Going gold?

[ptisinge]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

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]

Originally Posted by ptisinge

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]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Vevster

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.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Vevster

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.