Home General Discussion

Why Gears of War costs $60

polycounter lvl 18
Offline / Send Message
AstroZombie polycounter lvl 18
[ QUOTE ]
Forbes is running a neat little feature right now called "Why Gears of War Costs $60". It's a reasonable enough question, really -- and there's pie charts! What more could you want from the Internet?

Getting the straight dope on game development costs is, of course, difficult. Gamers know that prices have gone up about 20% for games coming out on next-gen hardware, but the companies aren't exactly forthcoming with specific reasons on how, or why.

Here's the skinny, as far as Forbes' article breaks it down:

ON A $60 GAME OF GEARS:

* 25% (aka $15) goes to pay the art and design guys.
* 20% ($12) goes to pay the programmers and the engineers.
* 20% (also $12) goes to your friendly neighborhood retailer. EB / GameStop, whoever.
* 11.5% ($7) goes to a "Console Owner Fee" - ie. whichever one of the Big Boys made your hardware (Sony, MS, Nintendo.)
* 7% ($4) goes to marketing, and puts Mad World and Marcus Fenix on MTV.
* 5% ($3) goes to "market development" -- paying for cardboard Standees of the Gears Crew and elbowing other games out of the way for shelf space at your local retailer.
* 5% ($3) goes to actually manufacturing and packaging the disc.
* 5% ($3) is spent paying the Man for IP licenses or maybe hiring some big name voice actors. If your game isn't an original IP, here's where you get dinged by Marvel, Disney, or Ray Liotta's agent.
* 1.5% (just $1) goes into the publisher's pocket.
* 1.5% (also $1) goes into the distributor's pocket.
* 0.3% (about 20 cents) goes into corporate costs. Management, overhead, lawyers, etc.
* 0.05% (less than 3 cents) go into the cost of paying for the Developer's Hardware. Who knew an SDKs can cost tens of thousands of dollars?

And there you go. $60 of Gears, a la carte.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure that I completely buy this breakdown, or at least the way it was worded. Reading this would imply that the bulk of the cost of developing a game goes to paying the artists and designers while a mere .20 per copy goes to paying management. While I realize there are more artists and designers on a team than managers, CEOs at some of these companies draw the cost of paying several employees as their salary. Is this data skewed or am I missing something?

Replies

  • Mark Dygert
    I can't say I agree with this break down either. It sure doesn't feel like the largest chunk is being spent on art but then again maybe they are factoring in equipment cost also, every artists needs legal software, and a good system to work with. So saying "25% goes to play the art guys" should be better worded to say something like "25% goes to cover the cost of making art" since not all of that coin goes right in the artists pockets. It would also be fair to mention that because the market is flooded with artists wanting to get in they can hire more with less money, so on paper it looks like artists are rolling in the cash but really they are eating beenie-weenies and riding the bus.

    Got a link to that article? Or was that the whole thing?
  • Mongrelman
    Offline / Send Message
    Mongrelman polycounter lvl 18
    I was at the Blitz games open day in January and the breakdown they gave was pretty different. It was a much higher percentage for IP and pulbishers and I'm pretty sure it was much lower how much went to the actual developers.

    I think it worked out that for a £30, the devs would get about £4 of it.
  • monster
    Offline / Send Message
    monster polycounter
    Yeah, sounds weird, but Forbes is a pretty trusted source. I wish he would have broken down the Art and Design department, as they really are 2 different areas.
  • Rick Stirling
    Offline / Send Message
    Rick Stirling polycounter lvl 18
    Does that mean that the Epic guys want to see more GoW in the UK and less in the US?

    GoW = £50 = 97.93 U.S. dollars

    So thats $25 per copy for the art fund.
  • AstroZombie
    Offline / Send Message
    AstroZombie polycounter lvl 18
  • Rhinokey
    Offline / Send Message
    Rhinokey polycounter lvl 18
    i think it costs that much cause its a crazy awesome game and you charge exactly the price that will make you the biggest proffit
  • JKMakowka
    Offline / Send Message
    JKMakowka polycounter lvl 18
    Even though I don't completly buy that breakdown, it is interesting to note that given that chart a brand new AAA title on Valve's Steam should cost about $32 which it doesn't mad.gif
  • Thegodzero
    Offline / Send Message
    Thegodzero polycounter lvl 18
    Interesting read, but thats only for company's like epic who are made men so can really bully the publishers. Even with that said i still don't believe that at all. We all know money flows from the top down and gets mostly absorbed by the top.
    Think of company's as a pyramid of sponges with production is at the bottom of that stack. You pour water onto the tip of the pyramid and only a little if any will get to the bottom. Now add a publisher into that and your basically looking at a big bole hovering over the pyramid collecting all the water before it can get to the company. Only when the publisher gets its fill does anything move on to the company.
  • Xenobond
    Offline / Send Message
    Xenobond polycounter lvl 18
    Ah, but you are forgetting that the publisher bowl was full before they started development. The water got dumped on the sponges as they worked. Can't get wet sponges without water in them bowls.

    Err... I think that analogy is correct. :S
  • PfhorRunner
    Offline / Send Message
    PfhorRunner polycounter lvl 18
    I'm pretty sure its not 20% that goes to the "friendly neighborhood retailer." A lot of media these days is sold nearly at cost, or only a dollar or two over. Especially next-gen software and hardware.
  • Mark Dygert
    I read in Game Developer that retailers make more off used game sales than new, and new games are often sold at or just above cost, they don't make any serious money until they get to sell that same game the second time around.
  • acc
    Offline / Send Message
    acc polycounter lvl 18
    I like how nowhere in the article do they ever even begin to address <u>why</u> GoW costs $60.

    Explaining "where the money goes" doesn't answer why. That just explains... where the money goes. Gee, our money goes to pay people. Thanks Forbes, I never could have thought that one out on my own!

    You can charge $20 for a game and just scale down the numbers. Why don't we? Who knows? The article doesn't seem to care. Instead they just put on a flashy title which doesn't actually relate to the content.

    I should note that I know why already, I'm just bashing the article for trying to completely dodge the subject.
  • ebagg
    Offline / Send Message
    ebagg polycounter lvl 17
    Only 1.5% goes to the publisher and 1.5% for the distributor!? Seriously!?
  • Lee3dee
    Offline / Send Message
    Lee3dee polycounter lvl 18
    art, programming, engineers, engine - $27 per game for epic x number of copies sold, is a pretty good profit for the company . Especially since they own the engine wink.gif

    mine actually cost $64 because i got the collectors edition.
  • McIlroy
    Offline / Send Message
    McIlroy polycounter lvl 17
    [ QUOTE ]
    GoW = £50 = 97.93 U.S. dollars

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Wow ! 98$ !! ..the only good thing about living in Europe is the hot European chicks ..man they rob you guys over there !
  • Daz
    Offline / Send Message
    Daz polycounter lvl 18
    That's the dumbest article Ive ever fucking seen and it makes my blood boil.

    You just can't break it down like that. Sure, you can break down the cost of actual *DEVELOPMENT* into percentages like that, but as acc hints at, to directly translate that into the cost of the actual game is just misleading, confusing and completely non sensical in economic terms. The cost of the final product is not as intrinsically tied to the development costs as that article suggests.

    To suggest that 25% of the pie 'goes' to the artists and designers is absurdly misleading, and blatantly not true.
  • Mark Dygert
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]
    GoW = £50 = 97.93 U.S. dollars

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Wow ! 98$ !! ..the only good thing about living in Europe is the hot European chicks ..man they rob you guys over there !

    [/ QUOTE ]

    No America has just managed to fook itself over that much more than the EU and make the $ worth much much less.
    Yeah America and unpopular wars!
    Yeah horrible foreign policy!
    Yeah free trade agreements that send jobs over seas!
    Yeah for the #1 export in America, wealth!
    Yeah for the cost of housing being so high people take wacky loans that should be illegal.
    Yeah for the economy coasting along on the sale and refinance of these over priced homes!

    Yeah ... ok I'm done lets not get off on a jag here...
  • lkraan
    Offline / Send Message
    lkraan polycounter lvl 18
    [ QUOTE ]
    25% (aka $15) goes to pay the art and design guys.
    20% ($12) goes to pay the programmers and the engineers.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    How does this work? Are they paid based on royalties?
    So if the game sells 1 copy the art guys get the split $15 and if the game sells 1 million copies they get to share $15 million?

    I sure hope they get it since I thought the game rocked but it seems very odd to me that the dev staff gets way more than the publisher and distributor.
    Ofcourse any publisher and distributor wants to get his hands on this game but they are still in it to make loads of money and need to recoup their costs too which are pretty high.
  • Daz
    Offline / Send Message
    Daz polycounter lvl 18
    Sure, some companies have royalty schemes, but this article is still completely broken math Ikraan. She's sending a message with phrases like "Curious who is reaping the rewards from each $60 game sold?" that suggest that individual artists working for companies are becoming millionaires overnight on the back of working on a big seller. That might have been true of the industry in if its infancy, but it simply does_not_work like that now. Id e-mail the biatch if the fricking page wasn't broken when i try to go to page 2.
  • Kevin Johnstone
    Offline / Send Message
    Kevin Johnstone polycounter lvl 19
    I can tell you for a fact that these numbers were pulled from someone's rectum, NDA prevents me from carifying but these numbers couldnt be more wrong.

    r.
  • Daz
    Offline / Send Message
    Daz polycounter lvl 18
    "Rachel,

    as an Art director and long time computer graphic artist in the videogame industry, I read your recent article on the rising cost of videogames with interest and first hand experience.

    Whilst interesting, I have to admit that I found one particular aspect of it extremely misleading, so much so that I felt the need to write.

    Your pie chart makes a noble attempt at breaking down the development costs of a videogame. But I simply do not understand how you can fairly nor accurately precede that development cost graphic with the line ‘Curious who is reaping the rewards from each $60 game sold….”

    So on the one hand you have a sentence questioning who is benefiting from profits, then you provide a graphic breaking down development costs. Sales profits, and development costs are of course as I’m sure you’ll agree two entirely different things.

    That sentence very much suggests that videogame company individuals are directly hugely financially benefiting from high sales which is simply not usually the case.

    Whilst some companies out there do have profit share and royalties schemes, 95% of the industry operates on a fixed salary basis. An average artist salary is probably something like 85k per annum, so using the words ‘reaping the rewards’ paints a very unfair picture of how things work, particularly given that hours can be extremely demanding. I hope you can appreciate that that particular sentence in conjunction with the graphic is extremely misleading to a reader.

    Thanks for listening and happy holidays!

    Sincerely,

    -Darren Pattenden."
  • Mark Dygert
    You are much more diplomatic than I would be...
  • aesir
    Offline / Send Message
    aesir polycounter lvl 18
    daz, you should have included ror's little quote smile.gif
  • Mark Dygert
    I think Ror might appreciate not being turned into the mouth piece of Epic and call Forbes a liar. Especially when the article is about GoW, however true the statement might be I don't think I would want to be the guy that has to explain to his boss why the people at Forbes are on the line, and you can hear axe grinding in the background.

    I think Daz's email stands on its own merits anyway. Well put good sir, well put.

    BTW who does the web pages for Forbes, that monkey needs a good beating. The formatting goes right to the left edge of the window, making it a very annoying read.
  • Kevin Johnstone
    Offline / Send Message
    Kevin Johnstone polycounter lvl 19
    It's doubtful I will ever be asked to speak on Epic's behalf heh

    Its a shame the article wasnt true though, then I could retire when the gears money comes in!!!

    r.
  • MoP
    Offline / Send Message
    MoP polycounter lvl 18
    i'd bet some executive publisher dude who did very little is probably making a shedload more cash from GoW than most of the actual developers ever will...
  • Daz
    Offline / Send Message
    Daz polycounter lvl 18
    yeah, just to be clear and cover my butt here, I wasn't in any way talking about epic. My guess is she didnt speak to them anyway, and simply chose the title based on the fact that its the game of the moment. But I could be wrong.

    Specifically, I take great issue with terms like 'reaping rewards' and 'The remaining $59 per game goes into many hands.' and ' we've broken down the dollars and cents of the console gaming industry to see who's getting the most action.' quickly followed by a pie chart depicting artists getting the biggest slice.

    The reality is that for the most part artists see nothing like the financial benefits from huge sales that the forbes and the 1up article (which even further confuses the forbes data) imply.

    But more than anything, her lack of distinction between development costs and profit sharing, is highly unprofessional from a journalist specializing in economics.
  • Daz
    Offline / Send Message
    Daz polycounter lvl 18
    Vig: that original forbes link was busted. This is the one: http://www.forbes.com/technology/enterta...nsivegames.html
  • Mark Dygert
    Thanks for the correct link, I sent her some required reading as well as a summary of the general consensus posted here. I didn't give her a link to the forums but rather a link to an article with hard and fast numbers. If she can't do the math after reading that, she really doesn't need to be working there.

    http://gamecareerguide.com/features/266/index.php?cid=GCG06_ENDEX3
  • SouL
    Offline / Send Message
    SouL polycounter lvl 18
    I'm an artist. And I see financial benefits from huge sales of our products. smile.gif
  • KDR_11k
    Offline / Send Message
    KDR_11k polycounter lvl 18
    DaZ: I think that may be because the art department has the most staff on a project (so each individual doesn't see much from that money)? Of course percentages of the revenue would still be stupid and pointless since game development is a per-title cost, not a per-copy cost so the percentages would change as the sales increase.
  • Daz
    Offline / Send Message
    Daz polycounter lvl 18
    Yeah, I appreciate that artists make up a large percentage of the workforce and thus a fair chunk of dev. costs. That wasn't my point really tho'. My point was mainly that the author of the article was blurring the lines between profit share and development costs. She made no clear distinction between the two.

    The articles data and pie charts actually refer to dev. costs, but her poor wording suggests she is describing profit share.
  • Mark Dygert
    I also do not like how she makes the distinction between "Marketing" and "Market Development". The descriptions are so close you could use them interchangeably. If she is going to get that picky and start carving up departments then she should have done it to the art department. In addition to the large staff getting paid much less, the art department has one of the highest overheads of all the departments. High end PC's, nicer monitors, tablets, a legal copy of all software used for the given tasks, sometimes this includes expensive middleware. Not to mention the cost of Mo-Cap and asset/level out sourcing.

    If she was going to split hairs and carve the marketing department into two sections to make it look smaller than it actually is, then she needed to carve the art department into two section. But then that wouldn't make for a good article and she couldn't make the artists to look like giant rich sponges.

    It also might be good to note that each artists slice of the pie is closer to 2-5 cents per copy because of increased staff, while other departments that might have a smaller slice have less staff and each employee gets a bigger slice.
  • AstroZombie
    Offline / Send Message
    AstroZombie polycounter lvl 18
    [ QUOTE ]
    Yeah, I appreciate that artists make up a large percentage of the workforce and thus a fair chunk of dev. costs. That wasn't my point really tho'. My point was mainly that the author of the article was blurring the lines between profit share and development costs. She made no clear distinction between the two.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Not to mention that the way it is broken down it makes it seem as if the artist and designers are the highest paid people in the biz, which we all know not to be true.

    (which is pretty much what Vig said in the post above confused.gif )
  • Dravalen
    Offline / Send Message
    Dravalen polycounter lvl 18
    Well according to forbes the console market won't even be around in the future( http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/xbox-pl...artner=yahootix ) so I'm not sure how much I believe them to begin with.
Sign In or Register to comment.