Why would you need to pay console royalties for a computer game?
Pedantic questions aside, surely these kinds of figures would vary widely from game to game and seem about as authoritative as most of Yahoo's content.
Why would you need to pay console royalties for a computer game?
Pedantic questions aside, surely these kinds of figures would vary widely from game to game and seem about as authoritative as most of Yahoo's content.
the hardware manufacturers are now that big the game makers now have to pay to put the game on their system?
Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
the hardware manufacturers are now that big the game makers now have to pay to put the game on their system?
I understand the concept of royalties on consoles, my point was that it would apply to console games, not computer games.
Like I say, a pedantic point, but generally reflective of the quality of journalism on Yahoo and the accuracy of the article in question.
People who spend on the packaging / distribution in the way shown in the figures in that article.
Yes, they'd pay royalties on the downloads and packaging/distribution costs on the retail sales. Individually it's one or the other, but overall the costs aren't dramatically different from a console release.
Individually it's one or the other, but overall the costs aren't dramatically different from a console release.
The article shows them side by side on a percentage type graph, and states a final figure to the nearest penny.
Unqualified figures and statistics presented as news is something of a personal pet annoyance. Seeing a collection of arbitrary figures thrown together with some ambiguous statements, errors and glaring omissions, then presented as a 'finance' article just set off my 'need to correct the internet' alarm.
The article shows them side by side on a percentage type graph, and states a final figure to the nearest penny.
Unqualified figures and statistics presented as news is something of a personal pet annoyance. Seeing a collection of arbitrary figures thrown together with some ambiguous statements, errors and glaring omissions, then presented as a 'finance' article just set off my 'need to correct the internet' alarm.
Well, sure, but I don't think anyone is claiming that every single game would have precisely the same breakdown. They're just typical costs and they'll actually vary quite a lot between games. Obviously a download will have zero media costs, and see the retail and console royalties cuts go to the same party, but it doesn't really change the picture of what proportion will typically end up with the publisher who is funding the making of the game.
But even if a company sells it's own game as digital download, thereby negating the cost of the physical product, distribution, a shop's cut of the cash, etc, then all too often the digital, the the downloadable version is often the same price as the original.
So you pay $40 for the shop version, including disc, manual*, and box, or ?40 for the version you have to download. And then you often need to go online to 'unlock' the game before you can play it (PC version only), and of course you often need to go online to download the patches to fix the bugs that the game was shipped with.
* I say manual. In most cases it seems to be either a two page warning about not playing the game if you're epileptic, or a manual that's smaller than the till receipt.
Well, you're paying a couple of quid towards the cost of media, packaging, manuals and distribution so yes they save that much.
However, the platform royalty remains the same. It doesn't cost Sony any less to get the PS4 to market whether people buy games in boxes or download them. And the retailer cut remains much the same too; it's just being spent on server farms, network bandwidth and the necessary technical staff to develop it and keep it up and running rather than retail stores and warehouses.
Well, sure, but I don't think anyone is claiming that every single game would have precisely the same breakdown. They're just typical costs and they'll actually vary quite a lot between games. Obviously a download will have zero media costs, and see the retail and console royalties cuts go to the same party, but it doesn't really change the picture of what proportion will typically end up with the publisher who is funding the making of the game.
Which is precisely the point I was making.
I was just pointing out how bad the article was. I know nothing about the actual figures or facts claiming to be presented, before or after reading it.
Which is precisely the point I was making.
I was just pointing out how bad the article was. I know nothing about the actual figures or facts claiming to be presented, before or after reading it.
You know that VAT is 20% in the UK surely? :wink:
Other than that, the figures are obviously going to vary a bit, but from what I've seen and heard elsewhere they do seem broadly representative.
Other than that, the figures are obviously going to vary a bit, but from what I've seen and heard elsewhere they do seem broadly representative.
Representative of what though? I am exceedingly lucky to have you explaining a lot of points they never bothered to qualify in the article for me, but what do these number even mean?
How could the remaining magic figure of ?18.55 be broken down? Profit / IP licensing / developer wages / building rents / cleaners / coffee? How is the distinction between any of these things and those listed as apparently not part of the cost of making a game defined?
I could make assumptions, or you could explain it to me, but personally, I can't take anything meaningful away from reading this article.
Representative of what though? I am exceedingly lucky to have you explaining a lot of points they never bothered to qualify in the article for me, but what does these number even mean?
How could the remaining magic figure of ?18.55 be broken down? Profit / IP licensing / developer wages / building rents / cleaners / coffee? How is the distinction between any of these things and those listed as apparently not part of the cost of making a game defined?
I could make assumptions, or you could explain it to me, but personally, I can't take anything meaningful away from reading this article.
I think you've totally missed the point of the article, to be honest.
It's nothing to do with the cost of making a game, the costs of which will depend on how many copies that they can expect to sell, but how the money you spend on buying one will be split up.
I think you've totally missed the point of the article, to be honest.
It's nothing to do with the cost of making a game, the costs of which will depend on how many copies that they can expect to sell, but how the money you spend on buying one will be split up.
So the ?18.55 goes where, exactly? Still seems meaningless to me.
I'm sorry but that diagram still makes no sense to me, even with the associated article.
Why is ?18.55 the cost of a video/computer game? The cost to who?
It's not how much a typical videogame costs to make, even multiplied by the number of copies sold. I doubt it's even how much the developer will get paid per copy, with many not seeing any sort of return until certain sales targets are reached.
It just seems to be the total left over when Yahoo have tried to assign various portions of the "sale" price of a single unit.
The development of "?45 videogames" is paid for up front, by the publishers. It seems nonsensical trying to break down the cost by looking at a single unit sold, especially when so many fail to recoup their development costs.
Comments
It's what you get if you add up the publisher's cut and the cost of the media. That's a bit artificial though as everyone else needs paying.
Still, I think it illustrates why downloads are never going to cost much less than physical media when the latter cost less than a couple of pounds.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-real-cost-of-a-video-game-162937835.html
Pedantic questions aside, surely these kinds of figures would vary widely from game to game and seem about as authoritative as most of Yahoo's content.
I understand the concept of royalties on consoles, my point was that it would apply to console games, not computer games.
Like I say, a pedantic point, but generally reflective of the quality of journalism on Yahoo and the accuracy of the article in question.
Obviously, if you're doing things the old fashioned way and just sell games in boxes by retail you don't have to, but who still does that?
People who spend on the packaging / distribution in the way shown in the figures in that article.
Yes, they'd pay royalties on the downloads and packaging/distribution costs on the retail sales. Individually it's one or the other, but overall the costs aren't dramatically different from a console release.
Multiply that by the 20+ million sales and you might be a little closer to the mark.
The article shows them side by side on a percentage type graph, and states a final figure to the nearest penny.
Unqualified figures and statistics presented as news is something of a personal pet annoyance. Seeing a collection of arbitrary figures thrown together with some ambiguous statements, errors and glaring omissions, then presented as a 'finance' article just set off my 'need to correct the internet' alarm.
Well, sure, but I don't think anyone is claiming that every single game would have precisely the same breakdown. They're just typical costs and they'll actually vary quite a lot between games. Obviously a download will have zero media costs, and see the retail and console royalties cuts go to the same party, but it doesn't really change the picture of what proportion will typically end up with the publisher who is funding the making of the game.
...Pretty much sums up most infographics you see nowadays...
So you pay $40 for the shop version, including disc, manual*, and box, or ?40 for the version you have to download. And then you often need to go online to 'unlock' the game before you can play it (PC version only), and of course you often need to go online to download the patches to fix the bugs that the game was shipped with.
* I say manual. In most cases it seems to be either a two page warning about not playing the game if you're epileptic, or a manual that's smaller than the till receipt.
However, the platform royalty remains the same. It doesn't cost Sony any less to get the PS4 to market whether people buy games in boxes or download them. And the retailer cut remains much the same too; it's just being spent on server farms, network bandwidth and the necessary technical staff to develop it and keep it up and running rather than retail stores and warehouses.
Which is precisely the point I was making.
I was just pointing out how bad the article was. I know nothing about the actual figures or facts claiming to be presented, before or after reading it.
You know that VAT is 20% in the UK surely? :wink:
Other than that, the figures are obviously going to vary a bit, but from what I've seen and heard elsewhere they do seem broadly representative.
Representative of what though? I am exceedingly lucky to have you explaining a lot of points they never bothered to qualify in the article for me, but what do these number even mean?
How could the remaining magic figure of ?18.55 be broken down? Profit / IP licensing / developer wages / building rents / cleaners / coffee? How is the distinction between any of these things and those listed as apparently not part of the cost of making a game defined?
I could make assumptions, or you could explain it to me, but personally, I can't take anything meaningful away from reading this article.
In short:
I think you've totally missed the point of the article, to be honest.
It's nothing to do with the cost of making a game, the costs of which will depend on how many copies that they can expect to sell, but how the money you spend on buying one will be split up.
So the ?18.55 goes where, exactly? Still seems meaningless to me.
To spell it out:
?1.80 goes on the printing, packaging and distribution of the media.
?16.75 goes to the publisher.
If you're wondering how each of those is broken down further, that's a whole other story, of course.
I bet Sqij cost less than that to make!
Why is ?18.55 the cost of a video/computer game? The cost to who?
It's not how much a typical videogame costs to make, even multiplied by the number of copies sold. I doubt it's even how much the developer will get paid per copy, with many not seeing any sort of return until certain sales targets are reached.
It just seems to be the total left over when Yahoo have tried to assign various portions of the "sale" price of a single unit.
The development of "?45 videogames" is paid for up front, by the publishers. It seems nonsensical trying to break down the cost by looking at a single unit sold, especially when so many fail to recoup their development costs.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html
I much prefer it saying "this is what the publisher is left with".