Khuutra said:
BMaker11 said:
Khuutra said:
That's very sensible and I am glad that you said it, but let's go a bit slower here. You're getting ahead of me. Gears of War is a third-party game with an exclusivity contract, not first-party. Mario Galaxy is first-party, I know.
Let's look at Mario Galaxy - 16 million is pretty expensive for a Wii game, right? That probably took more than a million to reach profit, right?
The reason I make this comparison is that in most cases, publishers pay for the entirety of the development of a game, and then take all the money that proceeds from retail sales until such a time as profit has been made, after which the developer gets royalties. So it comes to the same thing in terms of how many games are needed to turn a profit. Right?
I didn't mean to turn this into two questions, and will keep it narrower from here on out.
|
If that were true, not a single development studio would fail if they all got paid anyway. Only publishers would go under, if they front the bill to games that don't sell well
|
That's not true: if developers don't make games that sell well, nobody will publish their games, so they go bankrupt because they don't have a source of income.
Now.
Mario Galaxy probably took more than a million to reach profit, right? At least a smidgen!
|
In an ideal world, that would be true, but you still don't see it happen. Factor 5 put out shitty Lair, yet they've got publishers giving them money to make games still, and that's just one example. And yes, SMG probably took more than a million to profit. Even though seeing how it's a Nintendo game developed in-house, meaning Nintendo saw pretty much all the money from each game sale, it probably didn't need much over a million. The fact that it's sold, what 8 million, is just overkill and surplus money
