Topic: WiiWare games have to hit a sales threshold before devs get paid

[Stratos]

Apparently some devs are not going to hit this target.
What do you guys think of this? Yes, it's nice that it provides an incentive for companies to make quality games, but is it fair that Nintendo is withholding ANY profit from them? What if a game doesn't sell well but is a decent game? Doesn't the company deserve to receive the money from these sales even if it is a low seller?

Here's the article detailing it.

[UncleBob]

Think of it this way - a company has to pay Nintendo $X to have discs pressed.  Then, they have to pay $Y to ship the discs and set up retail sales, etc., etc.

With this method, the developer doesn't pay a dime to release the game to the general public - Nintendo fronts the costs for storage and delivery (i.e.: Bandwidth) along with some advertising via the Nintendo Channel, press releases, etc.

Nintendo could charge developers $Z up front - and if the developer doesn't sell enough copies, then they'd actually lose money instead of just not making money.

Without knowing the threshold that a game has to sell, it's hard to make a judgment call on this.

[TJ Spyke]

If this is true, I think it's an asshole-ish thing of Nintendo to do. Until a game sells a certain amount of copies, they are receiving ZERO income from the game. At least with retail games they get some money from the stores that buy the game (even if they lose money, they made back some of it). Is that even legal of Nintendo? They are basically holding these companies money hostage until their game sells a certain number of games. We have seen lots of examples of retail games that got great reviews but sold like total crap.

Image the backlash Nintendo would face from publishers if they tried this crap with retail games.

UncleBob, Nintendo is already getting a large percentage of every WiiWare/Virtual Console game sold. Even if a game sells few copies they still get some money (more than the developer, I think all 3 console manufacturers keep more than 50% of the price for each downloadable game).

[Deguello]

Image the backlash Nintendo would face from publishers if they tried this crap with retail games.

Oh people already want them to do that.  They want Nintendo to simply not license shovelware, which is not only denying profit, but for some of these companies, denying existence, and for some of the major companies, denying the funding of projects for Nintendo's competitors.  So the critics of such are in quite a bind here.  Nintendo is either a tyrant or a slumlord, but can't be both at the same time.

As to what's "fair," I'd imagine these devs read their contracts and signed anyway.  Like UncleBob said, Nintendo is fronting the storage and delivery, as well as rudimentary marketing through press releases and such.  If theseguys make such an unappealing turkey that nobody wants it after that, then, really, do they deserve any money?  Sure, you'll hear the story of a poor little nichely popular game who just couldn't make it past the limit, but most will be the people who made crap like The Amazing Maze or whatever.

[IceCold]

Well if the threshold covers only allows Nintendo to cover the costs it incurs to put up the game, then it's fair. In fact, if the developers were fronting these costs themselves they'd be losing money, so they should be thanking Nintendo (if what I said is in fact true).

[ShyGuy]

Results based markets are win-win.

[KDR_11k]

Without knowing the threshold that a game has to sell, it's hard to make a judgment call on this.

The vague descriptions sound like 5k for the US, 2k for other regions. What's more important for a judgement call is what the games on the service actually sell.

Sure, you'll hear the story of a poor little nichely popular game who just couldn't make it past the limit, but most will be the people who made crap like The Amazing Maze or whatever.

The Incredible Maze has stayed in the top 20 sales chart ever since its release AFAIK so I don't think it's below the threshold.

[UncleBob]

UncleBob, Nintendo is already getting a large percentage of every WiiWare/Virtual Console game sold. Even if a game sells few copies they still get some money (more than the developer, I think all 3 console manufacturers keep more than 50% of the price for each downloadable game).

You think?

You're basing your opinion on what you  "think" may be going on behind the scenes?

Again, without *knowing* the details on this, I'm going to have to withhold judgement.  For all we know, it's something like 0-4,999 = 0%, 5,000-9,999=50%, 10,000-19,999=75% and 20,000+ = 100%.

Now I'm sure Nintendo isn't being *that* generous, but who knows?

[Caliban]

Nintendo runs a business, they're not charity.

[Ian Sane]

It all really depends on how reasonable the sales threshold is.  I don't expect Nintendo to take a bath on someone else's WiiWare game.  At the very least they have to break even or make a small profit.  If the threshold is so high that most devs never make a dime from WiiWare, then we have a problem.  But something like that would destroy WiiWare anyway.  No one would choose to make games for it.

With physical media there is some financial risk to releasing a games.  This provides some quality standards.  You don't have to make a good game but you have to make SOMETHING that you think will at least "trick" enough people into buying your game to make a profit.  If there wasn't some restriction with WiiWare well you'd get all sorts of crap because the risk is so small that any goof can **** out a "game" and away you go.

With Nintendo though... eh, I wouldn't be surprised if the sales threshold was a little higher than it necessarily has to be.

[Kairon]

Isn't this sales threshold only in the four figures?

[Flames_of_chaos]

Isn't this sales threshold only in the four figures?

I believe so, if the game sells less than that it's not like the developer would make any money off of that anyways. Since I believe it's a 70(developer)/30(Nintendo) split.

[KDR_11k]

Isn't this sales threshold only in the four figures?

The article says lower four figures outside the US, middle four figures inside, I guess that means something like 2000 and 5000 which is pocket change (unless you're an XNA dev but XNA is precisely the situation Nintendo doesn't want, a REAL flood of **** that drowns everyone).

[Mop it up]

Companies should really take a good look at the quality of their game if they think it isn't going to sell more than a measly 5,000. There may be that rare case when a real quality title doesn't sell well enough, but you can't focus on only the worst case scenario and claim that the system doesn't work overall.

[Stratos]

A WW dev did confirm that Nintendo lets the dev get over 50% of every game sold. So if a WW game worth 1000 points ($10) only sells 3,000 then the dev is losing out on over $15,000.

My frustration and concern is abated a bit because apparently a number of WiiWare devs have praised the system. I read that in NintendoLife's version of this news story.

The dev that stated that Nintendo lets WW devs have over %50 is Luc Bernard who designed Eternity's Child. He mentioned this in his blog.

[nickmitch]

I think this is totally fair.  At the end of the day, a shitty Wii Ware game leaves the dev paying for R&D costs. A shitty disc-based game leaves them with advertising, shipping, materials, etc.  If you consider that even low retail sales would cover ads, discs, shipping, and ads, everything balances.

It's like with iPhone apps.  If you know your app will suck, make it free and tell people to stop bitching.  If you know your WW title will suck, don't make it.  Either way, you make no profit.

[NWR_pap64]

For some developers, its better to release a game good enough so that their brand name becomes stronger. For example, no one knew who 2D Boy was. But thanks to the success of World of Goo if they work on another game ads will say "From the creators of World of Goo comes...!". A brand name was established thanks to one good game on WiiWare.

If you want to make money not only do you have to spend money you HAVE to release a quality title and advertise it as good as you can. If the game is good it will generate word of mouth and create a warm critical reception. That will be good enough to create stronger sales.

Its easy to understand, really.

[KDR_11k]

Companies should really take a good look at the quality of their game if they think it isn't going to sell more than a measly 5,000. There may be that rare case when a real quality title doesn't sell well enough, but you can't focus on only the worst case scenario and claim that the system doesn't work overall.

More importantly, I don't think it's even possible to develop a game on a budget that'd make money when it's still below that threshold.

[Stratos]

I think you could do it. Not the best way to try and make a living from game development but it would still be feasible. I live off of less than that a year. If a one or two man team made a number of small games that sold to that degree you could do it.

[KDR_11k]

You won't get an SDK without at least some basic stuff like an office, that's not going to be feasible on ~20k$ a year including all expenses.

[Smash_Brother]

Well if the threshold covers only allows Nintendo to cover the costs it incurs to put up the game, then it's fair. In fact, if the developers were fronting these costs themselves they'd be losing money, so they should be thanking Nintendo (if what I said is in fact true).

This is correct.

There's has to be a staff of people that checks every game sent in and make sure it doesn't have huge bugs, meets technical standards, etc.

If the game doesn't even sell 5,000 copies (and some pretty crap games have sold WELL beyond that), then they've just spent money paying that staff to effectively do nothing.

[Stratos]

You won't get an SDK without at least some basic stuff like an office, that's not going to be feasible on ~20k$ a year including all expenses.

If I make 2-3 of these games a year getting about $15k profit for each one then that is $45k.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Without the office, you'll never get that SDK, and you'll never make those games.  Checkout Bob's office.

$0

[KDR_11k]

You won't get an SDK without at least some basic stuff like an office, that's not going to be feasible on ~20k$ a year including all expenses.

If I make 2-3 of these games a year getting about $15k profit for each one then that is $45k.

Yeah now what does an ESRB rating cost? I seem to recall something like 20k$. And well, if you alone can shovel out the games in 4 months each I guess you're the kind that this policy is designed to work against.

[Smash_Brother]

Yeah now what does an ESRB rating cost? I seem to recall something like 20k$. And well, if you alone can shovel out the games in 4 months each I guess you're the kind that this policy is designed to work against.

ESRB rating for value submissions (for under $250,000 budget for the game's total cost to develop) is just $800.

But good games take time. More manhours go into a good game than anyone likely ever realizes.