Distinction between Portal and Distributor

[princec]

Which of the portals acts as an actual distributor and which as a publisher? Recent thread about technical requirements for some portals made me wonder. Most developers biggest problem with the portals appears to be their efforts to rebrand indies' efforts as their own, giving the portal the advantages of a publisher but giving the developer none of the advantages of being published (eg. advances, financing).

Cas :)

[dima]

Most developers biggest problem with the portals appears to be their efforts to rebrand indies' efforts as their own, giving the portal the advantages of a publisher but giving the developer none of the advantages of being published (eg. advances, financing).
One of the advantages I see is that you are free to sell the game elsewhere, with any other portal and on your own site. You can't do that with publishers, they will keep % no matter where or how your game is sold.

[James Gwertzman]

Many of the big portals publish their own 1st party titles as well as distribute other 3rd party titles, but not that many actively publish 2nd party titles. I don't think that's what you're talking about, however.

When you say that portals try to "rebrand" the work of other developers, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. I can think of two things:

1) portals often ask developers to put the portal's logo in the game splash screen (but don't, to my knowledge, ask the developer to remove its own logo). I consider this reasonable - there are certainly precedents in other industries.

2) portals ofen leave out the name of the developer when listing the game on their site. I'm not thrilled about this, but again there are precedents - when you look through ads in catalogs, they often don't mention who makes the actual merchandise being sold. Some portals are definitely better here than others - RealArcade is good, Reflexive Arcade is good, Game Zone is okay since they don't mention developer names but they don't otherwise mention anything, MSN Zone is awful since they not only don't mention the developer but they explicitly mention Oberon Media.

Which of these are your concerns?

[princec]

My particular concern was the removal of the Puppygames logo and (C) Shaven Puppy Ltd on the title & splash screens.

Cas :)

[Sharpfish]

I think this fits into a similar bracket to the T2D discussion that was closed (twice) in that if they require it you have to abide by it or go elsewhere. I am not having a go btw, I agree that it is not nice to have "credit going astray" but so long as it was a NON - EXCLUSIVE deal, and you could make money elsewhere, then you are basically sub-contracted/working for them for the purposes of the sales through them. They get a higher cut because of the marketing/distribution/sales (even though we both know making the game is hardly a walk in the park) and because they SHOULD be able to provide an increase chance of you making profit from your software via that product and it's sales.

If you were to set up a portal, think about how you could make it a success. How could it benifit those that want to be "published" on it and those that run it? Both are obviously after money first and foremost which is why these compromises are made. If you were a portal boss think about the demo downloads with a thousand links to the "REAL" developers web-sites. What we (as genuine well intentioned developers) may think of as "stealing our customers" is in my opinion there only to make the portal a sucess. And by doing this it brings in MONEY to both the portal and the developer.

In other words, it pays both the portal AND the developer (in profit) by NOT having a thousand different links and deviations to the devs site instead of the portal site. The very focussed nature of the portals presence in the software etc is what drives the huge number of people to them, which ultimatley (if you are inclined to sell through portals) is exactly what you want.

If you are on the other side wanting to get your own "real customer base" as many of use do, then we have to make some tough choices. We can go the slow road and build (or try to build) up our customers or we can use a "quick fix" portal method.

Basically, as in the case of T2d - it is all cut and dried, and what you loose in % and "company awareness", you (can hope) to make up for in pure sales and actual money to keep going. Which is why I have said I have never had a problem with portals once I realised why they worked the way they did. We all have options. If any of our companies were of a decent enough size to cope, we could (by we I mean devs on this forum) have a seperate "portal friendly" tier that we didn't mind loosing branding on for the sake of money, and less casual stuff (maybe more technologically advanced but likely to sell less) that we can push our "NAME" with.

These are just thoughts but that is how I have seen it for some time now. It would be better if devs got a better cut from portals - but it is for a reason. If it turns out they are way out of line, then over time it may change in the favour of devs.. And I think they would be wiser upping the profit split to the dev than allowing too many deviations from the primary site. This would be "fairer" perhaps but still keep the portals useful at what they are actually trying to do (make money, primarily for themselves but ALSO for devs).

[svero]

I don't think any of the portals have really tried to hide our brands. All they've done is ask that we dont link to our sites directly, for obvious reasons.

[JoeMaru]

We were asked to remove web links, but not our companies brand or logo. Note that one of the portals now directs some of their customers to our fan site, planethinktanks.

Note that I am okay with this. I would much rather remove my link from a game to our site than have some customer follow a link in a game to some site that infects them with porn adware..

[Sirrus]

One of the advantages I see is that you are free to sell the game elsewhere, with any other portal and on your own site. You can't do that with publishers, they will keep % no matter where or how your game is sold.

Wasn't the comparision between Portal and Distributor though?
If a publisher is acting purely as a distribution facilitator, then there is a high chance that there is a non-exclusive agreement between the developer and publisher...which would mean that they only get the percent of where the game is sold within whatever territory (physical or online) that the agreement allows them.

Also, what about exclusive agreements with a portal?

[dima]

I don't think portals can make exclusive agreements. And I don't think there is much difference between a portal and a distributor. If a distributor is doing exclusive, then they are a publisher. If they are distributing non-exclusively, they are a portal. Those are my personal opinions.

[ManuelFLara]

I don't think portals can make exclusive agreements.
Know what? They can.. they only need you to sign it :) I don't know if every portal has the option of exclusivity, but for example Real and Alawar do.

[James Gwertzman]

Portals absolutely seek to sign exclusive distribution deals for periods of time, often in return for higher royalty rates. Portals love being able to offer a game that no one else has for sale as a way of differentiating themselves. RealArcade is especially fond of doing this. This does not make them a publisher necessarily.

[dima]

Know what? They can.. they only need you to sign it :) I don't know if every portal has the option of exclusivity, but for example Real and Alawar do.
That would make them a publisher though.

[Bmc]

It wouldn't make them a publisher. They would be a distributor who would have the exclusive right to sell a product for a limited amount of time. They wouldn't own the prodict.

A publisher owns the product.

Real Arcade is a distribution channel.
They own Gamehouse which is a developer who also publishes games.
Popcap is a developer who also publishes games.
Playfirst is a publisher.
Big Fish is a distributor. They are also a developer (I think?) and/or they publish games.

It's really not that difficult, and it really doesn't matter in the end.

[James C. Smith]

I think BMC hit the nail on the head. (is exactly correct)

[dima]

is there such thing as non-exclusive publisher? or that that make them a distributor?

[Bmc]

is there such thing as non-exclusive publisher? or that that make them a distributor?

I wouldn't think so. Think of it like this.

You develop a game until you have a working build, more then a prototype, less that the final product. You submit it to a publisher. Publisher sees promise and decides they want to acquire it. They pay you some money up front to work on it and make the changes they request. At this point you are no longer in complete control of what the game will become. You are working for the publisher. They have final say. They handle all business aspects and pay you a royalty of sales. They own the product. They may not own the IP but in most cases I would think they would. Those details would need to be worked out in the agreement.

[GameBoy]

Portals absolutely seek to sign exclusive distribution deals for periods of time, often in return for higher royalty rates. Portals love being able to offer a game that no one else has for sale as a way of differentiating themselves. RealArcade is especially fond of doing this. That's interesting. It would certainly suggest that the customer crossover between the various portals is a lot higher than we're generally led to to believe.