Indies Moving Away From XBLA, Console Patches Cost $40,000

[notmeanymore]

$40.000 per patch? Boo-hoo.

It's math time ladies and gentlemen:

Indie games are priced $1, $3 or $5 each. Let's assume that Microsoft snags half of it (it doesn't, but let's use the big guns). That means that worst-case scenario, you need to sell 80.000 games to get the funds for a patch, best scenario would be 16.000. Let's take the worst-case scenario - the $1 game.

First, let's add development cost, keeping in mind that it's an indie game. Development time would be anywhere between a few months up to a year, so we add a $99 subscription fee to Microsoft's development program, about $40.000 as the development costs and $40.000 as the cost of the first patch. Rounds up to +/- $120.100.

...if you can't even sell 200.000 games then you should probably look for a different occupation because there are 66 million XBox 360'ties out there. That means that there's at least 66 million users, I'm not even mentioning the fact that certain XBox 360'ties are shared so multiple accounts could buy the same game, really.

This basically means that if you can't afford the patch, not even 0,2% of all XBox users around the world didn't give two f*cks about your sh*tty game. They didn't buy it despite the fact it costs $1.

The End.

Are you certain the Microsoft development fee is $99? I know XBL Indie Games development is $100, but I would think M$ would charge more for XBLA games.

 

[Foxi4]

Are you certain the Microsoft development fee is $99? I know XBL Indie Games development is $100, but I would think M$ would charge more for XBLA games.

I was convinced we're talking about Indie Games here, sorry for the unclear phrasing.

 

[notmeanymore]

Are you certain the Microsoft development fee is $99? I know XBL Indie Games development is $100, but I would think M$ would charge more for XBLA games.

I was convinced we're talking about Indie Games here, sorry for the unclear phrasing.

Double Fine is big enough to be able to make XBLA games, not Indie Games. The issue really lies with Microsoft with their nomenclature.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Wow... $40,000? Seems like a poor decision by Microsoft when nearly every other service allows free patching.

 

[Gahars]

I've heard horror stories about the way XBLA is run before; the guys behind Monday Night Combat, for example, had to jump through a ton of hoops for several months before they were allowed to release a patch that added free content.

I know it's their service, but Microsoft's policies seem a bit... draconian. If you want to attract new and rising talent, this isn't the way to do it.

 

[DSGamer64]

No surprise there. $40k is quite a bit of money for someone who makes games that go for a nice $5 or something instead of $70. Also indie game market is a bit smaller in comparison (sales volume-wise).

Now I start understanding why some companies may not even want to make a patch on some systems. Wonder if this has been a deciding factor for example Bethesda and their games (Fallout3 being one with quite a few big issues)..

I dunno, some companies don't even patch their games on the PC (I am looking at you Lucas Arts and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for the PC!), or they take forever to do it.

 

[Deleted User]

I like the way android approached it.
Aren't games 100% free to make on android?

Yup, and the developer registration fee is peanuts. Kudos to Google.

 

[DiscostewSM]

$40K? Some would say this isn't a lot, but this is for indie-based games, and let's not forget, this for a single patch. For each released project that has newer patches, the costs really start to add up. Plus, price isn't the only thing that has to be dealt with, as said by the article.

 

[FluffyLunamoth]

$40.000 per patch? Boo-hoo.

It's math time ladies and gentlemen:

Indie games are priced $1, $3 or $5 each. Let's assume that Microsoft snags half of it (it doesn't, but let's use the big guns). That means that worst-case scenario, you need to sell 80.000 games to get the funds for a patch, best scenario would be 16.000. Let's take the worst-case scenario - the $1 game.

First, let's add development cost, keeping in mind that it's an indie game. Development time would be anywhere between a few months up to a year, so we add a $99 subscription fee to Microsoft's development program, about $40.000 as the development costs and $40.000 as the cost of the first patch. Rounds up to +/- $120.100.

...if you can't even sell 200.000 games then you should probably look for a different occupation because there are 66 million XBox 360'ties out there. That means that there's at least 66 million users, I'm not even mentioning the fact that certain XBox 360'ties are shared so multiple accounts could buy the same game, really.

This basically means that if you can't afford the patch, not even 0,2% of all XBox users around the world didn't give two f*cks about your sh*tty game. They didn't buy it despite the fact it costs $1.

The End.

Okay, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. Do you really think that most games on the indie marketplace sell even 5000, most of the time?

Okay, let's counter you, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. "...if you can't even sell 200.000 games then you should probably look for a different occupation because there are 66 million XBox 360'ties out there."

Are you serious? Unless you mean 200,000, in which case are you insane? 200. In order to meet that $40k mark, you need to sell 8000 copies of your game. So let's take a look at the actual numbers.

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/XboxIndieGames

Let's try the very first page. 7 out of 30 on the first page, roughly, sold enough to hit that $40 mark. 1 of those barely sold more than that, meaning they didn't make too much profit if they had to release a patch. The rest of those games have not sold more than 5000 copies. And guess what, these are the best selling indie games from today. These aren't how many people bought them today. That's all time.

So discarding the ones that didn't sell more than 1000, if any of those games had a game-breaking bug, or some type of glitch that needed fixing, they would not have the money to do so. Thus, all of the people who bought those(I don't care how low you think the number is, 1000+ is still a good amount of people) games will not get that patch, in most cases, and are stuck with a possibly not-working game.

Now you could say that they should've caught this bug in testing. Guess what, not all bugs are caught. I mean, just look at games like Fallout, or Call of Duty, or other big titles. Bugs galore. Bugs aren't always in plain sight, nor do they always happen. You obviously aren't a coder if you don't realize this.

The patch is $40 THOUSAND. Now, with the numbers from above, I didn't take into account any additional costs, like Microsoft's fees.

Do remember that indie developers are not game companies. They do not have the funds that an actual game company would have. They are people like you or me.[b/]

Thank you, and next time use your damn brain.

 

[DarkStriker]

$40K? Some would say this isn't a lot, but this is for indie-based games, and let's not forget, this for a single patch. For each released project that has newer patches, the costs really start to add up. Plus, price isn't the only thing that has to be dealt with, as said by the article.

Foxi4 doesn't get that point. Thats why i gave up trying to even respond lol.

 

[prowler]

I've heard horror stories about the way XBLA is run before; the guys behind Monday Night Combat, for example, had to jump through a ton of hoops for several months before they were allowed to release a patch that added free content.

I know it's their service, but Microsoft's policies seem a bit... draconian. If you want to attract new and rising talent, this isn't the way to do it.

Yeah, Microsoft hates developers patching games that adds more content or releasing free DLC, it's really lame

 

[chartube12]

With steam or value being an element of Nintendo Network, could they being moving to the Wii U or no? I think no, because of Reggie's words of bashing smaller priced games. Then again he his a hypocrite, the 3ds has gotten some smartphone games, admit at a price mark up. Nintendo is greedy just like the other two, if only a little less but not by much.

 

[Foxi4]

-Makes no sense, didn't read what I wrote, infers meanings that aren't even there-

1. Those starts are "Ratings", not sales.
2. Re-read what I wrote and try again. Like I said - if the game cannot sell sufficiently then it should not be sold in the first place. If you cannot promote your game then don't enter the buisness.
3. Indie game developers are game developers, they're just "independent" to a higher extent.

By the way, if you can't discuss things without flinging the words "insane", "idiot" and "use your damn brain", you know where the Log Out button is. I am not obliged to discuss things with uncivilized apes.

 

[KingVamp]

I believe that games available in stores need to keep a certain level of quality - hoop hopping is *necessary* and it's a part of the cycle that is "economy". What better quality control is there then the clients themselves? If the game sells then it must have that "spark" in it, something good that sells it as it's definatelly not the "brand" like in the case of "bigger products". I never said that $40.000 is an appropriet price for patching, what I said was that if the developer cannot make that kind of money within the life cycle of his or her product then his or her future as a developer is rather grim, but everybody seems to conviniently misread that just to pout a little bit. Alright then, *pout*. You can agree or disagree with me, you can't lecture me though.

However, if the product does not sell at all despite the publisher's effort towards marketing it then it just doesn't have "it", it's not worth the time of a potential buyer.

That is all. That is my opinion. Hate me for being Captain Common Sense here if you will, see if I care.

So you saying, Indies dev should be able to make $40.000 ( I hope you didn't mean $40,000) in the time that the game is relevant (life cycle) if the game is good. (Which I'm not sure if a game being good is enough sometimes. Maybe you meant repetition of good games as well?)

If I understand tho, the argument is $40,000 is too much for a patch specially when other places it is free. Which I agree, especially for these devs.
If I read correctly, they need to fix their system so patches can get in more easier and cheaper.

This whole thing seem like a misunderstanding.

So going back to this...

$40.000 per patch? Boo-hoo.

No, $40,000, but even that seems like much for the small devs to me.

I mean free vs $40 on a console which they even have to hope to get 40 ($1) to 8 ($5) (Ok, maybe 8 people should be able to notice the game,but more money less potential buyers.) people to even notice just to be set back just 'cause they want to improve the game?
:/

I just could imagine to look at the number of buys to finally reach $40 profit to only see in the comments, "I would buy the game, but this
bug or it missing this to make me get it." Which I need the $40 to even make a living.

I know, I'm simplifying a lot, but I just want to get a point across.

(No, I didn't read all of the conversation, just scanned.)

 

[raulpica]

Two little rules for a happier community:
1) When you put someone on your ignore list, don't flaunter it. If you're doing that in a thread which isn't your blog, then that's also off-topic.
2) When things go personal, with two members exchanging verbal attacks which have NOTHING to do with the thread at hand (e.g.: useless bickering), someone please report the posts, thanks!

 

[Foxi4]

Patching "should" be free, however I don't think 40 grand is such an unachievable number at all. There are many Indie games that make x times as much profit.

 

[Foxi4]

-wrong tab in the browser, oupsie!-

 

[KingVamp]

Patching "should" be free, however I don't think 40 grand is such an unachievable number at all. There are many Indie games that make x times as much profit.

While I'm not saying it is or isn't unachievable, I think 40 grand or even $40 dollars a patch is unreasonable.
Also while they should be free, if it has to be price, $5 seems reasonable.

I mean if they really need that much money and it that hard to get a patch through, shouldn't they change something on their end?
Other wise they will all go somewhere else...

 

[DarkStriker]

Patching "should" be free, however I don't think 40 grand is such an unachievable number at all. There are many Indie games that make x times as much profit.

Care to say one that is on XBLA? Maybe if your talking about multiplatform, the money starts coming in. But the point is that its expensive on XBLA and counting sales from XBLA only will mean that its overpriced like fuck.

EDIT: and yeah even if we count indie multiplatform its still not alot.

 

[kthnxshwn]

Doesn't matter to him. Many games make more than 40k and every other indie developer should be perfectly fine shelling out the same amount of money as a new car just to patch their game. Seems entirely reasonable, right?