Here's the key: Some shit is serious and I am serious when I talk about it because it requires the ability to be serious.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
XBLA Royalty Rate Changes - Closer To The Truth?- So, one of the big stories from earlier this week was Kotaku's one on Microsoft apparently 'cutting XBLA royalties in half', and it's one that has caused a lot of controversy, with plenty of predictable name-calling and insistence on the death of XBLA as a viable platform.One of the problems here, of course, is that Kotaku's report only had one side of the story - and Microsoft isn't really in a position to refute the reports, because it will not discuss original or current royalty rates in public. Which leads us to a problem to be resolved - did Microsoft really cut its XBLA royalty rates in half without _ANY_ changes to the developer package?The answer is no, of course. How Xbox Live Arcade works is badly understood by many, but let's try to split it up. Firstly, there are two different ways you can publish your game - either via Microsoft's own XBLA producers (let's call that 'first party'), or via an existing retail publishing partner such as Electronic Arts, Sierra, THQ, and so on (let's call that 'third party').From what I understand, third-party royalty rates - which I believe were already less than 70% - are not affected at all by any of these new royalty changes. (Of course, if you're an indie and you have to go through a third-party, you will be getting a percentage of a percentage, because Microsoft takes a cut, and then your publisher, and then you. But you don't have to worry about testing, localization, getting ratings, and so on - it may be that Microsoft is keen for a greater percentage of games to run through those parties.)So, it's the 'first-party' rates which are changing. And I didn't really have the specifics of how until an IndieGamer post by XBLA developer Paul Johnson helped counteract some of the paranoia. As he explains:"If you had a 70% deal... for a game, then you'll get your 70% for the life of the product. There is now a sliding scale in place for royalty payouts that is sure enough less than 70% at its best, but I've always thought that 70% to be unsustainably high from the get go, not that I was going to complain about it...In return for the more realistic but still commercially viable lower rate, you get a variety of services for free that would've cost you plenty and would previously have presented a barrier to entry. Worldwide [game] ratings, localization, etc. It's a good deal. Unless you think saying M$ makes you clever, in which case I'm sure it will suck."So basically - yes, the rumor is essentially correct, in that some royalty deals on first-party games may now be as low as 35%. But these lower royalty deals will now apparently include a lot of the 'grunt work' in localization that the developer had to pay up front - and sometimes perhaps couldn't afford.
Shit like this is why I never want Microsoft to have a leading position in the gaming industry. They could, they will make the despotic reigns of Nintendo and Sony seem like the happy memories of your best childhood Christmas.
Where's AdmiralViscen now? Owned again!
