive because it is owned by Square-Enix. When you're owned by one of the biggest Japanese companies in the industry, you're not going to go down that easily. Same with Hudson, who is owned by Konami.

[Gameguy]

You're a little late for the party. Cing is dead now.
Mostly dead, but from what I could find it hasn't closed down completely yet.
http://www.1up.com/news/cing-declares-bankruptcy

The sequel to Hotel Dusk is being released in Europe on September 17th, I'm hoping North America at a later date. I never kept track of their Wii games to closely as I don't have a system, with their DS games I tried to pay more attention.

[j_factor]

In any event, companies like Treasure, The Adventure Company, Agetec, etc...may be somewhat successful small businesses, but unless you expect EA, Ubisoft, Sega, etc...to lay off hundreds or even thousands of people, they are not viable business models for larger companies.

Sure they are. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The larger companies should have room to do both. No major record label restricts their business to albums they expect to sell platinum or better. As long as there is money to be made -- and there certainly is -- there's a place for it.

[Bojay1997]

Sure they are. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The larger companies should have room to do both. No major record label restricts their business to albums they expect to sell platinum or better. As long as there is money to be made -- and there certainly is -- there's a place for it.

Of course they aren't and most large companies including Ubisoft have all sorts of smaller revenue generating projects of opportunity. That may mean download only titles, iPhone and cell phone games, handheld and even smaller console releases. Having said that, when you're a company that needs to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every quarter to your stockholders like EA or Ubisoft, you're not gonna do it with tons of smaller projects. If you don't have at least one profitable triple-A title each quarter, you won't make your profit for the year, bottom line.

To some extent, you and Destructoid took what this guy said out of context. His point was that rather than doing 3-4 modest budget games where some will be flops, the only profitable business model for large publishers is focusing on Triple-A titles where all of them are huge sellers. That seems well supported by the financials for triple-A games when compared to everything else. Whether you like it or not, those are the games that continue to sell and generate huge profits for publishers. Can you be successful creating smaller games that sell fewer units? If you're a small company like Treasure perhaps, but focusing primarily on smaller games does not appear to be a viable model for larger companies.

[G-Boobie]

Look at the post above which lists plenty of good games. But how many of those games were profitable? None. Companies don't really care about how good the game is, they care about how many games it sells. Every publisher would rather make the next CoD that sells millions of copies rather than some sleeper hit that gets 9/10 stars and sells a hundred thousand.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, every single one of those games ARE profitable, or at least broke even. That's why I listed them.

Certainly publishers lean towards the huge, triple-A releases that sell ten million units, and these types of games are probably where the bulk of Ubisoft's revenue comes from. Ubisoft has a history of shitting out their "B" games - Wartech, for example. Even worse is their ridiculous "Imagine" series, which has something like fifty entries: the very definition of market saturation. No wonder their perspective is screwed up.

Companies like EA and THQ with their partner programs are reaching out to smaller developers and trying smaller projects. I hope that it works out for both parties, because XBL and PSN, and to a lesser extent the DS and the Wii, have proven that just because a game doesn't have a budget rivaling your average summer blockbuster doesn't mean it can't make money.

[kupomogli]

Can you be successful creating smaller games that sell fewer units? If you're a small company like Treasure perhaps, but focusing primarily on smaller games does not appear to be a viable model for larger companies.

I don't get why people say games that aren't AAA can only be profitable with smaller companies. Why can a smaller company profit on a smaller budget title that a larger company cannot? It's probably because the small budget games that these larger companies are making might as well be shovelware.

Take X Men Origins: Wolverine. The development costs were probably 100 times lower than a game like FF13. FF13 sold five million while X Men Origins sold one million. The graphics may not be pretty but the game is pretty good.

Bigger budget titles need to sell much more before they make a profit and even most big budget titles don't sell that much more than a smaller budget title nowdays. EA has been amazing this gen, but look towards them. Almost every release they've done this gen has been a AAA title yet they might just hit a million across both systems per game(Saboteur and Army of Two the 40th Day aren't even close to hitting that mark.) The developers just think that every game has to have the best graphics in order to sell. Note to developers: Graphics don't have to be amazing, just create a decent length game with great gameplay and throw us a demo to try out before we purchase it. Most of us will pay for a good game.

[Swamperon]

Ubisoft have been moaning for ages how they can't sell anything on the DS anymore. They blame this on 'rampant piracy' the DS suffers.

Whilst undoubtedly an issue, I suspect the legions of hackers are not pirating their DS to play the latest imagine/petz titles. They over saturated market with increasing mediocrity, plain and simple.

And plenty of non AAA games go on to be profitable, some very much so. Although it is a shame about Little King's Story, fantastic game!

[Icarus Moonsight]

Out of 120+ DS games, I have 1 published by Ubisoft and it's not even a game... My Japanese Coach. It's not piracy, they just release crap mostly. Like EA, and the lessor players of "Clueless Inc".

[jonebone]

I think we can chalk this up to another executive opening his mouth when his PR handlers were too far away to stop him. Considering games like Castle Crashers, Monday Night Combat, Limbo, Everyday Shooter, Braid, Puzzle Quest, the Tell Tale adventure games, Shatter, the Pixeljunk games, Canabalt, Angry Birds, Etrian Odyssey, Persona, Tilt To Live, Espgaluda II, Pain, I made a game with zombies in it, Dishwasher, Shank, Deadly Premonition, Earth Defense Force 2017, Onechanbara, Demon's Souls, 3D Dot Game Heroes, and Y's 7 exist, we can be fairly certain he's mistaken.


Actually, to the best of my knowledge, every single one of those games ARE profitable, or at least broke even. That's why I listed them.


Well, then you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about. Just because a game exists doesn't mean it is profitable, that's the most asinine assumption I've ever heard.

Very few games are profitable. According to the Electronic Entertainment Design and Research Institute, just 4% of games that go into production ever turn a profit and only a meager 20% of released games ever turn a profit. (Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10106612-17.html ). That's why companies like Acclaim go out of business, they get tons of profit from Mortal Kombat and then lose 10x as much money on horrible games.

As for downloadable games, they can be quite profitable because they do not need to pay for any hardware costs associated with production. Their design teams are often small, so a few hundred thousand sales pays everyone off and gives the company a profit.

But some titles you listed are plain ridiculous. 3D Dot Game Heroes has barely sold 163k units in North America, hardly enough to be a success. http://www.vgchartz.com/game.php?id=37830

And even more hilarious is Earth Defense Force 2017, it's sold a whopping 28.7k units, LOL. http://www.vgchartz.com/game.php?id=2986 Huge profit margin there!

The mark is always one million. All consoles have "Platinum Hits" or "Player's Choice" releases for games that sell 1,000,000+ units. While you can make some small amounts of profit with sales less than that, it isn't going to be enough to sustain a business and bring money towards future projects.

Sorry for the lesson but you seem pretty naive.

[kedawa]

That's oversimplifying things a lot.
You could sell 100 copies in north america and still turn a profit as long as sales in other territories or on different platforms were sufficient to recoup dev costs.
If you're licensing someone else's game for publication, that changes the economics as well, since the dev costs are not an issue, and you only need to pay royalties on units sold.
Not every game needs to sell a million units per platform per territory to be profitable.

[Bojay1997]

I don't get why people say games that aren't AAA can only be profitable with smaller companies. Why can a smaller company profit on a smaller budget title that a larger company cannot? It's probably because the small budget games that these larger companies are making might as well be shovelware.

Take X Men Origins: Wolverine. The development costs were probably 100 times lower than a game like FF13. FF13 sold five million while X Men Origins sold one million. The graphics may not be pretty but the game is pretty good.

Bigger budget titles need to sell much more before they make a profit and even most big budget titles don't sell that much more than a smaller budget title nowdays. EA has been amazing this gen, but look towards them. Almost every release they've done this gen has been a AAA title yet they might just hit a million across both systems per game(Saboteur and Army of Two the 40th Day aren't even close to hitting that mark.) The developers just think that every game has to have the best graphics in order to sell. Note to developers: Graphics don't have to be amazing, just create a decent length game with great gameplay and throw us a demo to try out before we purchase it. Most of us will pay for a good game.

Because the overhead for a smaller company is typically a fraction of that of a larger company and because smaller companies don't necessarily have to generate substantial returns for investors and shareholders. For a company of say 15-20 people, you probably don't have an HR department, legal, marketing, etc...You contract out for these services and don't pay people to sit there whether you need their help that day or not. Similarly, if you have a privately held company, if you only make a small profit, but everyone gets their salary and bonuses and you still have enough to pay down your line of credit, that's a viable business model. For EA, Ubisoft, etc...that's not a viable model. That's not to say that they can't make money on smaller products, but it's not enough to sustain them or keep them growing. Just because you and most of us here would buy a good game with less than great graphics does not mean most people who buy games would. That's the reason games like Little King's Story which is amazing will never sell millions. Most people just don't care.

[kupomogli]

3D Dot Game Heroes has barely sold 163k units in North America, hardly enough to be a success.

Just have to say you really don't know what you're talking about.

3D Dot Game Heroes is a localization. You are aware that Atlus is not the developer correct? They offer a certain amount of money in order to have the rights to localize the game for sale in a specific area.

XSeed also does localizations. Their first game released was Wild ARMs 4 in 2005. In all their releases, only Valhalla Knights, which sold 170,000 has sold more than 3D Dot Game Heroes. So how come this company is in business since 2005 and has released as many games as they have?

Also. Atlus stated that Demon's Souls sold far more than they originally expected. According to news sources, they expected 75,000 where as of now it's 400,000. If they were already making profit then they've just made that much more. 75,000 is much lower than 163,000.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The mark is always one million. All consoles have "Platinum Hits" or "Player's Choice" releases for games that sell 1,000,000+ units.

Speaking of assumptions... I brought a flag.:bullshit:

You're obviously jealous of G-Boobies pure awesomeness and swave style.

[Bojay1997]

Just have to say you really don't know what you're talking about.

3D Dot Game Heroes is a localization. You are aware that Atlus is not the developer correct? They offer a certain amount of money in order to have the rights to localize the game for sale in a specific area.

XSeed also does localizations. Their first game released was Wild ARMs 4 in 2005. In all their releases, only Valhalla Knights, which sold 170,000 has sold more than 3D Dot Game Heroes. So how come this company is in business since 2005 and has released as many games as they have?

Also. Atlus stated that Demon's Souls sold far more than they originally expected. According to news sources, they expected 75,000 where as of now it's 400,000. If they were already making profit then they've just made that much more. 75,000 is much lower than 163,000.

It really depends on what the licensing fee they paid was, how much it cost to localize and what they spent on marketing, distribution, etc...Nobody except Atlus really knows if 3D Dot Game Heroes or any other release was a success.

[kupomogli]

It really depends on what the licensing fee they paid was, how much it cost to localize and what they spent on marketing, distribution, etc...Nobody except Atlus really knows if 3D Dot Game Heroes or any other release was a success.

I don't know what any of the fees, but neither does anyone else. 160,000 is a big number for a niche title. That's why I also mentioned Demon's Souls which Atlus released not only the regular version but also the Limited Edition and hyped it up quite a bit, then we come to find out that they only expected 75,000 which I'd assume is a profit with Atlus being a developer that made their money on niche titles.

[Aussie2B]

Yet that didn't translate into sales and it will probably go without a sequel. It's a shame because everyone that plays it wants a sequel, yet there are no sales to justify it. It's better in every way, shape, and form than Pikmin (a similar 1st party Nintendo game) but yet Pikmin got a sequel and may even have a 3rd incarnation on the Wii.

Of all the games to pick on, Pikmin? Really? The sales weren't bad, but I don't believe they reached Nintendo's hopes at all. Most of its following has come in recent years, after people started to discover and appreciate how inventive and fresh Pikmin was. I doubt it would've gotten any releases past 2 if not for Olimar's inclusion in Smash Bros., which is like an instant shot of popularity for any franchise. I haven't played Little King's Story, but to suggest that Pikmin got an undeserved level of success is a bit of a joke. Whether Little King's Story is better or not (and I kinda doubt it's so massively better as you seem to suggest), Pikmin is still amazing and deserves MORE attention than it gets compared to the truly big-name franchises in Nintendo's library.

[kedawa]

Pikmin is the best thing to come out of Nintendo that gen.

[G-Boobie]

For fuck's sakes...


Well, then you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about. Just because a game exists doesn't mean it is profitable, that's the most asinine assumption I've ever heard.

Show me the section of my post where I state, and I quote ye again, "a game exists, and therefore it is profitable". You cannot, good sir, for those are not my words. They are yours. Your assumption, actually, and you know what happens when you assume. Except for the 'me' part in this instance.


Very few games are profitable. According to the Electronic Entertainment Design and Research Institute, just 4% of games that go into production ever turn a profit and only a meager 20% of released games ever turn a profit. (Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10106612-17.html ). That's why companies like Acclaim go out of business, they get tons of profit from Mortal Kombat and then lose 10x as much money on horrible games.

There are something like eighty four billion iPhone and Droid games available, most of which are complete trash and therefore languish at the bottom of the apps store. The Wii and DS also suffer from the shovelware affliction: scope out your local Wal-Mart and Best Buy. Then you have freeware or budget PC stuff and the ultra low budget stuff slapped on a CD and sold on a kiosk at your local mall bookstore. Did the guys behind your data take those games into account? How many years of financial results are they using? Are they taking merchandising and DLC into the equation?

Your problem here seems to be that you take statistics and blindly compare them with what you ASSUME (there we go again!) to be reality. Statistics are stupid, dangerous things that shouldn't be played with lightly, much like a loaded gun or your genitalia. The fact is, and we'll point out other instances of this later in this stupid screed, you seem to think that all games are produced according to the triple A revenue development model, which is incorrect. Nowhere in that article did I find anything breaking down exactly how budget relates to profit for that lucky twenty percent. All I read was bitching about how many first person shooters there are.

Think with your brain for a minute: if eighty percent of games were not profitable, then twenty percent WERE profitable, and nowhere in that little data nugget did I read anything that contradicts anything I've said so far.

Moving along.


As for downloadable games, they can be quite profitable because they do not need to pay for any hardware costs associated with production. Their design teams are often small, so a few hundred thousand sales pays everyone off and gives the company a profit.

Indeed.


But some titles you listed are plain ridiculous. 3D Dot Game Heroes has barely sold 163k units in North America, hardly enough to be a success. http://www.vgchartz.com/game.php?id=37830

Profit is relative to the costs incurred to create and distribute something. Here's the important thing I believe you're missing: NOT ALL GAMES COST MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO MAKE.


And even more hilarious is Earth Defense Force 2017, it's sold a whopping 28.7k units, LOL. http://www.vgchartz.com/game.php?id=2986 Huge profit margin there!

EDF is a proud member of the 'Simple 2000' series of games produced in Japan. So is Onechanbara. These games are made as cheaply as possible and sold at a bargain price. Again: profit is the difference between what it costs to make and distribute something and how much you make in sales.

Here's a stumper for you: if Earth Defense Force was such a tremendous loss, why are they making a sequel?


The mark is always one million. All consoles have "Platinum Hits" or "Player's Choice" releases for games that sell 1,000,000+ units. While you can make some small amounts of profit with sales less than that, it isn't going to be enough to sustain a business and bring money towards future projects.

Here we go again with your assumption that every game produced costs the same as fucking Assassin's Creed or GTA. Untrue. In fact, those games are still aberrations.

There's a lot of play between a game that sells eleven million copies and still loses money (Enter the Matrix) and a game that sells two hundred thousand copies and is extremely profitable (Persona 4). Not every fucking game released for download or to brick and mortar is a blockbuster with the budget of a Hollywood movie. It's still possible for something like Demon's Souls or Blazblue to sell a few hundred thousand units and make their developers and publishers money. If it weren't, we sure as Hell wouldn't be talking about games on the internet like the idiots we apparently are, because we'd still be rocking our VCS consoles and bitching about the graphics in Combat VII.


Sorry for the lesson but you seem pretty naive.

I can see you're new, so I'll assume you're getting over a bad case of GameFAQs or something. Bad troll is bad, etc. etc. etc.

Next time, why don't you try being civil instead of a self-righteous asshat if you disagree with something I've said, and maybe we can have a friendly debate instead of measuring our internet nerd-dongs. Wouldn't that be nice for a change.

[Swamperon]

That's why companies like Acclaim go out of business, they get tons of profit from Mortal Kombat and then lose 10x as much money on horrible games.
.

Also, Acclaim never released Mortal Kombat. Midway did. And yes they did release "horrible games" such as Carnival Games but they turned out to be extremely profitable, selling in excess of 1 million copies.

Of course Midway still went bankrupt but that was due to a multitude of reasons and cannot be blamed on games sales alone.

[Flack]

"The games that are not triple-A are not profitable anymore."

To quote Obi-Wan, "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

It may be that, for Ubisoft, non-AAA titles are indeed not profitable. Without doing any real research, I'm sure Ubisoft has hundreds of employees and spends millions of dollars on things like advertising and rent. I'm sure to a company like that, AAA titles ARE more profitable. I have no doubt that Ghost Recon 18 or Mortal Kombat 27, no matter how awful and how much we complain about it, will sell more copies than the next "Pikmin". There's a reason they keep churning out Madden games, you know.

But newer, leaner companies don't need AAA titles to turn a profit. I just read a story about the two brothers that made Doodle Jump for the iPhone. Doodle Jump sells for $1. So far, they have sold 3.5 million copies. One Apple takes their 30%, that leaves about $2.5 million for the brothers to split. I'm filing Doodle Jump under "profitable", especially since the brothers run the business out of their home.

Obviously, the "mammoth" model that companies like Ubisoft and Activision and Electronic Arts and dozens of others use has to have a ceiling. I believe they are pouring too much into developing single games at this point, and eventually, that tower (and business model) will topple.

[jonebone]

Of all the games to pick on, Pikmin? Really? I haven't played Little King's Story, but to suggest that Pikmin got an undeserved level of success is a bit of a joke. Whether Little King's Story is better or not (and I kinda doubt it's so massively better as you seem to suggest), Pikmin is still amazing and deserves MORE attention than it gets compared to the truly big-name franchises in Nintendo's library.

Don't criticize my opinion until you play both. I played Pikmin directly before Little King's Story, and I still haven't finished LKS so my opinion my change. But as it goes currently, I'd give Pikmin about an 8.25 and LKS a solid 9. Pikmin has superior controls to LKS (disbanding your party and moving units is much easier), but that's it's only plus. Boss battles are joke until the very last one, simply throwing a horde at any creature wins. Classes are limited to 3, I think LKS has around 15. I enjoyed Pikmin a lot and will gladly buy Pikmin 3 if it is ever released, but LKS is utterly amazing. If you like Pikmin go grab LKS ASAP and then you'll thank me later and we'll be buds.


........

Basically, if I interpreted your post properly, you're just saying my assumptions were incorrect. Well sorry for that but they all seemed pretty logical at the time.

Obviously you can turn a profit on a low number of sales when the development costs are low, no rocket science here. But you aren't turning much of a profit, dollar-wise at least (though you could be percentage-wise).

The point of the original article was not the literal interpretation of "profitable". If you make just one penny after sales - costs, then you are technically "profitable".

The point is that it's probably not worth your time to spend thousands of hours in development just to make enough money to cover the labor / royalties / fees and have pennies left over.

The context of "profitable" in this case is "substantially profitable", with yielding enough profit to pay CEO bonuses and give raises to your coders. I guess that's why we disgree, because of our interpretation of the word.

[jonebone]

To quote Obi-Wan, "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

It may be that, for Ubisoft, non-AAA titles are indeed not profitable. Without doing any real research, I'm sure Ubisoft has hundreds of employees and spends millions of dollars on things like advertising and rent. I'm sure to a company like that, AAA titles ARE more profitable. I have no doubt that Ghost Recon 18 or Mortal Kombat 27, no matter how awful and how much we complain about it, will sell more copies than the next "Pikmin". There's a reason they keep churning out Madden games, you know.

But newer, leaner companies don't need AAA titles to turn a profit. I just read a story about the two brothers that made Doodle Jump for the iPhone. Doodle Jump sells for $1. So far, they have sold 3.5 million copies. One Apple takes their 30%, that leaves about $2.5 million for the brothers to split. I'm filing Doodle Jump under "profitable", especially since the brothers run the business out of their home.

Obviously, the "mammoth" model that companies like Ubisoft and Activision and Electronic Arts and dozens of others use has to have a ceiling. I believe they are pouring too much into developing single games at this point, and eventually, that tower (and business model) will topple.

You must have posted when I was typing.... this post pretty much sums everything up. I agreed with the Ubisoft article because I was looking at it from their perspective, not from the perspective of little companies.

[ubersaurus]

To quote Obi-Wan, "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

It may be that, for Ubisoft, non-AAA titles are indeed not profitable. Without doing any real research, I'm sure Ubisoft has hundreds of employees and spends millions of dollars on things like advertising and rent. I'm sure to a company like that, AAA titles ARE more profitable. I have no doubt that Ghost Recon 18 or Mortal Kombat 27, no matter how awful and how much we complain about it, will sell more copies than the next "Pikmin". There's a reason they keep churning out Madden games, you know.

But newer, leaner companies don't need AAA titles to turn a profit. I just read a story about the two brothers that made Doodle Jump for the iPhone. Doodle Jump sells for $1. So far, they have sold 3.5 million copies. One Apple takes their 30%, that leaves about $2.5 million for the brothers to split. I'm filing Doodle Jump under "profitable", especially since the brothers run the business out of their home.

Obviously, the "mammoth" model that companies like Ubisoft and Activision and Electronic Arts and dozens of others use has to have a ceiling. I believe they are pouring too much into developing single games at this point, and eventually, that tower (and business model) will topple.

Doodle Jump is clearly a download game however, which do tend to be more profitable due to a hell of a lot less publishing overhead. in the context of disc-based releases though, would Doodle Jump have sold that many copies when you take increased cost into account? Would it have even broken even when people dog it for clearly being made by two people and that it should have been a download game?

[Bojay1997]

Doodle Jump is clearly a download game however, which do tend to be more profitable due to a hell of a lot less publishing overhead. in the context of disc-based releases though, would Doodle Jump have sold that many copies when you take increased cost into account? Would it have even broken even when people dog it for clearly being made by two people and that it should have been a download game?

Not necessarily. The vast majority of download games do not turn significant profits. In fact, I know quite a few people who have actually lost money (or at least a significant amount of time that could've been spent doing something that generated more revenue). That's why these success stories of things like Doodle Jump become known, because they are the exception and not the norm. Just because it costs less to develop something does not mean it will be successful. Similarly, spending millions on something is not guaranteed to generate huge returns. That doesn't change the fact that for most large companies, smaller projects do not generate the kinds of returns necessary to sustain and grow a business. That's why Ubisoft and EA and the other handful of large video game companies will continue to crank out AAA high budget titles. They can't sustain their business otherwise.

[Flack]

I agree with the last two posts (I think). My point was that for large companies like Ubisoft, they are probably right in that non-AAA titles probably aren't worth their time because of all their overhead, whereas smaller companies can make a profit on smaller titles and are in a much better position to take a risk.

I agree that the Doodle Jump guys are an exception to the rule, but if you're working out of your house and don't have a lot of overhead, you don't have to sell as many copies to make a profit.

[TonyTheTiger]

But even for big publishers it's important to diversify. In between the AAA titles they need steady supplemental income. Lower budget games are a good way to do that.

The problem is that the marketing for these titles usually sucks. How many of us would have realized BlastWorks on the Wii was anything special had we not been outright told by each other? There's more to marketing than having to pay big bucks for TV commercials and Manhattan billboards.

[Bojay1997]

But even for big publishers it's important to diversify. In between the AAA titles they need steady supplemental income. Lower budget games are a good way to do that.

The problem is that the marketing for these titles usually sucks. How many of us would have realized BlastWorks on the Wii was anything special had we not been outright told by each other? There's more to marketing than having to pay big bucks for TV commercials and Manhattan billboards.

But that's the point the guy from Ubisoft was trying to make. You can make money on the two ends of the spectrum, but it's the medium budget unproven IP stuff that is riskiest and least profitable and really only the AAA stuff that generates the kind of profits a big company needs to grow. That doesn't mean they won't do mobile and other less expensive stuff, but it does mean that they won't do new IP with a moderate budget because it's way too risky. Even guerilla marketing can be expensive and you still need to hire people to do it.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm not even talking guerrilla marketing like the viral stuff you see today. I'm talking basic shit like box art that doesn't look like "Video Game #5043." Maybe a counter card to send out to GameStops. Anything that actually, you know, makes people look at the game.

[Aussie2B]

Don't criticize my opinion until you play both.

I wasn't criticizing your opinion. It doesn't matter to me which you like more than the other. I was only taking issue with your insinuation that Pikmin received some huge, undeserved level of success. It may not be as niche as Little King's Story, but it still isn't remotely close to being "triple-A" in terms of sales and popularity.

[Bojay1997]

I'm not even talking guerrilla marketing like the viral stuff you see today. I'm talking basic shit like box art that doesn't look like "Video Game #5043." Maybe a counter card to send out to GameStops. Anything that actually, you know, makes people look at the game.

I don't really know that countercards are a way to move more units and box art is super subjective. Having known a few Gamestop managers over the years, a lot of that promo stuff gets stolen or given to employees before it is ever put out and with over 3,000 stores in the US, that could be tens of thousands of dollars in printing and mailing expenses just for Gamestop. That doesn't even start to cover the big retail stores like Walmart which still accounts for far more of the new market than Gamestop and which don't or won't display counter cards for lower budget games. Even basic marketing is shockingly expensive and a large percentage of it will never be seen by the casual consumers (parents and other relatives, kids, etc...) who buy most of the games anyway. The harder core more plugged in gamers who would buy obscure titles already follow the news pretty closely on various websites and other than a good magazine/website strategy, there isn't a whole lot more you can do to reach that audience without spending a ton of money.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think there is. You just have to be creative about it. As much as maybe we'd hate admitting it, even our community here can be turned on by some basic marketing strategies. Nintendo, in it's not so subtle fashion, did it with New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Metroid Prime Trilogy. Both games stand out on a shelf among the Ikea-esque sea of white. And that was for two games that you know people were going to pay attention to.

I keep bringing up BlastWorks even though it wasn't Ubisoft because I think it's a perfect illustration.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/blastworks.jpg

Is that really something that's going to jump out? Lord knows I would have walked right passed it without a second glance. You have to give people a reason to at least acknowledge the existence of your product.

[Bojay1997]

I think there is. You just have to be creative about it. As much as maybe we'd hate admitting it, even our community here can be turned on by some basic marketing strategies. Nintendo, in it's not so subtle fashion, did it with New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Metroid Prime Trilogy. Both games stand out on a shelf among the Ikea-esque sea of white. And that was for two games that you know people were going to pay attention to.

I keep bringing up BlastWorks even though it wasn't Ubisoft because I think it's a perfect illustration.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/blastworks.jpg

Is that really something that's going to jump out? Lord knows I would have walked right passed it without a second glance. You have to give people a reason to at least acknowledge the existence of your product.

Sure, I agree that unique case colors and flashy cover art may hook a few more sales from the casual crowd, but ultimately, games like BlastWorks need a media campaign to get the word out and explain why consumers should take the time with this particular game over the thousands of others out there. Unfortunately, that type of education campaign is just not cost effective to do so for a smaller title. I mean I think I paid $10 for it within a month or so of release at Best Buy and there was lots of buzz and hype about it on various hardcore gamer websites, but I still know tons of people who wouldn't buy it even at $10. Changing the cover art or case color isn't going to fix the fact that most people just don't care about games that don't fit within their preconceived notions of what constitutes something they would want to play.

[Rob2600]

Acclaim never released Mortal Kombat. Midway did.

Acclaim released the home and portable versions of Mortal Kombat.

And both companies no longer exist.

[duffmanth]

That's because most of the games that aren't AAA are not worth anything near full retail price. Before these publishers and developers release a game to market, they better BETA test the shit out of it and make sure it's a game that is not only going to sell, but a game that will actually sell for $60. Ubisoft games are pretty shitty for the most part aside from Assassin's Creed and a few others.

[kedawa]

Assassin's Creed isn't that great. I haven't played the sequel, but the original isn't what I would call 'AAA'.

[G-Boobie]

Assassin's Creed isn't that great. I haven't played the sequel, but the original isn't what I would call 'AAA'.

From the perspective of industry folks, a game is defined as triple A based on it's budget and marketing push, not quality. Assassin's Creed is a triple A game based on that definition. It was also pretty successful, one of the few successful new IP's this generation. (what else is there, actually? Bioshock, sort of Dead Space? Left 4 Dead, Portal... Is that it?)

[kedawa]

Gears of War, Mario Galaxy, Wii Fit, Uncharted,... probably several more.
I guess if they're just using it in place of 'blockbuster' then, yeah, AC would be a triple-A game.

[G-Boobie]

Gears of War, Mario Galaxy, Wii Fit, Uncharted,... probably several more.

Crikey: I wasn't thinking too clearly, was I?

[jonebone]

Not that it really matters, but what about Mass Effect and Dragon Age? I never played BioShock or ME, but Dragon Age is f'in amazing and I'm eagerly anticipating the sequel. Maybe the best RPG I've ever played, though I've admittedly only played about a dozen or so.