jetpacks was yes
Member
h3ro said:
I think it's been confirmed that Nintendo gives the larger percentage to developers.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft Cuts Indie Royalties in Half - confirmed in post #13.
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
I think it's been confirmed that Nintendo gives the larger percentage to developers.
LJ11 said:
Sony had a session at GDC about self publishing on PSN for indie devs, but I don't know exactly what that entails or what the steps involved are..
Also as a general comment, I'm guessing PSN royalties are better than 35% if devs have been thinking about moving to it in response to this change. I presume Nintendo's are better than that too.
PhlivoSong
Member
FightyF said:
What innovative products does Yahoo have that MS wanted to buy? Flickr? Delicious? Guess what... Yahoo bought those as well.
Creating rival services isn't just about skill dude. It's about the time it takes to build up that kind of market share. They weren't buying Yahoo's services as much as they were the 200+ million users. It's about advertising.
If Yahoo has so much skill then why did they lay off 20% of their employees, and why is their future in complete flux right now? The only thing that Yahoo has really done right is Yahoo Answers.
/Off topic
spwolf said:
You missed my point.
The whole GoW thing was just Epic being immature.
When the 360 was still on the drawing table, they insisted on adding something to its specs because that needed it for what they were planning with GoW (I want to say it was move Ram, or a better GPU, or something like that.) This ended up costing MSoft a LOT of extra money, because it was the cost of this upgrade multiplied by EVERY unit.
Epic went on to brag about how they cost Microsoft "a billion dollars".
So, DLC time rolls around, and Epic wants to give it away for free. Only, pricing is ultimately the decision of the publisher, and on GoW, MSoft happens to be the publisher. So, since they are the ones who own this content, they decide to charge for it. This upsets Epic, so they make a big scene, which results in people villifying MSoft without looking at the whole picture.
I was one of those people attacking them. When the whole thing came to light, I felt pretty silly for attacking them.
Which is why I'm holding off on attacking them here until there is more data. I'll comment on the rummored practise itself, but attacking the company for it, without proof, is wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a4Ku6RGlJykArkham said:
Evander said:
If Epic hadn't forced that change (an extra 256MB of RAM) on Microsoft, there's no way 360 games would be able to look like they are even in the same class as PS3 games, and the PS3 would be outshining it in graphics and AI by miles. I doubt the 360 would be anywhere near as successful as it has been if not for that change.
Shard said:
There were 2 different DLCs released for Gears, if I remember correctly. One free via Futureweapons (just maps), one not free initially, but free after somewhere between 3~6 months (maps and new gametype). Epic wanted both to be released for free, no strings attached.
edit: I did remember correctly (for the most part). 2 maps released free via the Future Weapons promo, the Annex gametype was released with a patch, and the Hidden Fronts map pack was released for 800 pts, but became free 4 months later.
As to wanting things, Epic has a history of giving out maps and mods for their products for free. It's one of their calling cards as a developer, and one of the ways they like to show their customers that they care. Not being able to deliver that because of MS is sticking in their craw a bit, I'm sure.
Warm Machine
Member
I would hope this was negotiable. The better the game the larger the %. Dropping the royalty rate at GDC though is VERY bad publicity. It is the reverse of what GDC is all about. I don't blame MS, I blame the EA management group there which is really fucking things up and are very much out of their depth. You can't run the Xbox division like an enemy to other publishers and developers, you need a different tact.
I don't think the quality of the game has anything to do with it (but obviously there may be exceptions in any contract).Warm Machine said:
I believe the % is more likely based on how much you use MS resources. As in, if you have a different publisher (ie. Sierra) then they may assist in the development/testing/etc. and the % might be closer to the 70% from MS, but the publisher and developer would split that. On the other hand, if you are an indie developer with no publisher on your own and you choose to use MS for the extra help and resources then you may end up closer to the 35%.
Madman said:
Because Epic's complaints were "they are stopping us from doing what we want because they control the distribution channels, and they don't want other content on there to seem like it should be free too, because that will hurt their sales."
When the truth was, they weren't making that decision as a distributor, they were making it as a publisher, and they wanted to make money off a game that they had invested a WHOLE LOT in.
Edit: And you know that Epic never refused their share of the profits, right? They never said "no, reduce the cost by our percentage; we want to save the gamers some money."
Nope, they made their big scene with their little tantrum, and then took the money.
The game did 4.5 million in sales and was the big title of Microsoft's Fall 06. Charging for the DLC against Epic's wishes was not necessary.sneaky77 said:
Epic gave them everything they could have wanted with Gears. Huge sales and more importantly, a big Fall title. Microsoft didn;t need the money.
Yeah, it was their game. They didn't want to charge anything, but they would have been morons not to take the money being made from their own game.
Gonna need a frame of reference here before vilifying MS.
Was this all of a sudden, as in "hay guys, guess what, we're chopping your profits in half" or was it understood that 70% was a "promotional" period while Live was getting on its feet?
Also, we have no idea what percentage Sony and Nintendo take.
Was this all of a sudden, as in "hay guys, guess what, we're chopping your profits in half" or was it understood that 70% was a "promotional" period while Live was getting on its feet?
Also, we have no idea what percentage Sony and Nintendo take.
Madman said:
Including the rights...
Epic couldn't have afforded to make gears without someone like MSoft backing them (maybe EA, I dunno) and they DEFINITELY couldn't have afforded to make it such a huge success without MSoft's backing.
The tantrum that they threw was just so that they could get praise as though they had made all the content free, even though they were charging for it, and profiting off of it.
Open Source
Banned
Mamesj said:
All of a sudden, and Sony's rate is better. I don't know about WiiWare since I'm not working on any games for it.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
So, is this correct?
70% publisher/ 30% Microsoft when publisher foots all promotional stuff?
65% Microsoft / 35% indie when Microsoft does all promotional stuff?
70% publisher/ 30% Microsoft when publisher foots all promotional stuff?
65% Microsoft / 35% indie when Microsoft does all promotional stuff?
I think they could have done Gears wihtout Microsoft. I don't see why they couldn't. Both EA and Activision could afford doing it.Evander said:
Epic wanted to make the content free, Microsoft prevented that from happening, and they made it public they weren't happy about it. I don't see how that is a negative against Epic.
Didn't happen that way with Midway and UT3.
Madman said:
Here's the thing. Would other publishers release the content for free?
I don't see why. Some of the content was sponsored and free, but as the developer to try and call all the shots seems kinda bullying by Epic part themselfs.
Point is, MS paid for it, and they are now going to act like a publisher and try to make money with it. I don't know, that whole EPIC situation kind rubs me the wrong way, they try to act like they are self publishing and are in charge, they aren't, and if they didn't wanted to be like that then next time instead of going up to Peter Moore or Jay allard and saying "I'm gonna make your next halo" go to other publisher.
Seriously Epic acts really bully, and they fell on their asses with Ut3 so that was kinda funny.
Madman said:
You think it's professional behavior to make a business disagreement public for the purpose of trying to strongarm the other side through public pressure to conform to what you want?
When you resort to tactics like that, you may gain some public favor, but folks are more weary about future business that they do with you.
We want this industry to seem professional, no?
Regardless, if EA and Activision had published Gears, it WOULD NOT have become the "definitive" 360 title that it did. It gained that status because of Microsoft thrusting it high above everything else. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve that status, just that it didn't really have to work for it like it would have.
And, again, ultimately, if they wanted to control publication of the game, then they shouldn't have sold the rights!
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Madman said:
Their flagship game is floundering at retail. Yes, they are. They advertised UT3 as 'from the makers of Gears of War'
As of now, they are
Madman said:
They did the job that they were hired to do, and with MSoft paying the tab.
If it wasn't Epic, it would have been another studio. I'm not saying the game to come out of that would have been as good, but MSoft has the money to make sure it would have been as successful.
disappeared
Banned
Fuck you guys for posting those War Amps and Drug PSA videos. Those game me nightmares as a kid. :lol
Steverulez
Member
Kittonwy said:Come come to PSN I welcome yall, come join teh family.
Well, if they want their games heavily delayed with little to no promotion visible on the console to people who own then yeh, great idea!
I mean they'd get more of a cut but... also not as many sales.
Hey guys,
For those wondering how the PSN royalties fare, here's an answer from a dev I won't name:
However many devs are different. This one had their project funded by Sony, and as far as I know Microsoft does not fund any Arcade games.
Other devs that fund their own titles for release on PSN (like Capcom) get larger royalties than XBLA, but how much I'm not sure. Definitely more than most channels, since Sony is trying to establish their market at the moment.
Microsoft has always quashed indie development on the XBLA (several games exist currently on the PSN simply because Microsoft wasn't interested in bringing them to its own service) and heavily favored casual games. XNA seemed like a step forward in the right direction, but since the service has started it has been nothing more than a controlled service to net MS more money off of very little product.
As an indie dev myself, I hate Microsoft for not reaching out more to us. Sony and Nintendo both aren't a walk in the park to get set up for either, but it's totally unlike MS's legal and financial barriers that prevent anyone without thousands of dollars to start churning out games for XBLA. And they have no interests in changing that.
For those wondering how the PSN royalties fare, here's an answer from a dev I won't name:
However many devs are different. This one had their project funded by Sony, and as far as I know Microsoft does not fund any Arcade games.
Other devs that fund their own titles for release on PSN (like Capcom) get larger royalties than XBLA, but how much I'm not sure. Definitely more than most channels, since Sony is trying to establish their market at the moment.
Microsoft has always quashed indie development on the XBLA (several games exist currently on the PSN simply because Microsoft wasn't interested in bringing them to its own service) and heavily favored casual games. XNA seemed like a step forward in the right direction, but since the service has started it has been nothing more than a controlled service to net MS more money off of very little product.
As an indie dev myself, I hate Microsoft for not reaching out more to us. Sony and Nintendo both aren't a walk in the park to get set up for either, but it's totally unlike MS's legal and financial barriers that prevent anyone without thousands of dollars to start churning out games for XBLA. And they have no interests in changing that.
Evander said:
Man, that's a serious load of bullshit, Evander.
Epic couldn't have afforded to make Gears without someone like MS backing them? Mark Rein's gone on record for saying that Gears was produced for only $10 million. Somehow, I think they could have swung the funding for the title even without MS' support.
It also sounds to me like you're implying that Epic never had any intention of providing the Gears DLC for free, and were just 'throwing a tantrum' to make themselves look like the good guys while secretly screwing over their fans. Again, I have to call bullshit. Epic has a long-standing tradition of supporting their games with free DLC as a 'thank you' to customers. If they hadn't been blocked from releasing that content for free, I'm sure they would have. Since MS insisted on charging for it, they would have been fools not to take their cut of the profits. (Should they have just handed that money back to MS instead?)
*slaps forehead*
Seems today is 'stupid console manufacturer day.'
Microsoft: "Cut Indie Royalties in Half!"
Nintendo: "You should pay for part of our awful online service!"
Sony: "We think consumers will get tired of Wii's outdated graphics, just like they did with the DS!"
Retards!
Seems today is 'stupid console manufacturer day.'
Microsoft: "Cut Indie Royalties in Half!"
Nintendo: "You should pay for part of our awful online service!"
Sony: "We think consumers will get tired of Wii's outdated graphics, just like they did with the DS!"
Retards!
Similar threads
- Locked