"Journey Becomes Profitable, ThatGameCompany Starts Receiving Royalties"

[AmishGramish]

Okay, it'll just be easier if I make a bulk response to everyone instead of just responding to each quote:
(For anyone seeing this who doesn't know already, I'm the Community Manager for thatgamecompany.)

@cmeese:
I just want to note that CouchSurfing.org received more money from Benchmark than TGC did.
Anyways, we're self-publishing our next game. We're trying to be completely independent of any publishers, but it doesn't mean that we won't be with a publisher on a specific platform or completely for a future title.
The funding deal was that Benchmark own part of TGC, so they in turn own part of our next title. But, just like Sony, they are funding us to go our own way with development, so they aren't trying to change anything or forcing us to have any partnerships with various companies.

@enditall727:
I can't comment on behalf of what TGC thinks about Sony's approach with the PS4, but personally I like how they are treating Indie Developers. It's more-so of a continuation of what they did with the PS3 (more specifically PSN). I don't know anything about Sony forcing other companies to become more indie-friendly.

@zarx:
Correct, Sony owns flOw, Flower, and Journey. Because of this, we can't port flOw, Flower, or Journey to any non-Sony/PlayStation-branded platforms. We also don't have the bandwidth to do any ports right now, but Sony can have other developers port our games to whichever platforms they'd like. (They did this with flOw PSP and are doing this with Flower Vita.)

@mibuokami:
With Kickstarter, it would be a very hard sell to tell people that the next game will be out between 2 and "we don't know" years. First and foremost, we're focused on making the best emotional experiences we can. This takes a lot of time, experimentation, and money, so we would only be able to show the game and hold the Kickstarter when we would be in the final push of the game.
Also, a strange thing happened after Journey was released (if only it had happened a couple months before the game came out): Venture capitalists started asking us if they could give us money. Keeping the game a secret until it's ready to be revealed is the best option for us, and it's too easy to not go that route.
Finally, clout and prestige is very different than when people are given the option to trust someone with something completely unknown. Yes, it worked for Tim Schafer, but he has a kick-ass, decades-long history of making awesome games.

@HikenNoAce:
First, just because people don't buy enough copies of a game for it to break even it doesn't mean there were problems with the management or development. All that the development of a game that ends up not making money *even after* selling a large number of copies means that, in terms of that game (and not any associated revenues, such as the amount gained by the console holder if it's an exclusive title), it was a bad business decision to create said game. Often times, video game publishers think that more people will buy a specific game than the final number ends up being. It doesn't mean that there was mismanagement, it just means that projections were off and bad business decisions were made.

Second, RCR is an example of one video game. It also had a huge marketing and promotion tie-in with the PS3 and PSVita. It's also a game that due to the style that it's in made it so it wouldn't cost as much money to develop as, say, a 3D homage to PS/N64 games.

Third, I can't give you any specifics other than what you can find on Google, but games on the PC tend to do better in monetary sales than on the PSN. Sometimes they sell better (monetarily) on PSN, but usually the PC that takes the top number. Partly due to things like Steam Sales and the Humble Bundle.