• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Conversation starts up on Twitter about publisher cuts. Certain indie developers shocked at how common 50%+ Publisher revshares are. [SEE THREADMARKS]

Reader mode

Deleted member 1849

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,986
This is related to indie publishing. AAA publishing is a different kettle of fish entirely. The thread started here:



Some more well known developers confirm that it's still pretty commonplace:



"60% is low"



The twitter feed is also filled with people saying this is somehow normal and okay. Some developers are of course, are surprised by this:

 
Last edited:
jsnepo

jsnepo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
4,648
Do indies need publishing? I thought self publishing is the norm now especially with digital distribution.
 
Mobyduck

Mobyduck

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,100
Brazil
Was actually about to post about this, haha.

jsnepo said:
Do indies need publishing? I thought self publishing is the norm now especially with digital distribution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Publishers help by giving more money to fund the game and, sometimes, with advertising, localization, PR and other things devs are not that good at. The amount they charge is still absurd.
 
Ionic

Ionic

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,734
jsnepo said:
Do indies need publishing? I thought self publishing is the norm now especially with digital distribution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Do people make a distinction between indies with and without a large publisher? I understand there is an unwritten idea of what an indie game is to a degree that Microsoft can publish the Ori games and yet we still call them indie games, but why does this label make sense anyway?
 
LordGorchnik

LordGorchnik

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,276
Not quite on topic but this always rubbed me the wrong way even way back in the 90s when I was young. I always wondered "why are the listing the logo of the people who didn't make the game first?"

We now know.
 

Deleted member 8688

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
731
Why does this surprise anybody? It's no different to other creative industries. Once you sell your work to a publisher they're not "taking a cut", it effectively becomes theirs and if it's successful they pay you royalties.

Publishers give you funding to develop the game and in doing so acquire the financial risk or reward. This is how business works.
 
Systolique

Systolique

Member
Oct 26, 2017
143
Every game getting published has its on terms, but often publishers are funding a game during multiple years while also assisting with producers, PR, marketing, distribution... it's a lot of money, a lot of investment — 50% is not extortion, in that case, it's logical.
 

Deleted member 873

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,463
Withnail said:
Why does this surprise anybody? It's no different to other creative industries. Once you sell your work to a publisher they're not "taking a cut", it effectively becomes theirs and if it's successful they pay you royalties.

Publishers give you funding to develop the game and in doing so acquire the financial risk or reward. This is how business works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is how it works. It's bad. It needs to change.
 
SteveWinwood

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,673
USA USA USA
Nappael said:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I also find this to be terrible. People who might actually know what they're talking about and the reasons why this structure exists and she just immediately dismisses them.

When there ends up being some sort of trademark dispute that threatens to bankrupt you in a matter of months for lawyer fees alone maybe then you'd see some of the value they maybe provide.

I'm not saying the share is right or you shouldn't try to get a better deal, but there are reasons this sort of thing still exists in the way it does.
 
KITPUNK

KITPUNK

Member
Oct 28, 2017
211
Canada
Systolique said:
Every game getting published has its on terms, but often publishers are funding a game during multiple years while also assisting with producers, PR, marketing, distribution... it's a lot of money, a lot of investment — 50% is not extortion, in that case, it's logical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Came here to post this. Yes, there can be some horrible terms if a bad deal is made, but people need to consider the above as it's meant to protect the publisher if the game tanks in sales. One thing also left out, typically after the publisher has recouped invested costs from a title, the residual rev share can then be in favour of the developer, not always the case but I have seen it before. Same deal goes with repayable investment grants from governments (which in some cases can be even more gross of a deal than a publisher).
 
Fisty

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,204
The only time I would think 50+% would be agreeable is if the publisher is doing console ports or has large multiplayer/social aspects that a small team couldn't manage.
 
MP!

MP!

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,198
Las Vegas
Nappael said:
The issue with the Epic store was never with the cut. You know that.

This thread also has nothing do to with Epic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
12% sounds kind of nice compared to 50%
Just saying they're doing something right...

Also sort of puts it into perspective when people are jumping to epic's store front... when publishers are taking 50%... I'd say it's quite relevant.
 
Jebusman

Jebusman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,080
Halifax, NS
This is also why I thought the rallying behind Epic's "12%" cut was a little misplaced, did people not realise where the majority of that extra cut was going to end up when a publisher is involved? Its a great deal when you're self published, and barely any different otherwise.

A know a lot of people are going to argue "its necessary because of the risk the publisher is taking on", but if you actually think most of these publishing deals are designed to reward the dev when its a runaway success, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
modoversus

modoversus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,674
México
MP! said:
12% sounds kind of nice compared to 50%
Just saying they're doing something right...

Also sort of puts it into perspective when people are jumping to epic's store front... when publishers are taking 50%... I'd say it's quite relevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If a dev does a deal with the publisher, then the publisher puts the game on Epic, the publisher still gets 50-60% after the 12% cut.
 
exodus

exodus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,943
Aren't the publishers taking on 100% of the financial risk in this case? I'm assuming they're paying dev salaries in this scenario.
 
daninthemix

daninthemix

Member
Nov 2, 2017
5,022
Nappael said:
The issue with the Epic store was never with the cut. You know that.

This thread also has nothing do to with Epic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Although...Epic could become a publisher, with a much more attractive cut. And then distribute the games they're publishing exclusively on their platform.

Now I'm no hotshot business mogul (snaps britches) but it seems to me that would be a sensible next step for Epic.
 
OP
OP

Deleted member 1849

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,986
MP! said:
12% sounds kind of nice compared to 50%
Just saying they're doing something right...

Also sort of puts it into perspective when people are jumping to epic's store front... when publishers are taking 50%... I'd say it's quite relevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Most of the games on the Epic store have already secured a publisher.

In those cases, the developer position is barely any different. All that Epic money is going straight to the publisher anyway.
 
Systolique

Systolique

Member
Oct 26, 2017
143
MP! said:
12% sounds kind of nice compared to 50%
Just saying they're doing something right...

Also sort of puts it into perspective when people are jumping to epic's store front... when publishers are taking 50%... I'd say it's quite relevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Epic isn't publishing games its acquiring the exclusivity to, 12% means their store is taking 12% instead of 30% before any kind of split between a studio and its publisher.

Jebusman said:
This is also why I thought the rallying behind Epic's "12%" cut was a little misplaced, did people not realise where the majority of that extra cut was going to end up when a publisher is involved? Its a great deal when you're self published, and barely any different otherwise.

A know a lot of people are going to argue "its necessary because of the risk the publisher is taking on", but if you actually think most of these publishing deals are designed to reward the dev when its a runaway success, I have a bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is nonsense, it's not misplaced, 12% instead of 30% makes a gigantic difference down the road, not matter what your split is.
 

Deleted member 2752

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,110
MP! said:
12% sounds kind of nice compared to 50%
Just saying they're doing something right...

Also sort of puts it into perspective when people are jumping to epic's store front... when publishers are taking 50%... I'd say it's quite relevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You know these are two different things, right?

edit: Don't answer, makes no sense to talk about this here.
 
mikehaggar

mikehaggar

Developer at Pixel Arc Studios
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
1,379
Harrisburg, Pa
Wow, that's pretty wild to me... I would hope in the cases of 50% or more the publisher is (adequately) funding the development of the game... meaning everyone that is working on it is being properly compensated for their time.
 
fiskyfisko

fiskyfisko

Member
Mar 23, 2018
182
Uff this is kinda spooky because I had like 3 publishers interested in my game already, still working on a prototype so I just tell them that it's not ready.

I still feel like working with a publisher is safer bet.
 

Mr. Virus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,647
Withnail said:
People do realise that if the game bombs it's the publisher that takes the loss right?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Depends on if they providing all the funding, or just services. These days publishers offer a lot of services beyond "here's money, make game" and some devs don't even need the funding to make the game, but support for marketing, or porting, or something else. Every one has their own needs, and that'll define the terms of a pub contract.

MP! said:
so is epic games store still evil then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This isn't a store thing. Publisher revenue splits are a completely different thing to store cuts. Don't do this.
 
spam musubi

spam musubi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,380
Ionic said:
Do people make a distinction between indies with and without a large publisher? I understand there is an unwritten idea of what an indie game is to a degree that Microsoft can publish the Ori games and yet we still call them indie games, but why does this label make sense anyway?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

People might not make a conscious distinction, but you definitely notice how much more people talk about published indie games. It's because of PR, outreach, marketing, etc that publishers are generally better at.
 
Crayon

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,580
If they were going to provide effective marketing and risk mitigation, I'd be taking a hard look at that deal.

Thanks esteem, self-publishing is a reasonable option ama but I wouldn't work for years on the game and throw it up there without tying up a good chunk of my own change in marketing.
 
MP!

MP!

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,198
Las Vegas
Mr. Virus said:
Depends on if they providing all the funding, or just services. These days publishers offer a lot of services beyond "here's money, make game" and some devs don't even need the funding to make the game, but support for marketing, or porting, or something else. Every one has their own needs, and that'll define the terms of a pub contract.



This isn't a store thing. Publisher revenue splits are a completely different thing to store cuts. Don't do this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My apologies I misinterpreted
 
Khamsinvera

Khamsinvera

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,580
Well, put yourself in the publisher's shoes.

You are asked to invest $100k in a game.
If the game bombs, you lose your $100k.

Now, if the game succeeds, you stand to make $____k

So, the question is - how much money do you think you should make considering that you could also potentially lose your $100k.

I'd say that if I can make $50k on the deal (if I feel that the game has a decent chance of succeeding), I'm okay with fronting $100k.

In the long term, you will lose your investment at some point, but you hope that you'll make enough good calls to offset your loses.

Without these "evil" publishers, many indie games wouldn't see the light of day.
 
Snefer

Snefer

Creative Director at Neon Giant
Verified
Oct 30, 2017
339
nsilvias said:
marketing sure in the case of indie games but not dev costs.
50 percent is insane for a game you didnt even contribute to dev cost for
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What are you talking about? Why wouldnt they contribute to dev costs? People are under the wierd assumtion that most indies are self funded, they really are not. Even smaller indie titles often cost more than most people can save up in like..their lifetime.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.