Cliffs of Dover, a Year Later

[addman]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

Thats quite interesting. I was sure that someone said that Ubisoft were the ones who made them implement the anti-epilepsy filter. Maybe it said publisher and I assumed that meant Ubisoft as they are the ones on the splash screen (in the UK at least).

I bet Ubisoft told MG that if they wanted to get CloD published in the EU they had to implement the anti-epilepsy filter most likely because of EU legislation or Ubisofts own policy. I would bet cold cash that Ubisoft is merely the publisher for CloD in the EU/rest of the world. Their job was to manufacture the DVD's, make sure they ended up in retail and also do the marketing for CloD which would also explain why the marketing was so meager for CloD. CloD is no Assassin's Creed for Ubisoft, that game is developed and published by Ubisoft alone, 1c:MG probably had some relations with Ubisoft since the old IL-2 series and asked them if they would be so kind to publish CloD for them outside of Russia/eastern Europe. IMO and from what I understand from previous posts is that Ubisoft is not a dictating force in this farce of a game release.

P.S Just like it was with the original IL-2 Sturmovik, blue-byte was the original publisher but MG needed a bigger partner to get the game out in retail worldwide, Ubisoft fit the bill.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by addman

I would bet cold cash that Ubisoft is merely the publisher for CloD in the EU/rest of the world. Their job was to manufacture the DVD's, make sure they ended up in retail and also do the marketing for CloD which would also explain why the marketing was so meager for CloD.

With what 1c have said about digital distribution: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/opinion-retail-vs-steam

I wonder why they bothered getting ubisoft invovled. I would guess it is because they thought most flight sim fans would like a dvd and box, which ubisoft could provide for them in W.europe. Interesting comments in the article from 1c though:

"As a generalisation, retail would pay these guys a maximum of 40 per cent of what they made. So on a £29.99 game the publisher would receive about £12 (and on a sub-licensed deal, we would then only get about £4.25 of that) – minus return, write down and consignment costs.

When would we get that money? Well, payment would be by the end of the quarter.

So, let’s say £10 per unit sale goes to the publisher, £3 to the developer/sub-licensor, and it’s in your bank five months after the customer has paid out £30.

Compare that to the digital model. On a £29.99 sale, the digital partner will pay the publisher – or in many cases direct to the developer – between 60 and 70 per cent, by the end of the month following the sale.

Wow. To recap: on a sale over the counter today, we can have our £3 by the end of March, or on a digital sale, we can have £20 by Christmas.

Remind me why we should choose to go with retail and decline to let Steam sell the game?"