By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - XBLA is a "slaughterhouse" for smaller developers

shio on 13 July 2010
disolitude said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:

So 53% sell more than 100,000?  That sounds really good to me.  Either Joe Danger sucks or Hello Games isn't very bright.  I was actually suprised that so many games sell that well(if the data is correct).

No, only 53% sell more than 25,000. 30% sell more than 100,000 copies.

And what's with the insult? Joe Danger is being a success on PSN, and those developers have more insight than most people on the matter.

From the OP "23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000. "  I'm not insulting the game in any way.  I'm saying that their stats seem to suggest that most games do sell well so it should have been released on both.

...

Add up the 47% of those that sell less 25k with the 23% that sell up to 100k, and you get 70% that sell 100k or lower. So only 30% sell more than 100k.

I believe the intention of the dev wasn't "sold around" but "sold up to", which makes vastly more sense.

Direct quote -

"23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000."

"around" being the key word. 53% sell around 100K or more.

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Around the Network
GodOfWar_3ever on 13 July 2010
Barozi said:

well it's their fault. Look at the sales of Trials HD, which is a bit comparable in gameplay and quality to Joe Danger.

It's one of the best selling XBLA titles. Joe Danger would have done very well on XBLA.

But they didn't wanted to publish it themselves...and XBLA doesn't allow that. If you publish your game individually, you get most of the profit and dont have to share it with a publisher.

Same reason Manchurium is not releasing on XBLA.

And what do you mean "its there own fault". The game sold 50k first week,  broke even day one and its selling very well it seems judging by the Top 10 downloads list on PSN.



disolitude on 13 July 2010
shio said:
disolitude said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:

So 53% sell more than 100,000?  That sounds really good to me.  Either Joe Danger sucks or Hello Games isn't very bright.  I was actually suprised that so many games sell that well(if the data is correct).

No, only 53% sell more than 25,000. 30% sell more than 100,000 copies.

And what's with the insult? Joe Danger is being a success on PSN, and those developers have more insight than most people on the matter.

From the OP "23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000. "  I'm not insulting the game in any way.  I'm saying that their stats seem to suggest that most games do sell well so it should have been released on both.

...

Add up the 47% of those that sell less 25k with the 23% that sell up to 100k, and you get 70% that sell 100k or lower. So only 30% sell more than 100k.

I believe the intention of the dev wasn't "sold around" but "sold up to", which makes vastly more sense.

Direct quote -

"23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000."

"around" being the key word. 53% sell around 100K or more.

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.


huh? Break even at 100K? How do you get that?

Average XBLA price is 10 bucks. the revenue split is 70/30

So developer gets 7 dollars for each game sold. 

Braid cost $200000 to make and there is no reason to believe that most independant games cost any more. In fact they should cost less...

So according to that pricing, Braid needed to sell 28500 to break even. 100K copies sold would have got Braid $500000 profit.

Except Braid cost 15 bucks and sold gazillion and made a shitload of money, as do most good XBL games.



TRios_Zen on 13 July 2010
shio said:
disolitude said:

Direct quote -

"23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000."

"around" being the key word. 53% sell around 100K or more.

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.

Wait I'm confused. 

Is the argument that too much content on XBLA means developers don't have a chance, so the PSN is easier to succeed on (the implication being that there is less content on the PSN as competition)...  OR is there supposed to be some kind of indication that ALL games sell well on the PSN?

From what I read in OP, it seemed like the former.  But the discussions about sales percentage seem to be trying to prove a point, that frankly as we don't have PSN numbers to compare too, seems a bit myopic in scope.



Adobo on 13 July 2010

I hope he gets more support from PSN users. He should create more drama around gaming community to gain way more attention.



Around the Network
shio on 13 July 2010
disolitude said:
shio said:
disolitude said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:

So 53% sell more than 100,000?  That sounds really good to me.  Either Joe Danger sucks or Hello Games isn't very bright.  I was actually suprised that so many games sell that well(if the data is correct).

No, only 53% sell more than 25,000. 30% sell more than 100,000 copies.

And what's with the insult? Joe Danger is being a success on PSN, and those developers have more insight than most people on the matter.

From the OP "23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000. "  I'm not insulting the game in any way.  I'm saying that their stats seem to suggest that most games do sell well so it should have been released on both.

...

Add up the 47% of those that sell less 25k with the 23% that sell up to 100k, and you get 70% that sell 100k or lower. So only 30% sell more than 100k.

I believe the intention of the dev wasn't "sold around" but "sold up to", which makes vastly more sense.

Direct quote -

"23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000."

"around" being the key word. 53% sell around 100K or more.

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.


huh? Break even at 100K? How do you get that?

Average XBLA price is 10 bucks. the revenue split is 70/30

So developer gets 7 dollars for each game sold. 

Braid cost $200000 to make and there is no reason to believe that most independant games cost any more. In fact they should cost less...

So according to that pricing, Braid needed to sell 28500 to break even. 100K copies sold would have got Braid $500000 profit.

Except Braid cost 15 bucks and sold gazillion and made a shitload of money, as do most good XBL games.

First of all, it's not a 70/30 split. They have a sliding scale that makes the 70/30 the best outcome possible. Second, you are forced to contract a publisher for the game, with the publisher only promoting the game at a minimum AND not giving any money for the games' costs.

In truth, it's probably worse than a 60/40 split.

And Braid is one of a kind. Very few games can do as well as Braid did.

And remember when Kotaku broke out the news that some indie devs only get 35% of the revenue on XBLA? http://kotaku.com/359668/microsoft-cuts-indie-royalties-in-half



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
DirtyP2002 on 13 July 2010
shio said:
disolitude said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:

So 53% sell more than 100,000?  That sounds really good to me.  Either Joe Danger sucks or Hello Games isn't very bright.  I was actually suprised that so many games sell that well(if the data is correct).

No, only 53% sell more than 25,000. 30% sell more than 100,000 copies.

And what's with the insult? Joe Danger is being a success on PSN, and those developers have more insight than most people on the matter.

From the OP "23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000. "  I'm not insulting the game in any way.  I'm saying that their stats seem to suggest that most games do sell well so it should have been released on both.

...

Add up the 47% of those that sell less 25k with the 23% that sell up to 100k, and you get 70% that sell 100k or lower. So only 30% sell more than 100k.

I believe the intention of the dev wasn't "sold around" but "sold up to", which makes vastly more sense.

Direct quote -

"23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000."

"around" being the key word. 53% sell around 100K or more.

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.

you are even spinning his own quote. You say he is wrong, he meant something else and you know what it was. Brilliant.

Do you even notice that he only talks about SELF-PUBLISHED TITLES?

QUOTE:

Of titles on XBLA that were self-published without the assistance of third-parties

/QUOTE

So he is talking about SELF-published titles. So the numbers for NOT SELF PUBLSIHED titles are even better.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

TRios_Zen on 13 July 2010
KylieDog said:

"Of titles on XBLA that were self-published without the assistance of third-parties, Murray claimed 47 per cent sold less than 25,000 copies,"

^^ That is why its an issue.

This discussion (not ours, but the larger one) seems to be spinning out of control.  My only point is, with a lack of numbers for other systems (ie Steam, PSN), how do we have ANY idea if the quoted values above are good or bad?

Unless anyone can definitively say that all self-published titles (on average) will sell more than 25,000 copies if released on "X" system, how is the data here relevant?



shio on 13 July 2010
DirtyP2002 said:
shio said:
disolitude said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:
shio said:
voty2000 said:

So 53% sell more than 100,000?  That sounds really good to me.  Either Joe Danger sucks or Hello Games isn't very bright.  I was actually suprised that so many games sell that well(if the data is correct).

No, only 53% sell more than 25,000. 30% sell more than 100,000 copies.

And what's with the insult? Joe Danger is being a success on PSN, and those developers have more insight than most people on the matter.

From the OP "23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000. "  I'm not insulting the game in any way.  I'm saying that their stats seem to suggest that most games do sell well so it should have been released on both.

...

Add up the 47% of those that sell less 25k with the 23% that sell up to 100k, and you get 70% that sell 100k or lower. So only 30% sell more than 100k.

I believe the intention of the dev wasn't "sold around" but "sold up to", which makes vastly more sense.

Direct quote -

"23 per cent sold around 100,000 copies, 13 per cent 200,000 copies and 17 per cent more than 200,000."

"around" being the key word. 53% sell around 100K or more.

In which case, people have been saying that he made a mistake and meant "up to", because otherwise it would mean that no game is selling at 40k, 50k, 75k, 130k, 150k, 170k, etc...

either way it means that only 30% sold more than "around" 100k. And since many developers only break even at 100k, you figure it out.

you are even spinning his own quote. You say he is wrong, he meant something else and you know what it was. Brilliant.

Do you even notice that he only talks about SELF-PUBLISHED TITLES?

QUOTE:

Of titles on XBLA that were self-published without the assistance of third-parties

/QUOTE

So he is talking about SELF-published titles. So the numbers for NOT SELF PUBLSIHED titles are even better.

And those published titles have to give a cut of their revenue to the publishers.



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Severance on 13 July 2010

didn't they work on an XBLA version ? i mean they already have one made when it was announced, they can just ask anyone to publish it.



I live for the burn...and the sting of pleasure...
I live for the sword, the steel, and the gun...

- Wasteland - The Mission.