Gears of War is less profitable than Infinity Blade

[Eri]

At the Game Developers Conference (GDC) in Taipei today, Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, told the audience that the iOS title Infinity Blade is "the most profitable game we've ever made - in terms of man years invested versus revenue, it's more profitable than Gears of War." The mobile franchise passed the $30 million mark this January and Infinity Blade II made over $5 million in its first month on the App Store. Sweeney said he was "very, very surprised to see how fast smartphone and tablet devices are improving," adding that the pace was faster than Moore's law.

The news comes from a speech on the future of gaming. Sweeney thinks the present $100-million-a-game development model isn't sustainable in the long run. He believes that the future of gaming is in freemium downloadable games and goes on to stress the importance of having one engine across all devices. As part of Epic's "Unreal Everywhere" strategy, the company wants to develop scalable games that won't require rebuilding for different platforms. Although Epic has been an important ally for Microsoft in recent years, Sweeney told GDC that "you might in the future see the Epic relationship span different publishers and different platforms across the world."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/3120308/infinity-blade-epic-games-most-profitable-game

Did you think this was possible for a game company that didn't start as a mobile one?

Guess it makes sense it'd be a lot easier to make money back if you didn't blow millions just getting it made.

 

[ultrabiome]

of course it's in epic's best interest to have one engine, their engine, working on everything. but right now infinity blade is only on iOS devices, why? because there are only a few hardware and software versions between them, which makes it easy to program compatibility. i'm sure epic wouldn't be bragging as much if they put effort into making an android port, as i'm sure it'd cost them a lot more to make it work on so many different platforms, leading them to either raise the cost of purchase or lower profit expectations.

also, i hate freemium gaming. i want to buy a game, and have it forever. i'd rather not be able to play for free all the time than have the intrusive and nagging system in the freemium model, being barraged with ads, or even worse, realizing that they took half the fun from the game to give me the incentive to buy-in. it's moving that way, but i don't have to like it. and just because the games are cheap (regardless of production value) doesn't mean that i shouldn't think about what i'm buying first.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

in terms of man years invested versus revenue, it's more profitable than Gears of War.

I'm pretty ignorant to business and sales figures, but that sounds to me like they just meant it was "easier" money rather than the mobile game actually making more profit than gears of war.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

in terms of man years invested versus revenue, it's more profitable than Gears of War.

I'm pretty ignorant to business and sales figures, but that sounds to me like they just meant it was "easier" money rather than the mobile game actually making more profit than gears of war.

not to mention, i'm sure they are accounting in the shit tons they probably spent on marketing and such for gears of war, which didn't fuckin need it in the first place, anyone who was going to play the damn game was going to play it already.

OT: while they are a nice alternative, i hope to god freemium/handheld shit isn't the way the industry is heading, i'm pretty sure i'd be done with gaming at that point, i don't want small/short games like that.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well that's just misrepresentation of facts, the investment-return ratio is the highest yes but they made bucket loads more on other games.

But it's still sad because that was by far their shittiest game, it was barely deeper then Fruit Ninja.
And then people ask why we don't take mobile phones as a serious gaming platform... this is fucking why, those markets will spew money on any old shit and until they do the games will stay shit.

 

[Razoack]

Things like this have to be taken with a pinch of salt to be honest. Yes they might have made a higher percentage of money from Infinity Blade, however with Gears they more than likely made a lot more money, just a lower percentage of the investment though.

 

[Grygor]

in terms of man years invested versus revenue, it's more profitable than Gears of War.

I'm pretty ignorant to business and sales figures, but that sounds to me like they just meant it was "easier" money rather than the mobile game actually making more profit than gears of war.

As business metrics go, the actual amount of profit generated is of only secondary importance. Far more important is return on investment. Businesses only have a finite amount of money to invest in their product, after all, and so as profit-maximizing entities it's in their best interests to focus on those products that generate the largest amount of profit for the smallest investment of cash.

Let's say for the sake of argument that has a huge AAA franchise that costs $50 million per game to make, but brings in $75 million in revenue (for a profit of $25 million), and their mobile games cost $5 million to make, but generate $25 million in revenue (and thus $20 million in profit).

Assuming an infinite supply of game ideas, the most logical course of action would be to shift development entirely to mobile games. If they had, for example, $50 million to spend, they could use it to make one AAA-franchise game, earning $25 million in profit, or they could use it to make ten mobile games, and earn a profit of $200 million.

In practice of course it's a bit more complicated than that - not all game ideas are commercially viable, overall market conditions can change, and businesses are eminently capable of making bad decisions - but the general rule is that small-budget mobile titles deliver far more "bang for the buck" than large AAA titles.