532 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

My thought is that the system exists as basically a form of kickback—provide an "exclusive" for a retailer, which causes the retailer to more heavily advertise your product (since they can directly advertise the exclusive as well). It's there to drive revenue, you're correct, but only because you essentially get the services of expanded marketing for free (it's a largely costless way to get other people to push your goods).

That works for retailers, yes. And you're right, getting preorders through retailers helps obtain boxed copies purchased and the like. Although if you're thinking of things like the Gamestop exclusive preorder bonuses, those are actually situations where Gamestop effectively pays us to create some unique content to encourage people to preorder through Gamestop as opposed to somewhere else (although I think the market is shifting away from this, but I have a bias as a PC gamer so I see less of the console retail effect)

A game like EU4, however, does not even have a boxed version, and PC gaming in general as really started to shift to digital platforms. Yet these preorders still exist, and they exist in a way that actually encourages me to preorder, since in the past I rarely felt a need to preorder (which was a method to ensure I got a copy on release), whereas now I actually get more stuff. As long as I care about said stuff, I'll preorder. If I don't, I won't.

Getting the money "sooner" is eminently important, though. Doesn't your industry basically function these days on preorder and first week revenue?

Most sales do happen early in the product cycle, yes.

Although it still applies to pretty much everything. I pay a higher interest rate on my mortgage because I went 5 years instead of 1 year for the term. If I pay $50/week on my credit card instead of $100 every two weeks, I pay it off faster and with less overall interest. Even though I'm "paying the same amount."

[devSin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That works for retailers, yes. And you're right, getting preorders through retailers helps obtain boxed copies purchased and the like. Although if you're thinking of things like the Gamestop exclusive preorder bonuses, those are actually situations where Gamestop effectively pays us to create some unique content to encourage people to preorder through Gamestop as opposed to somewhere else (although I think the market is shifting away from this, but I have a bias as a PC gamer so I see less of the console retail effect)

Yes, I didn't necessarily intend to create the impression that it was a one-way venture. Sometimes, my vernacular is just inefficient to reliably express neutral points (if you're thinking I was going to somehow work the word "collusion" in here, you'd be right). But the effect is symbiotic, I guess you could say (you're getting more from it than just whatever paltry sum the retailer grants you, though good on you for getting something out of them upfront).

Allan Schumacher wrote...

A game like EU4, however, does not even have a boxed version, and PC gaming in general as really started to shift to digital platforms. Yet these preorders still exist, and they exist in a way that actually encourages me to preorder, since in the past I rarely felt a need to preorder (which was a method to ensure I got a copy on release), whereas now I actually get more stuff. As long as I care about said stuff, I'll preorder. If I don't, I won't.

Certainly. To me, promotional is just a form of marketing, though it's a good point that the only promotional offers are typically preorder exclusive (usually—I still remember that Deep Green crap with MotA, which made me very unhappy as a loyal customer who was wanting to wait for a damn patch before giving you any more money for DA2).

Though I'd say there's probably a point of diminishing returns that is startlingly close to your release date (past a certain point, no amount of goodies you throw in there is going to make that many more people care about your game). (This may have been the point you were making?)

And again, I can't dispute that money not earned before, on, or near the release of the game is money you're probably never going to see, and the same goes for most of the money you make on Day One DLC (as Fernando's numbers overwhelmingly showed). I'm just not sure you can equate the potential earnings from excessive marketing and the earnings from questionable practice (promotional items suck, but they're essentially free junk, so they don't actively discourage purchase like Day One DLC seems to for some people).

Modifié par devSin, 01 août 2013 - 09:43 .

[Sejborg]

You sure write alot of words Allan Schumacher. However they are hardly relevant to what OP is asking about.

In short: "Companion as day one dlc? Yes? No? Please don't?"

Instead you just talk on and on about sales numbers, different editions, preorders, and trying to correct some posters suggestions to other DLC release schedules. But the topic you seem to completely avoid. Interesting.

[devSin]

Allan is man of many, many, many words. I almost thought him a kindred spirit at one time, but then he just kept on writing.

Anyway, he's involved in a secondary discussion. He doesn't have any say in what DLC they end up doing or not doing. I agree that it really doesn't help at all that he refuses to include attribution for his quotes. More often than not, I'm forced to simply disregard him because I can't figure out the context for what he's even talking about.

I can answer your question, though, based on nothing more than simple reason. There will be Day One DLC, and it will be substantial (perhaps not a companion, but it will not be vanity DLC). More than that won't be revealed until closer to release.

Modifié par devSin, 01 août 2013 - 10:54 .

[Maria Caliban]

I haven't seen the OP for a while and the conversation has moved on. I don't usually expect someone to address what people were talking about 17 pages ago.

[AlanC9]

Looks to me like Allan's just following the discussion where it goes. This is a bad thing?

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 août 2013 - 11:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Alright, just had a chance to sit down at a computer instead of my phone to do a proper response to this.

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

[quote]Peter Moore said that 40% attachment rate I quoted was for all of Week 1. We can assume a large amount of those were true Day One, but even if the full amount was lost during that first with a Week 2 DLC launch, that would only be 40% of the 1 million+ units of ME3 moved during the first week, equalling roughly 400,000 to 500,000 units, since we don't know the details of that "+" as well as Peter Moore. [/quote]

How about increase in collectors edition sales.[/quote]

I was making the assumption that Melo was doing what is always done in the corporate world - conflating two similar things as the EXACT same thing. I have little doubt that the 40% adoption rate of the first week's sales on ME3 included Collector's Edition sales as well as pure purchases. Since they are both income for the D1DLC, why wouldn't they combine the two?

However, in this context, one has to see the Collector's Editions as a negative. After all, it is the same price as the stand-alone DLC, but also includes other content or "swag." Assuming this swag was not free to design, produce and ship, it inherently will eat into the margins of the DLC sales, while a "pure" DLC sale will generate higher profits (because of, again, the same price point). So, in this light, I think Bioware as a company would much rather promote stand-alone DLC sales over Collector's Editions.

Then again, perhaps Melo was talking about a 40% attachment rate for the download alone. I'm not in a position to state one way or the other, but I have a feeling that with the rate EA was promoting these numbers, they were likely as high as they could be made for public presentation.

[quote][quote]"But again, for the 400,000-500,000 who bought the From Ashes DLC on Day One, revenue in the amount of $4-5 million was gained. While nothing to sneeze at, that is a drop in the bucket of the full sales revenue (barely over 1% for ME3's book of business). Is 1% worth a PR disaster? Even with 100% margins, I can't imagine it being so."[/quote]

I think this is the problem.

You can't imagine it being so, therefore it can't be.-snip-[/quote]

No offense, but I'll skip the proper debate etiquette editorial to keep this whole thing on topic.


[quote]
Lets look at some problems with your earlier statements.

You compared the gross of the whole project to the gross of the DLC, while failing to account for the difference in markup. You know better than this, but we also both know that the greater you can separate the values, the more convincing the argument appears. You've since even compared it against *the entire trilogy* worth of sales, which just starts to come across as rather silly.[/quote]

I did no such thing.

ME3, as a single game, has sold 4.5 million across all platforms according to VGChartz (2.78 million across the 360, 1.14 million across the PS3, .79 million across the PC and (giggle-snort) .06 million across the Wii U for an overall total units sold of 4,770,000 units sold. In my earier estimates, I rounded down to $4.5 mil for simplicity, but let's use these numbers instead so we can talk shop for real.

At $60 a pop:

4,770,000
X          $60
$286,200,000

Over $286 million. In my earlier estimates, I rounded this down to an even $200 million to be extremely conservative and lend more credence against my argument, stating possibly returns and discounts. So I'll go ahead and give that berth again.

[quote]A breakdown:
A million units in first week, at $60.[/quote]

Now, I'll stop you here really quick. I used all sales across the entire lifetime of the game for a reason. Paid D1DLC instead of, say, D14DLC, only generates extra revenue for that first week or so. Otherwise, it provides zero benefit that wouldn't be realized by a different model/release date. Yes, whether that revenue was high or low or if the money came in earlier or later (although the timeline of an additional two weeks wouldn't do a whole lot to the Cash Flow argument, I'll concede I don't have enough visual to say with 100% certainty) do play factors. And, of course, Free D1DLC will be free no matter what, so it generates no revenue. But in the grand scheme of things, Paid D1DLC is meant to have its highest value in the days right after release.

However, the POLICY of Paid D1DLC affects the entire product. It can result in negative press. It can eat up resources trying to put out PR fires. It can reduce overall net sales. In a nutshell, even though the window of when the D1DLC can generate actual cash flows is small, it can affect the entire product lifecycle (and, arguably, beyond the product life-cycle into the genreal portfolio of business for other games... but let's just stick with one thing at a time here), hence why I used that number.



But, sure. We'll go with Week 1.

1,000,000
X          $60
$6,000,000

$6 million in revenue for the first week of sales of ME3.

[quote]At 10% profit, the DLC represents 67% of the profit of the base game at that time.
At 20% profit, the DLC represents 33% of the profit of the base game at that time.
At 30% profit, the DLC represents 22%...
At 40% profit, the DLC represents 17%.
At 50% profit, the DLC represents 13%.
And so on.

Now, can you imagine that a 13% - 67% increase in the numbers that affect the bottom line may be perceived as a good thing? Or is that still just not possible?[/quote]

As I stated above, I was operating under the total gross revenue of the product because the decision of using Paid D1DLC can have ripple effects across the rest of the lifecycle. But if we are using the first week's revenue alone, then yes. The percentages you gave are correct.

However... this is overlooking something huge. In my original estimates, I gave the benefit of the doubt of 100% margin on DLC. I did so to give more credence to the overall argument against me, so my argument could be best evaluated..

But what does a 100% margin really represent? 100% profit. No cost. Which, when you think about it, is the same as making the statement that the D1DLC was completed before certification was over (or, at the least, all work done on the DLC was folded into the original budget, regardless). Which is obviously not the case.

The very difficult thing to handle when talking about margins is understanding their complexity. It is exceptionally thorny to establish clear margins, particularly so in a non-manufacturing model (like the software entertainment one). Because you are not saying "raw materials cost $5 per unit, labor costs $3, and distribution cost $6, so we can charge $20 a unit and make a $6 margin per unit." You're saying "the retailer gets $10 per new game sold, the Fulfillment and Manufacturing of the disc costs $5 per game, and we've spent $100 million making this game. So at $60 a pop, we earn back $45 a game, so we need to sell at least 2.2million units to break even, anything after that point is pure profit."

Given that a much more weighted cost is based on the aggregate product, not on the per unit cost, margins fluctuate with volume and volume alone in many cases. If your projections say you think you are going to move 2.5 million units, you calculate your margin to be $5 a game after development costs in the above example. If, however, you turn out to sell 3 million, your margin jumps to $11.67 a unit (more than double what you had expected). 

Point being, as you sell more, your margins go higher. So any calculation we make about margins would need to take the base cost of development (along with all the other costs, such as marketing, coproate infrastructure, events for promotion, web services, etc.) to truly have a clear idea of calculating these margins clearly, since one week to the next would drastically change them (again, as opposed to the manufacturing model which is much more flat in terms of profit/per unit sold).


So the D1DLC (and any DLC... or game, for that matter) becomes more valuable and cost effective as each additional unit is sold. The question then is... what ARE the margins on DLC? Projected and realized? That's not a question I'm sure many developers are comfortable answering, simply because DLC skips most of the per/unit costs associated (manufacturing and distribution is much more flat with an all digital-medium). The industry-wide accepted price of $10 means the more sold, the more it becomes a source of pure profit. If 30%, 40%, 50% or more is profit, why then is it priced so high? In addition, how big of a revenue loss is giving away D1DLC for Free REALLY, in terms of development costs?

But moving on... $4,000,000 (assuming the nasty implications of a 100% profit margin) is a flea on the back of $200,000,000, plain and simple. Even with the lowest margins possible for the base game (at which, I would just say why not increase the price if this is really the case) and a full profit margin for D1DLC, it becomes a matter of high cost to high reward in even the most lobsided of equations.

[quote]Factors overlooked:
Collectors edition purchases. How many people bought collectors editions that would not have? Rather than asking "Do you think it is significant" (because I know the answer to that), I'll ask "Do you think it could be significant."[/quote]

I think it could be significant. I think it could be a siginificant hit to how long it takes the DLC actually reaches the "pure profit" mark.

I'm not going to guess how much the extra do-dads and containers for the Collector's Editions cost Bioware, but packaging the DLC with them and keeping roughly the same price point says, to me, a LOT about how both DLC as well as materials in Collector's Editions are (over)priced.

[quote]Getting the same amount of money sooner is always better than getting the same amount of money later. It is *trivial* to see this across gaming (and the market in general), as stuff like Day One DLC for *free* with a preorder is very, very, VERY common. I actually preorder more now (although still infrequently) than I did when preordering was necessary to ensure a copy, because I literally get more value for my money by doing so. If I expect to buy a game at release (i.e. EU4, Rome 2, and possibly Saints Row 4), and it has a preorder incentive, I usually preorder it. This gives them less overall on the bottom line, but gives them the money sooner. There are a lot of advantages for providing a preorder incentive, even if it means "giving stuff away." It's one thing to say that From Ashes is bad long term, which is a position I can certainly see. But in the short term, it's pretty clear that many businesses would rather take less money that is guaranteed sooner, rather than wait and possibly make more money.[/quote]

And would it not be even MORE incentive for people to pre-order if said DLC incentive was free? Rather than paid?

I think you may have been glazing over some of my posts over the last day or so (understandably, I often have diarheea of the mout... errr... keyboard.

I'm pretty much promoting EVERY OTHER possible DLC or alternative stream as being better than Paid D1DLC. Each and every one (Season Pass incentives for CEs instead of D1DLC, D14/Week 3/4 DLC, Free D1DLC... heck, I even threw out the concept of a Fund-Raising DLC, where all proceeds could go to funding a toolkit, to get a bit of a crowd-sourcing hype going) has benefits outside of straight revenue. How strong these benefits are (as well as how negative the benefits of the Paid D1DLC are) can be difficult to track, let alone prove. But looking at the benefits gained from Paid D1DLC? A $4-6 million (I say six here as total conjecture, since Melo says D1DLC sales drop off exponentially after the first week, but does not say to what degree - I figure 50% is, again, being very conservative to the side I am opposing) surge in revenue over the course of the entire product lifetime (which can approach close to a quarter of a billion in total revenue) simply does not seem like a reasonable business move.

[quote]Press: How true is the old adage "there's no such thing as bad press?" (I actually don't know, but I know some believe it). This may apply more to the ending itself than the DLC, but there are large articles about the DLC. Yes, maybe Erik Kain's article whipped people into a furor and maybe even contributed to less sales. How many people did it go "I wonder what the big deal is" or for some ended up being "Oh man there's some extra content already available?" because they didn't actually know about it. Is it possible that despite the outrage, it may have been mitigated enough by the exposure?[/quote]

It is possible, yes.

Then again, given the number of people who have popped in this thread to express what many would call "ignorant" positions on the nature of Javik being 100% on disc, that Bioware was ripping them off and that Paid D1DLC is a shameless cash grab, I'd say it might be possible that it wasn't mitigated all THAT well. Maybe just eclipsed by bigger clusters of flucks that had people throw up their arms at the Bioware name that it wasn't even worth making more of a stink about.


[quote]The problems with "arguing to win:" You refuse to point out potential benefits, nor concede that your hypotheticals may not only be incorrect - but could even be opposite.. You either come across as not knowing about those potential benefits, or give the impression of intentionally withholding them. Neither of these strengthen the perception of your argument, especially when you use such strong statements as how you can imagine how it's better.[/quote]

On the contrary, the benefits of Paid D1DLC are what have been the forepoint of my argument. Because there is only one - increased revenue in the first week or so. It accomplishes nothing else that a Free D1DLC or even a D14DLC wouldn't accomplish in terms of promoting players to go online, to hamper pirated copies, to give fans content in a reasonable time frame to keep them playing and to allow resources that would have been dormant to instead finish assets that would have been wasted.

I'm struggling to find a benefit that Paid D1DLC has besides the money that, again, isnt' covered just as easily by another model. If I am overlooking something, please let me know so I can properly adjust my thought process.

[quote]Saying you can't imagine it gives the perception that you're being myopic in your focus and possibly just being unreasonable.
Saying you think it's not the best thing for the company going forward, however, would actually put you in alignment with my own feelings.[/quote]

I have a pretty active imagination. I'm also no stranger (at all) to business acumen. Therefore, when I say I can't imagine there is an instance where Bioware comes out ahead of the negative press for the small amount of revenue Bioware as, in a roundabout way, conveyed they gained from the practice that is the source of said negative press, that really says everything for me. 

I'm not asking to see precise financials. Simply because no matter how many ways I tilt the numbers, I can't imagine them being enough. It's not that I don't think many of the arguments made here don't have value - that players don't act like they say they will (no argument here), that negative press isn't always bad (name recognition is a hugely powerfulthing), that most people don't care (I wouldn't have a doubt that 1/20 ME3 buyers polled might respond with a truly negative opinion) or any number of other arguments. They have a large possibility of being partillay or completely true.

But at what point does the revenue gained truly outweigh even the RISK of any of the above arguments being wrong?

[quote]Which perception of you would you like me to have as reality? How does my perception of you and your arguments change based on prior interactions with you, and how will those perceptions alter how much I read into your future posts? You'll have to weight the advantages of whether or not it's worth it.[/quote]

I've not been nasty, nor have I blatantly ignored the posts or arguments of others on either side. I have violated zero rules of conduct and have offered real factual numbers, at least as best as Bioware has been open about. I've not made huge deviations in my math (simple arithmetic) and made clear when I was positing conjecture and when I was presenting fact (or, at least, fact as the public knows).

If that makes anyone feel I'm not a person worth having a conversation with, I can respect their opinion. But I'd say, at least of the regulars here at the BSN, that is a minority.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 août 2013 - 12:33 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Ziggeh wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What critical plot points did from the Ashes include?

His story is the only elaboration on The Pattern Vendetta tells you of, the quasi fatalism that affects everything - the odds against you and the reasoning of the reapers.

Without him it's just a meaningless statement that never goes anywhere.

Except the Catalyst, and the Leviathans, and our pre-existing knowledge of the Cycle of Extinction that Liara pointed out in ME1.

None of which is really the plot anyway, but just a statement of the lore, so I'll repeat the question: what critical plot points did From the Ashes include?

[LinksOcarina]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What critical plot points did from the Ashes include?

His story is the only elaboration on The Pattern Vendetta tells you of, the quasi fatalism that affects everything - the odds against you and the reasoning of the reapers.

Without him it's just a meaningless statement that never goes anywhere.

Except the Catalyst, and the Leviathans, and our pre-existing knowledge of the Cycle of Extinction that Liara pointed out in ME1.

None of which is really the plot anyway, but just a statement of the lore, so I'll repeat the question: what critical plot points did From the Ashes include?

None, which I suspect is why he was excluded as DLC to begin with.

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

"But again, for the 400,000-500,000 who bought the From Ashes DLC on Day One, revenue in the amount of $4-5 million was gained. While nothing to sneeze at, that is a drop in the bucket of the full sales revenue (barely over 1% for ME3's book of business). Is 1% worth a PR disaster? Even with 100% margins, I can't imagine it being so."

I think this is the problem.

You can't imagine it being so, therefore it can't be.-snip-

No offense, but I'll skip the proper debate etiquette editorial to keep this whole thing on topic.

That was such a big non-sequitor that I feel embarassed.  Not for Allan, as he made that bed and can lie in it...

but for myself, for all those times in the past where, overzealously, I clearly did a similar thing.

And, fully chagrined, I apologize profusely and will do my best to NEVER come across like that again.

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 août 2013 - 02:10 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Allan and I have had discussions about that in the past. His intent is to better educate those on how to avoid arguing just to be arguing (or just to be right). Which is both a noble goal (especially here in the BSN) and actually an interesting topic... but given the mammoth size of text when the two of us talk together, I was simply trying to cut down the extraneous to avoid a side bar conversation.

Which, ironically, I've seemingly had the opposite of effective on, since that has been the only response to my overall post so far.

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
^

Allan and I have had discussions about that in the past. His intent is to better educate those on how to avoid arguing just to be arguing (or just to be right). Which is both a noble goal (especially here in the BSN) and actually an interesting topic... but given the mammoth size of text when the two of us talk together, I was simply trying to cut down the extraneous to avoid a side bar conversation.

And I, honestly (honestly), am usually trying to point out to people how they are using fallacies in their arguments and that it makes not only their own position weaker, but that it also poisons the argument going forward.

My point in my previous post wasn't to bust Allan's virtual quad, but to chastise myself.  Reading what Allan wrote, and a neutral outsider to that debate, made me think about how I must come across most of the time.

And I realized that many of my attempts to "help" are extremely counter-productive.

This is probably a good thing for me, but still embarassing.

I'm positive Allan meant well.  Good intentions and all that, however...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Which, ironically, I've seemingly had the opposite of effective on,
since that has been the only response to my overall post so far.

I'm not diving into that math.  The profit ratios and such is well outside my wheelhouse.

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 août 2013 - 02:31 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
At $60 a pop:

4,770,000
X          $60
$286,200,000

Over $286 million. In my earlier estimates, I rounded this down to an even $200 million to be extremely conservative and lend more credence against my argument, stating possibly returns and discounts. So I'll go ahead and give that berth again.

$200 million isn't all that conservative given the retailer split.

 If 30%, 40%, 50% or more is profit, why then is it priced so high?

What does the revenue-maximizing price have to do with the production costs? If they thought they'd sell 25% more copies at $8 then they'd charge $8. And if they thought $12 would bring in more total money they'd charge $12.

Whether $10 is the revenue-maximizing price is another matter. Would Leviathan have sold twice as many copies at $5? Maybe. They might have sold at least one to me, though I'm not certain. At $2 I certainly would have bought it.

But at what point does the revenue gained truly outweigh even the RISK of any of the above arguments being wrong?

Depends on how big that risk is, doesn't it?  You don't know that, and you aren't pretending to know that. But then, what's your case?

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
At $60 a pop:

4,770,000
X          $60
$286,200,000

Over $286 million. In my earlier estimates, I rounded this down to an even $200 million to be extremely conservative and lend more credence against my argument, stating possibly returns and discounts. So I'll go ahead and give that berth again.

Why are you assuming that the game grossed, on average, 42 dollars per unit over its lifetime? Looking at ME3 right now, I found  a new retail copy for 13.70$ on Amazon.com.The game was already on sale by the time the ending uproar took off in earnest. I recall threads noting a  pricepoint in the 30$ range.

I'd say that saving off 80$ million of that total is actually incredible optimistic in terms of projecting a gross for ME3, without counting the split with the retailers. 

Moreover, (from what I recall) about 50% of the retail price actually gets pocketed by the developer/publisher, and the figure might well be lower than that. So we're really looking at a circa $140,000,000 gross, and then again, that's only if we suppose all units were sold at 42$ on average. If you imagine that an $80,000,000 write-down is actually "extremely conservative" for the discount and returns, then Bioware/EA is really only taking in at most $100,000,000 on ME3 in revenue. 

That would put $6,000,000 in revenue at 6% for Day 1 DLC in week one alone, and it might be much higher as a % of the profit when we look at the marginal cost of the DLC vs. the game itself, since it probably cost a fraction of a fraction to produce.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 août 2013 - 05:14 .

[In Exile]

 Looking at vgchartz, ME3 sold 2,142,959 on 360 in the first 10 weeks, 463,109 on PS3 and 722,241 on PC. It also had a negligible 40,720 on WiU, but let's count that too. 
That actually gives 3,369,029 in the first 10 weeks. I think this is really the period where the average gross was 42$/unit, meaning that Bioware actually takes in something closer to  21$/unit in revenue. 

Let's assume I'm wrong on the 50% though, and use something closer to 20% going to retailers and the rest going to EA/BIoware. That would put it at 33.60$/unit. That means a total revenue of $113,199,374.4 over the first 10 weeks.

Day 1 DLC in week 1 is apparently circa 6,000,000, which would mean closer to Day 1 DLC amounts to of the 10 week 5.3% of the revenue in one week. If we're starting to talk profit margins, then ballpark that 80% of the gross goes to the publisher is probably optimistic. , 

[MrCrabby]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

Dear Bioware,

If this game must have a Day One DLC deal, make sure that it only features aestetics that we don't need like weapons and armor.

Do Not.

DO NOT.

Please, do not take a companion and related missions out of the core product to put them into a seperate DLC pack that's released right alongside the main game.  Make up whatever excuse that you want, if the resources are completed at the same time as the game, it should be included in the game.

The problem with Day One DLC deals in games like DA2 and ME3 was that we were being forced to pay an additional fee to essentially fill in a hole in your roster.  The ME3 deal is especially worst because of it's limited roster and the fact that you believed that a prothean squadmate wouldn't be something a ME fan would want.

With DA: O and ME2, it was alright because the character dlc's were free with new copies. Some will debate the overtone of punishing customers for buying used copies, but for what we got, it was decent. Especially since the code still worked even after the game's price dropped.

I know that the market is tough right now and you want DA: I to make a profit. You may have a passion for game development, but it's a business at the end of the day and a business needs to make money.

However, repeating the mistake of DA2 and ME3 regarding Day One DLC may cause a loss in profits. A lot of fans are already ticked off about those two games and having to shelve out more money to fill up a hole in their party after already paying full price for what could was marketed as a free game.  So please! If you must have a Day One DLC pack, make sure that it only features aesthitics that no one would honestly care about. Basically cool armor or cool weapons, somewhat in the same vein as pre-order stuff.

But an actual fully developed companion?

If you have to do that, just go the Shale route and provide a passcode for people who buy a new copy. But there is no need to charge money for something that should already be part of the core game. I'm not just saying this as a gamer who doesn't want to pay more money than I feel that I should, but also as an objective observer who sees how a marketing technique is causing more damage then good.  You're better off abandoning it altogether, but if you have to keep, find a way to lessen the damage so that you don't ignite remnant bad feelings.

Just offering helpful advice. If you've already heard this then feel free to ignore it.

Signed, An Excited yet Observant Fan

PS:  Can we have a Warden Background for the Inquisitor?

Dear ShadowLordXII,

    You are not writing a letter.

                Love,
                     Mr. Crabby

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Looking at vgchartz, ME3 sold 2,142,959 on 360 in the first 10 weeks, 463,109 on PS3 and 722,241 on PC. It also had a negligible 40,720 on WiU, but let's count that too.

That actually gives 3,369,029 in the first 10 weeks. I think this is really the period where the average gross was 42$/unit, meaning that Bioware actually takes in something closer to  21$/unit in revenue.

Let's assume I'm wrong on the 50% though, and use something closer to 20% going to retailers and the rest going to EA/BIoware. That would put it at 33.60$/unit. That means a total revenue of $113,199,374.4 over the first 10 weeks.

Day 1 DLC in week 1 is apparently circa 6,000,000, which would mean closer to Day 1 DLC amounts to of the 10 week 5.3% of the revenue in one week. If we're starting to talk profit margins, then ballpark that 80% of the gross goes to the publisher is probably optimistic. ,

That "goes to the publisher" concept doesn't necessarily fly. Bioware is a division of EA, not a customer. Revenue that comes in is apportioned out according to that department, but it does not mean Bioware gets a check for the profits minus EA's cut that Aaron Flynn gets to divy up as he sees fit on raises, new tools and Canadian strippers.

The success or failure of meeting, exceeding projections is something EA rewards with more staffing, more bonuses and incentives and greater leeway with future project design and budgets.

Also, I'd like to see sources on the average gross price being $42 a unit. Was that including Used copies? Or is that strictly retail price? And I'd be much more interested in a week-by-week price point, as the vast majority or units sold were in tje first few weeks, when the price point was highest. Also, assuming a 50% profit margin just off the cuff is not a solid move - pleAse show your math on where you draw that conclusion.

And, finally, one of the models I was advocating was DLC released just a few weeks after the game came out, not on the same day. Therefore, that's why I only looked at it through the snapshot of "how much did this make in the first week of so" since the argument against such a model by those on here was that "you'd miss way too much revenue in that first week or so" which does not appear to be the case.  

[AngryFrozenWater]

I am a bit puzzled by the OP. If he or she is no fan of Day-1-DLCs then asking for specific content condones the idea. I rather have no Day-1-DLCs, no matter their content. A good game doesn't need such a DLC either. Whether or not it is true that such content is cut from the game to give the illusion of more free content, it does feel to me like it is.

[Fast Jimmy]

What does the revenue-maximizing price have to do with the production costs? If they thought they'd sell 25% more copies at $8 then they'd charge $8. And if they thought $12 would bring in more total money they'd charge $12.

Whether $10 is the revenue-maximizing price is another matter. Would Leviathan have sold twice as many copies at $5? Maybe. They might have sold at least one to me, though I'm not certain. At $2 I certainly would have bought it.

Your argument works for all DLC, but take into consideration the special circumstances of D1DLC.

The product has already been started and worked on (maybe even most finished) and was written off as a lost/sunk expense of the main project. A 90% projected profit margin means that 10% of the price you are charging was anticipated for finishing the priority created assets and distributing them. Given that you are repurposing cutting floor content, trying to move those costs to a new project can be very tricky accounting, given that if you didn't try and revive the content, it would have just been a part of the overall development budget for the base game.

Depends on how big that risk is, doesn't it? You don't know that, and you aren't pretending to know that. But then, what's your case?

My case is that other models result in much less fan backlash as seen by the market currently. And that if revenue in the first weeks (the primary time when most D1DLC sales exist AND the time frame where a later DLC release date would see the most revenue slashing) isn't a strongly compelling case, then why would any company cling to it tightly?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 août 2013 - 11:56 .

[Ziggeh]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Except the Catalyst, and the Leviathans, and our pre-existing knowledge of the Cycle of Extinction that Liara pointed out in ME1.

The Cycle is different from The Pattern. Large sections of all three games explore the nature of The Cylce. Only Javik expands on The Pattern that Vendetta raises.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
None of which is really the plot anyway, but just a statement of the lore, so I'll repeat the question: what critical plot points did From the Ashes include?

Without knowing about the quasi fatalism at work everything the reapers tell you is conjecture. I don't personally consider information vital to understanding the motivation of the primary antagonist to be a simple statement of lore.

[devSin]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, I'd like to see sources on the average gross price being $42 a unit. Was that including Used copies? Or is that strictly retail price? And I'd be much more interested in a week-by-week price point, as the vast majority or units sold were in tje first few weeks, when the price point was highest. Also, assuming a 50% profit margin just off the cuff is not a solid move - pleAse show your math on where you draw that conclusion.

It's a bit different due to digital distribution, but for traditional retail, EA does not make MSRP.

They charge a wholesale price to distributors/retailers (whose profits are then determined solely by the price they charge to sell, which starts out at MSRP and trends downward over time—at that point, any variation in price affects only the revenue for the distributors and retailers). Nobody will know this exact price, but it's typically assumed to not be more than 50% MSRP.

The guess that average sale price may have been $42 is irrelevant, as it wouldn't have influenced how much EA actually made. The exception is digital distribution, which I believe more typically utilizes a simple split (so something like 70/30, with the retailer taking a 30% cut of the sale price and passing the rest to the publisher). But there are no numbers for digital sales, so there's really no way to estimate the performance.

Modifié par devSin, 02 août 2013 - 02:06 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd say that, given EA games are usually only available for digital distribution via Origin, an EA owned system, it would result in 100% revenue with no split. Additional costs for maintaining Origin, sure. But costs that could be controlled by EA to make it less of a loss per sale than the traditional brick and mortar distribution chains.

But, as your input seems to say, assuming static returns over the course of a game's product life cyle, at least from the developer/publisher standpoint, is a solid exercise, rather than point at examples of Amazon selling a game for $15. Sure, at such a low retail price point, said retailers must have a surplus of copies they are trying to unload (indicating no more will be bought from the publisher themselves), but if 4.5 million copies were sold, the publisher would have received a rather flat dollar amount across the entire amount of that 4.5, which would have been a similar price point the first day of sales as the last, correct?

[devSin]

Yes, the amount would have been flat (again, except for digital). Additionally, most of the shipment will be the initial shipment (ME3's original shipment was quite large IIRC, and likely accounts for nearly all of the "$200 million" in generated revenue that was trumpeted—which itself was likely the simple product of copies and MSRP, rather than any amount EA actually earned).

Digital earnings could obviously be a bit higher, but the PC market is still only a subset of the larger game market (most of the movement, probably more than half, will have been for the 360). EA also has to pay ransom for every console copy manufactured (regardless whether it ever reaches a gamer's hands), further increasing the initial overhead.

But any argument based on price or performance is flawed anyway, as we have no reliable numbers for any of it (I believe the numbers you quoted earlier are a simple estimate based on a limited sampling of retailer performance, assuming they're not just made up entirely—and I believe the source you quoted has even been known to fudge numbers after the fact to more closely align with reported NPD numbers, which come from supposedly more reliable channel checks, and publisher releases, which usually publicize a figure for units shipped). And there are no numbers at all for digital distribution, not even estimates.

Modifié par devSin, 02 août 2013 - 02:22 .

[Volus Warlord]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
At $60 a pop:

4,770,000
X          $60
$286,200,000

Over $286 million. In my earlier estimates, I rounded this down to an even $200 million to be extremely conservative and lend more credence against my argument, stating possibly returns and discounts. So I'll go ahead and give that berth again.

$200 million isn't all that conservative given the retailer split.

 If 30%, 40%, 50% or more is profit, why then is it priced so high?

What does the revenue-maximizing price have to do with the production costs? If they thought they'd sell 25% more copies at $8 then they'd charge $8. And if they thought $12 would bring in more total money they'd charge $12.

Whether $10 is the revenue-maximizing price is another matter. Would Leviathan have sold twice as many copies at $5? Maybe. They might have sold at least one to me, though I'm not certain. At $2 I certainly would have bought it.

But at what point does the revenue gained truly outweigh even the RISK of any of the above arguments being wrong?

Depends on how big that risk is, doesn't it?  You don't know that, and you aren't pretending to know that. But then, what's your case?

The publisher generally takes about 45% of the the cost, 60% if the developer is in house. A sizable chunk of that is often spent on marketing-15% of the overall cost is a safe estimate.

The other 40% is split between the retailer and console royalties.

[AlanC9]

Volus Warlord wrote...

The publisher generally takes about 45% of the the cost, 60% if the developer is in house. A sizable chunk of that is often spent on marketing-15% of the overall cost is a safe estimate.

 So 60% in ME3's case since Bio's in-house.

The other 40% is split between the retailer and console royalties.

Except in the case of PC copies, of course. I suppose EA would be quite happy if everyone dumped their consoles and GameStop in favor of buying PC games via Origin.