noname2200 said:
If your title is a full-budget game, going digital-only is a stupid idea. As many have pointed out, the digital market on handhelds/consoles is much smaller than the retail markets for those same devices. Even large-scale public exposure does not seem to completely counteract this; Shadow Complex on the 360 received a large marketing push from Microsoft, including a fairly prominent spot in Microsoft's E3 conference, yet I recall its developer stating that its final profit was relatively minor. To answer your question more broadly though, going digital is a smaller risk, because it lets you skip much of the high costs of publishing. While the distributor's cut seems to be comparable to what the retailer will take, a digital game does not have to take the risk up front of paying the platform holder upfront for the discs etc., or a logistics company to get those copies to retail. If the digital game bombs, sucks to be you. If the retail game bombs, sucks to be you, and here's the bill.
I'd imagine the publisher in this case is taking more than just 70%. |
Generally, 70% is the universal cut between the distributor of the content (Nintendo, Apple, Microsoft, Google, ect) and the developer/publisher, or whomever is getting checks sent to them. Comparatively, the split is about 50/50 for retail content once you add in all the things that go into a cartridge or disc-based title.
So if you have a digital game at $10 and a retail game at $15, the developer/publisher is likely to make the same money on both platforms (well, 50 cents less on digital).
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.