Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

48. Re: Deep Silver Distributing Wasteland 2 Jul 13, 2013, 04:51 Jerykk
Julio wrote on Jul 12, 2013, 05:23:
Jerykk wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 23:59:
As has been mentioned many times already, distributors do not fund development.

Sure, I agree with this.

Jerykk wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 23:59:
Who cares if Deep Silver gets a cut from physical sales?

I do. When the KS pitch involves bashing the traditional companies who don't want to support this kind of game, it implied they weren't going to be involved. I viewed that as a positive reason to back this game. I'm perfectly fine with the fact that others don't care.

Jerykk wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 23:59:
There are a lot of regions in the world where digital distribution isn't really feasible.

Really? I can't think of anywhere that you'd make many sales that doesn't have functioning internet.

Jerykk wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 23:59:
Deep Silver isn't taking your Kickstarter money because that money was for development, not physical distribution. You act like you're an investor and you don't want to share any profits with other parties.

They're making profits from Wasteland 2, which is what I don't like. I don't think those profits should come to me, it's clear what funding a KS gets a backer. But as per the points above, I despise Deep Silver so I don't want them making money off of this. If they wanted to, they could have funded development and taken more of a risk. I'm sure I'm not in the majority, but I would prefer to leave out the vultures of the industry (traditional publishers/distributors) and have inXile make slightly less money. To me it would be similar to inXile adding in-game ads for non-backers to make more money. Both I find distasteful.

InXile can do what they want, but their behavior will impact how well they can fund future games.

There's a difference between "functioning internet" and "internet with sufficient speed and bandwidth allowances to make digital distribution viable." In countries like Russia, India, Thailand, Mexico, etc, the latter isn't as common as you think. That's why publishers often choose to release physical copies outside of the U.S.A. In the U.S., physical distribution of PC games is all but dead. That's not the case outside the U.S.

So, here are inXile's options if they want to make the game widely available internationally:

1) Try to handle distribution themselves, which means less money for development and less regions where the game is physically available (developers don't have the same distribution resources as a publisher).
2) Not bother with physical distribution at all, greatly reducing the game's overall availability and thus reducing potential revenue.
3) Cut a deal with a publisher to distribute the game in return for a small cut of each physical sale, allowing for maximum availability, maximum potential revenue and no impact on development.

Your argument basically boils down to "I don't like Deep Silver so I'd rather have inXile make less money and prevent more people from playing the game." Needless to say, that's not a good argument. DS is providing a service to inXile (distribution and localization). This service requires resources, which is why DS would get a cut of physical revenue. You call them "vultures" but that suggests that they are only taking and offering nothing in return. That's obviously not the case, otherwise inXile would have no reason to work with them.
Avatar 20715
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo