Smurfs' Village "driving force" in Capcom financial results

Mobile and social game shines, total revenue and net profit slump

Capcom cited its mobile and social network game The Smurfs' Village as "the driving force" in its financial results

For the 6 months ending September 30, the company's Mobile Content division showed by far the most impressive growth, with revenue climbing 89 per cent to ¥2.58 billion, and operating income increasing 201 per cent to ¥903 million.

The performance of the company as a whole was less impressive: revenue fell by 28.1 per cent year-on-year from ¥40.7 billion to ¥29.2 billion, and Net profit fell by 49.2 per cent from ¥1.78 billion to ¥906 million.

Capcom highlighted Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D for 3DS and Monster Hunter Freedom 3 HD for PlayStation 3 as strong performers for its Consumer Online Games division.

The report also noted that both revenue and operating income for the division had "exceeded the projected figures" despite falling 41.1 per cent and 50.3 per cent respectively.

Capcom attributes the decline in its financial performance to a variety of factors, including slumping stock prices, the accelerated appreciation of the Yen, power shortages in Japan, and the rapid rise of new, accessible platforms like mobile and social networks.

"In order to address changes in the market environment under these circumstances, Capcom promoted efficient and agile game development by integrating the development departments for home video game machines, PCs and mobile phones," the report states.

"At the same time, we endeavoured to enhance our online business by making a head start on the development and distribution of social games as a new source of revenue."

More stories

Capcom confirms it was the victim of a ransomware attack

Employee personal information, sales reports, and other financial information was compromised

By Rebekah Valentine

Capcom's games business rescues six-month results

Total revenue and profits increased despite the impact of COVID-19 on arcades and amusement centres

By Matthew Handrahan

Latest comments (11)

Carl Hudson Studying Computer Science, University of Adelaide9 years ago
Congratulations to Smurf's Village on wining the Shonky Award in Australia
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Meanwhile, its compatriots Nintendo post a 100 billion loss......where is the justice...
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Christopher Bowen Editor in Chief, Gaming Bus9 years ago
I don't like where this is going. The biggest game on mobile now is a "free" game that requires - outright requires - a constant revenue stream to get anywhere, and yet the only company that won't get on the "screw our players" bandwagon is getting its asses kicked.

I can't wait for all these fly-by-night "freemium" developers or CEOs to crow about their bubble-- I mean, business model.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (11)
Fredrik Liljegren Director, System Software, NVIDIA9 years ago
Ho can people still doubt the Freemium business model, one where the USER decides AFTER they have played a game for a bit if they wish to pay or not, versus forking out the money BEFORE you have even played the damn thing. Its time to get with the times people!
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrew Clayton QA Weapons Tester, Electronic Arts9 years ago
@Fredrik: I'm not sure which is worse, gambling $60 up front on a game (reviews hardly make it a gamble these days) or spending $100+ on "premium" content that supposedly free games don't require. I say supposedly because the only real way to play most fremium games effectively is to buy the armor, weapons, etc. so that you don't die every two seconds.

Want proof? Try Dragon Age: Legends without paying anything. There are far too many fremium games that play just like that.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Fredrik Liljegren Director, System Software, NVIDIA9 years ago
Andrew: But then its your choice right? The user base decides, if Dragon Age: Legends didn't make any money they would change the business model, if they are making good money they have obviously found a user base that is willing to pay $100+ to play it and enjoy it, i see nothing wrong with that since no one is forcing anyone to part with their cash until you decided you wish to do so to continue the experience. I have nothing against boxed product, it has its merits as well, but i do not like people saying a business model is bad because 'they' don't want to pay into it.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Dustin Sparks Interactive Developer / Gaming Blogger 9 years ago
From the perspective of a recovered F2P game addict, these games that essentially require micro purchases to compete are a lifesaver. I can play them to a certain point and when I get fed up with not being able to compete, I quit and move on to something else for a while. I never have tolerated paying myself, but as a game dev I sure respect those that do.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Julian Cram Project and QA Manager, EspireVR9 years ago
@Fredrik because, as Australia's Choice Magazine (first reply to this topic) quite rightly points out, "Freemium" is a massive scam.

All these games should be banned.

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Julian Cram Project and QA Manager, EspireVR9 years ago
Gah! I can't edit my comment...

Banned is not the right word. I think the inapp purchasing should be more strictly controlled.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrew Goodchild Studying development, Train2Game9 years ago
It's not the business model I doubt, rather than at least in some implimentations, such as this one, the artistic validity and ethical integrity. Smurf Village's business model, make a MT driven game aimed at pre teens who don't really understand what money is worth and get them addicted to clicking away their parents money seems to be a good (as in successful, rather than good as in positive) one. Giving kids some free herion then teaching them how to take money to pay for more could also be very financially successful, I'd rather not see that either.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
From the gamers POV - surely a game whereby the odds are not stupidly stacked against you, (is a indecent method of gameplay devoid from conventional western norms) thus leading to frustration (and the purchase of in game equipment) and a feeling of an incomplete game and not truly free to play (more like free to browse and then pay through the nose to ensure it is a normal level playing field)

Whereas, a normal game, already accounts for this and utilizes ingame currency.

Surely, something that straddles inbetween the two, would be a fairer (but not as lucrative) gaming model for all
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.