-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Wasteland Wasteland 2 Pre-Release Discussion Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]
- Thread starter turrican
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 97,743
The rights in question are the trademark: http://wasteland.gamepedia.com/Wasteland_2_FAQ
EA still own the rights and intellectual property of the first game, which is why inXile can't sell it. Brother None can confirm.
I meant in the actual written pitch (FAQ or something). Nothing in that quote surprises me, however, though it may surprise Zed.
AstroZombie
Arcane
OMG WASTELAND 2 IS GETTING A CONSOLE PORT!!!!!111!!!1!!1!!
You can't have any of the characters from the previous game, you can't reference it either. And while it's true that "PA setting in the Arizona" is not trademarkable anything they would come up with would probably be too close to EA's IP for comfort - remember EA has enough money to burn on lawyers that they can destroy you just by filing a suit, even if they lose, just by making the process so long that you aren't able to afford it.
But would inXile then be able to offer this?:
Hopefully Brother None will shed some light on this crucial issue.
LeStryfe79
President Spartacus
Dude, he's clearly "shielding" us from the realities of the situation. You don't think so?
Sensuki
Arcane
I love reading threads at tymes like this
Brother None
inXile Entertainment
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2004
- Messages
- 5,673
Yes.
But would inXile then be able to offer this?:
Hopefully Brother None will shed some light on this crucial issue.
That is also a deal with EA. EA allowed us to use the Wasteland IP though inXile doesn't own it (inXile owns the Wasteland and Desert Rangers marks, nothing more) and is allowing us to bundle Wasteland with Wasteland 2 (but not sell it standalone).
Thanks for the clarification.Yes.
But would inXile then be able to offer this?:
Hopefully Brother None will shed some light on this crucial issue.
That is also a deal with EA. EA allowed us to use the Wasteland IP though inXile doesn't own it (inXile owns the Wasteland and Desert Rangers marks, nothing more) and is allowing us to bundle Wasteland with Wasteland 2 (but not sell it standalone).
This makes me sad, because it may mean no Wasteland 3 for another 25 years, if EA decides they want too much money, or something.
Logic_error
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 137
You are wrong in assuming that trademark can NOT automatically imply intellectual property right to the content of the game. Copyright DOES NOT PROTECT the subsequent use of the property established in one product into other. It only protects the current product against unauthorized duplication. Trademark actually has the real domain over the repeated but not replicated use of property.
They do NOT need to buy "IP" (what does that even mean). They would only want to buy the copyright IFF they wanted to sell WASTELAND 1.
Well EA can't really do anything at this stage or they would be in breach of contract....
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Messages
- 17,068
The difference is that Steam is a necessity because of their large share of digital PC games sales. Steam is not a publisher. Deep Silver is a publisher. The digital platform is where the bread and butter is. The physical platform is nearly nonexistent.
You don't think Deep Silver has, and will, follow the business practices that Fargo campaigned against? It doesn't matter what Deep Silver's role is in this specific instance. They are game publishers. This gives them business to support the stuff we're against in other instances. Or do you think Deep Silver are saints? Or whatever the fuck Logic Arts partnered up with.
There's a difference between distribution and publishing. Deep Silver (koch media) does both, regardless of this case.
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,038
I hope you understand that other people may have different opinions on the subject, opinions they can and did back with valid arguments you chose to ignore.
Which still surprises me to this day.... must have been done right after their "Worst company ever" designation and they thought this would help mitigate that image somewhat.
Brother None
inXile Entertainment
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2004
- Messages
- 5,673
This makes me sad, because it may mean no Wasteland 3 for another 25 years, if EA decides they want too much money, or something.
I doubt it. They didn't get any money in the deal to use WL1 IP in WL2, and all the new stuff from WL2 will be inXile's, plus inXile owns the desert rangers mark. In the unlikely event EA starts suddenly caring around WL3, we'll just shrug and go "ok, then we won't use WL1 IP". At that stage that'll really just be a handful of locations and maybe enemy types.
LeStryfe79
President Spartacus
Goddammit.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Messages
- 17,068
We don't know the share deep silver will get from the physical boxes.
Probably a lot of cheap sales. This only strengthens my point since the article is based on dollar profits, not sales numbers.
I'm guessing Bobby won't survive the WL2 plotline then.
Dexter
Arcane
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 15,655
They didn't?I'm pretty sure you'll see Larian signing various distribution deals, for distribution outside their home turf in Western Europe. Potatos want their Divinity boxes too.
Just be glad inXile didn't sign a distribution deal with EA, AKA the legal owners of the Wasteland IP.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/EA-O...n-on-Origin-to-Kickstarter-Games-270907.shtml
I believe it is one of the very first things they did:
Also regarding Larian, this might be a good article to read (sorry if it was posted before): http://www.lar.net/2012/01/29/should-indie-developers-invest-in-boxes/
Should indie developers invest in boxes?
Posted on January 29, 2012 by Lar
A sequence of things that happened this week made me realize that something that seems over-obvious to me, may in fact not be so obvious to others in the same position. It’s all to do with how independent developers look at retail, or rather, how they don’t look at it.
Is it really that stupid to make sure your games can be seen by anybody who enters a shop ?
Here’s what happened:
Wednesday evening I get a mail from Tom @ Evolve PR telling me
“Ehhh… this little post from RPS has a lot of comments from people going, “what the hell?” — obviously I would also agree that digital is probably the best way for indies to get big numbers these days, but yeah… might be worth hopping in and commenting a little bit?”
So I go look, expecting the interview to be online but to my surprise it’s a teaser with the header “retail important to indie PC studios”. My initial reaction is something along the lines of – yeah, so what – that’s not particularly interesting – but then I check the comments section, and to my surprise people are actually debating the very point.
Next, in an email discussion with a fellow friendly developer, Sergei, our enigmatic publishing director, proposes hooking up said developer with an excellent local distributor. To our surprise, the developer’s reaction is lukewarm, saying that he prefers his German publisher to deal with all aspects of retail distribution in Europe. When we tell him, but your German publisher doesn’t have any retail presence outside of Germany, he tells us, yeah, but he’ll make a deal with others and then he’ll pay me royalties – it’s a lot of easier for us that way.
We obviously go silent at that – why would he prefer a cut from a cut instead of going direct? It’s not like the German publisher could force him to accept a European deal in return for financing the game – he’s self-funded, and made plenty of money from his previous game.
Then I do an interview with Gamesindustry.biz and again, the interviewer expresses surprise at the fact that we’re trying to get our game in retail, and we spend quite some time discussing that particular bit.
So I started wondering, am I missing something here?
Larian’s distribution strategy can be summarized as follows, sorted by how we prefer a sale to be made.
The only real reason I can think of is the fear that the margins might be lower. So I did some calculations.
The numbers I’ve seen from my own games but also other games show that 70% of digital sales are made via promotions where reductions between 30% to 75% or even more are offered to players. That clearly impacts the average revenue per unit in digital (though for players it’s great
)
Retail has the same thing, they call it price protection and obviously you also have to deal with returns, but all in all it’s a lot less elastic than digital.
Comparing the two, I ultimately arrived at the conclusion that in today’s market you end up with a net per unit in retail being approximately 70% of net per unit digitally. Or in other words, you need to sell 3 units in retail to get the same money you’d get from 2 units digitally. That’s clearly a difference, but it’s not that significant that you can say, retail isn’t worth it.
Unless, that is, the retail audience is the same as the digital audience.
Now, I don’t have numbers on that, but anecdotic evidence, together with the observation that even Valve still puts a lot of effort in their retail presence, leads me to believe that the overlap is not as great as press headlines would lead you to believe.
Besides there still being many other players out there that don’t like buying something digitally, you also need to factor in that broadband isn’t omnipresent yet, especially in Eastern Europe. And if you’re not in a store, you can’t reach those players. On top of that, being present in stores is also a form of marketing.
So my take is that if you’re not doing points 1 to 5 as an independent developer, you are most definitely losing revenue, revenue you can use to make better games and increase your independence. Of course, the retail margin starts eroding rapidly if your business model for being in retail is one in which you get a cut of a cut (and in some cases, of a cut)
But, given that so many people are questioning my reasoning, please take this post as an open invitation to correct me. If our strategy has a fatal flaw, I’d like to know now rather than later
P.S.
Never in my career did I expect I was going to be defending retail as a model
And for clarity’s sake, I’m not saying retail is the future, but it’s here now and you should use it for what it is.
Posted on January 29, 2012 by Lar
A sequence of things that happened this week made me realize that something that seems over-obvious to me, may in fact not be so obvious to others in the same position. It’s all to do with how independent developers look at retail, or rather, how they don’t look at it.
Is it really that stupid to make sure your games can be seen by anybody who enters a shop ?
Here’s what happened:
Wednesday evening I get a mail from Tom @ Evolve PR telling me
“Ehhh… this little post from RPS has a lot of comments from people going, “what the hell?” — obviously I would also agree that digital is probably the best way for indies to get big numbers these days, but yeah… might be worth hopping in and commenting a little bit?”
So I go look, expecting the interview to be online but to my surprise it’s a teaser with the header “retail important to indie PC studios”. My initial reaction is something along the lines of – yeah, so what – that’s not particularly interesting – but then I check the comments section, and to my surprise people are actually debating the very point.
Next, in an email discussion with a fellow friendly developer, Sergei, our enigmatic publishing director, proposes hooking up said developer with an excellent local distributor. To our surprise, the developer’s reaction is lukewarm, saying that he prefers his German publisher to deal with all aspects of retail distribution in Europe. When we tell him, but your German publisher doesn’t have any retail presence outside of Germany, he tells us, yeah, but he’ll make a deal with others and then he’ll pay me royalties – it’s a lot of easier for us that way.
We obviously go silent at that – why would he prefer a cut from a cut instead of going direct? It’s not like the German publisher could force him to accept a European deal in return for financing the game – he’s self-funded, and made plenty of money from his previous game.
Then I do an interview with Gamesindustry.biz and again, the interviewer expresses surprise at the fact that we’re trying to get our game in retail, and we spend quite some time discussing that particular bit.
So I started wondering, am I missing something here?
Larian’s distribution strategy can be summarized as follows, sorted by how we prefer a sale to be made.
- 1. Direct Sales – Via Larian Vault & forums. Full control, largest margin, allows direct contact with our players.
- 2. Steam – Reliable, report on time, pay on time and regularly, are very developer friendly
- 3. Other digital sales – Easier than retail, monthly payments, you occasionally ned to yell a bit to get your money.
- 4. Retail in key markets – It’s possible to work with civilized companies that are ok, even if they are stressing for the moment.
- 5. Retail sales in non-key markets – Need to work with either finished goods deals, so sales/messaging can be controlled – be damned sure about who you are dealing with.
- Work with publishers/distributors that have direct access to retail in their territory.
- Ensure that numbers we expect are feasible within their market,
- Make sure there’s incentive for them to push our games.
- Make sure sell-through can be controlled and offer reasonable return/price protection policies.
- Make sure PR & Marketing are cooperative efforts with the option of taking the lead if necessary
The only real reason I can think of is the fear that the margins might be lower. So I did some calculations.
The numbers I’ve seen from my own games but also other games show that 70% of digital sales are made via promotions where reductions between 30% to 75% or even more are offered to players. That clearly impacts the average revenue per unit in digital (though for players it’s great
Retail has the same thing, they call it price protection and obviously you also have to deal with returns, but all in all it’s a lot less elastic than digital.
Comparing the two, I ultimately arrived at the conclusion that in today’s market you end up with a net per unit in retail being approximately 70% of net per unit digitally. Or in other words, you need to sell 3 units in retail to get the same money you’d get from 2 units digitally. That’s clearly a difference, but it’s not that significant that you can say, retail isn’t worth it.
Unless, that is, the retail audience is the same as the digital audience.
Now, I don’t have numbers on that, but anecdotic evidence, together with the observation that even Valve still puts a lot of effort in their retail presence, leads me to believe that the overlap is not as great as press headlines would lead you to believe.
Besides there still being many other players out there that don’t like buying something digitally, you also need to factor in that broadband isn’t omnipresent yet, especially in Eastern Europe. And if you’re not in a store, you can’t reach those players. On top of that, being present in stores is also a form of marketing.
So my take is that if you’re not doing points 1 to 5 as an independent developer, you are most definitely losing revenue, revenue you can use to make better games and increase your independence. Of course, the retail margin starts eroding rapidly if your business model for being in retail is one in which you get a cut of a cut (and in some cases, of a cut)
But, given that so many people are questioning my reasoning, please take this post as an open invitation to correct me. If our strategy has a fatal flaw, I’d like to know now rather than later
P.S.
Never in my career did I expect I was going to be defending retail as a model
Something to keep in mind with Fargo is that he is a businessman first and he will say and do absolutely everything that will bring him closer to his goal, I think I've commented on this before. xD
Logic_error
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 137
Good god.
himmy
Arcane
Ok, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the entire distribution deal with Deep Silver and its announcement at a time like this exists only as part of a Stalinist-like plot to detract people's attention from the actual crime and breach of backers trust that is committed in this update, namely the abomination that is the "end turn" button.
Logic_error
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 137
What's so wrong with an end turn button even without the sarcasm?
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.