I don't get that quote, what does he mean by outlets? Did he meet with the gaming press? That is the only folks I expect to write previews.

Nm, I pasted the wrong bit.

The 'outlets' were PR outlets- IGN, PC Gamer type stuff. I have read the interview that quote came from so I know the gist of the point though, basically that getting physical publishers in NA is a terribly difficult proposition for anything which isn't a Large and Important Project (in which case it likely already has a large publisher behind it).

 

Really though, getting a late, cheap, poorly publicised and (apparently) still DD only release from a 3rd party publisher seems like a failure of fairly epic proportions. Which is rather sad both because at least an earlier relase could possibly have saved Radon Labs and because Drakensang had a lot of potential with TRoT apparently being significantly better than the original.

Edited January 8, 201115 yr by Zoraptor

This one is really funny.

I wonder if this will lead to a Streisand effect for the mod haha.

Where does my money go?

just as I thought, an average game costs less then 10% of what is asked for it to develop. I'd rather pay the developers directly and download games from them

gah, double post

 

here's a nice pic instead:

Edited January 10, 201115 yr by sorophx

Where does my money go?

Interesting read, but apparently a bit difficult to understand for some.

It's a little misleading because they aren't including the amount that the publisher gives the developer to develop the actual game (they concede this point actually).

let's try one more time, my internet is giving me grief today...

 

It's a little misleading because they aren't including the amount that the publisher gives the developer to develop the actual game (they concede this point actually).

 

whadda ya mean? they say the developers gets advances for each milestone, that's the 10% of the box's cost, deducted.

The article doesnt' state how the advances are calculated (and they vary by the contract). I don't think the 10% figure is ever connected to that, either.

 

What it does make clear is how the numbers break down on the publishing/distribution/marketing side of things, and once again stress how Metacritic has become, simply by the virtue of crunching a few numbers, become such an important tool in this entire cycle of funding and evaluation. Everyone knows it's broken in so many ways (even "casual" gamers with no knowledge of the industry often know not to blindly trust reviews), but it's the easiest and the only viable model to base the money flow on.

the metacritic part just blew me away, really. I could never have imagined

Soon EA will own your soul: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/09/riccitie...ertakes-retail/

 

"You think about that and say, 'how can a free game be the game they pay the most for?' We have people who are giving us $5,000 in a month to play FIFA Ultimate Team. And it's free. Dirty little secret."

pathetic

let's try one more time, my internet is giving me grief today...

 

It's a little misleading because they aren't including the amount that the publisher gives the developer to develop the actual game (they concede this point actually).

 

whadda ya mean? they say the developers gets advances for each milestone, that's the 10% of the box's cost, deducted.

 

The article frequently refers to the developers "getting nothing" if they don't sell enough to recoup the costs of the game. The 10% that they refer to looks to be based upon the royalties from profits of the game. The devs still get paid during the development of the game, even if the game ends up tanking. No one is going to work like that for free.

 

Another example (emphasis mine):

 

"If a game is created in-house, the publisher need not pay a developer at all

Soon EA will own your soul: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/09/riccitie...ertakes-retail/

 

"You think about that and say, 'how can a free game be the game they pay the most for?' We have people who are giving us $5,000 in a month to play FIFA Ultimate Team. And it's free. Dirty little secret."

pathetic

 

I like that he used Turbine as his success story. LotRO is awesome, and the microtransaction system they put into place works better than I ever imagined. I was pretty skeptical about it at first, but it is great, attracts new players, and doesn't feel out of place or like I'm being nickel and dimed to death.

Soon EA will own your soul: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/09/riccitie...ertakes-retail/

 

"You think about that and say, 'how can a free game be the game they pay the most for?' We have people who are giving us $5,000 in a month to play FIFA Ultimate Team. And it's free. Dirty little secret."

pathetic

 

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "pathetic." I've been a digital purchaser of games for a loooong time now, and advocate using services like Steam, GamersGate, and Impulse for quite some time now.

I meant people paying $5000 a month for a game. Obviously they're addicts being exploited by EA.

The article frequently refers to the developers "getting nothing" if they don't sell enough to recoup the costs of the game.

 

Another example

 

If a game is created in-house, the publisher need not pay a developer at all[/b]

The way I understood it, and based on the language used throughout the article, they are not counting the money contracted out to developers. Only the royalties.

 

There's no other way the developers could get "nothing," which the article outright states is possible throughout.

they can't be getting literally nothing. Josh said that the only time he ever received a royalty check was for Icewind Dale, his very first game I believe. they are contractors, they are paid by the publisher to make the game.

 

I believe in the article the author's point is, the developers should be getting a lot more then they are currently, since they are the ones that do all the heavy lifting.

they can't be getting literally nothing.

 

I know that. Yet the article states this can happen. In other words, they are talking about royalties off of profits of the game, since we can both agree no one is going to work for free.

 

Hence why I said it was a little misleading.

Edited January 10, 201115 yr by Thorton_AP

Since Company of Heroes online came out I've spent about UK

sorophyx the developers get advances and then a % royalty cut based on their specific contract. The article mentions that the latter is often dependent upon metacritic scores & copies sold, but says nothing about how the advances are determined. There is no 10% figure. It would vary a lot, anyway.

 

What the article IS saying is that in some cases (i.e. when a game doesn't sell too well), zero of the actual sales revenue might make it to the devs (even if they were paid beforehand). I'd imagine that that was what happened to Alpha Protocol, for instance, while for FNV Obsidian would have got a generous bonus from Zenimax (unless they shafted themselves on the contract).

Since Company of Heroes online came out I've spent about UK