Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is a dowloadable title actually less risk then a retail release?

Is an eShop release higher or lower risk then retail?

Higher 7 25.00%
 
Lower 21 75.00%
 
Total:28
RolStoppable said:
d21lewis said:
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?

I know this is a Joel thread and all, but you could at least skim the original post instead of assuming what the topic at hand is about.


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.



mZuzek loves Smeags. 😢

Around the Network
Joelcool7 said:

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?

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.

mrstickball said:


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'd imagine the publisher in this case is taking more than just 70%.



noname2200 said:
Joelcool7 said:

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?

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.

mrstickball said:


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'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.

mrstickball said:
noname2200 said:
mrstickball said:


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'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).

It was a joke: Nintendo is publishing Dillon's Rolling Western, so they're probably getting all of it, minus whatever cut of the gross they agreed to send the developer's way. Which, from my understanding, is traditionally a small amount. Or is that incorrect?



I personally think in the long run digital is going to be no cheep and a worst deal for the customer. Sure they are loosing the production cost but they are adding other cost such as bandwidth and maintenance costs in their places. Plus if this generation of dl software is any indication buying the game isn't a garentee that you will always own the title. For example I lost my rights to a game when the company I originally bought the full retail version from merged with another company.



Around the Network
noname2200 said:
mrstickball said:
noname2200 said:
mrstickball said:


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'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).

It was a joke: Nintendo is publishing Dillon's Rolling Western, so they're probably getting all of it, minus whatever cut of the gross they agreed to send the developer's way. Which, from my understanding, is traditionally a small amount. Or is that incorrect?

Ah. I was unsure who published it. I'd imagine that the deal was probably structured in the way of "Make us a 3DS downloadable game - here's a million dollars" or something of the nature. Given that Nintendo published it, I doubt there's a huge back-end royalty for Vanpool.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Well Rol D21lewis did thoroughly read my OP. You obviously didn't read his first few sentences.

I take the idea of cost from other developer statements. Recently I have heard 400,000 is the standard development costs for a small iOS professional game. Nintendo 3DS is a much more expensive platform to develop for. Now considering Nintendo is the publisher development costs would have been cheaper then a third party developer. However the costs would have still been higher then an iOS game. I'd estimate Rolling Western probably cost near a million USD maybe 800k. The studio is a professional bigger budget studio and the game is beautiful it could have been improved a bit with a bigger budget but it is pretty dang good.

The sales of 25,000 first month is impressive for download on 3DS, but how poorly could it have possibly done at retail? A poorly selling game still does around what 10k their is no way the title could have done much worse then it is currently doing on eShop.

I can see how eShop is lower risk for a low budget downloadable title developed by a Indie studio who can't bring it to consoles. But for a standard budget from a big publisher like Nintendo or even UbiSoft or EAGames. It doesn't make sense for a title big enough for retail to be launched on eShop. It does not make sense to risk losing tons of money by launching on eShop.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Retail is better if you are actually attempting not to lose money. A bargain bin retail game will generally sell a lot better than an eShop game. The problem with eShop is that the market is almost non-existent, the chance of failure is near absolute. Usually the teams that are doing eShop games are not teams who are doing it for any form of commercial success, but rather as a demo so that a publisher might pick them up to work on a real game.

There is a shot at success for retail, but going eShop for an original title is nearly guaranteed commercial failure.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

I would actually say that one of the reason why the eshop market is so low right now is that their is a real negative stigma from a number of gamers in regards to Nintendo's online due to the Wiiware and DSiware



Well, if Nintendo wishes to sell the eShop, there has to be more free quality downloads. If it's free, people will get it. If they like what they're sampling, then they will pay for interesting content. Also, I do think that purchasing points needs to be easy - I am not sure because I haven't checked, but is paypal an option? Or is it just points cards and credit cards?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.