Ubisoft Europe MD Alain Corre: "The games that are not triple-A are not profitable anymore."
That's hard for me to hear. It seems that it's safer for the publisher to put their money into AAA titles rather than test the waters on smaller projects.
"When you have a triple-A blockbuster it costs more money to develop, but at the end of the day there’s also the chance of a good return on it because there’s a concentration at the top of the charts. To a certain extent it becomes less risky to invest more in a single game or franchise than spreading your investment between three or four games. Because if those three or four games are not at the right quality level, you are sure to lose money," said Corre in an interview with GamesIndustry.
He goes on to say that with hardcore games, they'll stop work on them if they're not sure they're reaching the right level. Their whole business model has changed because of this shift, which Corre says has changed in the last 18 months. And then this shot to my chest: "The market is not supporting the full range of product that it used to anymore."
As a gamer who finds himself enjoying the rare new experience more than the seasoned franchise, I hope this trend does not continue. As much as I love big blockbuster games, I don't think our industry will continue to be healthy if we're just focusing on these titles.
Dale North is Destructoid's Editor-In-Chief, a founding editor, and specialist in Japanese gaming. An accomplished musician, Dale was reporting from Japan during the earthquakes of 2011. Luckily, he got the fuck out alive and is home in America now with his wife and beloved corgi, Einstein. Dale is also a co-founder of Destructoid's sister anime site
Japanator. Likes Corgis, Sega Saturn, PSP, iPhone, Photographic tools.
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
72 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
2:20 PM on 08.31.2010
| 
1. Making a good non-AAA game.
2. Marketed the damn thing well enough.
They need to stop trying to force everybody on earth to like games and focus on the people who are actually trying to spend money on shit.
Also, little companies like Treasure still get by. I understand damn good niche games couldn't support a bigger company, though.
I don't think this means that they'll stop publishing games like Scott Pilgrim vs the World... but maybe games like Avatar: the Game, or Lost: the game, or Call of Juarez, or Driver - maybe those games won't get made/published anymore. Honestly I don't think that it will be a big loss.
The Imagination games series... I can only hope that they might be classed in with games they won't make - but I suspect they must be profitable as there are so many of them! Never played one and never will though.
Speak truth. You need to start utilizing the entire spectrum of pricing. And no that doesn't mean $70 shitty special editions. It means $40 dollars for obviously B games.
It's like you either have to develop a huge AAA title or a cheap downloadable game and there's not in-between. But I think perhaps that's an opportunity for publishers to release mid tier games. Games that release in the 29.99-39.99 range. $60 is a lot of money and gamers are less likely to take a chance on a $60 games as they are on cheaper titles. Not every game is a AAA game and therefore maybe shouldn't be priced as such.
There are other factors too. Including Marketing budgets for well known or titles that are expected to be successful are naturally higher and therefore awareness is higher.
"As much as I love big blockbuster games, I don't think our industry will continue to be healthy if we're just focusing on these titles."
Sure, it doesn't encourage developers to take risks with their game design, or put out a wide library of games, but there's still a good reason to support this: Quality over Quantity. Developers aren't just going to stop taking risks. Risks are profitable, and as long as they remain profitable, you can expect to see unique games. So, in the long run, we're still going to have unique games on the market, and we're going to see overall better games due to more budget and development time... seems like a win/win to me, folks.
I don't see this as bad news at all.
so then you have to stop developing it and make AssAssAssins Creed.
Seems Prince of Persia and a few other recent releases from them haven't sold to expectation and have had to be marked down within a month of release to sell at all. Maybe its because those games weren't that good.
If a game is AAA quality then its going to get profits, and if its shit its not going to get much profits. It doesn't matter how much money you put into the fucking game, because that doesn't determine if its AAA quality or not. There are plenty of games on cheap budgets that have become AAA quality in their own right, just as there are plenty of multi million dollar games that have turned out to be shit.
The least AAA a game can be that's been preaty profitable?
WUT?
Scott Pilgrim is hardy a underdog.
I guess a mass of sheep is a better consumer base than a handful of dedicated thoughtful buyers.
That'd require creativity in marketing, but I suppose that is beyond you business types...
This whole story is their way of saying they can't afford to cram their DRM system into smaller titles.
Bleh.
Some reviews treated it like it was infecting babies with herpes. I totally agree that a company would hesitate to release it because it will not be judged for what it is.
I think pricing may be an answer.
Should a 30 buck game be judged on the same scale as a 60 buck? Is there a value for money mark?
Look at Limbo, stunning game but would it get the same scores if it was full price?
Insert foot into mouth.
And to the number crunchers, at least for this specific publisher, it's possible that this is exactly the case. Like it or not, there are people who have to think this way, and those people keep these companies afloat.
However, it sucks and I hate to hear it said that way. Particularly because every time someone says this, all the other biz types will repeat it to each other until they've decided it's Scripture, and then there's less incentive to invest in riskier ideas at lower budgets. Which means less chances of seeing things like Rez or Persona appear and evolve.
Which sucks, because that's my favorite stuff, and the less of it there is, the less interesting games will become. And if games aren't interesting, people will lose interest, and stop talking about them, and sales will eventually decline, which is the opposite of what they wanted in the first place. But nobody wants to be the scapegoat, or have their own project lose money or tank.