्Are Game publishers paid more for launch titles?

[Deepak]

Considering that the installed base in minimal at a console launch so it is much more risky to launch your game at that time, I am sure they are paid more. How much more are they paid than say in the middle of a console lifecycle?

 

[Titanio]

No one pays publishers anything, unless one of the platform holders is cutting an exclusive deal. They simply earn revenue off sales.

Sure, launch titles have to deal with smaller sales, usually - although some can emerge as blockbusters and sell millions beyond launch, ala Halo or Mario 64 - but it's more about supporting a system with an eye on the longer term, I think.

That said, though, do platform holders reduce royalty/licence fees for launch titles? I'm not sure. But I kind of doubt it.

 

[kyleb]

I should hope so at least with hardware in such short supply as the 360. I mean MS can do fine with margins as long as the tie in ratio is good; but without the much hardware out there I'd hope the 3rd parties are either getting cut a break, otherwise or I'd think they'd be left feeling rather screwed.

 

[Sis]

Considering that the installed base in minimal at a console launch so it is much more risky to launch your game at that time, I am sure they are paid more. How much more are they paid than say in the middle of a console lifecycle?

Actually, I'd imagine it'd be the opposite. Given that there's only 20 odd titles to compete against, and an audience that typically buys more than the average consumer, it'd be in a publishers best interest to deliver a launch title.

.Sis

 

[kyleb]

Surely it is in publishers best interest to deliver games like Halo 2 which pulled in over 5 million sales in the first month, which simply isn't going to happen when they are only talking up to 3 million consoles sold in the first 90 days.

*edit
Also worth considering is the difference in lasting appeal between a rushed title and one covered in polish.

 

[ERP]

Surely it is in publishers best interest to deliver games like Halo 2 which pulled in over 5 million sales in the first month, which simply isn't going to happen when they are only talking up to 3 million consoles sold in the first 90 days.

*edit
Also worth considering is the difference in lasting appeal between a rushed title and one covered in polish.

The good selling launch titles tend to be some of the few titles that have legs, in that they keep selling. I think this is lrgely due to consumer mind share, someone gets an X360 (or whatever) and he buys something he's played at his friends who already has one.

There are very few cases where a hardware manufacturer will pay cash for a title, more commonly they will share advertising expenses (say match $1 for $1), or give the publisher a break on the royalties.

 

[Sis]

Surely it is in publishers best interest to deliver games like Halo 2 which pulled in over 5 million sales in the first month, which simply isn't going to happen when they are only talking up to 3 million consoles sold in the first 90 days.

*edit
Also worth considering is the difference in lasting appeal between a rushed title and one covered in polish.

Yet the first Halo sold well, so the point goes both ways.

But regardless, I'm thinking more along the lines of getting a game like Condemned or Kameo attention in the spotlight. Both may see very good sales that may not have occurred were they made 2 years from now. Perhaps the same could be said of Call of Duty 2?

.Sis

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Yet the first Halo sold well, so the point goes both ways.

But regardless, I'm thinking more along the lines of getting a game like Condemned or Kameo attention in the spotlight. Both may see very good sales that may not have occurred were they made 2 years from now. Perhaps the same could be said of Call of Duty 2?

.Sis

And yet I feel like Condemned is not getting enough credit and now that I think of it the same goes for Kameo. Condemned was number 5 if I remember correctly, it should have been higher, and Kameo hasn't sold very well yet.

 

[Ty]

Actually, I'd imagine it'd be the opposite. Given that there's only 20 odd titles to compete against, and an audience that typically buys more than the average consumer, it'd be in a publishers best interest to deliver a launch title.

.Sis

You are correct. Becoming a launch title is something you hope to get the chance to become because it's an instant shot of consumer attention at your title.

 

[kyleb]

Sure, but that obviously is a more long term investment, and even more so with the current rate of hardware sales.

 

[Qroach]

ERP said it all guys. That's the exact reason publishers want to get in on a new launch. Launch titles are evergreen titles (with the exception of sports games released each year). They keep selling as the userbase gets bigger.

I bet some people didn't know how many units a crappy game like fusion frenzy ended up selling. If I recall correctly it sold between 600,000 and 800,000 units in total. mostly because it was a launch title and always available.