[casual_games] selling game online

[Alex Amsel]

Brian, you are correct in that I misunderstood.

For clarification, what you are referring to by wholesale price is a 
fixed price per unit, where-as I thought you meant a one off wholesale 
price as happens a little in the online world but a lot in retail in 
certain territories.

What's the take on this from portals? I'm aware that some developers are 
careful with the contracts to avoid the situation Greg is referring to, 
but does that mean the portal will promote them less?

Statistically, do developers see more revenue per download from sites 
such as Big Fish than Reflexive?

Brian Robbins wrote:

> I think you mis-understand what I'm suggesting.

>

> I'm talking about having a fixed price per unit, say $7.

> Portals/retailers/etc are then free to sell that for however much they

> want, be it $1 as a loss leader or $50 if they think they can get it.

> Either way, they owe the developer $5 for every unit sold.

>

> What this does is evens out the problems in the current model, where

> you get percentage of a percentage of a percentage, potentially ending

> up with $1.32 per sale (as per Greg's post).

>

> Developers still live and die by the success of their product, yet

> they don't suffer when portals start lumping their games into massive

> bundles, discounting them to almost nothing, or even try to deduct

> tons of expenses off the top.

>

> It's far from perfect, but I think it avoids a lot of the current

> problems, before they become crippling to developers.

>

> -Brian

>

> On 2/9/07, Alex Amsel <tuna at tunatech.com> wrote:

>   

>> Actually there's a problem with this Brian. We've been in the industry

>> for a long time, too long, and what you suggest as a solution is

>> actually the beginning of further problems/ Fixed COGS can work in

>> certain cases - magazine deals, per territory deals (esp for budget or

>> low-profile projects), and long tail.

>>

>> However, fixed COGS allows profits to stay with the

>> portals/publishers/aggregators and they simply don't feed down. What you

>> end up with is almost a work for hire business, and this is not going to

>> get developers far in the long run.

>>

>> The great thing about the download revenue share model is that you live

>> or die based upon your sales, exactly how it should be. A great success

>> will make you rich, well, well off. That's how it should be, and the

>> increased discounting is worrying - done wrong it'll be damaging for the

>> online industry just as it has been for retail. However, that's for

>> another thread.

>>

>> Can you imagine if Virtual Villagers had been sold wholesale?

>>

>> (BTW: Good to meet several of you in Amsterdam, and hear some of your talks)

>>

>> Brian Robbins wrote:

>>     

>>> The solution right now is to change the business from a purely rev

>>> share deal, which worked great a few years ago, to a wholesale deal.

>>> In doing so developers will be able to fix their costs and revenues

>>> without getting screwed over too badly, while Portals and Publishers

>>> will gain a fixed COGS and can continue to compete in the marketplace.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>       

>> --

>>

>> Alex Amsel

>> Tuna Technologies Ltd (Sheffield, UK)

>> Cross Platform Game Development

>> Tel: +44 (0)114 266 2211  Mob: +44(0)7771 524 632

>>

>>

>>     

>

>   


-- 

Alex Amsel
Tuna Technologies Ltd (Sheffield, UK)
Cross Platform Game Development
Tel: +44 (0)114 266 2211  Mob: +44(0)7771 524 632

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20070210/47e74bbe/attachment.html