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

[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.



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.



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.