Why direct-download game distribution > publishers

[alanschu]

And this is something I am not even sure will happen. High quality games (quality in this case means production values) still costs millions to make and those millions will have to come from somewhere. DD is great for indie developers, because they get a way to distribute their games cheaply and efficiently, but a company trying to make a game like NWN2 will still have to rely on publisher funding.

 

You still have greater freedom though. The venture becomes less risky, and results in a larger variety of possible sources of funding. Assuming the game is expensive enough to require funding.

[Atreides]

How's the venture become less risky for the investor?

Edited May 24, 2006 by Atreides

[metadigital]

Firstly, because the investor IS the creative director. They are spending their own money.

 

[Atreides]

Assuming the game designers can front a few million, there's still nothing making the project less risky.

[themadhatter114]

I don't see how it's at all less risky. Even if you replace publisher funds, you still need to replace the other functions of the publisher.

 

You don't have the name recognition that a publisher provides. What are consumers going to feel is more recognizable, "Laid Back Games' SPACE GAME!" or "Atari presents SPACE GAME developed by Laid Back Games"? Not to mention the marketing that they need to produce because they can no longer rely on the publisher for this. Or the fact that an independent investor probably knows even less about gaming than a typical game publisher, and would probably want more in return for the investment and perhaps place even tighter restrictions on it because he doesn't understand the process.

[Hassat Hunter]

There was a dev (game: Savage, dev name: S2 games) who, despite Savage being a relatively unknown title made the statement that they made more profit from DD than retail sales. While the sell of Savage was 20% DD and 80% Retail.

 

I see why it should be more profitable for devs; but I repeat once again... If they continue to drop stuff at us for the same (or higher) price and do **** like making HL2 mods like "the Ship" and "Gary's Mod" content for which you have to pay for (or worse, Bethesda's downlaods) while it was free during Retail-intensive times I am going to stay shopping at the shops. Bad luck for you guys; but then you really should give a part of the profit to us, instead of becoming more greedy than the avarage producer...

[alanschu]

How's the venture become less risky for the investor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's less risky because you don't need to sell as many copies in order to see a return on your investment.

 

Even with an outside investor.

 

A game doesn't need to be a smash hit AAA title to make profit. Yes, you will get some developers/publishers that will only be interested in going for games that they think will sell the most, but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

 

 

EDIT:

If they continue to drop stuff at us for the same (or higher) price and do **** like making HL2 mods like "the Ship" and "Gary's Mod" content for which you have to pay for (or worse, Bethesda's downlaods)

 

BW, where did you hear you have to buy Garry's mod? Steam tells me it's third party, and when I go to his website, it has download links right there.

 

As for "the Ship," was it ever actually released as a mod (for Half-Life)? If so, what's to stop you from still playing the mod? Just like how I don't need to pay to play CS:S with my retail copy of Half-Life 2 (nor did I have have to pay to play the original CS, even after it went retail, with Half-Life).

Edited May 27, 2006 by alanschu

[Hassat Hunter]

BW, where did you hear you have to buy Garry's mod?  Steam tells me it's third party, and when I go to his website, it has download links right there.

 

9.04 is free, 9.1 and onwards cost $10,- (one payment for all patches after that... for now... )

[alanschu]

So what's stopping you from still using 9.04?

 

Furthermore, why is it bad that Garry feels his product is capable of making him some money now?

 

Besides, if it's a big deal and people don't actually want to pay it, they will continue to use 9.04 and we'll go from there.

 

 

Don't buy in too hard to the slippery slope fallacy.

Edited May 27, 2006 by alanschu

[Atreides]

How's the venture become less risky for the investor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's less risky because you don't need to sell as many copies in order to see a return on your investment.

 

Even with an outside investor.

 

A game doesn't need to be a smash hit AAA title to make profit. Yes, you will get some developers/publishers that will only be interested in going for games that they think will sell the most, but it doesn't have to be that way.

That sounds more like a difference in funding source issue. The problem with the publishers seemed like they were breaking the developer's balls over cuts. The arrangement you're suggesting sounds like the company's borrowing money and promissing to repay them at the end.

 

Different funding sources and cuts, but you've yet to convince me it's less risky.

[alanschu]

Okay. If a game via retail needs 1 million sales to turn a profit, but a game at direct download only need 100,000 sales, it's less risky (assuming equal exposure yadda yadda. This isn't the case at the moment because DD is still in its infancy).

 

It has nothing to do with different sources of funding (when I said outside investor, I was talking about the publisher).

 

A game like Torment won't be funded because Torment didn't have very good ROI (though it did eventually turn a profit). This is because it didn't sell enough. But if it didn't need to sell as well to make a profit, then it could become more viable.

 

Let's say they make $5 off of every retail sale, and $50 off of every DD sale (I'm picking these numbers arbitrarily, since they are easy to work with my example up above).

 

In both cases, the 1 million sales in retail and the 100k sales in DD have generated the same amount of income ($5 million). Now, let's say sales for the DD game are better than expected, and they sell 150k. In order for the retail game to match this ROI, they'd have to increase their sales by 500k.

 

Now, you will still get some investors (aka the publishers) choosing to only fund game types that expect to get 1 million in sales. But, under the current retail model, you will not get funding to make a game (of similar budget naturally) that is only expected to sell 100k units.

 

If the game costs $4 million to make, in both cases the publisher/developer have generated $1 million in profit. But there's no way a project that would only sell 100k units retail would be approved with a $4 million budget, since at best you'd make 500k in revenue, and lose $3.5 million. Business decisions like that put people out of business.

 

That sounds more like a difference in funding source issue. The problem with the publishers seemed like they were breaking the developer's balls over cuts.

 

What?

 

The arrangement you're suggesting sounds like the company's borrowing money and promissing to repay them at the end.

 

Not at all. In fact, the arrangement I was suggesting still adhered to the developer/publisher paradigm, just with the retail middlemen eliminated.

Edited May 27, 2006 by alanschu

[Hassat Hunter]

Besides, if it's a big deal and people don't actually want to pay it, they will continue to use 9.04 and we'll go from there.

 

Sure. But as I mentioned loads and loads of time before I don't go to DD if it seems like it goes now; which means higher pricing and milking of previously free material...

[alanschu]

Don't blame Garry for wanting to make money off of his mod.

 

You're not entitled to free material. If Garry didn't want to charge for it, he wouldn't have to. It's not like Valve has forced him to do anything about it.

 

Not sure how you can "milk free material" when the person that makes the free material is the one that has decided to put a price tag on it.

[Hassat Hunter]

Don't blame Garry for wanting to make money off of his mod.

 

Know what the word MOD means? Mods are supposed to be free. Hell, before you couldn't even sell them cause that would break a contract with the makers of the game (and thus modtools)...

 

Not sure how you can "milk free material" when the person that makes the free material is the one that has decided to put a price tag on it.

 

Because it is no longer free?

[alanschu]

Hahahahahaahahaha.

 

Wow, what an argument.

 

Know what the word MOD means?

 

It's short for MODification.

 

Mods are supposed to be free.

 

Based on what?

 

Hell, before you couldn't even sell them cause that would break a contract with the makers of the game (and thus modtools)...

 

You still can't without approval from the makers of the game.

 

Because it is no longer free?

 

So Garry is "milking" his own hard work? Classic!

Milking of "previously free material?" Hahahaha.

 

Guess what, Garry's mod 9.04 is still free. And according to Garry, it always will be free.

 

There's no guarantee that Garry's mod would have even seen past 9.04 if he hadn't decided to sell it for $10. And since he's not charging for the older stuff, the "previously free material" is still free.

 

Also, this will result in an increase in free mods as well. The way Valve handled Counterstrike had mod makers everywhere drooling that, if they could make a high quality professional mod, they could make money too. So you'll get more people making mods because there's a greater chance that they could possibly get monetary reward out of it. Heck, it's the same thing as if they decided to stop making the mod.

 

Finally, the fact that this is becoming more and more possible is a hit in favour of digital distribution as a distribution process.

 

This certainly clears up a lot though. Now you just sound like you're bitter because you wanted to play a free mod, and now that you're not willing (for whatever reason) to pay for it, you can't take part in the new updates and whatnot for it. Well guess what, you're never guaranteed you're going to get those updates anyways.

 

I suppose this is why you were pissed at Red Orchestra, since you own UT2K4 and won't be getting any new updates for your version. Too bad you can't complain, because you never paid them for Red Orchestra, and the only "cost" you had to incur was the time to download the thing. It's not too surprising though, given that the mod was entered in a contest where first place won a free license to the Unreal engine!. Not too surprisingly, with that license they eventually went retail with that game. Shocking

 

But hey, you had no problems leeching off another guy's hardwork without any intentions of rewarding him for it. I can understand why you'd be angry . God forbid the guy wouldn't mind making some money off of it.

 

Your just a cheap ass that is pissed off because the only way he can continue to get updates on his previously free (as in no cost to him ever) mod is to pay for it now. Assuming of course that another free version would have ever come out. Never mind the fact that, outside of an expensive time commitment it would take to make the mod in the first place, but all the people that now have requests (demands even) about what should be changed for the essentially free game that they are playing. But hey, why should you care about the stresses they have. You want your next version of the game, and you'll be damned if you have to pay for it.

 

I'm almost expecting you to say something along the lines that the mod makers should thank their fans since they got famous or something goofy like that because of the mod.

[Atreides]

Something still sounds fishy. DD's been touted as a way around the publisher, because the dev only gets a tiny % of it. So if they go DD they get a larger cut, hence less units needed to be sold.

 

So if they still need to get money from someone they'll still need to head to an investor, which brings back the publisher cut issue. Still sounds like the publisher problem.

[Hassat Hunter]

Based on the fact that if you use content of the maker of the game and then sell it yourself the maker is going to Sue your ass off.

 

It's all in the EULA. Fine if you make mods for the game; but for NON-COMMERCIAL REASONS.

 

I have no problems with the Red Orchestra dudes; they won an license and used it to make their game. All fair and nice. But where is the sign this "License purchasing" happened with the ship and Garry's mod. Nowhere. Prob. because it never happened in the first place. Wow, Valve is breaking his own EULA. Maybe time for us to sue them? "

 

Result; There is no sold version cause there is a full stand-alone game now. No. You have to pay for a MOD. Free modification. Hell, if you pay $10,- can you play Garry's without HL2...?

 

If you wan't to make cash DON'T make a freaking mod. Go work for a real company. Make your own game instead of editing anothers...

[alanschu]

Something still sounds fishy. DD's been touted as a way around the publisher, because the dev only gets a tiny % of it. So if they go DD they get a larger cut, hence less units needed to be sold.

 

So if they still need to get money from someone they'll still need to head to an investor, which brings back the publisher cut issue. Still sounds like the publisher problem.

 

You're confusing two issues, both of which are an advantage of DD.

 

From a developer perspective, DD is nice because it requires less capital to self fund a game. This one you seem to have down fine, as it is a way around a publisher (it removes the costs and infrastructure of distributing a game).

 

But if a publisher is still required (and I agree with Spider that publishers aren't just going to disappear), it will be possible for them to fund a game that doesn't need to sell a million copies in order to make a profit. It's not a guarantee that it will be funded, but if a publisher feels that there is no chance of profit, it will not get funded unless they are feeling particularly charitable that day.

[alanschu]

Based on the fact that if you use content of the maker of the game and then sell it yourself the maker is going to Sue your ass off.

 

It's all in the EULA. Fine if you make mods for the game; but for NON-COMMERCIAL REASONS.

 

I have no problems with the Red Orchestra dudes; they won an license and used it to make their game. All fair and nice. But where is the sign this "License purchasing" happened with the ship and Garry's mod. Nowhere. Prob. because it never happened in the first place. Wow, Valve is breaking his own EULA. Maybe time for us to sue them?  "

 

Result; There is no sold version cause there is a full stand-alone game now. No. You have to pay for a MOD. Free modification. Hell, if you pay $10,- can you play Garry's without HL2...?

 

If you wan't to make cash DON'T make a freaking mod. Go work for a real company. Make your own game instead of editing anothers...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What a crock of ****.

 

Garry has Valve's permission to sell his mod. It's essentially become an expansion pack (you know, those things that cost money but aren't stand alone, and require the original game).

 

Valve isn't breaking its own EULA, because it can do whatever the heck wants to do with its own intellectual property since it is the Licensor stated in the EULA. Unless you want to claim that Valve making expansion packs some how violates the EULA they have with themselves.

 

Since you've apparently "read" the license agreement, I figured you would have read this important part of it:

 

This License Agreement may be amended, altered or modified only by an instrument in writing, specifying such amendment, alteration or modification, executed by both you and Licensor.

 

 

 

But I'm sure they didn't bother doing anything like that. I mean, what control does Valve really have over its self-funded, self-made intellectual properity?

Edited May 27, 2006 by alanschu

[Hassat Hunter]

Garry has Valve's permission to sell his mod.  It's essentially become an expansion pack (you know, those things that cost money but aren't stand alone, and require the original game).

 

Supporting my claim DD makes for additional milking. Without DD this would never happened...

And then see most "high profile" games still sale as retailprice on DD and you quickly get the idea it goes the same with DD as with retail now. The big make big titles for max. profit and min. creativity and some independant indie devs get between that trying to make creative games that deliver enough to get some profit and allow them to make another creative game...

Same situation; only more $ for the "high profile devs" and loads of lost jobs; making unemployement rates rise...

Paying for mods... NOT my bright future vision...

[alanschu]

Supporting my claim DD makes for additional milking. Without DD this would never happened

 

You're right, DD provides much more opportunity for people.

 

Without DD though, you'd have zero guarantee that you'd see the next version of a mod anyways.

 

And then see most "high profile" games still sale as retailprice on DD and you quickly get the idea it goes the same with DD as with retail now. The big make big titles for max. profit and min. creativity and some independant indie devs get between that trying to make creative games that deliver enough to get some profit and allow them to make another creative game...

Same situation; only more $ for the "high profile devs" and loads of lost jobs; making unemployement rates rise...

Paying for mods... NOT my bright future vision...

 

All this because some guy that made a high quality mod feels that, with the original license holder, following the terms of the EULA, is able to sell the game.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/fal...es/slippery.asp

 

Just sounds like you're pissed that a game you enjoyed playing for free that won't be getting any more updates unless you pay for it.

 

But please, keep posting. I'm hoping for some more gold like those EULA posts. I love it though. Original author's "milking" their own work. Keep it up!

 

Have a nice day!

Edited May 27, 2006 by alanschu

[Hassat Hunter]

Without DD though, you'd have zero guarantee that you'd see the next version of a mod anyways.

 

Probably the mod is done then; and the creator can either

1) stop modding

2) create new original content

 

Instead of just adding stuff to the already done product just for the sake of cashing in $ (called "milking") and thereby also creating what DD should have made less; Sequel-forming (altough it can hardly be called a sequel; I hope you get what I mean... more of the same instead of new stuff)

 

And just to mention; I don't play HL2 or Gary's Mod. Bad experiences with Steam/HL and DD made up for that...

Edited May 27, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[themadhatter114]

From what I read Garry wasn't going to update it anymore, but then Valve offered him a deal plus gave him access to the entire Source Engine code for free. It seems to me that now he can do more stuff to his mod, and he and Valve can make some money from it, and those who don't want to pay for it should be satisfied to keep the final free release because if not for the arrangement with Valve, that likely would've been the final release, period.

[alanschu]

Without DD though, you'd have zero guarantee that you'd see the next version of a mod anyways.

 

Probably the mod is done then; and the creator can either

1) stop modding

2) create new original content

 

Or god forbid, it's getting time consuming. For people that don't want to pay it's no different than if the mod was just finished.

 

Instead of just adding stuff to the already done product just for the sake of cashing in $ (called "milking") and thereby also creating what DD should have made less; Sequel-forming (altough it can hardly be called a sequel; I hope you get what I mean... more of the same instead of new stuff)

 

It couldn't possibly be that the additional resources allow an author to dedicate more of his time to it.

 

Like I said, for people that don't want to pay, it is exactly the same as if the mod had just been finished. The only way it's NOT the same, is if you're jealous and bitter because you don't want to pay for it and just want it for free. Or you're grasping at straws because you're against DD.

 

 

And just to mention; I don't play HL2 or Gary's Mod. Bad experiences with Steam/HL and DD made up for that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't play Garry's Mod either. Though it's entirely possible to play both Half-Life 2 and Garry's Mod without using Digital Distribution whatsoever. But hey, if you'd like to just ignore all those boxed copies of Half-Life 2 because it's convenient, have at it.

 

 

From what I read Garry wasn't going to update it anymore, but then Valve offered him a deal plus gave him access to the entire Source Engine code for free. It seems to me that now he can do more stuff to his mod, and he and Valve can make some money from it, and those who don't want to pay for it should be satisfied to keep the final free release because if not for the arrangement with Valve, that likely would've been the final release, period.

 

Exactly!

 

But wait...he's just doing it because he wants to milk his creation. Such opportunities such as working with the full Source Engine and whatnot mean nothing to a hobbyist programmer such as himself

 

Edited May 27, 2006 by alanschu

[Hassat Hunter]

Or god forbid, it's getting time consuming.  For people that don't want to pay it's no different than if the mod was just finished.

Indeed. So why milk it out for the $? Bad side-effect of DD. The greed devs like Valve seem to show.

And this is just the begin. How long till more and more mods become payable content? The first step on a awfully consumer-bloodriddled stair is taken...

 

It couldn't possibly be that the additional resources allow an author to dedicate more of his time to it.

Time he could also dedicate making another new fun mod instead of continuing the already walked path... If he didn't want to mod any further... well; it already shows he already lost the magic and probably wouldn't show the same quality if he does need to continue; paid or not...

 

I don't play Garry's Mod either.  Though it's entirely possible to play both Half-Life 2 and Garry's Mod without using Digital Distribution whatsoever.  But hey, if you'd like to just ignore all those boxed copies of Half-Life 2 because it's convenient, have at it.

READ... It helps alot! "

 

But wait...he's just doing it because he wants to milk his creation.  Such opportunities such as working with the full Source Engine and whatnot mean nothing to a hobbyist programmer such as himself

Do you know if it interests him? I don't know. I probably never find out anyway either. All I know is that he wanted to give up and then the $ made him continue. Thus he wanted to end it... and was done with it. Lost motivation. What possibly could he add if he wanted to stop with it? All points aim at a big $-grabbing opportunity he seized with both hands.

But only time will tell if the $10 gives additional bonusses or is just more of the same; only with 1 pixel more there and here...