Download.com goes hosting files

[Gilzu]

During the next few weeks, we will be copying your files from their remote locations to our secure servers if we are not already hosting your product. Once we begin hosting your file, you will be able to make changes to your listing and executable file whenever you want, free of charge. This will enable us to offer our users a more consistent downloading experience, while offering you the same flexibility to make changes to your file whenever you'd like. Not only do we envision these changes resulting in a greater number of total downloads for publishers, we also believe they will significantly reduce your related bandwidth costs. By moving to the hosted model, Download.com now will assume the cost of building and maintaining the file-hosting infrastructure.

finally, no 99$ to update software...

[grimreaper]

There must be a catch somewhere - their bandwith costs are gonna hit the roof...

grimreaper

[MattInglot]

At $79 for even a basic listing, and looking at how many products on there have < 1000 downloads, this is hardly unaffordable for them. Don't forget the the banner ads as well. Oooh and don't forget the massive discounts resulting from buying so many servers to maintain all this. The file servers will probably ONLY be serving static content too, so one box could handle a lot more traffic than one that serves entire sites.

I still agree that there's a catch somewhere, but we might not know for a while. They've already been offering some sort of strange Fast Download option for a while, where they host the files on their servers. If this really makes download.com more popular the additional ad sales this might give them might be what they are going after.

[Greg Squire]

Maybe they are moving to a model where you have to pay monthly, quarterly, or yearly just to keep your software listed and hosted. Instead of paying for updates, you'd be paying every so often just to keep it there. They could use also choose a model where you pay for an initial listing, and then also pay for download bandwidth used. I guess we'll find out in the “next few weeks”.

[Mark Currie]

A couple times I’ve seen games in the “SPOTLIGHT ON GAMES” section on download.com get more traffic than they can handle, making downloading the game impossible. This should fix that.

Anyway, it seems to be a free service, once your product listing is paid:
http://upload.com.com/1200-21-983171.html?tag=txt

[Greg Squire]

...Anyway, it seems to be a free service, once your product listing is paid...

That's really cool. I'm sure CNet/ZDNet is already using their own dedicated servers and dedicated lines, so I'm not sure their bandwidth costs are going up much with this. This could really help us all. This puts download.com back on my radar screen for sites to publish through.

[george]

i'm sure they can afford all this because they are partnering with microsoft...

[Valen]

There's only one thing that bothers me about this. If updates are now free, what's stopping people from "updating" their game every week (or day) to keep it at the top of the list? Unless of course a CNET rep checks each update manually to thwart such abuse. Still, it's nice to have a slightly higher profit margin, courtesy of free updates. :)

[MattInglot]

The free update thing isn't too surprising if their sales of upgrades were poor. Maybe being full of old versions of programs (I sure as heck won't give them more money everytime I want to update my listing, I would be broke!) was starting to hurt download.com's traffic?

[Valen]

The free update thing isn't too surprising if their sales of upgrades were poor. Maybe being full of old versions of programs (I sure as heck won't give them more money everytime I want to update my listing, I would be broke!) was starting to hurt download.com's traffic?

I didn't really think that paying for updates was that horrible, but it does come down purely to how much ROI you expect to get from paying for one. I've gotten quite a good ROI so I'm not complaining. Maybe they want to do what you're suggesting and make the site have the latest version info for more programs.

[Dingo Games]

Their announcement doesn't mention doing anything about the floods of mods/patches/levels... THAT is their biggest problem, and THAT is what is going to stop people from using their site.

Well, at least this announcement shows that they are making some changes instead of just sitting back and letting their site become totally useless.

[Diodor Bitan]

Dingo games
Their announcement doesn't mention doing anything about the floods of mods/patches/levels... THAT is their biggest problem, and THAT is what is going to stop people from using their site.

Well, at least this announcement shows that they are making some changes instead of just sitting back and letting their site become totally useless.

There is now a "Demo files" link in each major games section. I suppose most users don't use it, but it's a step in the right direction.

[BongPig]

We can be sure they wont provide you with a direct download link to your hosted file. Only to the typical Cnet download page with a re-direct to your file on thier servers. If they host your files exclusively ( which im sure alot of people will take them up on seeing as its so cheap ), every single downloader of your demo will be redirected to a Download.com page no-doubt covered in adverts for other software.
So in essence, its not free really as all of your costomers will have to look at a download.com page somewhere along the way to purchasing your game. Cnet will be getting much higher traffic coming in and thus thier value goes up even more. The developer will be getting 'free' hosting. Its a reasonable trade-off and probably good for both parties.

Not purely 'free', but a good idea anyway.

[samnova]

If you check the link above for Upload.com then the text on the page says:

"This simple and efficient file delivery system uses the CNET/ZDNet Secure Delivery plug-in (powered by Kontiki) to securely transfer your software files to Download.com and ZDNet Download end users."

This is the same system as GameSpot uses, so I wonder if two download managers needs to be installed now !!
Also wonder if this will make it confusing to the casual user!! That some software gets installed before the download can happen, and that you don't get asked where you want the file to get downloaded to !!

-Sam

[svero]

It's kind of funny because it's now come full circle. Hotfiles use to host. So this is actually like turning back the clock and not so much moving forward. There's no question though that their current system is a little messed up because it doesnt take what browsers want into consideration. People don't want to download a version thats a few months old or see a listing for an old version because software companies dont want to pay a free to update their listing. And that is essentially what you have now. Whether that will change I'm not sure... It kind of sounds a little like you'll be able to update the file. Whether you can update the listing itself isn't clear.

[GhostRik]

There must be a catch somewhere - their bandwith costs are gonna hit the roof...
grimreaper

It's now a subscription. It used to be a one-time fee?

Plan 1 Silver - $99/month
Plan 2 Basic - $79/year
Plan 3 Speedy - $299/one year with speedy registration

http://upload.com.com/1200-21-949840.html?tag=txt

This is also being discussed on alt.comp.shareware.authors in a thread called "Download.com turning into Tucows?"

[Jack Norton]

It's now a subscription. It used to be a one-time fee?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh! HERE'S THE CATCH!
LOL... before you paid 79$ but you could have your game there for 5 years and still get a few hits every week (my game USM did get 100 download/week minimum even after 10 months that was there).
Now you have to pay 79$ EVERY YEAR...

Well: they can forget about my money :D

[Valen]

It kind of sounds a little like you'll be able to update the file. Whether you can update the listing itself isn't clear.

Based on the email that I got from them, it was clear to me that they'll allow you to both update your listing AND your binary for free. I don't see what the big deal is with them hosting your file (unless their server will provide a slower download than mine, like with Tucows). Though some stupid "secure download" crap that requires the user to download an applet or something would be pretty lame I agree.


It's now a subscription. It used to be a one-time fee?

Plan 1 Silver - $99/month
Plan 2 Basic - $79/year
Plan 3 Speedy - $299/one year with speedy registration


Hmm. Maybe that's for new submissions? They didn't mention anything about that in the email I got. Still, it's better to pay $79 a year than each time you update, since I plan to update 2-3 times a year.

[Bluecat]

The other way this could go would be if they changed to a service like FilePlanet where the downloader has to be a subscriber in order to get fast and efficient service. If they choose not to subscribe they have to wait in a long queue for a slow download.

[MattInglot]

Yearly? wow. I'm so glad I'm working on the traffic analysis system, it'll be interesting to see how many actual purchases download.com brings in a year.

[BongPig]

If a piece of software cant make back $80 through download.com over a whole year... it must be pretty bad.

Plus they host the file too?

I cant see much wrong with that deal to be honest.

[papillon]

... considering how poorly i do there vs people finding my site by other means, I think subscription-based payment is the final straw for me.

OTOH, if there is now *no* non-subscription-based option, isn't this a strong incentive for someone enterprising around here to set up a "mini-publisher" which largely consists of pushing your product on DL.com through their one Silver Account and charging you a very small fee for it?

You pay $99/month, you charge everyone else $10/month for you to 'publish' their game... said publishing consists of having the game linked on their website and posting it through to dl.com... Should be a decent business plan, no?

(I'd be willing to try setting this up myself if I could get a few people interested, but it might be a better idea for me to offer it up to someone slightly more organised than I am. I will not be upset if someone takes this idea and runs with it - just make sure I get decent treatment if I sign up for it! :) )

[Valen]

You pay $99/month, you charge everyone else $10/month for you to 'publish' their game... said publishing consists of having the game linked on their website and posting it through to dl.com... Should be a decent business plan, no?

Sure, unless it's $99 per month for each program listed. :)

[papillon]

Didn't seem to be from reading it, although if suddenly everyone started conglomerating they might change that. :)

[Jack Norton]

If a piece of software cant make back $80 through download.com over a whole year... it must be pretty bad.
I made twice sales in one month with Terin PR (50$) than with download.com normal submission (79$) in 4 months... maybe worked in my particular case with my particular game, and I am an exception ;)

[BongPig]

Thats all very well Jack, but did you make back your $79 from download.com over those 4 months?
( regardless of how well other websites performed. )

[MattInglot]

In a world where everyone had infinite marketing budgets, any sort of marketing that breaks even is technically a good idea. However money is finite, and as long as there are better performing opportunities, the download.com listing would never be a good idea.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that download.com is or isn't a good idea, I don't have the stats to possibly make any judgement.

[Jack Norton]

Yes, to get back 79$ I need just 3-4 sales at 24.95$... however I think that if your game is particular (niche game) download.com isn't the best place to advertise.
While for action games or shooter it could still be a good place (I think).

[Valen]

I'm not saying that download.com is or isn't a good idea, I don't have the stats to possibly make any judgement.

This is true. It's impossible to say how much ROI you're getting without proper tracking (I'm actually almost done with my tracking system). However, besides the direct downloads-to-sales value you get from listing at download.com, you also get visibility. Many sites copy listings from there, and many affiliates look for games there. After posting my update, within days I was contacted by a whole bunch of affiliates and a distributor. I will be making a hell of a lot more from this update than it cost me.

[Screwball]

Thats all very well Jack, but did you make back your $79 from download.com over those 4 months?
( regardless of how well other websites performed. )


You don't spend money on Marketing to make back the money you spent on it.

You spend money on Marketing to make a profit back.

So generally the question shouldn't be "Did you make your $79 back ?" the question should be "Did the $79 you spent, in your opinion, generate enough profit for you or could your $79 be spent on something else to generate a greater profit ?"

Everytime you spend money / time on a marketing strategy, you need to review the results and decide wether or not the marketing exersise was worth the time / money. So basicly what a number of people are saying is "Paying $79 to download.com is not a viable strategy for my game." I think I would have to agree with them, mainly for the reason you could keep spending $79 a year on download.com and while you might be able to make your $79 back, your not generating a profit. If you canned the download.com marketing and used the $79 to fund a new marketing strategy that generated a profit wouldn't that be a better solution than breaking even ?

[Sillysoft]

I prefer hosting my own files. It gives me more control over the whole experience. Updates drive traffic to my site rather than anywhere else, and I can track how many people download and from where.. It certainly takes more bandwidth, but if you are getting lots of downloads then hopefully you are getting lots of sales to pay for your bandwidth.

I suppose that I will still put my game on download.com if they require to host it themselves, but I won't like it.

[Greg Squire]

I prefer hosting my own files. It gives me more control over the whole experience. Updates drive traffic to my site rather than anywhere else, and I can track how many people download and from where.. It certainly takes more bandwidth, but if you are getting lots of downloads then hopefully you are getting lots of sales to pay for your bandwidth.

I suppose that I will still put my game on download.com if they require to host it themselves, but I won't like it.

I remember reading that download.com still required you to have your own download link. They are basically giving the user a choice of two ways to download a demo; a "secure" download using their hosted file, or a regular download using your hosted file.

[BongPig]

Screwball,
Dont you see the logic. For instance:-

I spend $79,
1000 people download my demo,
I make $79.

Ive gained nothing monetary, but certainly gained exposure.
Isnt it worth it?

[BongPig]

Let me add, im not a download.com freak or anything. :)
I would suggest any dev goes for the channels that best suit thier games.

My point is, if spending said $79 can gain you exposure, why not do it as well as the other methods.

I simply dont see whats to lose, apart from a bit of time.

[Roulette]

I simply dont see whats to lose, apart from a bit of time.

That's the whole point Screwball was making. Your time is a limited resource. Your advertising budget is a limited resource. The best marketers will invest those assets where they can yield the greatest return...whether or not you recoup your investment is irrelevant except as it relates to other potential advertising venues.

I recently placed a product on download.com and easily earned back the listing cost. However, the profit was not significant enough to warrant repeating this exercise...next time, I'll take the money and try something different and see if I can get a better return on the investment.

- Roulette
http://www.superluminal.us

[Chris Evans]

Exactly Mike...


You spend money on Marketing to make a profit back.

There's a misconception among quite a few Indies that they must make a profit on every Ad campaign. Marketing however is a lot more complex than paying X amount dollars and expecting to make X profit at the end of the campaign.

As Mike mentioned building exposure and awareness is an important aspect of marketing. Let say you spent $500 on an Ad and got 25 new customers from it. If your game costs $20, you'd break even. While you didn't make a profit, you now have 25 customers you didn't have before. When your next game comes out, you'll spend far less (if anything) to pitch your new product to those same customers. Then of course any one of those new customers could tell their friends about the game. Since you broke even on the Ad campaign, this isn't costing you anything except your time as Mike said.

Also, there's some marketing strategies that are more mid to long term. You may not see any substantial results the first couple of months, but 6 -9 months down the line it could be a real boon.

Marketing simply can't be judged based on whether you turn an immediate profit on a campaign. It depends what your goals are. However, most people will tell you, if you manage to break even (which is no easy feat in itself), then it's worth continuing the campaign. The exposure, awareness, and repeat customers from the break-even campaigns will usually make the campaign be profitable in the mid-long term.

Of course if you can find a profitable campaign over a break-even campaign for the same dollar amount, then go with the profitable one. However, I'd try to find a way to do both since in the end you won't be losing money with either of them and you'll be able to increase your exposure doing both.

[MattInglot]

Of course if you can find a profitable campaign over a break-even campaign for the same dollar amount, then go with the profitable one. However, I'd try to find a way to do both since in the end you won't be losing money with either of them and you'll be able to increase your exposure doing both.

That's the problem though, it's unlikely that you can actually afford to invest so much money as to cover every advertising possibility that at least breaks even, not to mention the time involved.

You only have x amount of money to spend on marketing at any given time, and the marketing that gives you the best return should be where you spend your money. It's true that you will get the money back, sooner or later, but most places don't let you advertise first, pay after.

Now Valen makes a good point, calculating ROI is harder than just seeing where most of your buyers came from. Odds of benefits like having distributors approaching have to be taken into consideration as well.

[BongPig]

Exactly how much time does it take to get listed on download.com or any other such website?

Im sorry, but I simply cannot see the logic of anybody who thinks its not worth the tiny amounts of time involoved here.

Lizardsoft,
I see your point regards selecting the most profitable sources of advertising. If you only have $100 dollars to spend on adverts/listings, but need $300 dollars to cover all options, then YES, I would agree that you should choose the best options for your software.

BUT, in all other cases, if you can afford it, then you should always go for it.
Anybody who thinks this kind of self liquidating marketing is a waste of time is being very naive.