Support NeoGAF

[2+2=5]

Game development on the PlayStation Vita may be the way to go as opposed to mobile. According to Sony Computer Entertainment Europe senior business development manager Shahid Ahmad, there’s more money to be made on the company’s handheld.

Ahmad told Polygon:

“More developers make more money on average on Vita than they do on mobile. When people buy a Vita, they want to purchase games. I tell developers, if you’re trying to build a business, then building your game and bringing it to Vita is a great investment. If you want to play the lottery, then putting a game on iOS is more like that. You’re scratching that and hoping you get discovered, hoping that a lot of people talk about you. Whereas Vita, every week when there’s content coming out, people buzz about it and it spreads like wildfire, because everyone’s firing that console up every day to look at the content and talk about it.”

http://gamingeverything.com/sony-devs-typically-making-more-money-on-ps-vita-than-mobile/

The full polygon interview is about vita, you can read it here:
http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/21/4642112/vita-is-ready-for-a-renaissance

Not surprising, even without data it's not hard to believe, we had many news about indies selling well on vita and it would explain the invasion of indie games on vita, in Japan even some non-indie games sold better on vita despite the huge disparity of userbase, for example muramasa and new little kings story sold better on vita than on wii, senran kagura shinovi versus sold more than the 3ds games, spike is shipping more copies of conception 2 on vita than on 3ds and so on.

I can't wait to see this thread full of vita haters, shahid haters and mobile masterrace, because no matter the news it's how every vita thread ends...

 

[FranXico]

More developers make more money on average on Vita than they do on mobile.

It's obvious why Ahmad would want to say that, but I simply don't believe it.

 

[Impeccable]

Now I want some Doritos, Baked Lays and more games on my Vita.

 

[sueil]

Makes sense. Sales being more consistent on a handheld than mobile. Not every game is Angry Birds. The lottery comment strikes true.

 

[RagingAvatar]

More developers make more money on average on Vita than they do on mobile.

I believe him.
Think about it. There are LOADS more developers on iOS than there are on Vita.
You stand a lottery's chance of making a mint on iOS. The chances are much more in your favour for making some kind of return on Vita.

 

[mugurumakensei]

The point of mobile isn't high revenue. It ia high ROI. The development costs are so low that you can pump out several titles in a short span and make profit from all of them even if the sales numbers are small.

 

[lights]

Doesn't hurt that Vita versions of mobile games are like double the price.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

Not hard to believe but I want to know what's the discrepancy between Vita and, say, Steam or XBLA. AFAIK, the indie game numbers released for the Vita are for RCR.

 

[SmokyDave]

The Vita attach rate is fucking nuts, I know that much. It's good to hear stuff like this and I hope a few ears have pricked up.

 

[casmith07]

A lot of this seems like PR speak but I do believe that development would be more profitable on a gaming platform rather than a multiple-use cell phone.

 

[Wynnebeck]

True. There are so many iOS knockoffs that a truly great game is almost a literal diamond in the rough. With A presence on Vita, you get exposure you might never had a chance to have.

 

[Oersted]

Neither Vita nor 3DS havent even closely so many devs under belt as mobile. So kinda bullshit comparison, which is also lacking sources. Meh.

 

[shem935]

Ios you have 1000s upon 1000s of devs making unknown games that no one cares about and no one buys.

Vita you have a dedicated games ecosystem filled with some of the most passionate and hardcore gamer who are desperate for a game.

Hard to imagine they would be making less money.

 

[FDC1]

Vita owners are mostly enthousiast gamers which want to help Vita to survive (myself included), not really a surprise Vita has a better attach rate. When you're as sucessful as 3DS or iOS mobiles , a lot of owners are casual players which buy and play less.

 

[Awntawn]

If we're saying "average", doesn't that include the countless gazillions of crappy self published games that are doa and make practically no money at all? technically true and sounds good in a statement, but in actuality means absolutely nothing

 

[$h@d0w]

Doesn't hurt that Vita versions of mobile games are like double the price.

PS+ discounts and free games mitigate this somewhat, but yes, some games like Fruit Ninja are stupidly priced.

 

[Oersted]

If we're saying "average", doesn't that include the countless gazillions of crappy self published games that are doa and make practically no money at all? technically true and sounds good in a statement, but in actuality means absolutely nothing

Yep. And with no sources it means less than that.

 

[DieH@rd]

It's obvious why Ahmad would want to say that, but I simply don't believe it.

There are hundreds of new games releasing daily for iOS and Andoid, and 99% of them will fail utterly. While on Vita, everything that is relased is made with high quality, game catalogue is not insanely large and people want to try new games.

 

[nampad]

I believe him. Vita owners have been great to indie devs and vice versa.
We already knew that some indies were more successful on Vita than on PS3. We also know how hard it can be for the average developer to be successful on iOS.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

There are hundreds of new games releasing daily for iOS and Andoid, and 99% of them will fail utterly. While on Vita, everything that is relased is made with high quality, game catalogue is not insanely large and people want to try new games.

+1

The PSVita games library is much smaller, so it's easier to sell to the audience (if it's good).

 

[$h@d0w]

The Vita attach rate is fucking nuts, I know that much. It's good to hear stuff like this and I hope a few ears have pricked up.

Yes, we already have data on here as well. Check this list of GAF PSN Vita players:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuWCi5it4jKqdFdNRGdEWldvZkpXQTVSMHVHbXVUcnc#gid=0

Aytrial started this list today and look at the average Vita games owned number on the side - already at 25 games per person. This stat probably warrants it's own thread at some point.

No wonder people are complaining about memory cards being too small.

 

[2+2=5]

If we're saying "average", doesn't that include the countless gazillions of crappy self published games that are doa and make practically no money at all? technically true and sounds good in a statement, but in actuality means absolutely nothing

I guess he's considering only the indies that came on vita.

 

[PuppetMaster]

I buy Vita games at a rate of at least one a month I'd say. Play it nearly daily.

I haven't bought a game for my phone in at least 3 years.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

Was there not a thread earlier showing mobile games made a lot more?

Or is he just talking about games that are available on both.

 

[2+2=5]

Was there not a thread earlier showing mobile games made a lot more?

Or is he just talking about games that are available on both.

Imo he's talking about the indies that came on vita.

 

[hoos30]

He's playing math games. Of course a Vita title is going to bring in more revenue "on average", than a mobile port, but the mobile game cost a fraction to make and distribute.

Someone will post that EA revenue chart soon and this thread will be done.

 

[Claude Kenni]

More developers make more money on average on Vita than they do on mobile.

I don't see how this quote makes any sense. Doesn't seem grammatically correct, if it is then I don't believe it's true as phrased.

 

[Bgamer90]

$40 vs. $0.99

 

[Omikaru]

We have seen similar on the 3DS. Hasn't Gunman Clive sold exceptionally well on that platform compared to its mobile alternatives?

In short, I am not surprised by this news one bit.

 

[Impeccable]

I don't see how this quote makes any sense. Doesn't seem grammatically correct, if it is then I don't believe it's true as phrased.

"If you release a game on Vita and iOS, you as a developer will make more money on Vita on average."

The average is just a safe way to allow people to not bring up random lightning strike games like Puzzle and Dragons to prove a point.

 

[LamerDeluxe]

The prices on iOS are too low for developers to make a proper profit, because Apple only cares about attracting customers with low app prices, the income they make from the app store is not interesting to them. Indeed a massive problem is getting people to know your app exists, with developers having to pay sites to do reviews of their apps.

On the Vita there isn't a flood of new games so they all get way more attention when they come out, also the prices are higher.

Personally I have a lot of games on my phone but hardly ever play them, either the gameplay gets boring quickly or the touch controls are much worse than physical controls.

 

[nampad]

I don't think 'make money' only means revenue. Pretty sure that he means profit.
But no point in arguing about that.

The indie scene is already embracing the Vita so there has to be some money to be made.

 

[TheContact]

Candy Crush makes over $630,000 PER DAY.
Sorry Vita devs, you aren't beating that

 

[redcrayon]

Yes, we already have data on here as well. Check this list of GAF PSN Vita players:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuWCi5it4jKqdFdNRGdEWldvZkpXQTVSMHVHbXVUcnc#gid=0

Aytrial started this list today and look at the average Vita games owned number on the side - already at 25 games per person. This stat probably warrants it's own thread at some point.

No wonder people are complaining about memory cards being too small.

To be fair it's the average attach rate of Vita owners who also post on Neogaf. I'd imagine its higher than Vita owners in general, and that the attach rate of mobile gamers (and 3DS ones for that matter) who regularly post on gaf in the relevant threads and hunt out new content is similarly disproportionate to the customer base at large.

I take the general point of the thread though- smaller dedicated eshops for dedicated gaming devices are a better bet for a small game than a store with tens of thousands of apps, where it can only be found by search.

 

[Morokh]

Sound like it's the same with 3DS

Beril with Gunman Clive sold more on it, and now Imageform that released SteamWorld Dig announced further support for the platform after only one week of seeing the results.

Visibility is what holds many games back on IOS and Android, plus having a more focused target audience.

It's not surprising at all.

And with the work that they all do to ease everything for indies to bring games to their platforms that's a choice I expect many to consider in the future, despite the never ending growth of overall mobile revenue.

 

[bobbytkc]

It's obvious why Ahmad would want to say that, but I simply don't believe it.

If you look at the number of mobile games on iOS or android, it is not hard to believe actually. On Vita, you are guaranteed frontpage advertising on the store, but the flood of mobile games on mobile platforms make that considerably more difficult, unless you are a breakout success.

 

[SmokyDave]

Yes, we already have data on here as well. Check this list of GAF PSN Vita players:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuWCi5it4jKqdFdNRGdEWldvZkpXQTVSMHVHbXVUcnc#gid=0

Aytrial started this list today and look at the average Vita games owned number on the side - already at 25 games per person. This stat probably warrants it's own thread at some point.

No wonder people are complaining about memory cards being too small.

That list is missing a few big hitters too if the highest games owned is 51. I'm way over that and I know at least three people in VitaGAF have many more than me.

It'll be interesting to watch that list 'mature'.

To be fair it's the average attach rate of Vita owners who also post on Neogaf. I'd imagine its higher than Vita owners in general, and that the attach rate of mobile gamers (and 3DS ones for that matter) who regularly post on gaf in the relevant threads and hunt out new content is similarly disproportionate to the customer base at large.

I take the general point of the thread though- smaller dedicated eshops for dedicated gaming devices are a better bet for a small game than a store with tens of thousands of apps, where it can only be found by search.

The overall attach rate for the Vita is 10 games per device. As mentioned by Sony at E3.

 

[michaelius]

We already had that with PSN Minis.

You have stable sales on dedicated machines but you can't win as big as on smartphones where lucky ones sells shitloads.

But for every lucky game on iOS there are thousands of forgotten titles that lie on the bottom of appstore list.

 

[wsippel]

Candy Crush makes over $630,000 PER DAY.
Sorry Vita devs, you aren't beating that

Candy Crush is one out of, dunno, 100,000 games. Most of which make no money at all. It's no surprise that developers typically make more money on Vita - and 3DS for that matter. There's simply a lot less competition.

 

[goomba]

woops wrong thread lol

 

[redcrayon]

The overall attach rate for the Vita is 10 games per device. As mentioned by Sony at E3.

That's pretty good compared to consoles in general, isn't it?

 

[daevv]

I do spend more money on Vita games than iOS.

 

[TheChaos0]

Candy Crush makes over $630,000 PER DAY.
Sorry Vita devs, you aren't beating that

That lottery analogy is quite accurate.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

The attach rate for the Vita is 10 games. That sounds like a lot but most likely a lot of those games are only a few dollars.

 

[Nikodemos]

$15 > $0.99.

Wow, I can't believe this is true.

Sarcasm aside, it's pretty obvious the mobile environment is a minefield. Yes, production costs are low (well, low compared to x-uple-first-letter) but the chance of striking it big is very slim. More often than not, a small mobile dev team is lucky to get their money back. It's a lottery, and like all lotteries you have a crapload of losers, a couple guys who hit it big and a handful of decent success stories. Whereas on the Vita almost every game is a decent success story.

 

[bobbytkc]

Candy Crush makes over $630,000 PER DAY.
Sorry Vita devs, you aren't beating that

Sorry, you cannot look at the superstars. There are so many moble games on the platform, that once you average and look at each game's share of the pie, it is considerably less impressive.

 

[plufim]

Not surprising at all. Same would go for eShop on 3DS.

The average game on iOS and Android is drowned out by the few popular games. Those take the lions share of attention and money, leaving scraps for anyone else

 

[redcrayon]

I do spend more money on Vita games than iOS.

Heh, I like my iPad and smartphone but my total spend for gaming on them over two years is under a fiver. In contrast my 3DS is probably about £200+, and the Vita I'm eyeing up for later this year will be about £80 at retail and £50 on PSN just to start with.

 

[Gskyace]

Mobile gaming market is nearly full.
Not like before, everyone can get a quick cash, good game or bad.
Now the luck a game need to got to be success is much more hard for indie on mobile.

 

[SmokyDave]

That's pretty good compared to consoles in general, isn't it?

Indeed. I was just looking for some figures but I'm not sure I trust any of the pages I've found. I don't think any of the gen 7 consoles have broken 9 though, even with their much longer lifespan. I'm pretty sure the DS was sitting at around 6 - 6.5.

I wish I could give you concrete figures, but I can't find any. 10 is very high though, I know that much!