[casual_games] Different Payment Models

[Juan Gril]

I'll step forward, as I wrote the presentation that you are
mentioning. The data is taken from the DFC Intelligence and CGA Casual
Games Study.

The report's breakdown was:
Top 5 Games		35%
Top 10 Games		60%
Top 20 Games		75%

Cheers,

Juan


On 10/9/06, Christopher Natsuume <natsuume at boomzap.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> First of all – thanks for the great information, James.
>
> As always, you bring some great data to the discussion.
>
>
>
> "But don't use type mythical "80% of the sales coming form 20-30 games" as
> proof that the industry is broken."
>
>
>
> As for my figures, I was recalling a lecture from this year's Causality talk
> by Pat Wiley and others: "One Billion Dollars"
>
> You can see that slide presentation here:
> http://www.casuality.org/seattle/html/index.htm - the
> figure I was recalling was on slide 3. "75% of those 350MM are made from the
> top 20 games" – I rounded it to 80% and added 10 games (not on purpose, I
> just incorrectly remembered it that way J).
>
>
>
> But the general gist is still pretty much the same. A 42% distribution of
> income on 20 out of 300+ games a year is one thing. A 75% distribution –
> that's another. To be fair – they don't have the data you have to back up
> that assert, so it very well may be incorrect, but I would guess it may be
> that other portals are not seeing as broadly distributed income as on
> Reflexive. I believe some of the Big Fish people are on this mailing list –
> maybe they can share where they got that data?
>
>
>
> As for your further assessments of % of TV shows/movies/breakfast cereals, I
> see your point, and I agree that there will always be winners and losers.
> But my issue is that movies, breakfast cereal, and TV shows that don't "hit"
> still make some revenue (they aren't giving away free cereal or advertising
> space or movie seats) – whereas under a play-then-pay model, a lot of the
> "filler" product sees essentially no meaningful revenue at all, even though
> they may be experiencing thousands of downloads…
>
>
>
> That is the part of the model that I see as broken. Not that all games
> should be big winners, but that the losers should have some sort of sliding
> scale of loss, so that they might recoup a small part of their investment
> and try again. There has always been a market in "direct to video" movies,
> generic breakfast cereals, or late-night-filler cable TV – even B-list
> budget video games - and they don't make a TON of money, but there is a
> revenue model that says they CAN make money, if handled correctly. I am
> wondering how we can create such a model in our industry. Maybe we can't –
> but I'd like to have the discussion, at least.
>
>
>
> I am curious what other issues you had with my ideas – as I think your deep
> experience with Reflexive may put you in a much better place to see some of
> this much more clearly than me. I am sure you have a great deal of insight
> to share on this issue.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
>
>
>