The idea is to make a lot of money, so if it makes just a little money, well, that's not enough to be deemed "profitable".
In our humble eyes, it probably would be, but you know these suits, they want enough to be able to have their cake AND eat it too.
Incidentally, 4% seems awfully low for an industry where so many sequels tend to get released. You know, Sims, Need for Speed, Neverwinter Nights, all the CSI games, Command and Conquer, all of the Blizzard and EASports sequels, GTA, Fallout, Tomb Raider, Far Cry, Call of Duty... etc... etc... etc...
If only 4% of games returned a significant profit, we wouldn't have nearly so many sequels.
Except we don't know how profitable they are exactly. The armchair economists/market researches/developers that people here act like automatically jump on a completely unfounded assumption based on their dislike of corporations. A game that breaks even plus one dollar I would not consider profitable and if included, would make the number even more meaningless. Of course by definition it would be, but the purpose isn't to be a scientific study, it's to be of value to the purchaser of the info.
Plus, the measurement takes into account games gone into production, not games released. I would expect games the percentage of games released to be higher than games in production, but we don't know how many games go into production and are canned, especially at big studios like EA or Ubi, where it is treated more like an industry of producers than some new art form.
If anything, a low percentage of profit seems like reason for more sequels. Stick with what's worked in the past.This comment was edited on Nov 24, 2008, 21:19.