> There’s no great way to lay people off, and our first concern is to make sure that the people who are leaving have as much support as we can give them during this transition.
I've been through that recently (individually, though: specific skill-set, not right for the stage of development of the game) and recommendations go a very long way. Gaming, especially AAA, is actually a lot like the film industry on the HR point of view, except they don't really admit it: one-to-two-year-long projects, with a release date; little need for the same workers after that; many very specific, creative, expertise; a lot of rule of thumb, best practice to master through apprenticeship; recommendation being the tell-all; producers with far too often a horrible reputation; etc. Having a structure that handles that (union, special temporary worker status) would help facing the reality, which is frequently changing employers. Studios, movies and games alike, like to work with the same people for the next projects if things went well -- but half the time, no re-employment in the film industry is not a bad review, just a different creative direction. I'm not saying Hollywood Unions are the best example (or that French’ high direct subsidies and Status d'intermittent are cheap) but thinking about the differences between the two industry would help.
By comparison, Modern Warfare 3 sold 10m copies on day one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock_Infinite#Sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock_2#Sales
(Keep in mind this is a semantic distinction, and not a value judgement of the game itself.)
To me, "flop" means it failed to meet the rather ambitious expectations, and instead performed only moderately well.
Many of the games produced are fine games, and some even sell well, but may not match the (possibly extremely overoptimistic) financial forecasts. So, "flop" is probably pejorative. It does fit what the business reaction seems to be to some of these games, but that may be a problem originating with something other than the game.
As others have noted, AAA games are hit-based propositions. You pretty much have a few (3-5) titles that make all of the money each year, another 10 or so that hold the line, and everyone else loses. It's the last group that are flops, the second group are the par result. I think we can safely say that Bioshock Infinite was in the second group...
Source: I bought it on Steam for 8€
Valve gets a 30% slice for distribution on Steam.
I do not know what the breakdown of costs are on consoles, but I assume both Sony and MS still get a cut of the sales.
Consider that the bulk of a game's sales will be realized during the first week, and the rapid time to discount, it's no wonder T2 decided to pull the cord on Irrational Games.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/712...
http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-o...
Rough outline of the business plan behind most AAA titles:
1. Assume all 10 of us have a >50% chance at being among the year's top 3 sellers.
2. Scale budget according to assumptions from step 1.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-26-tomb-raider-has...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.839763-Tomb-Ra...
Instead, I read a story of a guy who wants to do something else, and decided that the best way to do that is to fire most of his employees. Quite frankly, I'm surprised this is even legal. Handing over the group seems like a much more sensible plan.
there's nothing stopping these fired employees from banding together and forming their own company.