Ubisoft: Only Triple-A Games Are Profitable

[Rivers Wells]

It's a fair point, when money is tight people only stick to the must buys. Smaller games are just nice extras. Hopefully they'll change their views when the economy picks up a bit more.

Agreed, as I commented earlier. The industry is just in too tight of a spot given its own economic situation. Ironically, it's just a bit too big given the losses it takes on with low sales and consoles selling at a net loss. AAA games are where the real money is and, for better or worse, they keep the industry moving. Hopefully moving to a point someday that risks can be taken and a wider variety of games can be given proper attention.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Maybe the reason their games sell so badly is the a** rapeing DRM they ship with their games.

also farcry 2... once again with feeling

DAMN THEE UBISOFT!

DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

this x1000.

Maybe if Ubisoft made a good (and I use that loosly) game, that wasn't Splinter Cell or Assassin's Creed, they'd change their mind.

Also the DRM

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

no it comes down to
A. how much hype the game has
B. Who is developing the game
C. The time you release a game.

Since there are plenty of good games that come out but sell terrible. Because of those things.

 

[Snotnarok]

I can't remember the last time Ubisoft did or said something right. One has to wonder if the entire company is off the wall stupid as they display themselves to be.

 

[Scout Tactical]

Ubisoft does this every couple months. They say something really dramatic to stir up the press and draw attention to themselves. It's the corporate version of trolling, and it actually brings in advertising revenue and renewed interest in the company as people investigate, "Did he really say that?", or people are forced to say the word Ubisoft a million times to have a conversation about what they said.

You just let it happen.

 

[The Random One]

They're right, unfortunately. Gaming has become more and more expensive. And if Ubisoft understood this already then they're likely to survive the upcoming industry holocaust as long as multi-armed publishing leviathans EA and Activision, the only ones who get directly benefitted in this market.

Then everything blows apart and we're back to indies. I can't wait!

 

[Callate]

I don't think "Single-A" games have been around for long enough to suggest their place in the overall market. It's clearly not the case that smaller games can't make a profit, as others have pointed out of games like Torchlight and most of Popcap's lineup.

I think the market is still evolving, and fast. More and more games are being sold online, helping to break down the stiff requirements for entry into the market, especially on consoles. It's absolutely the case that a "single-A" game is going to have trouble getting noticed in the wake of the marketing blitz of a Mass Effect 2 or a Modern Warfare; indeed, they may have difficulty even finding shelf space. But we're increasingly moving to a world where brick-and-mortar shelf space is not the end-all-be-all of the games market.

 

[Tanzka]

Yeah, because Minecraft (for one) is clearly doing so horribly at the moment.

 

[oranger]

I STILL think some of these companies are fudging their numbers. COD was doing GREAT and then suddenly it fell off a cliff. I don't know any serious halo players, at all, and I talk to a lot of people.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

"something new with huge quality production behind it."

This I agree with, especially the 'quality production' bit. However the proof is in the pudding, and imo an inventive smaller game beats out a big ticket game which lacks the actual quality. Too often it seems corporations are riding on titles rather than actual games.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

You guys can't compare large companies with indie developers... Just stop tormenting the thread with such bulls***.

Popcap suggests that neither you, nor Ubisoft, knows what the hell you're talking about.

This. Popcap is a HUGE JUGGERNAUGHT, and makes strictly casual. See also Zinga and it's facebook games.

 

[Mordwyl]

Bullshit. It's the terminal cycle that set the superficial standards high which led him to think this way. His logic backfires on the very principle a company's growth is stumped if it does NOT take risks in innovation:

There was the N-Gage and there was the DS.
There was the Dreamcast and there was the Playstation.

The AAA industry is alluring but unfortunately is at the peak on the growth scale. If it goes on with these speeches there's nowhere to go but down. Look at Final Fantasy.

 

[Blue_vision]

It's kind of a positive feedback loop. Developers decide that the only way to make money is through "triple A" games. Money, talent and hype get taken away from games lower down on the food chain and into the bigger ones. In general money is made by those big developers, but more importantly, resources are taken away from smaller developers.

And just because a game makes money doesn't mean it's necessarily good or worth being in the market. Triple A is certainly where all the money is, but a lot of really interesting games are from smaller developers. It'd be really nice if game developers weren't focused on making money but instead producing great works. With Ubisoft being one of those big companies that still seems to actually have a soul, it's worrying to see them saying that money is the biggest factor in game making.