[casual_games] Re: can't bite my tongue any longer...

Thu Oct 12 16:43:43 EDT 2006

KINDLY REMOVE ME FROM ALL FUTURE EMAILS - I HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE OR WHAT
THIS IS ALL ABOUT.  THANK YOU.Quoting Dave Rohrl <daver at popcap.com>:

> Likewise, I think it's also important to realize that your choice of
> revenue model for your game will significantly impact your distribution
> path.  The try-and-buy download model was created in large part because
> it was very clean and simple for both developers and portals.  If you
> want to do a AAA console title, you probably need to focus on retail.
> If your game is calling out for microtrannies, ads, subscriptions, or
> something else, then you probably need to figure out some innovative
> ways of getting it out there other than the traditional download portal
> site.  If I understand Daniel James correctly, I think that Puzzle
> Pirates only became a strong business when they started to reach the
> Miniclip audience (having already tried both download portals and
> retail).
> 
>  
> 
> - DaveR
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of James Gwertzman
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:26 AM
> To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [casual_games] Re: can't bite my tongue any longer...
> 
>  
> 
> We see 10% of our web game sessions on average result in a download. So
> for every 1000 times someone plays a web game, 100 of them download the
> game, and 1-2 of those people buy the game. Depending on who in the
> value chain you represent (portal operator, aggregator, publisher,
> developer) that represents anywhere from $2-20 of revenue per thousand
> web-game plays. But these are AVERAGE numbers.
> 
>  
> 
> I think the key takeaway from all this discussion that we can all agree
> on is that there are lots of different audience segments, and they each
> want something different which means they each get monetized
> differently.
> 
>  
> 
> Some people only ever want to play web games online, and they can be
> monetized with ads and potentially some of the "pay for play" or
> subscription ideas being discussed earlier. If you look at their revenue
> for thousand game-plays, by definition it's $0.
> 
>  
> 
> Other people WANT to download and own the game and have the full
> immersive experience. A large % of our customers are what I call "casual
> obsessives" who play our games for 5-10 hours (or more) a week - these
> people want to own the game, want it on their PC, and don't want to
> suffer through any ads to get right to the game. If you look at the
> $/web-game play for this particular segment, it's much higher. I'd say
> this audience is the core of our current web portal business today.
> 
>  
> 
> Still others care most about having a rich community experience, and
> they can be successfully monetized through a combination of subscription
> revenue, ads, even micro-transactions.
> 
>  
> 
> Still others love games but want to play them on a handheld device or
> console.
> 
>  
> 
> ------
> 
> James Gwertzman
> 
> Director of Business Development
> 
> PopCap Games, Inc.
> 
> +1-206-256-4210
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Olmert, Shaul
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:45 AM
> To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [casual_games] Re: can't bite my tongue any longer...
> 
>  
> 
> How can you defend that any casual games web site makes $20 per 1,000
> users? Which part of the calculation below is not reasonable in your
> point of view? I argue that $20 per 1000 unique users is about 25 times
> the real price (which I estimated at $0.8).
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Tim Turner
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:27 AM
> To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: [casual_games] Re: can't bite my tongue any longer...
> 
> It is certainly startling to see numbers like $20 per 10,000 users but
> after a moments pause I find myself wondering how these numbers compare
> to traditional media sales-to-eyeball numbers.  I imagine our big six
> casual portals are akin to the prime-time line-up at a major network on
> TV.  How many people watch Survivor?  How much does it cost to run an ad
> for XYZ product?  And how many of the people who watched that commercial
> actually buy that product?  I would be shocked if the signal to noise
> ratio for TV isn't far worse than ours.
> 
>  
> 
> I guess my point is that while $20 per 10,000 *sounds* terrible I think
> we could use more context before we hyper-focus on improving that
> particular aspect of our business.
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Olmert, Shaul
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:30 AM
> To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [casual_games] Re: can't bite my tongue any longer...
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Sounds like everyone is in agreement that the current business model
> allows only very limited monetization, since the lion share (~98%) of
> the users who downloaded don't pay. Furthermore, I agree with Jim's
> observation that the real measure we should look at is not the
> conversion rate from download to buy, but the conversion from site
> visitor to buyer or in other words: the value per user. Assuming that in
> a typical casual games site only 1 in 100 users downloads a game, and
> then only 1 or 2 of those who downloaded buys, the result is
> approximately $20 per 10,000 users. Out of these $20 there are COGS and
> royalties which leaves a typical portal with a value of $8 per 10,00
> users, or a $0.8 CPM Breaking it down to CPM values is important so we
> can match it against CPM rates that advertisers pay. As the online
> advertising market is blooming these days, consider the priorities of a
> portal like MSN or Yahoo in promoting web games vs. downloadables. Every
> time they promote a downloadable they settle for a value of $0.8 per
> 1000 users while if they promoted a web game instead they would generate
> at the very least $15 per 1000 users. Even more so, with advertising
> they can expose every user to several ads per session and by that
> significantly increase their value. Now days ad inventory is easily sold
> out on many sites and so downloadables are not a priority. Several
> portals have announced that they will be offering downloadable games for
> free with an ad supported model.
> 
>  
> 
> While obviously the advertising blooming will have its ups and downs,
> and in other times the differences between the value from ad sales and
> downloads may be decreased, it's still alarming to see how poor is the
> monetization on the PC downloadable games. So publishers/portals tackle
> it by sharing ad revenues, selling their own content on their own web
> site, taking successful games to retail, etc., but by and large there is
> a fundamental problem in relaying on a business model that generates
> such poor return. 
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Jim Greer
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:29 AM
> To: casual_games at igda.org
> Subject: [casual_games] Re: can't bite my tongue any longer...
> 
> James - 
> 
> Thanks for the numbers - it sounds like you've established that for the
> Popcap.com <BLOCKED::http://Popcap.com>  audience the current model
> maximizes your profit. What we're betting is there are other audiences
> and other models out there - and it sounds like you agree with that,
> too. 
> 
> We see the same low conversion rates that everyone else does on the PC
> (2% conversion rates are typical, which means 98% are not playing) 
> 
> 
> Yup. Since you're being so generous with the numbers, here's one I'd
> love to hear. What percentage of people playing a web game on your site
> initiate the download? 10%? To be clear - if you get 1000 people playing
> the web version of Bookworm, is it 100 of them who start the download,
> and 2 of those 100 that go on to purchase it? If so, then I really think
> charging for premium content in the web version, at a lower price, might
> make sense. If not for your audience, then for the younger one we're
> targeting. 
> 
> Here in the states, young people primarily play consoles and handhelds.
> 
> 
> There's a site called MySpace you ought to check out... I think they
> have some young people there. Seriously, young people spend plenty of
> time on the web, socializing, playing online games, etc. If they don't
> respond to the current downloadable market, then it's time for some
> experimentation. 
> 
> Jim Greer
> jim at kongregate.com <BLOCKED::mailto:jim at kongregate.com> 
> Company: http://kongregate.com <BLOCKED::http://kongregate.com> 
> Blog: http://jimonwebgames.com <BLOCKED::http://jimonwebgames.com>  
> 
> home: 159 Dolores #4, SF CA 94103
> work: 430 Fillmore Suite A, SF CA 94117 
> 
> 

Tina Mulrain
Account Executive
Qantum Communications, LLC
850-654-1031, ext. 247
850-225-2390, cell
850-654-6510, fax