Brink dev: 1% of games shouldn't make 99% of the profit

"Brink developer Splash Damage has criticized the near-monopoly that certain games have on the market, lamenting the state of affairs that sees a small fraction of titles rake in the majority of the money. According to the studio, this hampers innovation."

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Christopher3020d ago

99% of devs should make games that their customers want to spend more money on, then.

iamnsuperman3020d ago (Edited 3020d ago )

Agree but the statement is true but this developed is just mad. The game they created wasn't really that good.

It is bad for 1% of games to make 99% of the profits if it does hinder innovation but that is what the majority of people want and that is why they buy it

sdtarm3020d ago

maybe 99% of developers should not deliver a broken game?

Dark_king3020d ago

@sdtarm yea because people don't buy broken games thats why COD games don't sell.

Jack-H3020d ago

Dang it, you all beat me to it. I kind of agree with him... But this game is just not fun imo.

HolyOrangeCows3020d ago

Brink being sub-standard aside, this definitely is unfortunate. Broken games like those in the COD franchise can manage to make half of the profits made in the industry while great games struggle to hit a million.

BeOneWithTheGun3020d ago

Well there is an upside. Take Demon's Souls for example. Game was a sleeper hit, yet, by making a great game the sequel should sell well. Also, it moved to both platforms. This is why I will always spend money and purchase a game like this where I will always rent/gamefly COD and the likes.

badz1493020d ago

If your intention is solely profit, innovation is not the way to go in this day and age. It's all about marketing and who ever spend more, will get more! There's a reason for EA to allocate $100mil for marketing BF3, CoD costs a couple times more expensive to market than to make, $500mil for marketing Kinect and so on! Still don't get it?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3020d ago
news4geeks3020d ago (Edited 3020d ago )

It's not as simple as that. You could release an incredible game and get average sales or alternatively you could release an average game and get amazing sales. Some things just fortunate to release at the right time and become popular.

I don't hate the likes of Bobby Kotick, I respect his intelligence and his ability to manipulate and convince the consumers into thinking they know what they want. It's the consumers I hate who buy into what's popular like with any form of entertainment. I have no sympathy for the human frailties of gaining acceptance through being a part of popularity.

edit @ cgoodno - you are probably right in terms of the statement in regards to Brink, but I was talking more generally. For whatever reason classics can be overlooked or sometimes don't get the sales they deserve.

Christopher3020d ago

***It's not as simple as that. ***

Most of the time, it is.

Putting aside the hyperbolic element of the statement, the first thing you do to improve profits is to make a game that people will want to play. This includes visual elements, gameplay (both single and multiplayer), and not having bugs/issues.

Sure, there are "niche" games and there are games that people just seem to always buy up the most, but don't complain that they're selling better than you when you haven't worked to even chip away at their foothold by making a game that people want in the first place.

Look at BC3, those people are working to chip away at the CoD franchise, even forcing comparisons through their statements. Brink? Where's the advertisement? Where's the bug-free gameplay? Where's the worthwhile single player gameplay?

evrfighter3020d ago

you lost me at bc3

I honestly believe CoD's rise to power was DICE's fault. There's an entire reasoning behind it that I don't feel like writing.

gamingdroid3020d ago (Edited 3020d ago )

Well said!

Sure CoD is re-hashed every year, but how many other games do you find that is as good as CoD? There is only a handful in the same genre and they have all done well.

Some say popularity isn't a measure of quality. I say, there is correlation. Look at a game like Red Dead Redemption. It is a western game! Seriously? How the f*** does a game about cowboys sell these days?

Got stellar reviews, gamers are screaming quality and the game sold like hotcakes.

It might just be may taste for games are mainstream, but it appears most games that do sell well deserve it while the vast majority that don't seem to deserve it as well!

So maybe the other 99% would make games we all would like to pay and play!

radphil3020d ago (Edited 3020d ago )


All i got to say, was gaming was better in the 90s than it is now. It's all about "Got to have MP", "Got to have flashy effects", "Got to have high CGI Marketing"

"Sure, there are "niche" games and there are games that people just seem to always buy up the most, but don't complain that they're selling better than you when you haven't worked to even chip away at their foothold by making a game that people want in the first place. "

I can contest this. Gaming today has honestly become just a social aspect now a days. When you get the average joe on the street and ask them what they play: "Madden, CoD, etc". The generic-gaming response.

Then when you ask them why they play it, I can guarantee you that one of the top reasons is "because my friends do".

gamingdroid3020d ago

Social? Yes!

However, I betcha they wouldn't stick with it too long if they didn't have fun!!!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3020d ago
stealth500k3020d ago (Edited 3020d ago )

what so you just want all shooters? No other genres? You want there to be continued no innovation and risk on consoles?

The majority of developers are saying the exact same thing

I love it how gamers pretend they know business

3020d ago
king dong3020d ago


i think brink is very good also. the team work and coordination needed makes this game.

just need a patch for the lag, and to up the power slightly on the guns

Theo11303020d ago

by that logic, all devs should make COD like games.

Jacks_Medulla3020d ago

No, by that logic, all developers should make games that are polished to hell like COD. Brink is a mess and is lacking in content; therefore it isn't worth sixty dollars.
I'm not a fan of COD, but it is hard to argue when a person will get a highly polished five to six hour single player campaign, a theoretical endless amount of multiplayer, and a cooperative zombie mode for sixty dollars.

Ducky3020d ago

"that are polished to hell like COD."

"but it is hard to argue when a person will get a highly polished five to six hour single player campaign"


It is hard to argue that CoD is highly polished.
I couldn't even play the game properly on PC for the first few weeks.

badz1493020d ago

Polished to hell like CoD? And you think CoD worth $60 but Brink isn't? lol, somebody is blind!

IGAMEHARD3020d ago (Edited 3020d ago )

devs, heres a simple rule in making a game... either follow infinity wards style... or follow R:FoM style (not R2)

Nuclearwinter3020d ago

only if they used the cod-cod2 IW style, or more importantly the pre-activision style. Other than that there needs to be more CS or CSS styled games where the devs give the players everything they need to let the game last. Dedicated servers, mods support, SDK, etc. Notice how CS1.6 and CSS both have almost double the amount of players of COD. Its because those games let people play how they want to play. They have found other ways to enjoy it that the devs didn't think about.

RedDead3020d ago

It's unfortunate for them but this is the way it works, however if Brink was cheaper I would buy it, I can't justify full price for an Average game. Would be nice if devs tried something like this for a change.

A7XEric3020d ago

Half the games that succeed are just well-marketed. It has nothing to do with what customers want to spend money on, it's what game has the biggest marketing budget to PERSUADE people to buy their game. It's all psychology.

By your pop-culture tool logic it sounds like their should be no innovation and that no developer should try to make the next big thing consumer's will want. They should all just follow in the footsteps of what's currently out there.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3020d ago
Bear_Grylls3020d ago

Random gamer says. (me)

"Don't tell me how to spend my money, your game sucks and I am not going to waste my cash on it no matter how much you try and bring COD into your argument to get hits.

Regardless of weather or not COD deserves the sale/profit it made is not the point and in no way effects the success of you game.

Your game was not well developed, didn't get good reviews and won't sell well. This is no other developers fault than your own, knocking the successful developers is just in poor taste"

Crappy article, after all it is destructiod.


InTheKnow3020d ago (Edited 3020d ago )

I would say first and foremost don't show high end PC game play and try to pass it off as console game play. The same would go to devs who make a CGI or pre-rendered movies and try to act like the game will look like that.

Second and maybe more importantly, when you release a game, make sure it works the way it's suppose to.

Brink had a great concept but was followed by what appears to be poor execution. Sony and PSN being down didn't help as well.

Games cost a lot and people want value for their money. If one or 2 games are attracting all the attention it's because it's delivering on what it promised and people/gamers like it. Developers should look at what is making a game successful and try to incorporate that into their game instead of complaining about it.

mrv3213020d ago

mrv321 brink dev shouldn't charge $60 for a $40 game or even a top range XBL game.

DelbertGrady3020d ago

Then do something about it.

Show all comments (47)
The story is too old to be commented.