[casual_games] Different Payment Models

Adam Johnston adam at bamtang.com
Tue Oct 10 23:55:21 EDT 2006

Oh come on.  35% for top 5 games gives 7% of $350MM/year to each of them.
That's $50MM each per year.
If we guess that the top games cost $200,000 to produce, then after giving
$2MM to Oprah and only 40% on development they still have at least $20MM
each to spend.  That's 100 games per year.  Where are they?  What game did
PopCap produce this year?  We're in October already. Did Tailismania cost
$20MM?  If PopCap have more than 1 in the top 5 then did Talismania cost


-----Mensaje original-----
De: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] En
nombre de Juan Gril
Enviado el: Lunes, 09 de Octubre de 2006 01:14 p.m.
Para: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
Asunto: Re: [casual_games] Different Payment Models

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%



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
> 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
> 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
> 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
Casual_Games mailing list
Casual_Games at igda.org

More information about the Casual_Games mailing list