With the release of high end retail quality games on eShop like Dillon's Rolling Western or Pushmo I am beginning to wonder if the release of the games on the eShop is actually riskier then a full blown retail game. When I think WiiWare or eShop software I think a three hour game a small game that is only worth 6$-10$. A game I can download to play a few hours when I don't have a main retail game. I understand the major advantage to releasing new IP on download you don't have to waste money on advertising or distribution/manufacturing you get the entire income of the game.

The idea being an eShop title is a low risk good way to test the waters before investing a full blown retail title. However if the game your releasing offers 20 hours of game play like I have heard Dillon's Rolling Western does. The game is on par with retail games is it really a low risk good environment to test the waters?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall the last financial report stating Nintendo only made 11-million USD on eShop (3DS) that quarter. That is terrible considering the amount of Virtual Console software available and the amount of software. Lets say you develop a 4-million dollar game is it less risky to release a copy on eShop with a far smaller user base at 9.99$ where you potentially will not break even even if the game is a smashing success. Or would you rather release the game at retail making 30% of 39.99$ but the game is on all the store shelves with far greater sales potential? I assume Dillon's Rolling Western had a budget larger then a million and the eShop seems to be a lot riskier for a new IP then to release the game full retail.

What's your take is eShop low or high risk if you are going to launch a title that has the same quality level and budget as a full retail? Assuming you are a developer capable of getting your game to retail in the first place. What is riskier?

less production time, less development cost, so yeah lower risk.

also a less risk in publishing.. you know how expensive ads, making booklets, dvd covers, buying cases, pressing dvd's, shipping /transporting them, storing them is?

You think a 3ds eshop title took 1 million USD to develop??? Are you sure about that. I would expect half of that at the most although I have yet to have seen that game.

it all depends on the cost and pricing point.

Lower risk and a bigger exposure. By lowering the manufacturing, publishing & handling cost, they should focus on releasing games worldwide.

This is a Nintendo thread but as a consumer, the same question applies. On the Playstation Vita, any game you buy at retail can be purchased via the Playstation Store. Is it riskier to go retail or is it riskier to buy the digital copy? With the retail copy, you have something physical that you can share, sell, and account for. Then again, if you break it or lose it, it's gone. With a digital copy, you can lose your hardware or delete the data but your game is always there to download and play as long as you have access to your ID.....until the servers are no longer available.

So, again, is downloadable less of a risk than a retail release?

Generally, its a much better market to release on.

But ultimately, it comes down to budget. A downloadable titles' budget is generally a lot less expensive than a retail title. Since there is no publishing of discs (or cartridges), you're going to save yourself a bit of money in regards to the publishing arm. Additionally, since your title is digital, it has unlimited shelf space, so there's no desperate rush to the top for bigger & better graphics to help differentiate your title. If you look at the best-selling digital titles, they weren't graphics-busters by any stretch, but were made pretty cheaply with fun, innovative gameplay.

On the downside, the number of copies you can sell is far, far less. So you do have to adjust for that. Its a smaller risk/reward than cartridges, because even with huge success, you're not going to see a title like Drawn to Life on the Nintendo Channel.

And for what its worth, the 3DS market is growing. Dillon's Rolling Western sold somewhere around 25,000 copies its first month. Given the growth of the 3DS, it's about assured to eventually hit 100,000 or more due to its great review scores from users. With the publisher getting a 70% cut of revenues, that is a nice chunk of change for them.

I came into the OP thinking one thing and saw that it was about another.  I already had my argument in my head and I didn't want to waste it.  Hence, the first sentence.  On another note, the Vita vs 3DS thingy I started last week is pretty much done.  I'll name which one is the best in a little while.

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%.