It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I recently contacted a developer/publisher about bringing their games here and they said: "We'd be on their service if they could match everyone's standard 70/30 rev share." Perhaps they revealed more than they should have but it did open my eyes to an issue I hadn't really considered.

Obviously GOG has the right to conduct their business however they see fit but, if the current revenue split is scaring away developers and publishers, it might be worth rethinking. What do you think?

If you'd like to see GOG be more competitive so that they can sign the games you crave, vote for the feature below:

Adjust your revenue share to the 70/30 industry standard to attract more developers/publishers!
Post edited September 15, 2012 by Barry_Woodward
You're talking about one developer. I have yet to see any evidence that GOG is hurting for developers that would be so easily swayed. The only developers I notice being missing, like LA, money seems to have nothing to do with it..
Out of interest, which developer/game was it?

Please PM me if you don't want to publicly state it.
Post edited September 15, 2012 by SirPrimalform
If it brings in games that I have been patiently waiting for, then sure. I just look at DRM free games that have been out for a while such as Trine 2, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, and Bastion and see that they are still not available on GOG and wonder...why? This could be one of the reasons. Then again, doesn't GOG put in more work than other retailers by ensuring excellent customer service, that games work on the stated platforms, among other things?
avatar
Future_Suture: Then again, doesn't GOG put in more work than other retailers by ensuring excellent customer service, that games work on the stated platforms, among other things?
That doesn't really help in case the games are relatively new with no major issues.

For me it doesn't really matter how they choose to do their business but I would prefer if that tried to keep their company running (very) long term instead of short term and adjusting too quickly. Therefor, I rather see games here later than sooner in case it hurts their financial status altough that would be odd.
How gog manages their finances is a thing on which the community should not meddle. It's their business and they are responsible on their success on their own.
70/30 isn't an "industry standard", it's just what that particular developer thinks. Sounds like it's probably a developer who's coming from a mobile gaming background.
The only place I know that has stated it does a 70/30 share is GamersGate via an interview a year or two back. Some developers have stated that Steam does a 60/40 split, while others claim it's far more advantageous split. Simply point is, that most times, these things are on a case by case basis. So while one publisher or developer may have negotiated a 70/30 split, others may well have a 80/20 or 60/40 split. So I'd hardly call 70/30 the industry standard.
avatar
Barry_Woodward: Obviously GOG has the right to conduct business however they see fit but, if the current revenue split is scaring away developers and publishers, it might be worth rethinking. What do you think?
Sure, why not. But I decide not to tell GOG how they should run their business with their partners, as I don't carry any responsibility for the (wrong) decisions. It is GOG's neck on the line, not mine.

So I won't be voting for that "feature", but I am not against it either. Sure I'd like to see more developers also on GOG.

I am unsure how those negotiations go and affect, but could it be that if they give a better deal to one partner, then the others would come down the lines to GOG "Hey what's this? We want a better deal too!". Unless they already give separate deals anyway...
avatar
WBGhiro: How gog manages their finances is a thing on which the community should not meddle. It's their business and they are responsible on their success on their own.
Fecking ninjas everywhere... I see you already said it better.
Post edited September 15, 2012 by timppu
Who is getting 70 and who is getting 30 in the OP and in the "industry standard"?
70/30 certainly makes sense to me, not sure why any store thinks they deserve more. If GOG's reasoning was working on compatibility I guess that makes sense on the surface, but since most of the time they do very little I'm not sure I buy it.
high rated
I don't think that we even have 5% of the information necessary to decide whether or not this request should be supported. There's no chance to get to even as little as 15% of the required info, because GOG certainly won't release internal financial calculations to the public, where competing shops can access and evaluate them.

This thread is based on speculation, and anecdotal evidence of one single person, and is imho largely pointless.
Post edited September 15, 2012 by Psyringe
avatar
da187jimmbones: Who is getting 70 and who is getting 30 in the OP and in the "industry standard"?
Obviously 70 to publisher and 30 to the retailer. That's a rough common standard at least. For brick and mortar retail it's closer to the other way around (however sad that sounds)
Post edited September 15, 2012 by Pheace
avatar
Barry_Woodward: I recently contacted a developer/publisher about bringing their games here and they said: "We'd be on their service if they could match everyone's standard 70/30 rev share." Perhaps they revealed more than they should have but it did open my eyes to an issue I hadn't really considered. ...
Surely we as a customer/gamer community would like to have more and cheaper games on GOG. I am all for it, even if both is probably not achievable at the same time.

My guess is that the DRM free, worldwide same price stance is also (maybe even more) limiting the availability. Take 2 is known for notoriously relying on DRM. They woudn't come here for any revenue sharing, would they?

Also quality matters. Maybe we don't every game here. GamersGate does this policy and 80% of the games on GamersGate are quite bad games.

In the end the details are probably only GOG's business. We can only urge them to bring more games here.

I would advice GOG to not stay too far from the average of the industry, whatever it is. It probably means that there is some wisdom in it, even if 70/30 sounds pretty artificial and not very flexible.

Maybe they can increase the share of the developer if much games are sold, this way successful games are also highly profitable to have on GOG, and who is not convinced that his/her game will be highly successful. :)

Example:

60/40 for the first 10000 units
70/30 for the next 50000 units
80/20 for all above
Post edited September 15, 2012 by Trilarion
avatar
Trilarion: Example:

60/40 for the first 10000 units
70/30 for the next 50000 units
80/20 for all above
So GOG takes a chance with an obscure developer, and in the event that they score a big hit, the percentage of their revenue share drops? Don't think so somehow.