mrstickball said:
It comes down to how much money publishers really make on their retail games. Here's the data:
The key point is the 2nd note. That is, about $27 or just under 50% of every dollar spent on a game actually goes towards the cost of making the game. The rest goes to licensing fees, marketing, retailer mark up, and so on. Comparatively, as I've stated, really good DLC will generate between $10 and $15 of additional purchasing per retail title sold. The difference is that 70% of every dollar spent on DLC goes to the developer and publisher, sans marketing. Marketing is significantly less expensive, because the user has already purchased the retail title, and the marketing simply has to go to in-game marketing, or other venues that are very cheap. So if you take a major AAA title that sells $10 in DLC, its actually adding about $6.00 to $6.50 in revenues to that publisher after marketing, or about 22-24% on top of gross revenues from the retail title. That is significant in a world where most major developers are seeing razor-thin profit margins. Think like a developer at that point: If you can make an additional 22-24% by pushing the game on another platform, wouldn't you do that? Its a far higher margin than even the $10 "HD" fee that was tacked on by Microsoft and Sony this generation. |
If they are making a profit, they won't base their decision on DLC along, that mentality makes obsolutely no sense in the mind of business men. The lower support would come from them taking losses or the inability to release multiplatform titles on a particular platform due to big differences in hardware compatibility. DLC is not the key factor in publisher support, so that's just a really strange argument, it literally has no merit. You are also basing the assumption that people won't buy external storage when it's everywhere, it's the first thing you pass by when you enter Costco! You are not living in the 90s my man.









