My idea on how you can make more money with your games

[pazappa]

Hi guys,

I hope you don't take this as spam, because I just want to show you my idea. It is a new way of selling your games. getting more money, recurring every month and reach a wider audience.

At first glance you might think it's like RealArcade but it's not. When a player buys your game he joins the network and can download all the full games in the network and keep them. And RealArcade only pays about 15%(!) while in my idea the payout would be around 60-70%.

I have illistrated it here:

Pazappa Game network (http://www.pazappa.com/games.html)


Would love to hear your comments and opinions about this!
Markus

[Batley]

Do you mean the player pays a monthly subscription fee?

[pazappa]

Yes, the player pays monthly. And as long as he stays a member the developer gets paid.

The player can cancel at any time, he still get's to keep what he has already downloaded. But since new games will be added all the time to the network, members will want to stay. Even if he does cancel quickly you get paid more htan usual for your sale.

[Anthony Flack]

"He pays $50, you get $30 per month"

He pays $50 once, or every month? [edit: oh, $50 per month - sounds like a lot... I'm not sure if "buy this game for $50 per month - and get other games" is really an easier sell)

You get what, $30 per month per game? Per customer?

[baegsi]

I don't understand the model:

player pays 50$ monthly
the network has 10 developers, he downloads *all* games from the network
all 10 developer get 30$ per month?

How do you pay 10*30$ = 300$ while you earned only 50$?

[pazappa]

Anthony Flack:
Customer pays a monthly fee, and you get paid every month that he stays active (pays).

So you would get $30 per new customer per month (as long as he is paying).

Example:
*20 new customers referred by you: direct sales $600
*they stay on average 4 months: additional automatic monthly fees $1800


Baegsi:
No, only the developer/seller who has referred the customer gets paid, not the others, this is most fair. You turn a surfer into a paying customer and you get paid. The network is tehre to help you sell because the player gets more options and added benefits.


The whole model has worked in the adult industry, under the name AVS for many years. Proven to work there, why not for indie games?

Also, money made from the network will be partially used for advertising and getting new players and developers.

[pazappa]

About numbers & price: I am open for discussion, perhaps $50 is to much, especially in the beginnig when we won't have hundreds of games avaialble. Still the main thing is that I want to ay the developers the lions share, roughly 70% minus processors fee)

[Ricardo C]

No, only the developer/seller who has referred the customer gets paid, not the others, this is most fair. You turn a surfer into a paying customer and you get paid. The network is tehre to help you sell because the player gets more options and added benefits.

So basically there could be thousands of people getting my game for free each month, unless I'm the one that refers them? Essentially I have to compete with my fellow developers in order to get a commision?

Meanwhile, you do get paid withg every sale, which means the developer doesn't get the ''lion's share'' of anything, since you make money with every sale, while the developers get nothing unless they manage to get the magic sale that will give them the commision. It's not enough to finish the game, we then have to become used car salesmen and try to steal sales from one another.

This scheme is bullshit. It's developers sacrificing potentially countless copies of their game in order to be an affiliate for someone who brings no games of his own to the table.

[Nexic]

Well the problem I can see with this is, early developers are going to get more money than ones that join later. IE. If you've got 1000 customers all paying the $50 subscription, then that means that 1000 people are going to get my game and I'm not going to get much money?

I'm sorry but I personally wouldn't go with a scheme like this as the risk of potential customers who are already signed up with you not giving me their money.

Also $50 is a lot of money, only someone who is a gaming fanatic would pay that much.

[Tertsi]

Ricardo put it out a bit too harshly but I do agree with him.

[pazappa]

Thanks for your input... let me give my thought on your comments:

Essentially I have to compete with my fellow developers in order to get a commision?

-You already do that, don't you? Business means competition. But it can also mean "Buy my fantastic game and you get my friend's game X for free!"

Also $50 is a lot of money, only someone who is a gaming fanatic would pay that much.

-While $50 may be too much, we really shouldn't sell out too cheap. Remember our target audience is not 12 year old kids with no cash, they are educated adults with jobs. Mostly women at that.


Yes, you would give away your game to people who hasn't paid you. That's the drawback. But you also win by adding value to your own product - instead of selling one game you are selling several. Plus you get paid every month which makes more money per customer.
Alos, the payout for developers IS the lions share, jut compare to R Arcade and such, a few percents payout. And We (the network) will have our costs mostly in advertising, aquiring new traffic and bandwidth.

I do not agree that the concept is "saurus maneure". And who said I won't bring own games to the table, I am learning to make games in t2D and also, money made from the network can be used to buy indie games, or have people create games on Freelance sites.

As I was saying, the concept is taken from the adult industry where it has worked and made millions over the years. In that businesit is much much simpler to sell a network of sites that is to sell one site. You just need to think outside the box

This turned out to be a defense speach sort of, but I am still looking for constructive criticism.

I believe in the concept and if others do too, let's do this. You can always withdraw your game if you feel the concept is wrong for you. PLus you don't have to sell your game *only/ thourgh the network, you can continue selling it like you do today.

[Ricardo C]

-You already do that, don't you? Business means competition.

We already compete, but we don't use each other's games as an incentive to make the sale. And we definitely don't use each other's games to close the sale while simultaneously depriving each other of income.

But it can also mean "Buy my fantastic game and you get my friend's game X for free!"

Now repeat that 100 times and you have a developer who made $3,000, one who made $0, and a 'promoter' who is getting rich no matter who makes the sale. I understand why that proposition would work for you, but please, don't patronize us.

-While $50 may be too much, we really shouldn't sell out too cheap. Remember our target audience is not 12 year old kids with no cash, they are educated adults with jobs. Mostly women at that.

You've done no market research beyond picking up that the casual games market is mostly female, have you?

Yes, you would give away your game to people who hasn't paid you. That's the drawback.

A drawback which doesn't hurt your ability to get paid, let's not forget that.

But you also win by adding value to your own product - instead of selling one game you are selling several. Plus you get paid every month which makes more money per customer.

1. There is no guarantee that anyone will continue their membership, unless you have also devised a brilliant scheme to get enoug new games a month, and of sufficient quality, to make recurring $50 payments attractive.

2. Yes, I would be selling several games. So would every other developer. Which turns us into competing salesmen within the same 'store'. The only person with a secured income would be you.

Alos, the payout for developers IS the lions share, jut compare to R Arcade and such, a few percents payout. And We (the network) will have our costs mostly in advertising, aquiring new traffic and bandwidth.

Of course, Real actually does have many employees to pay. Who is this 'we' you speak of when you refer to 'the network'?

Also, Real has an audience in the millions. What are you offering us beyong 'take this chance on me even though you'' be the only one taking a risk'?

I do not agree that the concept is "saurus maneure".

Manure. If you're going to try to show off, get the spelling right.

And who said I won't bring own games to the table, I am learning to make games in t2D

I would suggest finishing your 'learning', then spend months making a game, and then asking yourself if you're willing to give away the product of your hard work to some unknown wannabe businessman who'll get paid everytime someone downloads it for free.

and also, money made from the network can be used to buy indie games, or have people create games on Freelance sites.

I would also suggest figuring out what it is this 'network' would and would not do, formulating a business plan, and only then making a pitch.

As I was saying, the concept is taken from the adult industry where it has worked and made millions over the years.

Free beer to the person who points out who the people actually making millions in the adult business are: The network owners or the affiliates.

In that businesit is much much simpler to sell a network of sites that is to sell one site. You just need to think outside the box

You also need a paradigm shift, synergy, and even more management-speak.

PS-- When people don't buy into your ideas, it doesn't always means they need to think outside the box. Sometimes, it simply means you need to come up with a different idea.

This turned out to be a defense speach sort of, but I am still looking for constructive criticism.

Just doing my part ;)

I believe in the concept and if others do too, let's do this. You can always withdraw your game if you feel the concept is wrong for you.

Yes, after who knows how many people have already gotten it for free.

PLus you don't have to sell your game *only/ thourgh the network, you can continue selling it like you do today.

I wonder what the presence of a ''freebie'' version of my game being pushed by other developers would do to my direct sales.

Final question: How old are you?

[Purgatorium]

Hear, hear!

*Wow,this is the greatest forum, better than gamedev.net* :)

[Nexic]

You've also got to be aware that someone can easily buy a member ship, download everything thats on there for a month, come back a year later and do the same. So basically if you have 100 games, they are getting each game for 50c. Which certainly isn't helping the indie cause. Not only that, but you will eventually suck sales away from other sites that sell the games for $20. If this ever took off it would be the doom of the indie.

[baegsi]

As I was saying, the concept is taken from the adult industry where it has worked and made millions over the years. In that businesit is much much simpler to sell a network of sites that is to sell one site. You just need to think outside the box
I think there's a difference: you don't seperate between the referer/affiliate who brings the customer and the developer who provides the games. Adult sites pay for the referer, where the creators of pr0n don't get money directly from the customer. Where in your model, the developer is the same person as the affiliate, but only gets money as the affiliate. But then is the question: why should he develop at all?

[pazappa]

I don't know who's trying to show off?

However.

function createIdea()
{
$PresentIdeaToCommuity
wait for input()
if input() >negatative = KillIdea()
}


Game Over. Looks like it wasn't such a brilliant idea, in the developer's point of view. I certainly wouldn't want to kill the ideie businesss, even before my first game is out.
I always appreciate input about my ideas, and I do get a lot of I deas I like to test on people, my friends know that. If it wasn't for daring to test them I'd have no business. What I don't like is being patronized.

I'll be back with new ideas and new games. Let's talk again.


And Ricardo, I'm 28. You?

[Ricardo C]

I'm 28, as well.

Some extra code for your function, free of charge...

function createIdea()
{
$PresentIdeaToCommuity
wait for input()
if input() >negatative
{
KillIdea()
GoBackToDrawingBoard()
LearnWhatTheHellImTalkingAbout()
FinishOneGame()
RealizeHowMuchHardWorkNotToMentionMoneyGoesIntoIt( )
RealizeHowFoolishOriginalIdeaWas()
}
}

;)

[pazappa]

Somehow I knew you'd correct my code ;)

[Reactor]

I like what Totalgaming.net has going on... that's a good way to have customers buy into a number of games at one time. Anyhow, I'm glad you posted the idea. It's flawed, but it's an idea, and ideas help keep people thinking.

[pazappa]

Anyway... The project in it's original form will not happen. Wrong business model to use for this business, works for other some types but not games it seems. Concluded.

[pazappa]

Thanks, Reactor. I always think it's better to show your ideas and brainstorm instead of keeping them to yourself too.

I had a look at totalgaming and that is a better idea if it gets big. And as you know Real Arcade players can choose one full game per month, a bit similar.

[Nexic]

Why not try something similar to your original idea, but just limit the number of games (to say 6 per month) and then split the money like so:

First Game the person gets after paying gets 40%
Other games downloaded that month split another 40% between themselves.
You take 20%

Then if that person buys another month simply split the 80% between all the developers of the game they choose. This way the games that bring in the most subscriptions get heavily rewarded whilst still giving the other developers their fair share.

[baegsi]

I wouldn't drop the idea too fast. Try looking for the second right answer. I've no doubt there's plenty of room for different kinds of distribution models.

The problem is, it's a vicious circle: you have to prove first that your new model works before developers jump on it, but without developers you can not get your model working. So you either have some funding ready to give developers some incentive and to make yourself more convincing showing you really believe in your model, or you make it completly risk-free for all participants, but that limits your model and what it could do.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your idea, and good luck for the next one :)

[papillon]

Man, I showed up too late to this party. :)

As one of the people on the board who has done the rounds in adult circles as well, the big difference is: The adult site owner has to do a LOT less work to get a site up and running than a developer does for a game.

I want to make a new AVS site? Completely from scratch? Okay, I need hosting. That's no problem, many AVS networks provide it for me free! Next, I need content. If I don't have any lying around at the moment, I can buy it for as little as $0.25 per picture depending on where I shop. AVS networks have minimum requirements to enter - lets say we need 50 pics. (For a premium site, it would be more like 300, but let's stay with basic.) So I've spent $13-25 for a pack of pictures. I may need to resample them, but a lot of content providers ship both high-quality and web-ready (smaller) versions to save me trouble. Now, I need to make image galleries. No problem; run a thumbnailer (Perfectly usable even IN the unregistered version, but I registered mine years ago because I use it so much - I think it was $25.) and you have instant galleries, nicely laid out. Create a couple more pages, add the AVS code, upload.

And most AVS networks will allow you to make up to 5 sites with the same set of pictures.

So you can make five entry points into the network for a couple of hours work and less than fifty bucks.

... now, does this compare to game development? :)

I know you've already realised this won't work, I just wanted to explain some of the details since not everybody here HAS done adult sites. (It's not *quite* as easy as the above, since after making the site you have to do the hard part - getting traffic that doesn't already have a membership but is willing to buy one - but 'building a site' and 'building a good game' are a long way away from each other.)

[Ricardo C]

Somehow I knew you'd correct my code ;)

Please don't think I'm as temperamental as this exchange indicates :) Most of my venom was due to my initial belief that you were some sort of 'outsider' with no real interest in games, trying to con us.

On a more constructive note, the idea of an indie-operated portal has been discussed several times here, maybe you'll find some inspiration :)

[Bmc]

i cant see many people paying $50 a month, if any. it's actually quite insane to think that. Try more along the lines of under $10.

[Yarlen]

I don't see people paying $50 a month either. Especially now that GameTap is nearly ready to launch at $14.95 a month with over 1,000 games by year's end.

[pazappa]

Great input everyone!

Anyone got mor einfo on GameTap, seems they almost stole my idea... so quickly :) Guess they bought licenses for old console/arcade games.

I'll keep thinking...

Papillon, you're right. It's much simpler making an AVS site, I know... been in that business for 8 years.

One thing I keep coming back to is that RA pays out so little to the developer, and I'd like a "network" where the developer get's more money. I realise they have big spends. But if developers built a network where some of the money would go right into an advertising pool to benefit all involved, that could churn out to something great. Like the indie-portal you mentioned Ricardo. What's stopping you/us from starting one tomorrow?

Ok, back to learning how to make my game, I bought a Torque 2D license and I am new to programming so there's a lot to learn.

See you soon.

[ERoberts]

Hear, hear!

*Wow,this is the greatest forum, better than gamedev.net* :)

There was a time when it actually used to be...

[Didier]

I just wanted to explain some of the details since not everybody here HAS done adult sites

You're probably the first girl i know who ran a porn site :D

[Bmc]

More is always better but... why are people who've never released a game on Real complaining about the percentages they offer to developers.

I'd worry about getting a game done first.

As for the Indie Portal thing, people talk but they never act... most ideas for it never have any business merit anyways.

if you ever want to get one going you need to stop talking and start acting. Build the site/system, get some games to sell, start marketing the site and hope that there is a big enough group of customers willing to buy the games you offer.

[tentons]

I think the original idea has merit, with modifications. It's a nice idea, and basing it on an already proven model is a good starting point. I'd also cut the price to $14.95 or even $9.99 and make it up in volume.

Just because GameTap exists is no reason not to try this. The unique factor about this idea is that it's indie games, which (as far as I know) will not be offered by GameTap. So it serves a different slice of the market.

[Ricardo C]

There was a time when it actually used to be...

Yeah, back in the olden days, when people didn't stop by threads they had no part in to drop a holier-than-thou one-liner.

[Chris Evans]

I tried amputating parts of this thread, so as to save the whole. :) Please, let's get back on topic.

[Rainer Deyke]

Let's break up the original idea into its component parts.

Bundling a bunch of games together sounds like a reasonable idea. It increases exposure for the individual games, it increases the perceived value of the bundle, and if the developers make less money per copy, they can make up for that by selling a whole bunch of bundles to people who would never have bought their games at all without the bundle.

The monthly subscription thing sounds a lot less interesting. In the first month, the player gets a huge back catalog of games. In the second month, the player gets at most a handful of new games that have been released that month. Basically there is very little incentive for the subscriber to keep his subscription running. Most people will cancel after only one month. If you account for that in the pricing, you will end up with a subscription price that nobody can afford. Better to divide up the games into multiple bundles and sell them individually.

Paying only to the person who makes the sale is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Where's the incentive to actually write games if I can sell other people's games and take essentially the full profit? The reason I am interested in affiliates and portals is that they can make money for me by selling my game while I can focus on actually writing the game. If I don't actually get paid when my affiliates make a sale, then there's no point in it for me.

[Black Hydra]

Untold golden rule of indiegamers.com :

If you haven't finished and began selling your first game, don't say anything to either imply or suggest you know anything. Certainly don't suggest anything in the spectrum of business and marketting. Nobody wants your opinion.

I really think that this should be actually posted somewhere on a sticky so that noobs won't get their heads bit off when they have the illusion they know something. (I'm quite realistic in my belief I know nothing)

[tentons]

I really think that this should be actually posted somewhere on a sticky...
That's sarcasm, right? :)

[Sybixsus]

Untold golden rule of indiegamers.com :

If you haven't finished and began selling your first game, don't say anything to either imply or suggest you know anything. Certainly don't suggest anything in the spectrum of business and marketting. Nobody wants your opinion.

I really think that this should be actually posted somewhere on a sticky so that noobs won't get their heads bit off when they have the illusion they know something. (I'm quite realistic in my belief I know nothing)

There's certainly some truth in this, and indeed Golden Rule #2 could be the precise opposite, that it's automatically assumed that anyone who is successful is full of good business ideas, when they could - in fact - be utterly clueless and doing well simply because they made an incredible game and despite their poor business and marketing skills.

But there's a difference between suggesting an idea and being the one who wants to run it. I think Ricardo's comments were perfectly fair because this idea was slanted massively towards the guy running it and against the developers whose games would be downloaded for free. That's not to say that it was intended that way, of course.

Had it been a more balanced suggestion or had it been a theoretical discussion as opposed to the OP being the guy who made the money, I hope and believe it would have received a different response all round.

[pazappa]

OK, can I start fresh here? I am glad that I have started a discussions. Not too happy that I was colored the bad guy from the beginning, but it's somewhat my own fault, as you said not presentng a general idea but instead I was talking about how I would start the whole portal thing.

But if you take out the good parts of my bundling idea there could possibly be some golden nuggets to be found. Small co-ops of fellow dev's selling game packs of 3 games for a reduced price.

One thing I think is important woul dbe to pool some money for advertising. Correct me if I'm wrong but most indies don't have huge advertising accounts so there could be some synergy effects in pooling parts of revenue for the portal to get exposure.

As some of you discussed, a token system could work. It hasn't worked well in adult but it could work here?

[Pyabo]

Don't sweat it Pazappa... You are a breath of fresh air... Who knows, maybe the idea isn't completely unworkable with some modifications and a smaller scale. It's just nice to see someone appear to actually digest and understand criticism of their ideas. It shows great potential. :)

[Kaos]

interesting concept, being an expert proofreader, in the 1st 3 sec skimming I found this: Player is happy, you are happy, and remember new and old publishers will add more games all the time, so the member will stay longer hte more games are released to the network. And every month you make money. A passive income.

ummm "the" (as well as being a run on sentence)

Advertising material, signup boxes, and incentives will be made available for all publishers. You are free to decide which ga,e syou want to include, and you may of course continue to sell your game the way you do now parallell with the network sales. It's all up to you and what works best for you.

"game"

http://www.pazappa.com/images/games_15.gif

"get's" is not a contraction should be "gets" then "money".

http://www.pazappa.com/images/games_02.gif

but "publishers" is possessive, so it is actually "publisher's" although meaning plural, "publishers' " is also acceptable.


also. back to http://www.pazappa.com/images/games_02.gif

"Game publishers' " should be either "Game Publishers' " or "game publishers' "

if the reason being capitalized is to be a proper name, "game" in itself is not possessive.

And already you have made more money than the usual 19.95 game. Not only that, but you will make money for every month he stays a member of the network. All payments and passwords/access is handled by reputable third party processor CCbill.

is/are

OMG!!

I actually learned something in english lit!!


Anyone want me to proofread their site, bring it on!

[Omega]

You call yourself a proof-reader? You can't even spell 'proof-reader'!

The players are happy, and the publisher is happy. Don't forget: current and new publishers will keep releasing games to the network, enticing the players to continue to pay. This is what is called 'passive income.'

Advertising materials, sign-up forms, and incentives will be made available to all publishers. Each publisher is free to choose the games to include, and may continue to sell games on their web sites and other portals, as well. Bring on total freedom for publishers!

http://www.pazappa.com/images/games_15.gif

"get's" is not a contraction should be "gets" then "money".

http://www.pazappa.com/images/games_02.gif

but "publishers" is possessive, so it is actually "publisher's" although meaning plural, "publishers' " is also acceptable.


also. back to http://www.pazappa.com/images/games_02.gif

"Game publishers' " should be either "Game Publishers' " or "game publishers' "

if the reason being capitalized is to be a proper name, "game" in itself is not possessive.

I disagree with all of those. The most optimal choice is Game Publisher's. 'Game Publisher' is a title. Using both the plural and the possessive is ridiculous. So, it would be "from the Game Publisher's view." Also, he said 'parallell' and you missed that one!

Not only does he have spelling and grammar issues, but rule #5, "thy sentence shall make sense" is also violated.

Finally, I don't know why you would criticize him when you can clearly tell it is his second language. You can even go to his home page and find that out, as well! :D

[ggambett]

Guys, guys. Take it easy. I feel every misspelling or mistake (your vs you're, that kind of thing) as a strong kick to my liver, no matter in what language (although I can only spot errors in english and spanish :D) But interrupting a thread just to point out these mistakes isn't exactly an example of etiquette. As a mod I've felt tempted to edit posts to correct these things, but even doing that would be rude, IMO.

If you want to post to say my-spelling-is-better-than-yours, please don't. If you really want to help, PM the other party with a corrected version of their website.

[Bmc]

there is nothing worse on a forum (not even trolls, not even spammers) then the spelling/grammar police.

[Kaos]

yah you would catch that, just leaving something for discussion!

[KNau]

Don't sweat it Pazappa. The trouble is that there have already been so many proposals for new distribution sites and methods and the most they've resulted in is a lot of arguing and hot air. The community here hates it when people try to do something nice for them. They will fight you all the way - it happens so often!

The best advice is "if you build it, they will come". Don't ask for help because you won't receive it and for the love of God don't ask for input. You will receive too much of it and 99% will be completely disagreeable.

Build your site first and then sell it to the developers. If you are trying to become a publisher then you should start thinking like one - your ideas need to be forced on developers, not shared with them! It's your way or no way! You're a publisher - act like one...and screw us all over :)

[Bmc]

Build your site first and then sell it to the developers. If you are trying to become a publisher then you should start thinking like one - your ideas need to be forced on developers, not shared with them! It's your way or no way! You're a publisher - act like one...and screw us all over :)

I thought you we're about to make a very good point until I read the last sentence. Now I'm not sure whether you were bieng sarcastic or not. Either way what you said is spot on... except the screw over part.

[Dan Prigg]

About numbers & price: I am open for discussion, perhaps $50 is to much, especially in the beginnig when we won't have hundreds of games avaialble. Still the main thing is that I want to ay the developers the lions share, roughly 70% minus processors fee)

Real does not have a 15% rate, just needed to debate that.

Also my concern as a developer would be, say I have 5 games on your site but I am not refering anyone to your site. Any other developer who refers customers to your site, would be able to get my games for free but I wouldn't get a dime because I didnt refer them?

Dan

[soniCron]

I wasn't going to comment, because I plan on exploring subscription models in the future when I've built enough income to try my hand at publishing. But, if this conversation keeps going, someone will come to the same conclusion as I had long ago, so I may as well share it here. So here you go: (The numbers are almost purely placeholders. Real serious thought obviously needs to be given and can only be done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the needs of the publisher: advertising, etc.)

Bitching about the publisher getting such a big portion of the pot at 40%? Have you looked at the going rates for major publishers lately?


Worried about the player signing up, downloading all the games, and leaving? Two words: online authorization. As long as they're a member, they can play all the games they'd like. When their membership lapses, no more games. This is enforcing the subscription.


There is worry that the "converting" developers will make all the cash. This can be fought with a combination of purchase models:

Buy the game for $14.99
Buy a monthly subscription at $24.99
Option to buy the game permanently for $4.99 while subscribed (entirety goes to developer)


In addition, by using a highly selective publishing process (like RealArcade, unlike Download.com), there's no reason the remaining developers couldn't split a portion of the monthly subscription fee. Sample:

Publisher @ 25%
"Converting" developer @ 25%
Split the remaining 50% among all other developers


Won't work? Consider these numbers (which don't consider taxes, processing fees, etc.):

20,000 subscribers @ $24.99/mo = $499,800/mo
150 developers, 100 of which have one game, 50 of which have 2 games = 200 payment "slots"
Monthly global income ($499,800) * publisher fee (25%) = $124,950 to the publisher
Global developer cut (50%) of monthly global income ($499,800) = $249,900
$249,900 to each of the 200 payment "slots" = $1,249.50 per "slot"


Now, let's say that one of those developers accounted for 100 signups:

300 signups @ $24.99/mo = $7,497
$7,497/mo @ 25% "converting" developer cut = $1,874.25/mo

So that particular developer would get:

Global developer participation cut ($1,249.50) + "converting" developer cut ($1,874.25) =

$3,123.75 per month, or $37,485 per year

Not bad for 300 "sales!" (And this doesn't consider game purchases, as well.)

Now, imagine we had 200,000 subscribers... :)

Since online authentication would be used, usage statistics of games can be easily obtained, so unpopular games can be "pruned," keeping the developer cuts at a reasonable position.

Now, I predict there's going to be a bit of bitching that developers with less successful games get more than their share. ;) To that I'd say their games keep the incentive for joining high (due to sheer numbers), without detrimentally affecting successful developers.

Thoughts? Ideas? Flames?

[Speckled Jim]

Not sure you'd get many takers if games are only playable for the time a customer is subscribing. I know I wouldn't find it appealing.

A system like that is going to lead to people looking for cracks.

[Bmc]

Not sure you'd get many takers if games are only playable for the time a customer is subscribing. I know I wouldn't find it appealing.

A system like that is going to lead to people looking for cracks.

im pretty sure that's how gameblast works (sort of) and they seem to be doing fine.

[Bmc]

I wasn't going to comment, because I plan on exploring subscription models in the future when I've built enough income to try my hand at publishing. But, if this conversation keeps going, someone will come to the same conclusion as I had long ago, so I may as well share it here. So here you go: (The numbers are almost purely placeholders. Real serious thought obviously needs to be given and can only be done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the needs of the publisher: advertising, etc.)

Bitching about the publisher getting such a big portion of the pot at 40%? Have you looked at the going rates for major publishers lately?


Worried about the player signing up, downloading all the games, and leaving? Two words: online authorization. As long as they're a member, they can play all the games they'd like. When their membership lapses, no more games. This is enforcing the subscription.


There is worry that the "converting" developers will make all the cash. This can be fought with a combination of purchase models:

Buy the game for $14.99
Buy a monthly subscription at $24.99
Option to buy the game permanently for $4.99 while subscribed (entirety goes to developer)


In addition, by using a highly selective publishing process (like RealArcade, unlike Download.com), there's no reason the remaining developers couldn't split a portion of the monthly subscription fee. Sample:

Publisher @ 25%
"Converting" developer @ 25%
Split the remaining 50% among all other developers


Won't work? Consider these numbers (which don't consider taxes, processing fees, etc.):

20,000 subscribers @ $24.99/mo = $499,800/mo
150 developers, 100 of which have one game, 50 of which have 2 games = 200 payment "slots"
Monthly global income ($499,800) * publisher fee (25%) = $124,950 to the publisher
Global developer cut (50%) of monthly global income ($499,800) = $249,900
$249,900 to each of the 200 payment "slots" = $1,249.50 per "slot"


Now, let's say that one of those developers accounted for 100 signups:

300 signups @ $24.99/mo = $7,497
$7,497/mo @ 25% "converting" developer cut = $1,874.25/mo

So that particular developer would get:

Global developer participation cut ($1,249.50) + "converting" developer cut ($1,874.25) =

$3,123.75 per month, or $37,485 per year

Not bad for 300 "sales!" (And this doesn't consider game purchases, as well.)

Now, imagine we had 200,000 subscribers... :)

Since online authentication would be used, usage statistics of games can be easily obtained, so unpopular games can be "pruned," keeping the developer cuts at a reasonable position.

Now, I predict there's going to be a bit of bitching that developers with less successful games get more than their share. ;) To that I'd say their games keep the incentive for joining high (due to sheer numbers), without detrimentally affecting successful developers.

Thoughts? Ideas? Flames?

have you considered the cost of marketing and other things like taxes, lawyer fees, accountant fees, paying employees and of course all the developer payouts etc? I think the above situtation (the financial parts) would guarantee you'd be closed down by the years end.

.................................................. .................

I think anyone wanting to start an indie portal catering to more hardcore games would be best to target the male portion of the casual audience (like that Leper guy) without coming right out and turning away any female customers. Like "Games for Guys" but not so blatant... run banner ads on all the Gamer sites and run some print ads in places like Maxim, Playboy, Porn sites etc.

+

Set up each dev with an affiliate account, they send traffic to the site they get a small cut of any purchases.
A dev's game gets bought outright for a little more then what you stated and the dev only gets half not all.
then work out a clever system to pay a devoper so much by how many times there game is played

[Sirrus]

im pretty sure that's how gameblast works (sort of) and they seem to be doing fine.

This is also how Atari's on demand service works.

www.atariondemand.com

[Nexic]

Or the publisher could just sell games via the current portal system to those same 20,000 people (assuming they all buy one game per year) and make more like $200k-$400k (more than they would get via your method)

I'm sure that convincing someone to spend $20 a year is a lot easier than $25.95 a month, so they would probably have more buyers as well.

EDIT: I'm stupid, ignore me.

[ninjasamurai]

How about this: we build a separate section of this site, something like games.indiegamer.com where we all can publish our games with screenshots and everything and we all link to that page from our sites. This would eliminate the need to swap links between sites, as many people here do. We just need to ensure that all games get equal exposure. We wouldn't even need to advertize the site because traffic would come from all your sites that are already know among customers.

[Omega]

We just need to ensure that all games get equal exposure. We wouldn't even need to advertize the site because traffic would come from all your sites that are already know among customers.

What does that mean and how would you do it.

And being a grammari nazi ON a grammar nazi is funny.

[soniCron]

have you considered the cost of marketing and other things like taxes, lawyer fees, accountant fees, paying employees and of course all the developer payouts etc? I think the above situtation (the financial parts) would guarantee you'd be closed down by the years end. From the post: "The numbers are almost purely placeholders. Real serious thought obviously needs to be given and can only be done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the needs of the publisher: advertising, etc."


Or the publisher could just sell games via the current portal system to those same 20,000 people (assuming they all buy one game per year) and make more like $200k-$400k (more than they would get via your method) How so? :confused: $19.99 once a year is more than $24.99 12 times a year?


I'm sure that convincing someone to spend $20 a year is a lot easier than $25.95 a month, so they would probably have more buyers as well. It may be, it may not be. Obviously other publishers (like Gameblast or Atari On Demand) don't seem to think so. And, again, there's no reason not to sell the games as well. Best of both worlds.


A system like that is going to lead to people looking for cracks. And an example of a system that doesn't? (Besides freeware.)

[Nexic]

How so? $19.99 once a year is more than $24.99 12 times a year?

I don't know, my brain has a fundemental inability to do any kind of maths correctly. I think the problem came down to the fact that I saw your publisher cut of $128k and thought it was yearly, but it was actually monthly. But even so this is no excuse as I should have realised $25*12*0.25 is more than $20*1*0.5...

Really my point was that a publisher would probably want a bigger cut than 25%.

[soniCron]

Really my point was that a publisher would probably want a bigger cut than 25%. Maybe, maybe not. You see, the bigger cut the publisher takes, the less incentive for the developers to "share the wealth." In the subscription model, the publisher can stand to make a magnitude greater than the purchase of a single game (though an option to purchase a single game is still available).

Because the cost of operation would be nearly identical to the current portal system, the return could be far greater. (I am assuming, of course, the average ratio of visitors to purchases per month is <= 1:1.) And as such, there's no real need for the publisher to keep their usual percentage. If they're already taking 60% per sale, under your scenario (1 purchase per year vs. 12 month subscription), they would sell 12 times as many, and could make the same as the purchase model, and with only 5% commission! Of course, the example is unrealistic, but the jist remains.