It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Russ Pitts (formerly of the Escapist) is kicking off what seems to be an ambitious five-part series covering the current state of AAA game development. I'm still going through it myself but I found this interesting:

Industry sales data posted last month by Variety points to modest gains in the last fiscal year by all three of the major third-party publishers, Activision, EA and Ubisoft. Although in each case the gains were posted largely in the fourth quarter, bolstered by online sales and non-AAA revenue.

Ubisoft is the winner of the door prize, posting $48 million in profits versus a $67 million loss the previous year. Virtually all of that growth, however, came from its virtual game sales, which rose 111%, and games for the Wii, which comprise a third of their total revenue.

Also worth noting is that $48 million is the profit off of total revenues of $1.4 billion. That's a 3% profit margin, for those keeping score at home. Which is not great.

EA did slightly better for the year, posting total fiscal year profits of $76 million, versus a $276 million loss last year. But before we get all happy weepy over the turnaround, let's consider that $56 million of that profit came in the fourth quarter, and that EA’s money-maker for that period was Mass Effect 3. That game's budget has been estimated at around $40 million, and it has sold over 3.5 million copies to date.
A 3% Profit Margin? Hmm.
avatar
rampancy: A 3% Profit Margin? Hmm.
And people wonder why triple-As don't innovate. That's not business, that's a roulette.
You could say that that the diference between AAA game development cost vs revenue is almost not worth it. No wonder that most everyone is desperate to sell DLC.

Its going to be interesting to see what will happen to big productions as the dev costs continue to rise in the coming years.
One of the problems is that they haven't expanded their market and the pond they're fishing in is full of hungry sharks now.
Hate to say it for the buisiness in general but it isn't getting better soon the way things go now.
avatar
Menelkir: You could say that that the diference between AAA game development cost vs revenue is almost not worth it. No wonder that most everyone is desperate to sell DLC.

Its going to be interesting to see what will happen to big productions as the dev costs continue to rise in the coming years.
Dev cost is really not the problem, it can be at an acceptable level. Much more is spent in areas that don't have much to do with the game itself.

One thing that I personally don't get is why hire top Hollywood actors for something any capable actor can do?
For instance what did Sean Bean and Patrick Stewart add to Oblivion?
I don't like the moniker of "AAA gaming." I feel the designation is far too positive. Let's call a potato a potato, and rename it to "big-budget gaming."

Profit margins like that in any other business sector would sink you, even in large-budget Hollywood productions. No wonder these companies are trying to nickel and dime everyone with DLC. They would be toast without it.
Post edited July 02, 2012 by EC-
avatar
DodoGeo: For instance what did Sean Bean and Patrick Stewart add to Oblivion?
Absolutely nothing. The characters could have been casted by some unknown person who can talk good in English, and it still wouldn't have made a single difference for the customers.

On the other hand, they would not have needed to throw millions of coins away just for them.
I don't feel like that report tells much. 3% profit margin means little out of context. First of all, we aren't talking 3% of the price of a sandwich. 3% of a BILLION isn't something to sneeze at.

But, most importantly, I completely disagree that the AAA games industry is in jeopardy because 3 companies didn't do well with their opportunities.

we are all fans of the genre... unless someone keeps the books for these companies and has an account on GOG, we have no insight into WHY the profits are what they are. I have my own speculations, but they are just that... speculations.

We are seeing kickstarter projects launch for 500k... which is interesting both for the amount of profit that 3% really is AND in terms of how fans are ready to throw money at what they really want. I'm bolding this last part because even though its speculation... I'm going to claim that when companies don't give the consumer what they really want, they don't get to cry foul when their profit margins aren't where they wish they were. Fans wanted Gabriel Knight 4... companies said "no"... Jane started her own company... fans said "yes". 500k came in two weeks from fans who wanted what the companies with small profit margins refused to give.

(I'm sure we could also mix in some bad business decisions into why the profits are so low). My bottom line is... All I see from that report is that some organizations don't how to run their companies.
Depends on the industry. Alot of industries have around 3% profit margin, I know my fathers does.

However that is a huge swing. $276 loss, to $ 76 profit? Normally industries with low profit margins are ones where it is a reliable product, steady demand and little innovation. Video games, like films and other artistic entertainment, swing depending on each products merits.

Its also a massive shame on EA for only spending $40 mil on ME3 when anyone with half a brain knew that game would pay for itself several times over. If it had been done well on release, the sales would have been better. Instead it got panned by users and warned off anyone who was interested in joining the series late.
avatar
Menelkir: You could say that that the diference between AAA game development cost vs revenue is almost not worth it. No wonder that most everyone is desperate to sell DLC.

Its going to be interesting to see what will happen to big productions as the dev costs continue to rise in the coming years.
avatar
DodoGeo: Dev cost is really not the problem, it can be at an acceptable level. Much more is spent in areas that don't have much to do with the game itself.

One thing that I personally don't get is why hire top Hollywood actors for something any capable actor can do?
For instance what did Sean Bean and Patrick Stewart add to Oblivion?
They added nothing. Patrick stewart was the best voice actor in Oblivion, but it was so short it was basically a cameo.


There is also a problem with marketing. Mass Effect 2 and especially 3 wasted huge amounts of money on marketing. Twice the development budget. Surely something is wrong there?

Marketing is good, yes. Especially with new franchises. However ME2 and 3 should have been titles that had fans lining up, and if the title was good then fans would have got the game sold by shouting about it. Dragon Ages Origins went this way - good sales for a long time after release since fans kept shouting about it.
Post edited July 02, 2012 by Apathy1989
avatar
DodoGeo: For instance what did Sean Bean and Patrick Stewart add to Oblivion?
Publicity. Dozens and dozens of articles in every video game blog, web, and forum mentioning the news that "Picard/Boromir will be in Oblivion", which increases the exposure of the game and the awareness among the public.