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

[j_factor]

So says some dude from Ubisoft.

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.

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 - 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.