What are we supposed to do with the "old" games?

[-AAG-]

As the HTML5 market grows so does the quality demand from sponsors. However, it seems like the money paid for non-exclusives (between 400 and 1000 USD) will stay about the same. So with higher resolutions, better graphics, and having sounds and music becoming the new standard, what are we supposed to do with our old, low-res, muted mini-games? 

 

In my personal experience quoting the minimum 400 USD per game have meant the end of many deals, and in the case of rude sponsors, the end of communication altogether even after offering discounts for bulk purchases and low requirements from their side.

 

I really don't think this old mini games should be on the same price range of games that adjust to the higher standards but then again I know very little about business. What do you guys think?

[rich]

 

what are we supposed to do with our old, low-res, muted mini-games?

 

Stick them in your portfolio and be done with them. Maybe roll them out now and again if someone asks for a specific type of game. Perhaps consider updating them, but on the most part, they're done - leave them be. Move on.

 

There is a finite limit to how much sponsors will pay. The trick is keeping your games appealing enough while still not spending that much time or money on them. It's not easy, but learn how to do it or you'll end up making a loss on every game.

[Midnight]

Thank you for posting a question like this! I hope it gets needed attention. I hope for more topics like this, since we mostly see tech questions and game showcases now...

As for the question in hand, I think we need to keep prices to stay alive and not feed lowballers like softgames.

[-AAG-]

Thank you very much for your insight, Rich. I do am considering either making higher quality games or not making HTML5 games at all since I am still not convinced if the extra effort is worth it.

 

This still leaves a question unanswered thou. In the event that a sponsor where interested in this older games, should the asking price still be a minimum 400 or would it be prudent to consider a lower price range for this older games?

 

I think we need to keep prices to stay alive and not feed lowballers like softgames.

 

 

So you believe 400 is still OK for the older, low quality stuff?

[Midnight]

I was mainly saying that the better quality games should not be undersold. Although, that 400$ mark is really dependant on the game and the buyer, a lot of today's games aren't really worth much.

Surely, older games need to get thir pricetag trimed to be sold, but new, more quality ones can't go for that low for sure.

Again, it can really depent on who you are selling to. If you know a buyer who's a really nice guy, but just starting out with not much money, it's not a loss selling to him at 100-200 (with no api intergration).

[rich]

 

This still leaves a question unanswered thou. In the event that a sponsor where interested in this older games, should the asking price still be a minimum 400 or would it be prudent to consider a lower price range for this older games?

 

Yes, the price should be the same. The premium games are the ones that should be higher.

 

You have to get into the mentality and mindset of the sponsor. They nearly always have a fixed price in mind for games, because on the whole, unless they are trying to bag an exclusive or premium title (which is as rare as rocking horse shit in html5) it often doesn't matter to them at all what the game is.

 

Of course some games perform better than others for them, but on the whole most of them are about all the same. For them it's about a regular supply of content on their sites, offering something fresh and new as often as possible to keep the visitors coming back. Some games will do better than others of course, but the vast majority will all do the same kind of stats for them - hence why they tend to offer the same kind of prices across the board, because they can make a pretty accurate estimate as to how much return it will bring them.

 

In Flash it was a bit different (although you saw the above a LOT too) because a great game could go massively viral, and they'd bet on that like you bet on a horse winning a race, so it was a bit of a gamble for them. Would their $ convert into plays, which convert into clicks back to their site, into ad revenue. It's still all about ad rev at the end of the day though.

 

What we're seeing at the moment is a lot of the first scenario above, mixed in with a lot of bulk buying to pad out site portfolios, and private gated-content - i.e. games bought to be hosted on destination sites (like telecoms companies, etc). There is also of course a massive amount of client work going on too, but that has always been the case and has nothing to do with technology, it's just a supply/demand thing.

[-AAG-]

I see. Thank you again for your insight. knowing how sponsors think doesn't motivate me to want to make better games thou. I'm just at a cross road right now wondering which way is up and I appreciate that you take the time to provide some guidance.

 

Cheers.

[rich]

It wasn't meant to motivate you to make better games, that is something you should aim to do anyway (in a "faster cheaper better" sense, not in a "spend thousands on assets" sense). It was meant I guess to show that for the vast majority of sponsors, they honestly don't really care about your games from an artistic expression point of view! in the way that you do. All they see are stats.

 

It's a very hard mindset to get in to, because for most developers they care passionately about what they make, and don't like just churning stuff out. For them each game is a work of art, a labour of love.

 

And that's great and all, and I utterly and totally understand it. But it's not great business if you primarily deal with sponsors.

[-AAG-]

No, no. In the contrary. Right now I make games strictly for money and I don't mind the churning out of stuff. My concern is that I might have to start churning out high quality stuff and still be paid around the same as making a quick mini game. If that is the case, then I see no motivation on it. If I can stay on the low end and still make 400 per game then I will stay on the low end, I am happy with that much. But if I have to start making native app quality stuff for about the same money then I see no point in getting better.

 

I have made a lot of freeware games in the past, and I was passionate about it and all but praise and recognition don't pay my bills. I now make games strictly for money and I don't want to be putting too much effort for little (monetary)reward again.

[Gio]

In my opinion what you're saying can't possibly happen (ie being offered pocket money for top quality games).

If sponsors expect the quality of games to go up, then realistically they must account for their budgets to go up proportionally.

Say that they offered you $400 for a native quality app. Why would you accept? You have a native quality app, make an apk (that takes 10 minutes) and sell it as a native app to someone else.

I disagree with the notion that quality doesn't matter to sponsors. Although the quality of individual games may not be too important, the average quality of the games they host certainly is.

If you see this from the end user's point of view... Would you rather spend your time on a portal with 1000 crap games, or on one with 100 quality games?

[rich]

In my opinion what you're saying can't possibly happen (ie being offered pocket money for top quality games).

 

Look at the Flash market - the quality bar there jumped substantially over a 2-3 year period, as more and more devs flooded to it. But the value per game most certainly didn't rise with it. Yes of course you could package it as an apk, but the sad truth is that this won't guarantee you $400 either.

 

I disagree with the notion that quality doesn't matter to sponsors. Although the quality of individual games may not be too important, the average quality of the games they host certainly is.

 

Sure, they have a baseline minimum - they won't take any old crap, and often turn games down. But don't be under any illusion: for most of them the time and effort you put in means absolutely nothing. You're just providing ad views to them at the end of the day.

 

You often see token gestures of maybe a few hundred $ more if you've got a particularly good game (or usually just good graphics) because it's like paying for nice window dressing in their shop, right?

 

 

If you see this from the end user's point of view... Would you rather spend your time on a portal with 1000 crap games, or on one with 100 quality games?

 

Yet the abundance of "1000+ game portals" is massive. For most of them it's about the churn rate, they never wanted to be premium gaming destinations aimed squarely at gamers, who would care about "quality". There are a few of those sites for sure, but they're in the minority compared to what most really want: a quick gaming fix.

 

Don't confuse the markets here, portals are seldom aimed at actual gamers.

[Gio]

I mostly agree Rich, but there's a big difference with the Flash market, and that's portability.

What I'm trying to say is: as a developer, being pushed to deliver higher quality games can't be a bad thing, because with higher quality comes higher revenue, as more markets open up. If your games get above a certain quality, you'll start making money on app stores. They get a bit better still, and you can make money on Gog and Steam, or self publish on Facebook. They get even better, and you can publish through mainstream traditional publishers.

If sponsors can't pay more, I think it's going to be a problem for them rather than for us, in the long run. I think they only have a chance of getting games at the current rate while these games are substantially simpler than those found on other platforms/markets.

[rich]

I think this is where we'll have to remain to disagree Higher quality is almost never a guarantee of higher revenue because the market is utterly flooded with 'high quality' games already. Time, energy and love poured into a game has no actual tangible value imho. Your game will go through the same bell curve sales graph as any other, unless you have somehow differentiated it, or created something truly remarkable (which let's be honest, most don't), OR (and this is the crucial one) you have a captive niche audience already and know how to appeal to them. A loyal fan base if you will. There are lots of devs who do well at this because they understand their audience.

 

I still think you're mixing markets here, sorry. Gog / Steam / publishers (and even App Store to a degree) isn't the same market as most sponsors are trying to attract. It's a very different audience imho, with very little cross-over. And the value of your game is vastly different as a result.

[-AAG-]

I like the way Rich looks at things. It might not be what we want to hear but it is reality. I also appreciate Gio's view, he has a more panoramic and optimistic (if a little dreamy) take on things: " If you can't sell it here, then there is that and the other". I think that's fine too if you are looking to eventually expand into other markets, maybe he made it sound like its a very easy thing to do, like there is a single step between one market and the other, and that is where Rich disagrees.

 

I'm aiming low and want to keep it simple. If I can continue to churn out OK quality games for about 400 each I am happy with it. I know I got to step it up and that my current portfolio is dated. All I want to avoid is doing more for the same or less. 

[ch00se]

Hey Everyone,  I wanted to chime in here as this is a bit in my wheelhouse.

 

First, I merely want to state some actual data points we've seen at FGL.  No hypothesis or theory from me (that's later!).  This is for the Flash market only, just to show what happened there.

 

Looking at data between 2009 (when we started tracking things more closely) and 2011 (the height of the Flash game market)

 

1. The total amount of money going into Flash games went up (doubled)

2. The total amount of games approved on FGL went up (around 70% increase)

3. The total amount spent on each game went up slightly for non-exclusives and mid-to-low tier sponsorships, and massively for top content for sponsorships

4. The total number of deals went up (around 65% increase)

5. As games got older, they still did sell (still do!) but the value of the game decreased in direct proportion to two main factors: Age of the game, and quality of the game (mostly on the quality)

 

So, basically, more money came in, more games came in, more deals happened, prices remained about flat except for the highest quality games.

 

The secondary takeaway is that older games still sell!  As long as a game is made well and is fun, we continually find buyers.  In fact, we have a deal in the works with Rich for a game he made in 2009!  (Now if he'd only finish the deal up )

 

Now, I have no idea if this will hold for HTML5.  Right now, the HTML5 market is very different than Flash back in the day.   The emphasis by publishers then was on getting the best games and sponsoring them to drive traffic to your site.  That very well may happen with HTML5, but for right now, it's mostly on the companies interested in HTML5 trying to build up their libraries.

 

Here's my guess:  There is a brief window where companies are willing to pay very high sums of money for non-exclusives (I'd consider this to be in the $1k+ range) for all ranges of quality.  I think we're actually already mostly outside this window.  This is due to lack of supply (companies who want HTML5 games don't have a large pool of games to choose from).  As thousands of games become available to license, this money will be spread out.  I think we're mainly in this window right now.

 

Here's some good news, though.  The second part of my guess is that we have yet to seen the influx of companies looking for HTML5 games.  I think there will be many coming into the market.  This is what we saw at FGL. And this is to Rich's point... the companies we're working with now won't necessarily have more money to spend per game as time goes on, but new companies coming in will have budgets all of their own.  So even though your game may have sold for $1,000 before, and now only for $500, you now have more people buying a license.

 

There's no way to know how big the market will be.  The potential is certainly huge (And FGL is banking on it being huge).  But I think it's pretty safe to say it will at least be bigger than it currently is.  So we will see more money flowing, if anything.   But remember: as more money comes in, so do more developers and games.

 

Now, I didn't even touch on "sponsorships" or revenue share from mobile marketplaces.  My hope is that both add significant revenue earned by each game.  Sponsorships have yet to be proven in HTML5... but I think there's a strong chance for it to happen (and we're definitely pushing for it). Mobile marketplaces are already showing promise with HTML5.  My hope is that in the near future there won't be a need to "wrap" a game to work in most major marketplaces.  And we're seeing marketplaces pop up already looking for straight up HTML5 games.  But, since the original question was about non-exclusives I'll stick to that.

 

-AAG- you bring up a really good point in your first post:  "old" HTML5 games are actually hindered by limited technology and requirements even months ago.  So, we're not even talking about the market stabilizing, we're talking about the tech and accepted development practices changing!  This makes it a very hard question to answer for the games we currently consider "old".  In general, I'd say you should charge the same for a game you made a few months ago or even a year ago and one you made now, but if that game can't play sounds, or can't do things that are required based on new standards... then that's just not the case. 

 

So, I'll leave the tech issues aside and say: prices should stabilize around $400 for non-exclusives.  Older games should not need to go lower if you have a good game.  If your game isn't in the "average" quality range then I'd suggest moving the price down to catch bargain hunters you may otherwise miss, or package the game into deals with better games you have.  Also remember you don't have to charge one price.  You should have different prices for different levels of involvement (how much work is it for you, do you get links, do you get rev share..) in my $400 number I'm assuming a little work (branding + reasonable API) on the developer end and rev share if available.  More work = you should charge more.

 

Also, be very wary of companies offering only rev share.  If people can get your game for free, why would they ever pay you?  This also drives prices down across the board.  You should only ever do this if there is a long standing history of developers making money through rev share with that company (for example, we only suggest this through FGL with a few companies such as Yahoo, and Microsoft... again this is for non-exclusives, not mobile marketplaces etc..).

[-AAG-]

WOW. That was quiet a read. I understand that old games sell. I still get offers from time to time for my old stuff and I'm glad to hear everyone still agrees on the 400 minimum price point no matter what the game is. That was my main concern.

 

I usually turn down rev share only deals. I don't even have games with ads anymore.

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to share the knowledge.