Going gold?

[furbs]

With 3 weeks to go to release isnt it about now or in the next few days COD should be going gold to have enough time to press disks for the retail release Distributionto to be ready?
I know they have more time for the download release.

[furbs]

just to add...if that is true then we should start seeing the videos pretty soon :)

[Tree_UK]

With 3 weeks to go to release isnt it about now or in the next few days COD should be going gold to have enough time to press disks for for retail release Distribution?
I know they have more time for the download release.

Yep, should be anytime now that we are going to be drowned in video......

[TheGrunch]

Lol...that's if it even IS going to go gold and Ubi are even going to bother releasing physical copies.

[ptisinge]

Yep, for boxed releases there should be a deadline this week or the next one. Even for digital distribution they'll still need a sort of gold version (not sure the term applies for digital distribution?) to work on and get the installer ready etc, which would also require a good week or 2 the first time.
That's assuming that QA goes fine, which is not guaranteed given how much the last part of the development seems to have been a race. In any case, we'll probably hear the good or bad news in the next 10 days.

[Royraiden]

Im also waiting for the announcement :roll:

[mazex]

OK - lets all be negative about this too!

[Moggy]

OK - lets all be negative about this too!

No I'm going to be upbeat and positive today. :mrgreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0pvFulUd98

[machoo]

I'll just get the game when it comes out but I wont bother looking at video. I like to just live under a rock - have no expectations , and find out little things myself. It's always better this way.

[Feathered_IV]

I'm extremely positive about an July-August release. ;)

[ghodan]

It did not go GOLD.... it went Bronze because Ubifail sucked at launching this game.

[the Dutchman]

I wonder how Oleg feels about how Ubi is treating his baby..............i would be pretty pissed!:evil:

[BigC208]

I think these guys are going to work on the program untill the night before release. How much time does it take to get a Gold file distributed to a bunch of file servers? Anyone with a disk is going to be downloading a last minute release patch. No hardcopy for me this time. I'll get it online with the release patch and burn a backup copy.

I don't know who set the release deadline but from reading between the lines there's still a whole lot of optimizing to be done. Il2 got released when Oleg was ready and they even had time to make a demo. This time they're fighting a publisher set deadline. Would not even surprise me if they can't get it done by March 24th and push it up by a few months. Olegs not going to release buggy software. Maybe feature wise incomplete, but not buggy.

[Bowtome]

There will always be bugs. No game released lately has been bug free.

[BigPickle]

Its the publisher that rules the roost and has the final say about things such as release dates.

D'know something, part of me feels that the development is quite ahead of the screens we see, I think those screens are older maybe a month or two ago. I have noticed that alot of the screens are the same pictures but from different angles and aircraft. The videos are rehashes of old videos too.
Oleg said himself the 25th is SOLID so I think it will be so, he would not say that if he was unsure, and as someone else has said, he wont release something if its got a game breaking bug in it.

Time to be positive I think, if anyone deserves the flak its definately UBI with the dreadful marketing and advertisement!

[Voyager]

There will always be bugs. No game released lately has been bug free.

Il-2 was. It was years before I found the first bug, and a couple more years before I even managed to crash it, and that was after they had started adding in Dx9 effects to it.

[zauii]

Il-2 was. It was years before I found the first bug, and a couple more years before I even managed to crash it, and that was after they had started adding in Dx9 effects to it.

Doesn't mean its bugfree tho , every setup is different on the PC pretty much, a game that is "that" perfect technically is unreal to achieve, it really is.
That said im sure IL2 always has been one of the most polished series ever and an excellent flight sim with a lot of passion behind.

[Feuerfalke]

Il-2 was. It was years before I found the first bug, and a couple more years before I even managed to crash it, and that was after they had started adding in Dx9 effects to it.

It was not.

[Mabroc]

I agree with zauii, no program or game is perfect, there is always something wrong somewhere (too many PC configurations in HARDWARE, drivers, Antivirus, etc).

And a plane flying top speed with landing gear down is a bug too (that was one of the early general bugs encountered I think, the past is all fuzzy hahaha).

But I rarely have seen a game so polished and optimized like the original Il-2, it was able to take advantage of every kind of effects and full GPU power of the cards of its release time. And I could not make it crash, I saw the first CTD with it like 5 years after release, and since then I only had 3 o 4 more CTD on differents PC (I switch every 3 years or so) and that count the current MOD period

[T}{OR]

Two weeks, be sure.

Sorry, couldn't resist... :D

[speculum jockey]

I'm wondering if Ubisoft is looking at IL-2 as the model for how they are going to play things this time. When IL-2 was released it wasn't a first week blockbuster, more of a slow-train that picked up a decent amount of passengers over the course of its lifetime. Almost all of that was a result of reviews and word of mouth. Given the target demographic (flight simmers) there isn't that much competition so typing, "flight sim" into google is probably going to give you a result or two on the first page, all without Ubi spending a cent.

Maybe they're thinking, "A big ad campaign is going to have diminished results given the demographics, the required hardware, and the small market PC sales have become". It's assumed it will make money slowly over time, so why bother spending a lot of money advertising it if it's not going to see those blockbuster results?

What I really find shocking is the state of the web page. It's a screen cap used as a background, a trailer, a link to Ubi's shop, and a link to the forums. It was obviously done in less than 5 minutes and really gives you no information on the game whatsoever! What do you fly, what do you do? Is it super-realistic or a game similar to HawX? It's like the game was going to be released, then they scrapped it 4 months away from release and forgot to delete their temporary web page.

[meplay]

Two weeks, be sure.

Sorry, couldn't resist... :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17duGlHEYY

:-P

[furbs]

I'm wondering if Ubisoft is looking at IL-2 as the model for how they are going to play things this time. When IL-2 was released it wasn't a first week blockbuster, more of a slow-train that picked up a decent amount of passengers over the course of its lifetime. Almost all of that was a result of reviews and word of mouth. Given the target demographic (flight simmers) there isn't that much competition so typing, "flight sim" into google is probably going to give you a result or two on the first page, all without Ubi spending a cent.

Maybe they're thinking, "A big ad campaign is going to have diminished results given the demographics, the required hardware, and the small market PC sales have become". It's assumed it will make money slowly over time, so why bother spending a lot of money advertising it if it's not going to see those blockbuster results?

What I really find shocking is the state of the web page. It's a screen cap used as a background, a trailer, a link to Ubi's shop, and a link to the forums. It was obviously done in less than 5 minutes and really gives you no information on the game whatsoever! What do you fly, what do you do? Is it super-realistic or a game similar to HawX? It's like the game was going to be released, then they scrapped it 4 months away from release and forgot to delete their temporary web page.

agreed...who ever desided to use a screenshot of a Defiant being chased by some JU88s low level over the sea to show the "Battle of Britian" needs a dam good slap and to watch the bloody movie.

[mazex]

Doesn't mean its bugfree tho , every setup is different on the PC pretty much, a game that is "that" perfect technically is unreal to achieve, it really is.
That said im sure IL2 always has been one of the most polished series ever and an excellent flight sim with a lot of passion behind.

Well, these days the rule without exception IS that all flight sims that gets released are as bug ridden as a night in northern Sweden ;) FSX, RoF and the last in line DCS A10-C... I think I have had 15 CTD:s already in the release version - but I still love it :)

So... We can live with a bunch of bugs, especially as we know that MG will fix them!

[Heliocon]

Its the publisher that rules the roost and has the final say about things such as release dates.

D'know something, part of me feels that the development is quite ahead of the screens we see, I think those screens are older maybe a month or two ago. I have noticed that alot of the screens are the same pictures but from different angles and aircraft. The videos are rehashes of old videos too.
Oleg said himself the 25th is SOLID so I think it will be so, he would not say that if he was unsure, and as someone else has said, he wont release something if its got a game breaking bug in it.

Time to be positive I think, if anyone deserves the flak its definately UBI with the dreadful marketing and advertisement!

No not really, the developer chooses there publisher. Ultimately in this case its the developers responsibility to find a good publisher and negotiate a contract with them...

[ptisinge]

No not really, the developer chooses there publisher. Ultimately in this case its the developers responsibility to find a good publisher and negotiate a contract with them...

Hum, that's wishful thinking, but that's not the reality of the situation... Finding a publisher and securing a contract is a major struggle for developers. Many projects died and ran out of money before they could reach that point. It's the developer responsibility to live another day and for another contract. Any developer feel very lucky when it can line up 2, just 2 publishers for a little while, and often one will bail out without a concrete offer anyway. And I'm not talking about small studios only. Many developers handling multi million dollars projects and selling millions of their games still feel like that and are unable to ever feel secure for more than a few years. Your vision of the balance of power and bargain in the industry is quite distorted to say the very least.

[Heliocon]

Hum, that's wishful thinking, but that's not the reality of the situation... Finding a publisher and securing a contract is a major struggle for developers. Many projects died and ran out of money before they could reach that point. It's the developer responsibility to live another day and for another contract. Any developer feel very lucky when it can line up 2, just 2 publishers for a little while, and often one will bail out without a concrete offer anyway. And I'm not talking about small studios only. Many developers handling multi million dollars projects and selling millions of their games still feel like that and are unable to ever feel secure for more than a few years. Your vision of the balance of power and bargain in the industry is quite distorted to say the very least.

Then self publish
Or release it on steam which does NOT require a publisher.

There are mountains of success stories for devs who do this, but I would like to know where your analysis comes from exactly? Did you read this?

[Sauf]

My guess would be that Oleg is contracted to UBI after they published the original IL-2.

If thats the case hopefully after COD'S release he has fullfilled his obligations and can tell them to "P*%# Off"

[ptisinge]

Then self publish
Or release it on steam which does NOT require a publisher.

There are mountains of success stories for devs who do this, but I would like to know where your analysis comes from exactly? Did you read this?

That's just insider experience from a game studio with more than 100 staff and 3 major releases to the counter, millions of units sold, and only starting to get a fragile sense of security now, and that's only because of a strong association with one publisher, which comes with weaknesses and drawbacks as well. Even with success, a game studio can often come very close to being bankrupt during fragile periods between finished projects and the next ones. This vulnerability does not help the bargaining power of developers. It's really hard to secure a publisher, believe me. It's not that easy to go for an indie release on a platform like Steam when you're a studio with more than a handful of people, you've got to secure funding to make your studio cover a number of expenses, not something you can do alone. Publishers are not only printing dvds, they're also producers, don't forget that.

[ElAurens]

And remember, Steam is not putting games out there to download out of the kindness of their hearts.

They take a cut of the action, just like UBI or EA do, so it's possible that a studio might even take in less total income from a Steam release, as they will also, by and large, have a major publisher (UBI, EA, etc...) as well.

[Kikuchiyo]

And remember, Steam is not putting games out there to download out of the kindness of their hearts.

They take a cut of the action, just like UBI or EA do, so it's possible that a studio might even take in less total income from a Steam release, as they will also, by and large, have a major publisher (UBI, EA, etc...) as well.

The only issue I take with what you are saying is that Steam sales give the company(s) offering games through them a higher margin of profit (estimated 70% vs 30% for retail) so it is technically more profitable to offer your games solely through steam than through Steam and B&M stores. The downside is a developer/publisher potentially misses out box sales. I imagine a devs profits are about the same (when using a second party publisher) when they also offer their games through a DD like Steam.

Urp I see what you were at Vevster and corrected the miswording.

[Vevster]

The only issue I take with what you are saying is that Steam sales cost the company(s) offering games through them a higher margin of profit (estimated 70% vs 30% for retail) so it is technically more profitable to offer your games solely through steam than through Steam and B&M stores. .


I don't quite understand your first sentence "Steam sales cost the company(s) offering games through them a higher margin of profit "

Do you mean Steam takes a higher cut? That would be exact but contradictory to what you write further


Steam, as a publisher often take a higher % than a retailer. That's because they act both as publisher & retailer for some games. They can take as much as 80% of price for some indie games....They take the risk with infrastructure as a retailer takes the risk with shelf space.

So when you say "it is technically more profitable to offer your games solely through steam than through Steam and B&M stores. " I'll answer "it depends, and sometimes it's quite the opposite". Each case is different; too many parameters to sum up.

Some people do not like DLing games, via Steam or else.

Best thing today is to offer both DL & boxes, gives a broader audience. That's why publishers like Ubi also offer games on steam.

[JG52Krupi]

I never understand why some ppl refuse to use steam, sure I like to have a physical copy and yes they can make mistakes and have to follow silly release dates but the benefits of steam far out weigh any problems I have had with them.

My only negative comments are the prices and the fact you can't decide on which drive you can install games to. However you can get some sweet deals on good games most weekends, if only the price of new games would drop as quickly as they do in shops but I've never seen a used game on steam :P

[Therion_Prime]

My only negative comments are the prices and the fact you can't decide on which drive you can install games to.

Just move the steam folder to another drive, delete steam.exe reinstall steam into the new location, run steam.exe.

[JG52Krupi]

You can only have one steam install at any time and I want to have il2 on my SSD and keep the other games on my large drive. You can do this with other download clients I.e. Direct2drive

[Wolf_Rider]

I never understand why some ppl refuse to use steam, sure I like to have a physical copy and yes they can make mistakes and have to follow silly release dates but the benefits of steam far out weigh any problems I have had with them.



I fall into that camp... and not because I think Steam/ Game Spy, etc, to be dodgy but because I like to run a clean system. Equally, I don't like DRM's which install drivers, even though I never had any noticeable problems with the first LOCKON Starforce DRM, I did find my system ran better after SF was uninstalled. Reporting home factor plays a part as well.
I very rarely have any software conflicts and like to keep things that way

[zauii]

I fall into that camp... and not because I think Steam/ Game Spy, etc, to be dodgy but because I like to run a clean system. Equally, I don't like DRM's which install drivers, even though I never had any noticeable problems with the first LOCKON Starforce DRM, I did find my system ran better after SF was uninstalled. Reporting home factor plays a part as well.
I very rarely have any software conflicts and like to keep things that way

Its just in your head, steam does not bog performance unless your system has got other issues.
Infact firefox is more of a resource problem than steam if you're using that.

[JG52Krupi]

Its just in your head, steam does not bog performance unless your system has got other issues.
Infact firefox is more of a resource problem than steam if you're using that.

+1 chrome ftw

[Wolf_Rider]

Its just in your head, steam does not bog performance unless your system has got other issues.
Infact firefox is more of a resource problem than steam if you're using that.



nuh, don't use firefox :)

regardless of "in your head" or not, I gave my reasons.

[JG52Krupi]

nuh, don't use firefox :)

regardless of "in your head" or not, I gave my reasons.

One flew over the cuckoos nest we need a lobotomy here's asap :D

[tintifaxl]

The one thing I don't like about Steam is if you can't login, you can't play. This happens to me a few times a year, so I will not buy IL2 via Steam.

[Kikuchiyo]

I don't quite understand your first sentence "Steam sales cost *Meant "give"* the company(s) offering games through them a higher margin of profit "

Do you mean Steam takes a higher cut? That would be exact but contradictory to what you write further


Steam, as a publisher often take a higher % than a retailer. That's because they act both as publisher & retailer for some games. They can take as much as 80% of price for some indie games....They take the risk with infrastructure as a retailer takes the risk with shelf space.

So when you say "it is technically more profitable to offer your games solely through steam than through Steam and B&M stores. " I'll answer "it depends, and sometimes it's quite the opposite". Each case is different; too many parameters to sum up.

Some people do not like DLing games, via Steam or else.


Best thing today is to offer both DL & boxes, gives a broader audience. That's why publishers like Ubi also offer games on steam.

Not sure what you are having trouble understanding with that first sentence. Companys that sell their games through Steam tend to see a 70% profit vs 30% profit for box copies. Sorry for the miswording it has been corrected

No it technically is more profitable to offer a game solely through a DD than it is to offer a boxed copy. Less overhead = less cost to publisher.

I'd like to see some citation on that Steam charging 80% to a developer to use Steam. I find that highly unlikely, and even less likely that a indie publisher would accept such a steep cost to get their game on the market. I am actually using estimates made by market analysts, and have never seen anything that suggests that Valve takes such a huge chunk of anyone's profits.

oh and so we are clear I am getting my info from a small financial company you may have heard of Forbes. (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem.html)

[Vevster]

Not sure what you are having trouble understanding with that first sentence. Companys that sell their games through Steam tend to see a 70% profit vs 30% profit for box copies. Sorry for the miswording it has been corrected]


Please define profit, but in any case, the % are wrong.
I think I have seen more profit and loss statements of video games (products) than you do. Unless you have worked for a major editor or studio, that is.
My source is my job experience in the video game industry



No it technically is more profitable to offer a game solely through a DD than it is to offer a boxed copy. Less overhead = less cost to publisher.

There are many cases here, and not always less overheads:
- the company distributes online by its own means (no steam): has to buy servers, pay for bandwith etc... compared to manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs are very low and essentially variable. Servers are fixed costs (could be variable if externalized). If you distribute a lot online, then fixed costs can be offset well.
Main drawback of boxes, again, are the unsold inventory: in some countries, they can be send back by retailers; in most, unsold copies will see price decline rapidly, and those unsold to retailers will have to be destroyed (while manufacturing costs have been incurred)
- the company distributes onlina via steam: they pay a service, steam charges for it, depending on the level of service & risk ; see below




I'd like to see some citation on that Steam charging 80% to a developer to use Steam. I find that highly unlikely, and even less likely that a indie publisher would accept such a steep cost to get their game on the market. I am actually using estimates made by market analysts, and have never seen anything that suggests that Valve takes such a huge chunk of anyone's profits.]

If you read french, buy the PC Magazine Canard PC and read their article about steam. Will look it for you and find the game they mentionned (said the studio got 10% on reatail price - have to take out VAT to calculate each chnk, but that would be around 85% for stema, 15% for the studio

Also, do not forget that Steam acts 2 ways:
- online distributor, for instance for some THQ, Ubi etc... games: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer's chunk (20 to 30%)
- publisher AND retailer: when an indie game for instance is distributed via steam: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer (20-30%) plus a chunk as publisher. And that can go high depending on the contract (40-60%).
Main difference is , afaik, Steam doesn't prefinance a lot of games the way editors do; so their contracts with studios are quite different, and studios get money on each unit sold. On the other hand they get no guaranteed minimum (as is the case in most editor-studio deals; that's an advance on royalties system)

The % given by Forbes are for publishers, not studios. And frankly, these are not at all the figures I've looked at (retailers take 20 to 30% max, including returns etc...). Gross margin includes manufacturing costs (Net revenues - Manufacturing costs, that's all)
If they got 30%, they would all be bankrupt.
As I said, average is above 50% (60%) on a full year and there are not enough online copies (at 70%) to offest the larger number of boxes sold (at 30% according to Forbes). I call BS on that one. Probably a question of wording:

EA gross Margin (p107): from 60% in 2006 to 49% in 2010 with an increase of online distribution ...)
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1187769815x0x385991/B1DCA06E-E734-4C65-ABA8-417B652313D3/Electronic_Arts-2010.pdf

Ubi gross margin:
http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2360.xls
around 60% on a full year (59% to 66%)

To reach a 60% gross margin with the % (30% - 70%) given by forbes would mean that Ubi sells 3 times more games through steam than through retailers. and that is just plain wrong


Steam is certainly a great platform and a good publisher for small studios, but asserting that these studios always get more than if they'd taken another (mainstream) editor is wrong. Some get more, some get less.

If you don't need to prefinance your game, best deal can be steam (but hey, you can negociate with other editor)
If you need to prefinance your game, today, I'm not certai at all that Steam is helpful.
And you have to take into account that advance on royalties paid by an editor in the % of profit you mentionned in the first place....

[Kikuchiyo]

Please define profit, but in any case, the % are wrong.
I think I have seen more profit and loss statements of video games (products) than you do. Unless you have worked for a major editor or studio, that is.
My source is my job experience in the video game industry




There are many cases here, and not always less overheads:
- the company distributes online by its own means (no steam): has to buy servers, pay for bandwith etc... compared to manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs are very low and essentially variable. Servers are fixed costs (could be variable if externalized). If you distribute a lot online, then fixed costs can be offset well.
Main drawback of boxes, again, are the unsold inventory: in some countries, they can be send back by retailers; in most, unsold copies will see price decline rapidly, and those unsold to retailers will have to be destroyed (while manufacturing costs have been incurred)
- the company distributes onlina via steam: they pay a service, steam charges for it, depending on the level of service & risk ; see below




If you read french, buy the PC Magazine Canard PC and read their article about steam. Will look it for you and find the game they mentionned (said the studio got 10% on reatail price - have to take out VAT to calculate each chnk, but that would be around 85% for stema, 15% for the studio

Also, do not forget that Steam acts 2 ways:
- online distributor, for instance for some THQ, Ubi etc... games: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer's chunk (20 to 30%)
- publisher AND retailer: when an indie game for instance is distributed via steam: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer (20-30%) plus a chunk as publisher. And that can go high depending on the contract (40-60%).
Main difference is , afaik, Steam doesn't prefinance a lot of games the way editors do; so their contracts with studios are quite different, and studios get money on each unit sold. On the other hand they get no guaranteed minimum (as is the case in most editor-studio deals; that's an advance on royalties system)

The % given by Forbes are for publishers, not studios. And frankly, these are not at all the figures I've looked at (retailers take 20 to 30% max, including returns etc...). Gross margin includes manufacturing costs (Net revenues - Manufacturing costs, that's all)
If they got 30%, they would all be bankrupt.
As I said, average is above 50% (60%) on a full year and there are not enough online copies (at 70%) to offest the larger number of boxes sold (at 30% according to Forbes). I call BS on that one. Probably a question of wording:

EA gross Margin (p107): from 60% in 2006 to 49% in 2010 with an increase of online distribution ...)
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1187769815x0x385991/B1DCA06E-E734-4C65-ABA8-417B652313D3/Electronic_Arts-2010.pdf

Ubi gross margin:
http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2360.xls
around 60% on a full year (59% to 66%)

To reach a 60% gross margin with the % (30% - 70%) given by forbes would mean that Ubi sells 3 times more games through steam than through retailers. and that is just plain wrong


Steam is certainly a great platform and a good publisher for small studios, but asserting that these studios always get more than if they'd taken another (mainstream) editor is wrong. Some get more, some get less.

If you don't need to prefinance your game, best deal can be steam (but hey, you can negociate with other editor)
If you need to prefinance your game, today, I'm not certai at all that Steam is helpful.
And you have to take into account that advance on royalties paid by an editor in the % of profit you mentionned in the first place....


Personally I am want to trust the figure estimates of a large established financial market expert like Forbes over a gaming magazine whose name (if I am not mistaken) is commonly used to indicate satire in the French language. What's more is indie developers are a different animal from established developers like 1C who I am sure gets a more fair deal due to a decreased risk of loss on the part of Valve.

What's more is I said profits on retail copies are 30% I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying here. 30% would be after costs from publisher and costs of manufacturing, and costs from retailers. You can't fairly include the profit margins of co-dev/publisher houses in that figure. We are talking about Developers (not indie) that have to use a 2nd party for publishing. I am sure Forbes has done their research on these things. I highly doubt they just guessed. Likely extrapolated those figures using financial algorithms. That said I am sure there is give and take as even Forbes would have some fuzzy area considering Valve's contracts with developers and publishers alike prohibit them from disclosing exact percentages.

I can't seriously take into account anecdotal evidence as validation of proof either. Not intended to be insulting. It is a very interesting conversation, and I am rather enjoying it :D

[Heliocon]

Please define profit, but in any case, the % are wrong.
I think I have seen more profit and loss statements of video games (products) than you do. Unless you have worked for a major editor or studio, that is.
My source is my job experience in the video game industry




There are many cases here, and not always less overheads:
- the company distributes online by its own means (no steam): has to buy servers, pay for bandwith etc... compared to manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs are very low and essentially variable. Servers are fixed costs (could be variable if externalized). If you distribute a lot online, then fixed costs can be offset well.
Main drawback of boxes, again, are the unsold inventory: in some countries, they can be send back by retailers; in most, unsold copies will see price decline rapidly, and those unsold to retailers will have to be destroyed (while manufacturing costs have been incurred)
- the company distributes onlina via steam: they pay a service, steam charges for it, depending on the level of service & risk ; see below




If you read french, buy the PC Magazine Canard PC and read their article about steam. Will look it for you and find the game they mentionned (said the studio got 10% on reatail price - have to take out VAT to calculate each chnk, but that would be around 85% for stema, 15% for the studio

Also, do not forget that Steam acts 2 ways:
- online distributor, for instance for some THQ, Ubi etc... games: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer's chunk (20 to 30%)
- publisher AND retailer: when an indie game for instance is distributed via steam: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer (20-30%) plus a chunk as publisher. And that can go high depending on the contract (40-60%).
Main difference is , afaik, Steam doesn't prefinance a lot of games the way editors do; so their contracts with studios are quite different, and studios get money on each unit sold. On the other hand they get no guaranteed minimum (as is the case in most editor-studio deals; that's an advance on royalties system)

The % given by Forbes are for publishers, not studios. And frankly, these are not at all the figures I've looked at (retailers take 20 to 30% max, including returns etc...). Gross margin includes manufacturing costs (Net revenues - Manufacturing costs, that's all)
If they got 30%, they would all be bankrupt.
As I said, average is above 50% (60%) on a full year and there are not enough online copies (at 70%) to offest the larger number of boxes sold (at 30% according to Forbes). I call BS on that one. Probably a question of wording:

EA gross Margin (p107): from 60% in 2006 to 49% in 2010 with an increase of online distribution ...)
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1187769815x0x385991/B1DCA06E-E734-4C65-ABA8-417B652313D3/Electronic_Arts-2010.pdf

Ubi gross margin:
http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2360.xls
around 60% on a full year (59% to 66%)

To reach a 60% gross margin with the % (30% - 70%) given by forbes would mean that Ubi sells 3 times more games through steam than through retailers. and that is just plain wrong


Steam is certainly a great platform and a good publisher for small studios, but asserting that these studios always get more than if they'd taken another (mainstream) editor is wrong. Some get more, some get less.

If you don't need to prefinance your game, best deal can be steam (but hey, you can negociate with other editor)
If you need to prefinance your game, today, I'm not certai at all that Steam is helpful.
And you have to take into account that advance on royalties paid by an editor in the % of profit you mentionned in the first place....

1. you are completely wrong. There has been many articles about profit margins in Steam vs normal retailers and steam takes a FLAT RATE for each game sold (in %) and steam itself released the statistics on profit margins. His numbers are correct I have seen them myself (and will track the link).

2. Stop the: "I am a game developer" because its the internet and anyone with half a brain knows you can claim whatever you want and there is no way to verify it. So please tell me your name and the company you work for so I can verify your statements. If not dont make stuff up.

Steam gives a FAR LARGER profit margin to devs because 1. They dont require a publisher (and steam IS NOT a publisher, purely distribution and in console advertisement). 2. They dont have to pay for the physical distribution and creation of the hard copies.
This gives steam sales a far far larger profit margin then normal retail sales especially with a publisher.

- calling you on your bs, this article is from Darryl Still the 1C Publishing director and his opinion on Steam vs retail: http://www.mcvuk.com/features/808/OPINION-Retail-vs-Steam

Forbes confirming similar numbers: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem.html

*cleaned up the language

[Vevster]

Kikuchiyo,

no problem. You do not have to believe me or something you haven't read :-P

Just explain me how Forbes figures (30% -70%) can be accurate when I showed you financials from two publishers showing a profit margin (gross margin) of 50% or 60% .

To reach an average of 50% with Forbes figures, that would mean EA sells as much through Steam than on boxes (70+30)/2 = 50 ; at the same average price
I do not think that is the case. Therefore, the 30% figure seems highly doubtful

To reach 60% average (Ubi) , that would mean 3 sales on steam to 1 box (70+70+70 +30)/4; at the same average price.
Not possible either.


Therefore, 30% gross margin on retail business is just wrong. As I said, Forbes probably means something else, though they say: "Publishers earn a gross margin of around 70% on Steam, compared with 30% via retail stores"

Again, look at the figures I presented from two publishers, and tell me how that works with what Forbes say. Figures from the publishers are official ones (listed companies)


Heliocon:
1- there has been many articles saying that Steam does not take the same % for each game too. So a broad statement (stam gives more to all compared to others) is not necessarily true. That was one pf my point.
2 - I never said I am a developper, just that I have experience in the industry, and given the way your request for name & company, you won't get anything. It's the internet, correct, and there are some bullies out there. :)
I frankly do not care if you believe me or not regarding my experience.
Those who count for me know, and some are on this forum.

I don't even ask them to vouch for me, as it is utterly useless.


You're mixing some suff here: you talk about the % given to publishers then conclude that Steam gives more to studios (devs).

Problem is, Steam gives only something per copy sold (your own words).

A publisher (EA, Ubi etc...) sometimes (often) prefinance the game.
So you do not have to compare only the % given after release, but also incluse the advance on royalty paid to make an hones comparison of what the devs receive. I hope you agree with that...


Anyway, I personnally like steam, use it, am grateful because I think they helped the PC market and like that retailers are whining about it while at the same time often refusing to put PC games on their shelves.
Think what you want about the figures, they do not compute in the case of those given by Forbes.

[Kikuchiyo]

Kikuchiyo,
Just explain me how Forbes figures (30% -70%) can be accurate when I showed you financials from two publishers showing a profit margin (gross margin) of 50% or 60% .

To reach an average of 50% with Forbes figures, that would mean EA sells as much through Steam than on boxes (70+30)/2 = 50 ; at the same average price
I do not think that is the case. Therefore, the 30% figure seems highly doubtful

To reach 60% average (Ubi) , that would mean 3 sales on steam to 1 box (70+70+70 +30)/4; at the same average price.
Not possible either.

Again, look at the figures I presented from two publishers, and tell me how that works with what Forbes say. Figures from the publishers are official ones (listed companies)

You're mixing some suff here: you talk about the % given to publishers then conclude that Steam gives more to studios (devs).

Problem is, Steam gives only something per copy sold (your own words).

A publisher (EA, Ubi etc...) sometimes (often) prefinance the game.
So you do not have to compare only the % given after release, but also incluse the advance on royalty paid to make an hones comparison of what the devs receive. I hope you agree with that...


Anyway, I personnally like steam, use it, am grateful because I think they helped the PC market and like that retailers are whining about it while at the same time often refusing to put PC games on their shelves.
Think what you want about the figures, they do not compute in the case of those given by Forbes.

I did address your figures from the large dev/publisher houses of EA and Ubisoft, but perhaps it wasn't clear. Their figures would be a skew to the statistics that Forbes is showing for the simple fact that they both publish and develop games so their profit margins would be a conglomerate of both aspects. Basically they can take in a much larger profit from in house development on both retail and DD sales which would seriously affect their margin of profit by the end of the year, and what's more is they don't pay out to developers, that they act as a middleman publisher for, until the end of a fiscal quarter. That means they collect interest on that money in the intervening time and can count that as additional profit.

I didn't say that Steam gave more to developer's than publishers at any point. I said the profit margin for a developer that went solely with DD rather than DD and a Publisher would see a higher profit margin per unit sold.

As do publishers. If you believe that publisher pay a developer per boxed unit produced you are sorely mistaken. They pay out to developers a percentage of sales.

As to the prefinance aspect the publisher then takes that money back off of the initial sales until the loan is paid off, because financing is a loan after all.

Edit: Sorry for the multiple edits I just dropped some talking points unintentionally and wanted to address them.

[Vevster]

I did address your figures from the large dev/publisher houses of EA and Ubisoft, but perhaps it wasn't clear. Their figures would be a skew to the statistics that Forbes is showing for the simple fact that they both publish and develop games so their profit margins would be a conglomerate of both aspects. Basically they can take in a much larger profit from in house development on both retail and DD sales which would seriously affect their margin of profit by the end of the year, and what's more is they don't pay out to developers, that they act as a middleman publisher for, until the end of a fiscal quarter. That means they collect interest on that money in the intervening time and can count that as additional profit.

There is a small problem here: Gross margin is simply:
Net Revenues - Cost of Sales (Manufacturing costs for instance):
Divided by revenues if you want to express it as a %
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_margin
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossmargin.asp

To explain briefly, with some simplification, pardon me:

+ Gross Revenue = what you sell to retailers (before their chunk / after, depends on the countries)
- retailers chunk (margin, rebate, returns etc...)
------------------------------------------------
= Net Revenues
- cost of goods sold (manufacturing costs, storage, delivery, ...)
------------------------------------------------
= Gross Margin

Just look at the financials if you doubt this

So, there is absolutely no difference on that between an in-house game and an external one.
Development costs are not part of Cost of goods sold.

They are booked at a lower level (Operating expenses) with marketing and royalties (giving a Margin on direct costs for some companies)


If you look at EA Financials, hey are on the Research and development line
If you look at Ubi's financials, they are also on the line R&D expenses;


all below the gross margin .

Forbes talk about the gross margin, I maintain there is something wrong in
their article (either the term, or the % , at least about retailers)





I didn't say that Steam gave more to developer's than publishers at any point. I said the profit margin for a developer that went solely with DD rather than DD and a Publisher would see a higher profit margin per unit sold.

Yes, if the developper didn't need any pre financing. Again: it depends. Don't make it an absolute truth for all cases.

I
As do publishers. If you believe that publisher pay a developer per boxed unit produced you are sorely mistaken. They pay out to developers a percentage of sales.

I know how publisher pay a developper. It can be many things:
- per unit (doesn't happen that often, but can happen in a purly distribution contract, ie the dev has already the boxes done)
- % of sales (not htat often either)
- % of gross margin (more often, still not the majority)

- % of a margin, defined in the contract as for instance:
Gross magin - some marketing (can be capped or not) - distribution costs (commissions) - own development of publisher (sometimes happen) etc...

That is the majority of the caes (each contract is different)


As to the prefinance aspect the publisher then takes that money back off of the initial sales until the loan is paid off, because financing is a loan after all.


It's not a loan per se , as it is a minimum revenue guaranteed: if, based on the calculations given in example above, the royalties to be paid exceed the advance made, the publisher (editor) will pay more to the developper.

If the royalties calculated do not exceed the advance made, the developper doesn't give money back to the editor.

Threfore, to calculate the revenue of a dev, you have to include the advance made if any and the royalties paid above that.

[Kikuchiyo]

There is a small problem here: Gross margin is simply:
Net Revenues - Cost of Sales (Manufacturing costs for instance):
Divided by revenues if you want to express it as a %
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_margin
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossmargin.asp

To explain briefly, with some simplification, pardon me:

+ Gross Revenue = what you sell to retailers (before their chunk / after, depends on the countries)
- retailers chunk (margin, rebate, returns etc...)
------------------------------------------------
= Net Revenues
- cost of goods sold (manufacturing costs, storage, delivery, ...)
------------------------------------------------
= Gross Margin

Just look at the financials if you doubt this

So, there is absolutely no difference on that between an in-house game and an external one.
Development costs are not part of Cost of goods sold.

They are booked at a lower level (Operating expenses) with marketing and royalties (giving a Margin on direct costs for some companies)


If you look at EA Financials, hey are on the Research and development line
If you look at Ubi's financials, they are also on the line R&D expenses;


all below the gross margin .

Forbes talk about the gross margin, I maintain there is something wrong in
their article (either the term, or the % , at least about retailers)







Yes, if the developper didn't need any pre financing



I know how publisher pay a developper. It can be many things:
- per unit (doesn't happen that often, but can happen in a purly distribution contract, ie the dev has already the boxes done)
- % of sales (not htat often either)
- % of gross margin (more often, still not the majority)

- % of a margin, defined in the contract as for instance:
Gross magin - some marketing (can be capped or not) - distribution costs (commissions) - own development of publisher (sometimes happen) etc...

That is the majority of the caes (each contract is different)



It's not a loan per se , as it is a minimum revenue guaranteed: if, based on the calculations given in example above, the royalties to be paid exceed the advance made, the publisher (editor) will pay more to the developper.

If the royalties calculated do not exceed the advance made, the developper doesn't give money back to the editor.

Threfore, to calculate the revenue of a dev, you have to include the advance made if any and the royalties paid above that.

What you are disounting (which has been my point) is that the publishers do not take a cut of the profits on a retail box version of a game they develop like they do on a second party developer. A publisher takes about 50% of the profit on a retail box version of a game they publish on behalf of an outside developer.

But they will not pay out on that money already paid to the developer I was saying that it is not additional revenue to the developer. It is as you said a loan made on projected sales that the publisher will not pay out on initial sales.

I never said the developer has to pay back if the game flops, but the developer will not see additional revenue either.

I agree and never refuted that, but it is not money over and above the flat percentage rate paid to the developer on sales.

[Heliocon]

There is a small problem here: Gross margin is simply:
Net Revenues - Cost of Sales (Manufacturing costs for instance):
Divided by revenues if you want to express it as a %
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_margin
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossmargin.asp

To explain briefly, with some simplification, pardon me:

+ Gross Revenue = what you sell to retailers (before their chunk / after, depends on the countries)
- retailers chunk (margin, rebate, returns etc...)
------------------------------------------------
= Net Revenues
- cost of goods sold (manufacturing costs, storage, delivery, ...)
------------------------------------------------
= Gross Margin

Just look at the financials if you doubt this

So, there is absolutely no difference on that between an in-house game and an external one.
Development costs are not part of Cost of goods sold.

They are booked at a lower level (Operating expenses) with marketing and royalties (giving a Margin on direct costs for some companies)


If you look at EA Financials, hey are on the Research and development line
If you look at Ubi's financials, they are also on the line R&D expenses;


all below the gross margin .

Forbes talk about the gross margin, I maintain there is something wrong in
their article (either the term, or the % , at least about retailers)







Yes, if the developper didn't need any pre financing. Again: it depends. Don't make it an absolute truth for all cases.



I know how publisher pay a developper. It can be many things:
- per unit (doesn't happen that often, but can happen in a purly distribution contract, ie the dev has already the boxes done)
- % of sales (not htat often either)
- % of gross margin (more often, still not the majority)

- % of a margin, defined in the contract as for instance:
Gross magin - some marketing (can be capped or not) - distribution costs (commissions) - own development of publisher (sometimes happen) etc...

That is the majority of the caes (each contract is different)



It's not a loan per se , as it is a minimum revenue guaranteed: if, based on the calculations given in example above, the royalties to be paid exceed the advance made, the publisher (editor) will pay more to the developper.

If the royalties calculated do not exceed the advance made, the developper doesn't give money back to the editor.

Threfore, to calculate the revenue of a dev, you have to include the advance made if any and the royalties paid above that.

Wrong - gross revenue is the profit from the number of units sold to a retailer, the chunk a retailer takes is not factored into gross revenue/returns because the retailer marks up the price from the original sales price (say the publisher/dev sells the game for $45 to the retailer that sells it for $60. The $45 is the gross revenue/profit). Therefore this is purely a mechanism of units sold x unit price. The only time you would remove revenue from this is if you were calculating that the revenue would go to more than 1 source (publisher and dev for example).

Net profit takes into account all the associated fees with manufacturing, shipping, loans/interest etc and gives you the end profit all things being equal (all factors accounted for).

What steam is giving is a higher net profit - not gross (although it is also higher because more copies are moved). So since there is less overhead and steam takes a much lower chunk then a publisher usually does there is MUCH higher net profit (30% vs 70%+).

As for the cash forwards to develope a game - yes you are correct, but it many companies have survived without it (look at EVE).

[Vevster]

Wrong - gross revenue is the profit from the number of units sold to a retailer, the chunk a retailer takes is not factored into gross revenue/returns because the retailer marks up the price from the original sales price (say the publisher/dev sells the game for $45 to the retailer that sells it for $60. The $45 is the gross revenue/profit). Therefore this is purely a mechanism of units sold x unit price. The only time you would remove revenue from this is if you were calculating that the revenue would go to more than 1 source (publisher and dev for example).

That's what I said (I think) about gross revenue

As for "the only time" etc...) please, expalin me what would be the difference between gross revenue and net revenue in your explication....

Gross revenue = price at which the game is sold to the retailer. In some countries, you sell them at retail price (minus VAT) and you emit a credit note for a rebate (the retailer margin) at the same time or after + other credit notes for returns, price protection (when the price of a product already sold to the retailer is lowered) etc...

In other countries, the original invoice is at the retail price (minus VAT) - retailer margin.

But in any case, that invoice could not take into account returns (they come later), price protection (they come later), back end rebates (when a -5 USD -for instance- sticker is applied to the product for a limited period of time ) or period end rebates (calculated on total volume done with retailer for instance):
all these are removed from gross revenue to make net revenues


Gross revenue = original invoice
- Credit notes (returns, BER etc...)
= Net revenues


Please look at EA & Ubi financial: they show only Net Revenues (which is the net they get from sales to retailers). I can guarantee you that they do have in their accounting the difference between gross revenue & net revenues. (That is if you finally admit the possibility that I do have some experience in that industry)




Net profit takes into account all the associated fees with manufacturing, shipping, loans/interest etc and gives you the end profit all things being equal (all factors accounted for). *

What steam is giving is a higher net profit - not gross (although it is also higher because more copies are moved). So since there is less overhead and steam takes a much lower chunk then a publisher usually does there is MUCH higher net profit (30% vs 70%+).



Again, I know quite well what net profit is, thanks.

Sorry put Forbes doesn't talk about net profit but about gross margin. You quoted the article, please check it.
Gross margin is defined clearly. I quoted the definition and it is also writtent in both Ubi & EA financials.

As I said several times I disagree with what Forbes write because:
- either the term "gross margin" is wrong in their article
- the % if they do talk about gross margin is wrong

Either case, they are wrong somewhere (it's just an article, some people, even from Forbes can make mistake)


As for the cash advance, many companies would not have survived without. If they do ask for these advance, there is a reason; if they could do it differently, they would.
I'm just saying that you have to take these advance in the calculation of revenue given to the dev (and frankly, in most articles, these are forgotten).

[Kikuchiyo]

That's what I said (I think) about gross revenue

As for "the only time" etc...) please, expalin me what would be the difference between gross revenue and net revenue in your explication....

Gross revenue = price at which the game is sold to the retailer. In some countries, you sell them at retail price (minus VAT) and you emit a credit note for a rebate (the retailer margin) at the same time or after + other credit notes for returns, price protection (when the price of a product already sold to the retailer is lowered) etc...

In other countries, the original invoice is at the retail price (minus VAT) - retailer margin.

But in any case, that invoice could not take into account returns (they come later), price protection (they come later), back end rebates (when a -5 USD -for instance- sticker is applied to the product for a limited period of time ) or period end rebates (calculated on total volume done with retailer for instance):
all these are removed from gross revenue to make net revenues


Gross revenue = original invoice
- Credit notes (returns, BER etc...)
= Net revenues


Please look at EA & Ubi financial: they show only Net Revenues (which is the net they get from sales to retailers). I can guarantee you that they do have in their accounting the difference between gross revenue & net revenues. (That is if you finally admit the possibility that I do have some experience in that industry)






Again, I know quite well what net profit is, thanks.

Sorry put Forbes doesn't talk about net profit but about gross margin. You quoted the article, please check it.
Gross margin is defined clearly. I quoted the definition and it is also writtent in both Ubi & EA financials.

As I said several times I disagree with what Forbes write because:
- either the term "gross margin" is wrong in their article
- the % if they do talk about gross margin is wrong

Either case, they are wrong somewhere (it's just an article, some people, even from Forbes can make mistake)


As for the cash advance, many companies would not have survived without. If they do ask for these advance, there is a reason; if they could do it differently, they would.
I'm just saying that you have to take these advance in the calculation of revenue given to the dev (and frankly, in most articles, these are forgotten).

Well I think ample evidence has been provided. If you want to discount the figures from a financial expert that's been in the field for nearly 100 years that's fine. Personally I go with the experts, and the statements made by 1C Publishing (which matches dollar amounts to the percentages Forbes claims).

[Heliocon]

That's what I said (I think) about gross revenue

As for "the only time" etc...) please, expalin me what would be the difference between gross revenue and net revenue in your explication....

Gross revenue = price at which the game is sold to the retailer. In some countries, you sell them at retail price (minus VAT) and you emit a credit note for a rebate (the retailer margin) at the same time or after + other credit notes for returns, price protection (when the price of a product already sold to the retailer is lowered) etc...

In other countries, the original invoice is at the retail price (minus VAT) - retailer margin.

But in any case, that invoice could not take into account returns (they come later), price protection (they come later), back end rebates (when a -5 USD -for instance- sticker is applied to the product for a limited period of time ) or period end rebates (calculated on total volume done with retailer for instance):
all these are removed from gross revenue to make net revenues


Gross revenue = original invoice
- Credit notes (returns, BER etc...)
= Net revenues


Please look at EA & Ubi financial: they show only Net Revenues (which is the net they get from sales to retailers). I can guarantee you that they do have in their accounting the difference between gross revenue & net revenues. (That is if you finally admit the possibility that I do have some experience in that industry)






Again, I know quite well what net profit is, thanks.

Sorry put Forbes doesn't talk about net profit but about gross margin. You quoted the article, please check it.
Gross margin is defined clearly. I quoted the definition and it is also writtent in both Ubi & EA financials.

As I said several times I disagree with what Forbes write because:
- either the term "gross margin" is wrong in their article
- the % if they do talk about gross margin is wrong

Either case, they are wrong somewhere (it's just an article, some people, even from Forbes can make mistake)


As for the cash advance, many companies would not have survived without. If they do ask for these advance, there is a reason; if they could do it differently, they would.
I'm just saying that you have to take these advance in the calculation of revenue given to the dev (and frankly, in most articles, these are forgotten).

O ffs, why do I have to finally admit you have experience in "the industry", whats your evidence for that? Guess what? I am in economics and your use of definitions is consistantly wrong.

Gross profit margin can be used to demonstrate the amount of $ the retailer or distributer takes from the sale (markup) vs the original purchasing price. So below is an example.

Also the % net profit has NOTHING to do with amount of copies sold or the copies cost when sold online vs retail. You are completely confusing yourself and I suggest you stop digging the hole about now... The % profit margin represents the net profit of sales for that product, for example if a game sells at $50 in retail, I might make only lets say $10 because $20 went to production and distribution costs and I sold the original game to the retailer at $30. Thats a 33% net profit margin for me and a 66% for the retailer. Basically your gross profit becomes closer to your end net profit, as on the steam sale your net and gross profit are the same, but the retail sale gross margin is lower because it requires a mark up for the retailer to make $. If on the other hand I sell a copy through steam at $50, and steam takes $10 on each $50 sale then that leaves me with a 80% gross profit margin due to the fact that there is no shipping or production costs that would not factor into gross but DO factor into net profit. As these factors no longer matter on steam my net profit more closely follows my gross profit which means the dev/pub gets more $.



Also the EA and Ubisoft financial statements cover a large range of things such as paying for adverts and salaries and everything else for many many games. Your analysis of the statements is not at all indicitive or even related to the argument of profit in retail vs digital distribution. Basically it would be like comparing a whole hedgefunds portfolio and then from there jumping to assumptions about individual stocks.

[Vevster]

O ffs, why do I have to finally admit you have experience in "the industry", whats your evidence for that? Guess what? I am in economics and your use of definitions is consistantly wrong.


Well I provided links for definition; have you? Do I have to belive you're in economics? Your confusion about gross margin, net profit and everything else doesn't help

Please provide your own definition of gross margin; nothing else, as it is the direct quote from the Forbes article; you know, the one you linked.



Also the % net profit has NOTHING to do with amount of copies sold or the copies cost when sold online vs retail. You are completely confusing yourself and I suggest you stop digging the hole about now...

Guess who is confiused.
I didn't talk about net profit. You did.


The % profit margin represents the net profit of sales for that product, for example if a game sells at $50 in retail, I might make only lets say $20 because $20 went to production and distribution costs and I sold the original game to the retailer at $40. Thats a 50% profit margin for me and a 20% for the retailer. If on the other hand I sell a copy through steam at $50, and steam takes $10 on each $50 sale then that leaves me with a 80% gross profit margin due to the fact that there is no shipping or production costs that would not factor into gross but DO factor into net profit.

Yes, but did you note that Forbes talk about GROSS MARGIN not about net profit?
I have provided a definition for Gross margin, and linked 2 financials showing it, clearly as Net revenues (sales) - Cost of goods and showing that R&D is not included in that...Please look at those

In your example:
I sold the game to the retailer at 40$
Cost of goods (manufacturing etc...) is 10$ (believe me that would be one hell of a cost of goods. A DVD cost 2$ to make or less...

Gross margin = 30$
= 75% of revenues

From that you'll take out all the other operating expenses (Marketing, R&D, wages , overheads)
= Operating result

etc...
Please look at the financials I linked if you don't belive me
For EA Gross Profit = Gross Margin for Ubi

Net revenue .
Cost of goods sold .
Gross profit

Operating expenses:
Marketing and sales .
General and administrative
Research and development
Restructuring charges
Amortization of intangibles
Acquisition-related contingent consideration
Goodwill impairment
Certain abandoned acquisition-related costs
Acquired in-process technology
Total operating expenses



Also the EA and Ubisoft financial statements cover a large range of things such as paying for adverts and salaries and everything else for many many games. Your analysis of the statements is not at all indicitive or even related to the argument of profit in retail vs digital distribution.


Everything you mention (adverts and salaries etc..) is not included in the Gross margin. Please look at the financials.

You keep talking about net profit when the quote is gross margin. If you are in economics and do not see the difference, please study harder.

Start with looking at the links I provided.


Some videos are out, finally better things to do than this :grin:

[ElAurens]

Isn't the internet grand Vev?

:cool:

[Voyager]

I fall into that camp... and not because I think Steam/ Game Spy, etc, to be dodgy but because I like to run a clean system. Equally, I don't like DRM's which install drivers, even though I never had any noticeable problems with the first LOCKON Starforce DRM, I did find my system ran better after SF was uninstalled. Reporting home factor plays a part as well.
I very rarely have any software conflicts and like to keep things that way

I have had some odd hardware behavior since installing a Starforce CD, but what finally pushed me hard away from CD's was the copy protection on Bioshock, where you couldn't install off the disk more than three times. To the best of my understanding the Steam versions don't have that restriction.

That said, Ubi did manage to get the call home DRM for Assassin's Creed 2 into the Steam version, probably because of how tightly they integrated it into their game. That managed to eat a couple of my saves too. Very annoying.

Overall I've found the Steam DRM to be less invasive and install fewer hidden drivers than the current cycels of the CD based DRMs, simply because most companies are fine with Steam's Log-In system as the primary DRM.

Now D2D, they apparently encrypted the data files for their edition of "Sword of the Stars", and managed to up the turn cycle time from around twenty seconds normally to about twenty minutes. Kerberos e3ventually figured out what was wrong, but htey had all manner of grief getting D2D to finally unencrypt the files they weren't supposed to have been encrypting in the first place.

[Vevster]

Isn't the internet grand Vev?

:cool:

It is :grin:

But I'm guessing it's just a question of words.
Putting things in tables would clear most of the misunderstandings. :grin: That usually works with fiance guys.

That and belief that even Forbes cannot do a simple wording mistake in an article.

We all know that experts never do mistakes, just have to look at the banks & the housing market....

Anyway, better things to do, hope what I did today (not here) was useful , will tell you about it in some time.

Your CE still looks good for the moment :-P

[Kikuchiyo]

It is :grin:

But I'm guessing it's just a question of words.
Putting things in tables would clear most of the misunderstandings. :grin: That usually works with fiance guys.

That and belief that even Forbes cannot do a simple wording mistake in an article.

We all know that experts never do mistakes, just have to look at the banks & the housing market....

Anyway, better things to do, hope what I did today (not here) was useful , will tell you about it in some time.

Your CE still looks good for the moment :-P

I think the misunderstanding is coming from you interpreting a developer's gross margin with a publisher's gross margin. You're figures aren't incorrect you are just confusing a publisher's gross margin with the developer's gross margin which is what the Forbes article was talking about. An outside developer's gross margin from a retail box sale is about half of the product's gross margin of profit. DD cuts out that sharing of the gross margin profit with the publisher.

[Vevster]

I think the misunderstanding is coming from you interpreting a developer's gross margin with a publisher's gross margin. You're figures aren't incorrect you are just confusing a publisher's gross margin with the developer's gross margin which is what the Forbes article was talking about. An outside developer's gross margin from a retail box sale is about half of the product's gross margin of profit. DD cuts out that sharing of the gross margin profit with the publisher.

Sorry, you're saying Forbes is talking about developpers Gross Margin?


Exact quote from the Forbes article
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem_2.html

Second page

"Steam's appeal to publishers is in giving them the opportunity to sell directly, cutting out the profits extracted by distributors. Publishers earn a gross margin of around 70% on Steam, compared with 30% via retail stores"

Am I still the one interpreting what is written in Forbes' article?

[Heliocon]

Sorry, you're saying Forbes is talking about developpers Gross Margin?


Exact quote from the Forbes article
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem_2.html

Second page

"Steam's appeal to publishers is in giving them the opportunity to sell directly, cutting out the profits extracted by distributors. Publishers earn a gross margin of around 70% on Steam, compared with 30% via retail stores"

Am I still the one interpreting what is written in Forbes' article?

*facepalm*

You talkeds about EA and Ubisoft financial statements which are net profit and NOT gross profit or related to a specific title and therefore its apples and oranges.

Forbes talked about gross margin, you said there numbers are wrong yet have no provided evidence or made a coherent and cogent argument as to why they are wrong.

Use your head - the gross margin taken in by selling on steam for publishers vs retail IS THE SAME AS IF IT WAS A DEV. The difference is if you have a publisher, which sells the game on steam - the publisher gets a slice of the profits that the devs would otherwise get if they sold on steam without a publisher. Therefore it DOES NOT MATTER that is a publisher making more profit buy selling on steam in this example, as it is illustrating the potential profit through retail channels. In addition their gross margin is HIGHER because steam sales take a lower % of total sales price for themselves then a retail shop would, thats not even counting other factors that would further reduce net profit. Also the publishers gross margin in this case does not take into account the $ that will be given to the devs.

Also incase you dont know you use the $ sign before you state the number like this: $10. Its not 10$ - maybe you should of studied more in primary school (so dont tell me to study harder). Your equations are also writen wrong.

You just seem to be parroting the same stuff over and over again which in no way supports your argument.

[Vevster]

*facepalm*

You talkeds about EA and Ubisoft financial statements which are net profit and NOT gross profit or related to a specific title and therefore its apples and oranges.


Err, if you had looked at the financials, you would see "Gross margin".
That is for games. Sure, not for specific titles, all games.
What do you think you find in the Gross margin shown on these financials? Revenues from sales of oranges?

Forbes doesn't talk about specific titles either.

Did you look at the financials? Or do you just conclude that all they give is net profit?


In addition their gross margin is HIGHER because steam sales take a lower % of total sales price for themselves then a retail shop would, thats not even counting other factors that would further reduce net profit. .

You're funny. That's exactly the point: you say the gross margin is highr because steam takes a lower % of sales than a retail shop:

I'm telling you it is not always the case, and it is certainly not what Forbes announces as demonstrated by the financials I gave.

Then you talk about net profit (irrelevant in the discussion)

And finally a gem :


Also the publishers gross margin in this case does not take into account the $ that will be given to the devs.

Err, did you look at the defintion? That's a given, gross margin never takes into account amount given to the dev.
So I don't even see why you're mentionning that.


Also, note that Kikuchiyo said that Forbes is talking about the developpers's margin, not the publisher, while you're saying those are the same. apparently, he did not understood Forbes article the same way you did.

I am telling you that Steam does not apply the same % for everyone (dev / publisher), it varies for each game. You say otherwise, but you have not provided much proof, while requesting a lot from me.

As for the rest of your diatribe, well, if that is the forte of your argument, that shows a lot .


I didn't study in the US or UK, english is not my native language, but I should have paid more attention to how I write on a forum as someone (or a nobody) on the internet is ready to jump on a $ sign not well placed.


By the way, in correct english, I think one should write "dollar amount" and not "$ amount", as you did. Missed some classes, didn't you?


See, easy game.


Anyway, last post for me on the subjet.
Discussing percentages is funny, but only for a while. You will not convince me, I will not convince you. And it does not really matter.

Enjoy your week end, economics, Steam, the friday update and the various games you might play.

[Kikuchiyo]

Sorry, you're saying Forbes is talking about developpers Gross Margin?


Exact quote from the Forbes article
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem_2.html

Second page

"Steam's appeal to publishers is in giving them the opportunity to sell directly, cutting out the profits extracted by distributors. Publishers earn a gross margin of around 70% on Steam, compared with 30% via retail stores"

Am I still the one interpreting what is written in Forbes' article?

Ugh you are being pedantic here. What is true for publishers would clearly be true for developers as well. Cutting out a middle man increases profits.

[Vevster]

Ugh you are being pedantic here. What is true for publishers would clearly be true for developers as well. Cutting out a middle man increases profits.

OK, here we go again .You cannot even admit you have been wrong on your previous statement?

Wow, you're the one who said:


I think the misunderstanding is coming from you interpreting a developer's gross margin with a publisher's gross margin. You're figures aren't incorrect you are just confusing a publisher's gross margin with the developer's gross margin which is what the Forbes article was talking about. An outside developer's gross margin from a retail box sale is about half of the product's gross margin of profit. DD cuts out that sharing of the gross margin profit with the publisher.

So it seems you thought there clearly is a difference. If not, why make this post?
This post is clearly in contradiction with the quote from Forbes. That is easy for all to see, but hey, I am pedantic...

Also:
If you are a publisher you are not cutting a middle man by using Steam. You are replacing a retailer by Steam.


End of story, you guys can now play with yourselves.

[Kikuchiyo]

OK, here we go again .You cannot even admit you have been wrong on your previous statement?

Wow, you're the one who said:



So it seems you thought there clearly is a difference. If not, why make this post?
This post is clearly in contradiction with the quote from Forbes. That is easy for all to see, but hey, I am pedantic...

Also:
If you are a publisher you are not cutting a middle man by using Steam. You are replacing a retailer by Steam.

End of story, you guys can now play with yourselves.

And if you are a developer you can cut out the publisher. Yes, perhaps I wrote things incorrectly or misinterpreted somethings.

Now, can you not admit that if a publisher's profits increase then so would the developer's? (aka you're being pedantic)

Seems you are conceding that profits increase using a DD over a retail box version which is what this whole discussion was about.

[Heliocon]

OK, here we go again .You cannot even admit you have been wrong on your previous statement?

Wow, you're the one who said:



So it seems you thought there clearly is a difference. If not, why make this post?
This post is clearly in contradiction with the quote from Forbes. That is easy for all to see, but hey, I am pedantic...

Also:
If you are a publisher you are not cutting a middle man by using Steam. You are replacing a retailer by Steam.


End of story, you guys can now play with yourselves.

Hey, quit being a jack ass. I made the $ comment because you said I should study harder, which is hard to take serious when you are talking about money and dont know even know where the $ sign goes.

In any case the discussion/argument was about using a publisher versus NO publisher. I stated they could choose their publisher, and that they could choose NOT to use one and instead go straight to steam as the retailer and make a LARGER profit then if they published with ubisoft and then sold on steam. You said that was not true, and still have not provided ANY evidence that says steam charges variable rates for different games (excluding use of valve's engine).
So in conclusion you should stop acting like an idiot, you yourself said that gross margin on steam using those numbers does not count devs, but publishers - therefore if there is NO publisher that gross profit goes directly to the devs and does not get split/reduced by the publisher taking the cash. Especially on a platform like steam where the publisher does little if not nothing for promotion or sales.

[Heliocon]

Please define profit, but in any case, the % are wrong.
I think I have seen more profit and loss statements of video games (products) than you do. Unless you have worked for a major editor or studio, that is.
My source is my job experience in the video game industry




There are many cases here, and not always less overheads:
- the company distributes online by its own means (no steam): has to buy servers, pay for bandwith etc... compared to manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs are very low and essentially variable. Servers are fixed costs (could be variable if externalized). If you distribute a lot online, then fixed costs can be offset well.
Main drawback of boxes, again, are the unsold inventory: in some countries, they can be send back by retailers; in most, unsold copies will see price decline rapidly, and those unsold to retailers will have to be destroyed (while manufacturing costs have been incurred)
- the company distributes onlina via steam: they pay a service, steam charges for it, depending on the level of service & risk ; see below




If you read french, buy the PC Magazine Canard PC and read their article about steam. Will look it for you and find the game they mentionned (said the studio got 10% on reatail price - have to take out VAT to calculate each chnk, but that would be around 85% for stema, 15% for the studio

Also, do not forget that Steam acts 2 ways:
- online distributor, for instance for some THQ, Ubi etc... games: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer's chunk (20 to 30%)
- publisher AND retailer: when an indie game for instance is distributed via steam: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer (20-30%) plus a chunk as publisher. And that can go high depending on the contract (40-60%).
Main difference is , afaik, Steam doesn't prefinance a lot of games the way editors do; so their contracts with studios are quite different, and studios get money on each unit sold. On the other hand they get no guaranteed minimum (as is the case in most editor-studio deals; that's an advance on royalties system)

The % given by Forbes are for publishers, not studios. And frankly, these are not at all the figures I've looked at (retailers take 20 to 30% max, including returns etc...). Gross margin includes manufacturing costs (Net revenues - Manufacturing costs, that's all)
If they got 30%, they would all be bankrupt.
As I said, average is above 50% (60%) on a full year and there are not enough online copies (at 70%) to offest the larger number of boxes sold (at 30% according to Forbes). I call BS on that one. Probably a question of wording:

EA gross Margin (p107): from 60% in 2006 to 49% in 2010 with an increase of online distribution ...)
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1187769815x0x385991/B1DCA06E-E734-4C65-ABA8-417B652313D3/Electronic_Arts-2010.pdf

Ubi gross margin:
http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2360.xls
around 60% on a full year (59% to 66%)

To reach a 60% gross margin with the % (30% - 70%) given by forbes would mean that Ubi sells 3 times more games through steam than through retailers. and that is just plain wrong


Steam is certainly a great platform and a good publisher for small studios, but asserting that these studios always get more than if they'd taken another (mainstream) editor is wrong. Some get more, some get less.

If you don't need to prefinance your game, best deal can be steam (but hey, you can negociate with other editor)
If you need to prefinance your game, today, I'm not certai at all that Steam is helpful.
And you have to take into account that advance on royalties paid by an editor in the % of profit you mentionned in the first place....

Going back and quoting your statements earlier that you made. Because you contradict yourself/dont know what you are talking about. Quoting you "As I said, average is above 50% (60%) on a full year and there are not enough online copies (at 70%) to offest the larger number of boxes sold (at 30% according to Forbes). I call BS on that one. Probably a question of wording:"
- This is what I addressed earlier - you are comparing profit from retail store sales to steams sales on the basis of number of units shipped, NOT % profit margin which is what the 30% vs 70% is. Thats a gross profit margin, not % of end gross profit.

"Also, do not forget that Steam acts 2 ways:
- online distributor, for instance for some THQ, Ubi etc... games: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer's chunk (20 to 30%)
- publisher AND retailer: when an indie game for instance is distributed via steam: in that case, they take the equivalent of a retailer (20-30%) plus a chunk as publisher. And that can go high depending on the contract (40-60%)."

- Thats a lie, Steam DOES NOT publish anyone elses games but Valve's (the company that owns/created Steam. Your numbers are not true, Steam never acts as a publisher, just a distributer. The only time it may act as a publisher is posting advertisements in the console which is advertisement and not "publishing". Steam does however charge royalties for using the Source engine but that is a different matter.

"The % given by Forbes are for publishers, not studios. And frankly, these are not at all the figures I've looked at (retailers take 20 to 30% max, including returns etc...). Gross margin includes manufacturing costs (Net revenues - Manufacturing costs, that's all)
If they got 30%, they would all be bankrupt."

-Gross margin does not include manufacturing costs. You are now contradicting yourself in later posts. Also you are interchanging and confusing terms and numbers. Again like I hae tried to point out earlier, you are confusing yourself. Also again the point is wrong anyway because if I make 30% gross profit per sale and my other costs are only 5% of the products cost then I can easily cover my expenses.

-The EA and Ubi financial reports you gave do not include any accurate data that is relevant to your argument. Their gross sales profit is a conglomerate from many products, many distribution methods and many regions. It does not support the argument you are making. Also EA is a developer AND publisher, while Ubisoft is a publisher. The argument is over publisher vs no publisher and its effects on the development studios end profits if publishing on steam. Again you did not show developer figures. Also your assesment of a decline in profit due to digital sales as you said in your post is idiotic. First these profits include CONSOLE game sales aswell, second there is currently a recession and that reduces sale quantities among other things. Basically your full of it.

[Heliocon]

I don't quite understand your first sentence "Steam sales cost the company(s) offering games through them a higher margin of profit "

Do you mean Steam takes a higher cut? That would be exact but contradictory to what you write further


Steam, as a publisher often take a higher % than a retailer. That's because they act both as publisher & retailer for some games. They can take as much as 80% of price for some indie games....They take the risk with infrastructure as a retailer takes the risk with shelf space.

So when you say "it is technically more profitable to offer your games solely through steam than through Steam and B&M stores. " I'll answer "it depends, and sometimes it's quite the opposite". Each case is different; too many parameters to sum up.

Some people do not like DLing games, via Steam or else.

Best thing today is to offer both DL & boxes, gives a broader audience. That's why publishers like Ubi also offer games on steam.

Where does this 80% come from? Where did you find this number? What games? Source games? Or are you making this up (more likely)?
Steam does not need to invest in infastructure, they rent out servers in regions, the servers are owned by a third party but are updated by valve and operate 24/7 serving content. Valve rents them, so there is no investment (more bs you are making up). This is easy to find info if you look on Steam's website and go to their collaboration/buisness section where they talk about hosting requirments.

[Avimimus]

OK - lets all be negative about this too!

+1 ;)

[Avimimus]

I'll just get the game when it comes out but I wont bother looking at video. I like to just live under a rock - have no expectations , and find out little things myself. It's always better this way.

Wisdom. It took me seven years of Il-2 news to figure that out...

[Heliocon]

Wisdom. It took me seven years of Il-2 news to figure that out...

Lol well amen to that, I would say I am going to do this - but I would probably be back the next day... So I will save myself the post :P

[Sauf]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/okdiq.gif

Came across this on another forum lol, doesnt inspire confidence, though ive yet to use steam

[Feuerfalke]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/okdiq.gif

Came across this on another forum lol, doesnt inspire confidence, though ive yet to use steam

That's exactly the basis for most of Anti-Steam criticism: Hearsay.

[Heliocon]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/okdiq.gif

Came across this on another forum lol, doesnt inspire confidence, though ive yet to use steam

Entertaining - I loled.
But steam is actually very good.

[Tiger27]

Entertaining - I loled.
But steam is actually very good.

Can't say I have ever had a problem with Steam, certainly no lag issues, a lot of people need something to blame for any issues they have and of course it couldn't be their PC, as sim ant runs smoothly on it so therefore all other games before and since should as well.

[Cowboy10uk]

To be honest, I've been using steam for many years. It does work well, although I do find it has very slow download speeds, Well for me anyway, Normally takes 8 - 9 Hrs to download a game, so tend to leave it on overnight. Apart from that it updates without hassle, and is very easy to use. I just prefere a real copy in my hands, than a digital version, but Thats just me.

As to CoD going gold, I think we still have a few more weeks to go before we all start worry. Homefront is coming out on the 18th and only went gold a few days ago. So still plenty of time yet.

Cowboy10uk

[Tree_UK]

Ive not got any problem with steam, i would always prefer a hard copy, but steam as always worked fine for me too.

[Razorhead]

Steam works perfect here. Downloading games goes usual with 2 - 3 MB/S.

[Les]

Have been using Steam myself for a few years too, without any real problems. Have only ever used it as a purchasing and downloading service though, so haven't had to rely on it as an online game-server facility or social-gaming stat-tracking type service as such. I just buy the games through them, using Paypal, download and install them, play them through, usually offline (Red Orchestra is the only one I've played online) then unininstall them again, all without any hassles.

There are some downsides to the overall Steam service though, which make me think I'll probably get CloDo in disk form as well. One of the potential downsides is the way Steam games get patched and updated. There's often a slight delay between a developer releasing a patch for a game and that patch becoming available to the Steam version of that game.

As far as I understand it, you've also got no ability to undo patches that have been applied to the Steam version of the game. All you can do is make a back-up copy of the game at each version, uninstall the later version, re-install the older version and not let Steam update it if and when it recognizes the older version needs updating. That's not a lot different to rolling back the game using an original disk version and applying patches as you see fit, except that all your patched versions saved as steam backups will have to be complete versions of the game. So, instead of just having the original game on DVD and the patches on another CD or DVD, you'll have to have several DVD's containing the various patched levels of the entire game.

As others have mentioned, there's also the thing about not being able to have several Steam versions of the game installed at the same time. As far as I know, that is in fact the case.

So, there are some potential inconveniences, depending on what you want to to with the game. That's with not even taking the modding situation into account, but if mods to CloDo are done like mods to the Steam version of Red Orchestra, that shouldn't be a problem, they can be applied and deleted without changing the core game as far as Steam is concerned.

I personally don't anticipate needing to have multiple versions of the game on the one computer, or having to change between versions of it, and I don't need to have each patch for the game the very moment it comes out, so none of these things are deal breakers for me in terms of whether or not I get the Steam version.

But, at the same time, I have planned all along to have at least one hard-copy of the original version on disk and the various patches and mods on disk as a back up, along with and separate to the Steam version. Just so I'm not totally dependent upon one or the other, and as an excuse to spend more on the game in support of the developers.

Edit - Just remembered one instance where Steam did fail me. It was a very rare case where the Steam client itself needed updating, but my internet connection dropped out. This left me unable to update the Steam client, or even play off-line, because as soon as I started up Steam it just kept trying to connect online to update itself and wouldn't even give me a chance to tell it I wanted to play off-line. That's about as bad as it's ever been for me with Steam. Others have had other issues for sure, but the way I've been using it, I haven't experienced those.

[Biggs]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/okdiq.gif

Came across this on another forum lol, doesnt inspire confidence, though ive yet to use steam

you do realize that GIF is like from 2003...

Steam is very stable and reliable these days.

[Zappatime]

My receipt from Ubishop UK for my CE version says ' pre-order shipping date Monday 21st March' - if that's to be believed (and I'm seriously doubting it now) shouldn't the game have gone gold by now, its normally about 2 weeks prior to release for a gold deadline, admittedly if Ubi are limiting the disc versions to only them then they don't have to get it out to loads of independent suppliers (Game, Amazon, Play, etc) beforehand ready for a release date, so I guess perhaps you could reduce that lead in time to about a week at absolute minimum - anybody have any thoughts on that?

[Biggs]

My receipt from Ubishop UK for my CE version says ' pre-order shipping date Monday 21st March' - if that's to be believed (and I'm seriously doubting it now) shouldn't the game have gone gold by now, its normally about 2 weeks prior to release for a gold deadline, admittedly if Ubi are limiting the disc versions to only them then they don't have to get it out to loads of independent suppliers (Game, Amazon, Play, etc) beforehand ready for a release date, so I guess perhaps you could reduce that lead in time to about a week at absolute minimum - anybody have any thoughts on that?

yep... if its gonna be in our hands or on our harddrives on teh 25th. then its needs to be Gold THIS week... this stuff doesnt just happen overnight.

if Oleg doesnt announce "gold" on Friday then... well... i seriously doubt the march 25th deadline.

[ptisinge]

For all we know, it might have already gone Gold. Don't count on Ubi for an announcement, and Oleg might be busy crunching all the hours they can to get a post release patch ready, in which case they're not going to communicate this (few developers/publishers actually care to communicate this in general). Wait and see

[ElAurens]

Exactly.

I have been of the opinion that the sim has been much farther along in development than anyone has let on so far.

Call me a fan boy if you want, I don't care, I've been called much worse.

All we have seen are betas. I think Oleg is a shrewd man and until the day of release no one, and I mean no one, knows exactly what we will be getting.

[Novotny]

I completely agree El Aurens. We might be wrong, but I think Oleg is holding off on showcasing for the 'wow' factor upon release.

[Biggs]

Exactly.

I have been of the opinion that the sim has been much farther along in development than anyone has let on so far.

Call me a fan boy if you want, I don't care, I've been called much worse.

All we have seen are betas. I think Oleg is a shrewd man and until the day of release no one, and I mean no one, knows exactly what we will be getting.

believe me, i want nothing more than for that to be true... I'd love to completely wrong in thinking that the launch will be delayed

[Stachel]

Justflight.com and Gamersgate.com have changed their download release dates from March 25 to March 31.

[Cowboy10uk]

I would love to be flying in the skies over Dover on the 25th, However from what i've seen so far, Im not going to hold my breath. Although we do have to be realistic here, Whats a few more weeks after all the years we have waited. Also I would prefere Oleg and the team to get this working correctly instead of rushing it out, SH5 style.

While that had the protential to be hugh, Ubi's decision to lumber it with permanant online connection and not letting the programmers finish the job, ended up sinking the Sub. ( Yes I am aware that they have got rid of the connection issue and we have some great mods now )

However I would hate to see that happen here. ( The sim failing, Not the great mods :) )

I would say to Oleg, Release the sim when you are ready and not before, This has the potential to be huge, However if you release it with lots of bugs, just because Ubi says so, it Will crash and burn just like the luftwaffe ( Yes Im a fan of a certain Ale named afted an iconic aircraft ;) )

Cowboy10uk

[Kikuchiyo]

NOT Ubi's decision to lumber it with a DD platform that requires one time activation online connection and letting the programmers finish the job, and increase profitability


Read and be enlightened. (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19094)

Read the link in the OP of that thread. Ubi has nothing to do with it. Ubi won't get a dime from a digital copy.

[Cowboy10uk]

Ummm Ok It dosnt look like i explained myself well. When I mentioned the bad choices regarding online connection It was to Show that Ubi has in the past made bad choices regarding sims, that had the protential to be huge, but failed due to Ubi not letting the programmers finish the job.

I have nothing against it coming out on Steam, I admit given a choice, I wouldn't have chosen to use it, But I know its the future and if I want to continue playing Pc games, I have to accept that.

I know it only needs a one time activation and NOT a permainant one, which is great, The fact Ubi, backtracked on this issue in several games, does show that for once they did listen to us.

All I want is for Oleg and his team to have the chance to complete the job they started, and not be forced to rush CoD out of the door on Ubi's say so. Yes I am aware that for all we know the Sim may be finished how Oleg wanted it, But thats not the impression im getting.

CoD Has a huge protential here, It Could be mindblowing and set a new standard, But ONLY if the publisher lets the Makers get on with the job.

I hope this explains my post a little more. I'm not complaining about Steam, I'm not complaining about CoD. I'm not trying to make out it has a permaniant connection.

I just trying to say, Dont Rush the last few months, when youve spent so long designing and building this sim. If it needs a few more months to polish then use them. It will be a awful lot better than letting Ubi publish a Buggy sim, just for the sake of some sales.

[Blackdog_kt]

He's referring to the SH5 launch.

[Kikuchiyo]

He's referring to the SH5 launch.

Silent Hunter 5 failed miserably because it was a buggy pile of crap.

[Hecke]

The game should be gold by now, right?

So hopefully Oleg can confirm that in tomorrow's update.

[Royraiden]

The game should be gold by now, right?

So hopefully Oleg can confirm that in tomorrow's update.

Im thinking it is,even if we only get a 10 second video tomorrow.

[Troll2k]

Since Gogamer(USA shop) has pushed the date back from March 25th to April 19th I suspect it has not gone gold yet.

However that might be for the standard boxed edition(shown listed) and that the download is still set for the 25th.

[kestrel79]

I'm going to assume the download version is still on for March 25th. It's the boxed version that will come out later.

This is what A10c did a few weeks ago and the boxed version is due out next month I want to say?