A close examination of how publishers look at the industry landscape and your games
What do publishers want and expect from developers? We break down the specific requirements expected by publishers, and how you can successfully submit, fund and release your game.
The information below is taken from Game Connection's new publisher survey, which asked 140 publishers from around the world, including the likes of Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Tencent and Zynga about the state of the industry and what they are looking for from developers.
70 per cent of publishers said they were releasing games on iOS, with Android and iPad rounding up the top three at 65 per cent.
Only 30 per cent of publishers were releasing games on Xbox 360 and PS3, with seven other platforms including browser and PC proving more popular than console.
Advertisement
Nintendo’s newly launched console the Wii U also appears to be struggling to garner publisher interest, ranked 24th out of 32 in the list of preferred platforms, with just 15 per cent of respondents stating they were releasing a game for the system. Surprisingly, more publishers are still looking at Wii development than Wii U.
Of 49 respondents, 45 per cent of console game publishers stated they preferred game development to be funded on a more traditional scheme of development based an advance on royalties.
20 per cent of those meanwhile said they wanted developers to self-fund their titles, with revenue then shared with the publisher after release. Just ten per cent provided a flat fee for work for hire.
Publishers for PC, mobile, tablet meanwhile all chose developer self-funding and a subsequent revenue share as their business model of choice, with 40 per cent of PC publishers and 36 per cent of mobile/tablet publishers agreeing.
Browser game publishers on social networks however slightly preferred a business model of co-production and co-funding of game development and then revenue sharing, although 43 per cent of browser game publishers in general preferred developer self-funding.
44 per cent of publishers for ‘emerging platforms’ – which includes Ouya, cloud gaming, Piston and Nvidia Shield - and 46 per cent of MMO publishers also preferred developer self funding, with co-funding the second most preferred option.
36 per cent of the publishers surveyed expressed an interest in original IP, with proven IP considered a slightly less important factor at 29 per cent.
In fact, across the board on console, mobile/tablet, PC, online and emerging platforms, original IP was consistently the most popular type of game publishers are seeking.
The question of whether a publisher wanted a completely finished project finished split opinion, with just 22 per cent of companies considering it the most important factor, with 37 per cent seeing it as not important at all.
More than 52 per cent of publishers also ranked work for hire as unimportant, reinforcing on the earlier findings of the preferred business models for companies.
When submitting projects, new studios are largely expected to provide a playable demo, beta or release candidate (a build being evaluated for distribution).
Concept and video work from new studios was seen as less interesting by publishers, with 59 per cent finding video uninteresting when considering a title, while 60 per cent also considered concept work as unimportant.
With established studios however, although either a playable demo, beta or release candidates were still largely preferred, half of publishers were still interested in receiving a video from developers and taking a look at concept work before deciding whether to help fund and/or release a title.
Despite what you may think, first-person shooters were considered by 126 respondents as just the eighth most popular choice of genre they are looking to publish, with 45 per cent of companies looking at releasing games in the space.
The top five genres wanted by around 60 per cent of publishers were action, adventure, RPG, casual and strategy titles.
Another surprise is that more publishers are interested in real-time strategy games and puzzle titles than first-person shooters, particularly when considering some of the hardships the RTS space has persevered over the last few years despite a few standout titles.
Less than 40 per cent of publishers are looking into social games, perhaps revealing that with Zynga’s struggles, the space is not as popular as it once was.
Sports titles meanwhile are only being considered by less than 30 per cent of publishers, but this is likely down to the dominance of leading players in the space including FIFA, Pro Evolution Soccer and Madden – with long-standing franchises traditionally preventing new IPs from breaking into the genre.
On average, seven out of ten publishers said they received one-to-five game submissions every week. Five per cent also stated that they received more than 20 titles to review per week.
Given the large numbers of games submitted to each publisher, 66 per cent said they spend less than 30 minutes reviewing a title.
In fact, only one out of ten publishers said they would spend more than an hour looking at each game submission.
The most preferred method of receiving titles for review by far is email, with 90 per cent of publishers desiring to take submissions via email, FTP or Dropbox.
Only 30 per cent of publisher’s were interested in visiting a developer’s office, with even less preferring a developer to visit the publishing office. Trade show game submissions were considered by 45 per cent of publishers as a good place to receive a game for review.
When looking at initial title submissions, 60 per cent of companies only put two-to-three of their staff on reviewing them. More than half of publishers also generally put business development and producers on submission reviews, while sales and finance employees are included by less than ten per cent of companies.
The most important factors when judging a game submission are game demos, and game design overviews, with well over 80 per cent of publishers considering this of paramount importance.
Studio track records were also considered important by seven out of ten publishers, with 57 per cent also interested in a technical design overview.
Considered the least important factors of a game submission were gameplay storyboards, a company prospectus such as a website and using a publisher’s custom submission document.
For obvious reasons, the most important element for playable demos was the fun factor. In fact, character art, technology used, cinematics quality and audio were only considered as must-haves by ten per cent of publishers.
Although not considered must-haves, other important areas developers should provide in playable demos include interface functionality, good artwork and whether the demo runs as intended on the target platform.
The three most important criteria around 90 per cent of publishers consider when reviewing a game submission are the monetisation model used, the potential of the IP involved for the long-term, and the potential for the virality of the game. Of less importance are the use of new technologies and an apparent low need of localisation.
Great report. Nice to see stuff like this in black and white. Nice one.
WTF is this drivel?
Let's start with the basics.
What are the benefits of using a publisher?
Which ones are the best, and how do their provisions of services better assist a developer and his team?
Why is it assumed there's some benefit to a relationship with publishers?
Why do publishers assume a right to royalties, regardless of their "contribution" to the production, product and marketing?
And, given the massive preponderance of desire from publishers for developers to self fund their games, why are they not called to task on their contribution for their slice of the royalty pie?
Anyone else seeing a contradiction in this paragraph:
"Publishers for PC, mobile, tablet meanwhile all chose developer self-funding and a subsequent revenue share as their business model of choice, with 40 per cent of PC publishers and 36 per cent of mobile/tablet publishers agreeing."
And if you're missing a contradiction there, try this:
"70 per cent of publishers said they were releasing games on iOS, with Android and iPad rounding up the top three at 65 per cent."
Just about every survey's results are made vastly clearer by showing the questions to those trying to determine the "science" behind the numbers.
Given the importance of this subject to the audience of this site, perhaps you'd either like to write this article better and/or include the questions from the survey.
So... publishers... WTF is it that you offer that allows you to be so "high and mighty"?
Is it that you're effectively operating within a cartel?
Because that's the only reason I can see for such dismissal of the efforts of developers both producing and self financing, disproportionate expectations and complete and absolute arrogance of "position".
Sorry you feel that way about the article. However, it should be noted publishers still have a big part to play in the industry and should not be ignored by everyone.
If you feel their demands and expectations are unfair - you are completely within your rights to do so. I'm reporting the information I think is of most interest to developers, it's your job to decide if publishers are right for you and your game.
There is an underlying assumption these days that most downloadable games created were relatively cheap to make, hence the scary modern stat that 80% of cost should go on putting the product to market and only 20% into development. This is a relatively modern phenomenon based on a lot of retro throwback style mobile games with short (less than 6 months) development cycles made by relatively new developers who have not yet learned to negotiate properly.
However for more subsantial titles that developers have either self funded or lost shares in their company in order to finance this model just does not wash.
I believe that a lot of developers do need the back office support of publishers for marketing and sales functions within the downloadable space, but it is up to the stronger developers to hold fast for a good and fair deal with the publishers.... firstly any split less than 50/50 should be viewed with much skepticism and secondly, if a publisher is not willing to offer you minimum guarantees on an exclusive deal when you have funded all of the development then do not sign it. As long as developers continue to sign deals like this the artificially low value of games development will persist.
There are so many stories over the years of publishers taking exclusive all formats rights for a game, spinning it out for a couple of weeks with bare bones marketing and then dumping it if the game doesn't stick in the market and sell... meanwhile the developers have lost all control of their title and still have no money to show for all their efforts.
This is dumb business by developers and it is their fault for being so naive and easily sucked in by false promises.
In a nutshell with regard to original IP titles owned by the developer:-
Phase 1: in the old home computer market we were always paid advances during development on a 15-50% royalty depending upon the quality of the title, the reputation of the developer and the developer's skill during the negotiation phase, in the 1980s we were giving away our IP, but by the early 90s we were retaining our IP and offering the publishers various options on formats and sequels so both parties had a long term interest in the title.
Phase 2: In the console era higher development budgets made getting advances against new original IP much harder and we saw a trend for developers to be paid advances against a lot of license tie ins or sequels resulting in a huge dip in original IPs coming to market.
Phase 3: Since 2003 the mobile games market emerged with an attitude that treated developers as 10 a penny dirt to shovel out almost exclusively licensed games representing a paultry 2% of the income generated by the carriers... this was very much fulled by greedy operators exploiting the burgeoning number of new, green developers.... and a notabkle lack of new IPs
Phase 4: The current "indie" market sees the fourth major phase for original IP, which is very much a combination of all three previous phases couples with the first time that developers in North America have had the ability to easily put out original IP. During Phase 1 (80s and early 90s) a lot of the American market was dominated by the closed Arcade and Japanese console markets offering less opportunity for original development than in Europe and particularly the UK. Now we have the freedom of development we all enjoyed in phase 1 coupled with the suspicion of the market value of original IPs nurtured in Phase 2 and the total devaluation of development work first put forward by the mobile publishers and carriers during phase 3.
What we want now is the trust of good original IP to have influence over the market from phase 1, coupled with the development advances or minimum guarantees from phase 2 and the burgeoning online distribution started in phase 3.
I believe that to increase the chance of good new IP being successful old fashioned co-operation between developers and more modern digital publishers is the best way forward in the long term... but until the developers learn to negotiate more and publishers learn to discriminate more and back their hunches this is unlikely to happen any time soon.
