You are on page 1of 108

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT

This project has been agreed as confidential between the students, university and
sponsoring organisation. This agreement runs for two years from September, 11th, 2006.

STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICITY

I have read the university regulations relating to plagiarism and certify that this project
is all my own work and does not contain and unacknowledged work from other sources.

WORD COUNT (12,841)

0
THE PUBLISHER BUSINESS MODEL AND UK THIRD PARTY VIDEO
GAME DEVELOPMENT:
CHALLENGES, EFFECTS, STRATEGIES AND TACTICS.

A O’DEA

KEYWORDS

Video Game
Computer Game
Publisher
Business Model
Value Chain
Strategic Analysis
Distinctive Capability
Competitive Analysis

ABSTRACT

UK Third party video game developers face significant challenges. These challenges
and their affects are explored and presented. Operational profitability of major UK third
party video game developers is analysed. The impact and affect of the industry standard
business model (Publisher) is examined. Alternative business models (Hollywood and
Outsourcing) are explored. Benefits, affects, effects, advantages, and disadvantages of
extent and alternative business models are presented through value chain analysis.
Opportunities, strategies, and tactics for improved financial, operational, and
competitive performance of third party video game developers are presented.

0
THE PUBLISHER BUSINESS MODEL AND UK THIRD PARTY VIDEO
GAME DEVELOPMENT:
CHALLENGES, EFFECTS, STRATEGIES AND TACTICS.

By

Alan O’Dea

Management Project submitted to the Bradford University School of Management


in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business
Administration

2006

0
PREFACE

The ambition of this project is to provide a piece of work that has a direct benefit to the
UK video game industry, specifically to UK third party video game developers. This
report is not envisioned as a final and definitive solution to the significant challenges
facing third party UK video game developers, but as a start point for continuing
research, debate, dialogue, and problem solving regarding the industry’s list of
considerable challenges.

THANKS

I would like to thank the people that helped me in the production of this project. Fred
Hasson, CEO, Tiga, Dr. Rana Tassabehji, Lecture in Information Systems and E-
business, Bradford University School of Management, and Professor Stuart Sanderson,
Associate Dean, Postgraduate Programmes, Bradford University School of
Management.

DEDICATION

This management project is dedicated to my mother Theresa O’Dea and father Tony
O’Dea. Through their life long example of hard work, dedication, perseverance,
honesty, and professionalism they have instilled in me a continual respect for education,
self improvement, entrepreneurship, and the drive to pursue and make true my dreams.

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ......................................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. ii
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Tiga ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Rationale .................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Terms of Reference ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Project Methodology .............................................................................................. 4
2 CHALLANGES ............................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Challenges Facing Third Party UK Video Game Developers ............................... 6
2.1.1 Console Sophistication .................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Console Life Cycle.......................................................................................... 9
2.1.3 Industry Structure .......................................................................................... 11
2.1.4 Industry Practices .......................................................................................... 13
2.2 Effects of Challenges Facing Third Party UK Video Game Developers ............. 32
3 INDUSTRY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 34
3.1 Industry Analysis ................................................................................................. 34
3.2 Industry Structure (Value System) ....................................................................... 36
3.2.1 Licence Holders ............................................................................................ 38
3.2.2 Platform Holders ........................................................................................... 39
3.2.3 Publishers ...................................................................................................... 40
3.2.4 Developers..................................................................................................... 42
3.2.5 Distributors.................................................................................................... 43
3.2.6 Retailers......................................................................................................... 44
4 DEVELOPER ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 45
4.1 Performance Analysis (UK Third party Developers)........................................... 45
5 PUBLISHER MODEL ................................................................................................ 50
5.1 The Publisher Model ............................................................................................ 50
5.2 Failures in the Publisher Model ........................................................................... 50
5.3 Value Chain Analysis........................................................................................... 53
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 61

ii
6.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 61
6.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 71
TERMINOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX I FINANCIAL RECORDS ........................................................................ 78
APPENDIX 2 MANAGEMENT PROJECT PROPOSAL ............................................ 87

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Cost Assumptions for Console Title, (6th and 7th Generation)....................... 7
Table 2.2 Console Hardware Technical Specification Comparison, (6th and 7th
Generation)....................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2.3 Breakeven Analysis of Multiple Generation Console Platforms. .................... 9
Table 2.4 Generalised Breakdown of Revenue from a $50 Console Game................... 19
Table 2.5 Profit Model of a Video Game Product ......................................................... 28
Table 2.6 Selected Mergers and Acquisitions within the UK Computer and Video
Games Industry, 1993-2006. .......................................................................................... 30
Table 4.1 Selected UK Third Party Video Game Developers List. ............................... 46
Table 4.2 Selected UK Third Party Video Game Developers Financial Results
Comparison, (2003-2005) .............................................................................................. 49
Table 5.1 Value Chain of Third Party Video Game Developer (Publisher Model)....... 55
Table 5.2 Direct, Indirect & Quality Assurance Activities. ........................................... 60
Table 6.1 Profit Comparison of a Video Game Product (Advance vs. Self Funded). ... 65

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Video Game Console Product Life Cycle(s). ............................................... 10


Figure 2.2 U.S. Cumulative Hardware Unit Sales. ........................................................ 11
Figure 2.3 Video Game Industry Structure .................................................................... 12
Figure 2.4 Financial Share of Sale Revenue per Value Chain Agents........................... 18
Figure 2.5 Sales Curve for Games Based on Original Intellectual Property ................. 26
Figure 3.1 UK Value of PC and Console Software Markets, 2001 (£m) ...................... 35
Figure 3.2 Breakdown of Employment by Sub-sector ................................................... 36
Figure 3.3 Video Game Industry Structure - Value System .......................................... 37
Figure 3.4 Position of each Entity in the Product Path for a Console Game ................. 38

v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of this project is to explore the cause and effects of the publisher business
model on UK third party video game developers.

Publishers and platform holders have used their industry wide scale, power, and control
to marginalise third party video game developer operational capabilities forcing them to
become little more than video game manufacturing factories. Third party developers’
work under extremely unprofitable operational conditions, developing licensed video
game products for publishers and platform holders.

In return for the funding necessary to produce video game products, third part
developers sign away ownership rights to their Intellectual Property, and the usage
rights to their technology, assets (art, charters, stories, and backgrounds), code, and
other components of the video game projects they produce.

In this manner they sign away most of the intrinsic value contained within their
organisations and subsequently their ability to remain profitable, create long term
sustainable competitive advantage, and the financial reserves necessary to reinvest in
growth opportunities.

The existing publisher business model and the combined effects of numerable other
challenges facing third party video game developers limits the long term operational
pathways available to UK third party video game developers. Developers are forced into
closure, sell themselves to a publisher or platform holder, or remain unchanged within
an industry that is straining under the pressure of an inherently detrimental and broken
business model.

Publishers are led by an unrelenting search for hit products, profits, and cold hard
business objectives. They are huge publicly listed companies with a primary objective
of returning value to their share holders. In most cases even the best and most well
wishing publishers use their industry dominance to squeeze profit margins from third
party developers and the video game products they produce. This pressure has had a

ii
dramatically detrimental effect on the operational capabilities, structure, and financial
performance of third party video game developers.

Publishers are not entirely to blame. It is only now that the industry is beginning to
crack under the weight of twenty million dollar development budgets that the inherently
broken publisher business model is beginning to strain, buckle, collapse, and affect all
major agents of the video game industry (licence holders, platform holders, publishers,
developers, distributors, and retailers).

Developers have allowed publishers and platform holders to take control of the industry
year by year, project by project, and contract by contract. Their lack of vision, planning,
foresight, strategies, tactics, management, and business skills have left them in this
harrowing state of affairs.

Third party developer’s inability to seek alternatives to the publisher model throughout
the years has seen many famous UK developer’s permanently close their doors, others
have been sold to publishers or platform holders, and the remaining few struggle on
against a growing body of challenges, struggling to operate in a continually harsher
operating environment.

If developers do not seek to address the effects of long term exposure to the detrimental
publisher model and seek to find new, alternative, strategies, tactics, and business
models no less than the long term survivability of UK third party video game developers
is at stake.

Chapter 1 presents a background of the project sponsor, UK video game trade


organisation, Tiga, along with details of the project rational, terms of reference,
methodology, and literature review.

Chapter 2 explores the challenges facing third party video games developers. This
chapter includes details on challenges resulting from console sophistication, console life
cycle, industry structure, industry practices, and the effects of these challenges on third
party video game developers.

iii
Chapter 3 explores the video game industry. This chapter included details on the major
industry agents, licence holders, platform holders, publishers, developers, distributors,
retailers and presents an analysis of the UK video game industry.

Chapter 4 explores the UK video game developers. This chapter included a financial
performance analysis of a select group of UK third party video game developers.

Chapter 5 explorer the publisher model. This chapter included details regarding the
publisher model, failures therein, and an analysis of the value chain of an average UK
video game developer under the publisher business model.

Chapter 6 present conclusions and recommendations based on the findings and research
contained in this report.

iv
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Tiga

“The games development industry is one of the UK 's great success stories. It is
time that this success story is told to the world at large. But as the DTI
“Competitiveness Study” published in October 2002 said – no other major
territory has such a high ratio of developers to UK owned publishers. This
restricts channels to market and just because retail sales have been going up
year on year does not mean the industry is necessarily in good business shape to
succeed in a rapidly globalising industry.”

(TIGA Website, 2006)

Tiga has agreed to act as the sponsor for this management report.

The Independent Game Developers Association (Tiga) is a UK trade organisation


servicing UK video game developers and the video game industry at large. Tiga’s
overarching objective is to keep developers in the UK and Europe at the heart of the
global games industry, by ensuring that the business environment in the games industry
is favourable. Tiga’s principle benefits to the video game industry and major activities
therein are;

• Research and publish the Best Practice Handbook - including Model Contracts,
Guides on R&D Tax Credits, Outsourcing, PEGI Ratings, UK and EU Funding
& Grants, Privacy and Insurance.
• Liaise with and lobby various government departments including DTI, Treasury,
Inland Revenue, UKTI, DCMS and DfES.
• Promote investment into the development sector.
• Provide networking opportunities at seminars and trade shows at home and
abroad.
• Liaise with ELSPA and publishers – organise Publisher Summits with top
publishers.
• Implement international trade strategies through a dedicated International Trade
and Export arm.

1
• Promote Special Interest groups – including a mobile group and an educational
group.
• Work with Skillset and ELSPA to develop skills and competency mapping.
• Negotiate discounts for Tiga members across vital services such as legal, finance
and insurance.
• Publish regular newsletters and updates, documents, and working papers via the
Members area of their website

1.2 Project Rationale

The UK video game industry is facing significant challenges. Development costs for
video games (PC and consoles) have risen dramatically in recent years. Third party UK
development studios cannot finance these development costs themselves, instead relying
on financial investment provided by video game publishers. In return for financing,
publishers expect development studios to sign over Intellectual Property ownership
rights of their game products.

The traditional ‘Publisher Business Model’ by which publishers’ finance third party
developers in return for total Intellectual Property ownership, control of distribution,
marketing and supply channels, and the majority of profits is a detrimental business
model. Consequently third party UK video games development presents itself as risk
laden business activity dependent on external factors beyond their control for success or
failure. In an attempt to explore the outlined challenges and determinable effects of the
publisher models the following research activities are engaged.

The project investigates the significant challenges facing third party video game
developers. An analysis of the video game industry, the major agents within that
industry, and the main sources of revenue of those agents are detailed. The project
provides a performance analysis of a sample of UK third party video game developers.
The project reviews the current publisher model and evaluates its effects on third party
UK development studios. Finically the project presents a listing of recommendations
and a conclusion of the research finds.

2
1.3 Terms of Reference

”Every firm is a collection of activities that are performed to design, produce,


market, deliver and support its product. All these activities can be represented
using a value chain. A firm’s value chain and the way it performs individual
activities are a reflection of its history, its strategy, its approach to
implementing its strategy, and the underlying economics of the activities
themselves.”

(Competitive Advantage, 2004:36)

Micheal Porter (1985) provides a model for evaluating, assessing, analysing, and
comparing the activities that provide firm’s competitive advantage and profit generation
capabilities. This model is called the ‘Value Chain’ and it has gained wide acceptance in
the field of strategic analysis for its ability to clearly delineate and detail factors
responsible for competitive success, profitability and value within a form.

In terms of analysing third party video game developers, the lack of demonstrable
profitability, and the effects of challenges facing these firms the value chain represents a
valuable tool for understanding how these firms have structured their operations to
remain operational, generate profits, adapt, and develop competitive advantage under
pressure form the detrimental publisher model and other challenges facing these
organisations.

Porter states that the relevant level for constructing a value chain is a firm’s activities
within in a particular industry (the business unit). An industry - or sector – wide value
chain is too broad, because it may obscure important sources of competitive advantage.
(Competitive Advantage, 1004:36).

Thusly in an analysis of third party video game developers using the value chain we
should address the analysis of a single firm within an industry and thusly for the
purpose of this report use an imagined standard or generalised firm. Since we cannot
analyse all individual firms we must look towards a more generalised value chain that is
in representative of generalised features of third party UK video game developers.

3
The value chain displays the total value, and consists of value activities and margin
within a firm. Value activities are the physical and technologically distinct activities a
firm performs. These are the building blocks by which a firm creates a product valuable
to its buyers. In competitive terms, value is the amount buyers; in this case (publishers
and platform holders) are willing to pay for what a firm provides for them, in this case
the completed video game products. Value is measured by the total revenue, a reflection
of the price a firm’s product commands and the units they can sell. A firm is profitable
if the value it commands exceeds the costs involved in creating the product.
(Competitive Advantage: 2004:38)

1.4 Project Methodology

The report is an applied piece of business research exploring and analysing the
relevance, advantages, disadvantages, strengths, weaknesses, and effects of the
publisher model on third party UK video game developers.

The research is descriptive in nature, focusing on identifying, classifying, and


characterising the publisher business model, video game industry structure, practices,
and the challenges therein.

The primary objective of the report is to explore the publisher model and determine its
effects on sustainable competitive advantage, financial, operational, and organisational
performance of third party UK video game developers.

Primary quantitative data has been gathered on a sample of third party UK video game
developers through direct financial data sources. Secondary quantitative and qualitative
data has been gathered from various sources; financial reports, industry reports, extent
academic, business, and industry literature.

This data presents an exploration of financial and non-financial advantages,


disadvantages, strengths, weaknesses, and effects of the existing publisher business
model using the value chain as a framework to present certain of the findings.

4
The secondary objective of the report is to explore a number of additional challenges
facing third party video game developers due to console sophistication, console life
cycle, industry structure and practices.

A tertiary objective of the report is to present a toolkit of alternative opportunities,


strategies, and tactics for third party UK development studios to assist in strategic
business decision making, Intellectual Property retention, sustainable competitive
advantage, and profitability.

These opportunities, strategies, and tactics are gathered from secondary sources such as
financial reports, industry reports, extent academic, and industry literature.

5
2 CHALLANGES

2.1 Challenges Facing Third Party UK Video Game Developers

“Unless something is done, developer’s share of the value chain is likely to


decrease over time”.

(IGDA, Developers Business Summit Proceedings. 2005:4)

Third party UK video game developers face significant operational, organisational, and
financial challenges working in the global video game marketplace. These challenges
can be categorised throughout the following areas;

Challenges

• Console Sophistication
• Console Life Cycle
• Industry Structure
• Industry Practices

2.1.1 Console Sophistication

“In this context, it is hardly surprising that industry consolidation should


progress unimpeded. Once-prominent companies like Acclaim have fallen into
bankruptcy, and with production budgets expected to reach the average of $20
million or more for an AAA title in the 2005-2008 console cycle, all but a
handful of companies are going to experience mighty hardships.”

(IGDA, Developers Business Summit Proceedings. 2005:6)

Principle among the challenges facing UK third party developers is the increase in
technological sophistication of console hardware. The technology powering 7th
generation console hardware (e.g. Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Wii) allows for
enhanced, high definition, game content, gameplay, and interaction.

6
This increase in technical sophistication in turn leads to higher cost contributors, which
include larger team size, content creation (graphics, audio, programming, physics and
video) and development timeframes, tools, technology, and R&D expenditure,
development, training, and management overheads, Q&A, localisation, and skill
development. These extra costs affect all aspects of developer value chain activities.
Profit margins and the factors necessary for sustainable competitive advantage within
the marketplace are thusly affected.

“He noted that it "takes about twice the effort and development cost to develop
for a multi-threaded CPU," compared to a single-core CPU. Even more than
that, according to Epic's analysis, fully exploiting the PS3 Cell chip "required
about 5 times as much cost and development time than single-core."

(Sweeney Talks Cell Difficulties, PS3 Online Inclusivity, 2006)

Kathy Schoback, (2005), demonstrates the dramatic increase in the average


development budget of a console title (Table 2.1). An average increase of $5 to $20
million is a significant jump in the development costs for a video game product.

Consoles (6th) Consoles (7th)


Development Spend $5,000,000 $20,000,000
Marketing Spend $3,000,000 $ 6,000,000
Developer Royalty/Unit $8 $10
Wholesale Price $32 $38
Source: The Economics of a Next-Gen Game, (2005)
Table 2.1 Cost Assumptions for Console Title, (6th and 7th Generation).

(Table 2.2) demonstrates the significant technological advancement between 6th and 7th
generation hardware.

7
Xbox (6th) Xbox 360 (7th) PlayStation 2 (6th) PlayStation 3 (7th) GameCube Wii (7th)
CPU 733 MHz 3 x 3.2 GHz 295 MHz 7 x 3.2 GHz 485 MHz 729 MHz
Memory 64 MB 512 MB 32 MB 256 MB + 256 MB 24 MB 64 MB
GPU 233 MHz 500 MHz 147 MHz 500 MHz 162 MHz 243 MHz
Display 1920 x 1080 (max) 1920 x 1080 (max) 1280x1024 (max) 1920 x 1080 (max) 640x480 (Max) 720x576 (Max)
Network 10/100 Mbit/s (wired) 10/100 Mbit/s (wired) No 1000 Mbit/s (wired) No 802.11b 11 Mbit/s
802.11a 52 Mbit/s 802.11a 52 Mbit/s (wireless)
(wireless) (wireless)
Bluetooth 2.0
Audio Dolby Digital 5.1 Dolby Digital 5.1 Dolby Digital 5.1 Dolby Digital 5.1 Dolby Pro Logic II Dolby Pro Logic II
DTS
I/O 1 x DVD-ROM 1 x DVD-ROM 1 x DVD-ROM 1 x Blue-Ray ROM 1 x Proprietary 1 x Optical Media
4 x Controller Ports 2 x USB Ports 2 x Controller Ports 4 x USB Ports Optical Media Drive Drive
2 x Media Card Ports 1 x 100 Mbit/s Port 2 x Media Card Ports 1 x 1000 Mbit/s Port 4 x Controller Ports 4 x Controller Ports
1 x 100 Mbit/s Port Audio/Video 2 x USB Ports Audio/Video 2 x Media Card Ports 2 x Media Card Ports
Audio/Video Connector Audio/Video Connector Audio/Video 1 x SD card Port
Connector Connector Connector Audio/Video
Connector
Media DVD-ROM DVD-ROM DVD-ROM Blue-Ray ROM Proprietary Optical Proprietary Optical
Memory Card Memory Card Memory Card USB Mass Storage Media Media
USB Mass Storage Memory Card USB Mass Storage
SD/MMC Card
Storage 8 GB Hard HDD 20 GB HDD No 20/60 GB HDD No No
DVD Movie Yes (Internal Yes (Internal) Yes (Internal) Yes (Internal) No Yes (Internal)
Playback
Internet Yes Yes No Yes No No
Source: The Economics of a Next-Gen Game, (2005)
Table 2.2 Console Hardware Technical Specification Comparison, (6th and 7th Generation).

8
“With the release of each new generation of console hardware, development
budgets traditionally increase. Typical budgets for PlayStation 1 titles ranged
from $1.5 to $3 million and grew to an average of more than $8 million on the
PlayStation 2. These increases were the result of staffing, to take advantage of
the power of the new hardware systems, more programming requirements,
broader art needs, more complex level designs, and higher production values.
Current ramblings are that the next generation of games will push development
costs even higher, possibly to the $15 million range.”

(Heinecke, J., 2006)

(Table 2.3) demonstrates the comparative breakeven analysis for console video games
on a generation by generation basis.

PS3-Xbox
360-Wii
PS2-Xbox- PS3-Xbox Generation
PS1-N64 GC 360-Wii (Higher
Fixed Costs Generation Generation Generation Price Point)
Game Development $ 3,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 15,000,000
Marketing $ 1,500,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000
SG&A $ 1,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000
Total $ 6,000,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 25,000,000 $ 25,000,000
Variable Costs
Cost of Goods $ 8.00 $ 9.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00

Blended Worldwide Wholesale $ 33.00 $ 33.00 $ 33.00 $ 43.00


Price
Breakeven 240,000 583,333 1,086,957 757,576
Increase v Prior Generation 59% 46% 23%
Source: Are Big Budget Console Games Sustainable? (2006)
Table 2.3 Breakeven Analysis of Multiple Generation Console Platforms.

All primary (inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing, sales, and
services) and secondary (firm infrastructure, human resource management,
technological development, and procurement) value chain activities are affected due to
the significant operational costs arising from increased console technical sophistication.

2.1.2 Console Life Cycle

“The console video games industry is highly cyclical, with sales fluctuating
according to the life cycle of succeeding generations of game machines. In each
cycle, sales would grow with the introduction and adoption of a new generation
of hardware and software, and subsequently decline as market penetration

9
increased and consumers began postponing video game purchases due to
anticipation of, and uncertainty about, the next generation systems.”

(Note on Home Video Game Technology and Industry (Abridged), 2004)

The life cycle of video game console technology within the marketplace is finite and
cyclical. Console hardware typically has a life cycle of 4-5 years within the
marketplace. Technical/customer support, market interest, and new video game product
development for old console hardware diminishes rapidly as industry wide agents
(platform holders, publishers, developers, distributors, and retailers) shift development,
marketing, and production resources from old to new console hardware. (Figure 2.1)
demonstrates the historical life cycles of various console platforms within the
marketplace.

Source: Wikipedia, (2006)


Figure 2.1 Video Game Console Product Life Cycle(s).

“The video game market changes over the years as new video game consoles
are introduced. This has happened in cycles of about 5 years or so, in which
multiple manufacturers release their consoles usually within about a year of
each other. Then, the console producers and the video game publishers enjoy
several years of game sales until the technology and the market is ready for a
new generation of consoles.”

(All Experts, Console Life Cycle, 2006)

This industry wide activity enforces ever increasing development cycles on third party
developers, forcing them to grow team sizes, gain new skills, technological, and

10
operational competencies in an effort to adapt to the demands of the new generation of
technology. This in turn increases the operational/production overheads, fixed and
variable costs, team sizes, content development, and overall development timeframes
and budgets.

(Figure 2.2) demonstrates the overall growth in console hardware sales generation by
generation in the US. This growth cycle by cycle in hardware saturation rates
exacerbates the problems and challenges resulting from consoles life cycles in the
marketplace.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 Next
8-bit 16-bit 32/64-bit 128-bit -Gen
0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007E

8-bit 16-bit 32/64-bit 128-bit Next-Gen

Source: Wedbush Morgan Securities, Entertainment Industry Report (2006:26)


Figure 2.2 U.S. Cumulative Hardware Unit Sales.

Primary (inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, and services) and secondary
(firm infrastructure, human resource management, technological development, and
procurement) value chain activities are affected due to the changes imposed on
developers arising from rapid console life cycles within the marketplace.

2.1.3 Industry Structure

11
“Very few independent development studios could afford to finance their own
game projects and, thus, most turned to publishers or platform holders for
outside financing in exchange for publishing and distribution rights.”

(Note on Home Video Game Technology and Industry, (Abridged), 2004).

The video game industry is structured as a top down hierarchy of various horizontally
and vertically integrated, large scale value chain agents (licence holder, platform holder,
publisher, distributor, retailer) operating under oligopolistic conditions. These agents
have enjoyed large scale consolidation and enjoy significant economies of scale and
scope due to the structure of their operations. (DTi, 2005:9). The principle actors of the
video game industry value chain are demonstrated in (Figure 2.4);

Hardware Manufacturer
Licence
Distributor Retailers Consumer
Holder
Publisher

Financial
Recruitment Developer (First Party)
Training
Legal
Supply
Service Developer (Second Party)
Support
Outsource
Developer (Third Party)

Source: Compiled from various bibliography sources.


Figure 2.3 Video Game Industry Structure.

“The digital game industry exhibits patterns of organisation and power


distribution which loosely resembles traditional media organisations. The STeM
research project found that the digital games industry is structured like the
movie, book, and music industries: Costs of production are high, and
increasing, while demand is highly uncertain. Reproduction costs per CD-ROM
are relatively low. Publishing and marketing are critical functions in the overall
value chain. The console market is oligoplistic with increasing vertical
integration. In all sectors scale is becoming increasingly important. There are
significant barriers to entry facing new entrants, especially to the console
market.”

(Live Life to the Power of PS2: Locating the Digital Games Industry in the New
Media Environment, 2003)

12
Large scale industry agents enjoy significant power and control over video game
developers. This power affects developers in terms of access to consumers, market,
retail, sales, and distribution channels. The largest industry value chain agents (platform
holders, and publishers), processing large revenues, product portfolios, financial
reserves, and relationships with other key industry value chain agents (i.e. licence
holders, distributors, retailers, and consumers), marginalise the independent video game
developers in terms of their ability to capitalise on sales, distribution, and retail chain
relationships, and associated financial opportunities throughout the video game industry
and marketplace at large.

Primary (outbound logistics, marketing, sales, and services) and secondary (marketing
and sales) value chain activities of developers are marginalised as relationships with
distributors, retailers, press, advertisers, PR, and consumers are assumed by the platform
holders and publishers leaving a deficit in these key operational areas for developers.

2.1.4 Industry Practices

“For the past two years, the game industry has been mired in what the financial
press calls a “consolidation phase”. Despite growing sales for the industry as a
whole, not a month goers by without some once-proud publishers announcing
drastic cutbacks to its release schedule or being bought out by a more
successful one. Countless start-up development studios set up shop, barely
manage to survive until the release of their first title (when they manage to at
all), and disappear without a whimper. Meanwhile the cost of developing a top-
tier title keeps growing, and the marketing budget required to support these
releases skyrockets even faster.”

(The Game Industry and the Economics of Failure, 1999)

A number of industry practices directly affect and add to the challenges facing
operational and value chain activities of third party video game developers. These
industry practices can be categorised as follows:

• Financial Activities of Industry Value Chain Agents


• Strategic, Business and Operational Activities of Industry Value Chain
Agents

13
• Financial Share of Industry Value Chain Agents
• Product Saturation
• Retail Life Cycle & Retail Agent Activities
• Hit Driven Industry
• Intellectual Property Ownership
• Developer Buyout, M&A, and Consolidation
• Closed Market, Sales and Distribution Channels

Financial Activities of Industry Value Chain Agents

“It is my contention that the current economics of the industry, as supported


(actively or tacitly) by publishers, retailers, and the gaming press and most
developers, is completely and utterly inadequate.”

(The Game Industry and the Economics of Failure, 1999)

Video game development is an expensive activity. Large consolidated value chain


agents use power, control, scale, and scope to demand larger shares of revenue from
industry wide activities such as retail, distribution, and manufacturing. Consolidation,
vertical and horizontal integration of the large scale industry agents (platform holders,
and publishers) has marginalised the power, control, marketshare and access to retail,
sales, distribution and consumer channels of third party developers.

“When publishing for game consoles, game publishers take on the burden of a
great deal of inventory risk. All significant console manufacturers since
Nintendo with its NES (1985) have monopolized the manufacture of every game
made for their console, and have required all publishers to pay a royalty for
every game so manufactured. This royalty must be paid at the time of
manufacturing, as opposed to royalty payments in almost all other industries,
where royalties are paid upon actual sales of the product—and, importantly, are
not payable for games that did not sell to a consumer. So, if a game publisher
orders one million copies of its game, but half of them do not sell, the publisher
has already paid the full console manufacturer royalty on one million copies of
the game, and has to eat that cost.”

(Wikipedia, Video Game Publisher, 2005)

14
This consolidation has allowed the publishers to act as financial agents, funding the
development of video game software products through networks of first, second, and
third party developers.

“The business model currently most widely in use (although there are
exceptions) is based upon the music industry model. It involves the payment of
development costs by a publisher and a back-end royalty payment once those
development costs have been recouped from the royalty. Unfortunately for most
developers, recoupment rarely happens. While most developers are careful to
build a profit margin into the "development costs" component, only a handful of
game titles in any year will actually sell sufficiently to allow royalties to ever be
paid to developers. Thus, at most, developers earn a modest profit. More often
than not, however, developers are disappointed in the profitability of their game
development efforts.”

(Part II – The Economics of the Video Game Industry, 2004)

Developers have very little power in terms of production, business, and contract
negotiations. Third party developers are normally contracted in a work-for-hire capacity
and are advanced payments by publishers to cover the costs of product development
with those advanced payments being recouped through predetermined set agreements of
royalty fees based on predicated marketplace sales of the product. It is very rare that
developers receive a financial return on their products due to the lack of market
performance of the majority of video game products.

“More stable revenue streams have assumed greater importance within the
industry as the major publishers have become publicly quoted companies. A
stock listing presents a different set of financial pressures for publishers to work
to, one that revolves around posting positive quarterly results and generating
shareholder value.”

(New Media and Regional Development: The Case of the UK Computer and
Video Game Industry, 2000)

The effects of the financial activities of large scale industry value chain agents on third
party developers operations occurs in the source, nature, and scale of profit margins that
these developers receive throughout their internal value chain activities. Third party
developers have structured their value chain operations with the aim of obtaining and
maximising profit margins through predetermined profit margins sourced from
advanced fees paid to them by platform holders and publishers.

15
The two primary methods of contract financing offered to developers are:

Cost + Margin Deals: Developers pitch a development budget, timeframe, and a


predetermined profit margin to platform holders and/or publishers and opt to forgo
royalty payments based on sales of the product in the marketplace. This deal is less
prevalent than the widely accepted and utilised advance + royalty deal.

Advance + Royalty Deal: Developers receive an advance payment(s) and also receive
predetermined royalty payments after the advance have been recouped from sales of the
product in the marketplace. (Laramée, F., D., 2005:5) 1.

The value chain structure of a third party developer is thusly determined by maximising
the profit margins obtained through advance payments made prior to and during the
production phase of video game software product development. This leads developers to
seek costs savings throughout all production based activities and radically affects all
aspects of their operational activities, financial performance, and internal value chain
structure (primary and secondary).

Since most developers negotiate contracts on a product per product basis with financial
investment being provided for a specific title or product there is limited ability for third
party developers to obtain additional revenues to invest in long term competitively
advantageous resources, capabilities, or value chain based components.

With profit margins literally covering the development of one product at a time third
party developers are faced with the difficulty decision to limit internal investment in
operational components such as primary value chain activities (inbound logistics,
operations, outbound logistics, and services) and secondary activities (firm
infrastructure, human resource management, technological development, and
procurement).

Strategic, Business and Operational Activities of Industry Value Chain Agents

1
How Developers Get Paid: The Retail Market for Games.

16
Publishers and platform holders use their scale, scope, power and control of distribution,
sales and consumer channels to perform a wide range of strategic, business, and
operational activities that are if not entirely detrimental to developers certainly provide
additional challenges.

A publisher can cancel a development project, giving little or no reason for the
decisions and halt milestone payments at anytime. Publishers typically expect third
party developers to conduct a series of competitive pitches which result in developers
competing with other over the lowest priced development spend per game project. This
in turn affects the overall profitability and profit margins on development projects.

“As your size grows dramatically, projects can get behind and publishers may
refuse to pay, some may cancel projects, and others may go out of business.
When you’re smaller it may be possible to weather these events with personal
cash, loans, etc. but as a large developer a “Perfect Storm” of these events can
deliver a serious blow.”

(Exploring the Business Side of the Business Side of Making Games, 2004).

Other issues are in terms of publisher, platform holder, distributor, and retailer
accountability. Since developers are paying for operational and profit margins out of
advance payments which are recouped from sales based royalty payments, these agents
have been know to take liberties with the accounting of sale figures, records, and
returns. Developers do not have access to the full measure of sales records for their own
titles and must rely on the publishers and platform holders to be honest in their
accountability of true sale figures and royalty payments.

Financial Share of Industry Value Chain Agents

“Assume a game cost $7,000,000 to develop (about average for a new console
game) and a 20 percent royalty is to be paid to the developer. The retail price is
$49 and the wholesale price is $32. The fees payable to the console
manufacture, marketing and distribution average around $11. That leaves $20
to be split between the publisher and the developer. It would take a sale of 1.1
million units of the game to recoup and start paying royalties to the developer.”

17
(Part II - The Economics of the Game Industry, 2004)

The consolidation, growth, and industry power of the large scale industry agents allows
them to maximise a large share of the revenues generated throughout retail, sales,
distribution, and consumer channels through the sale of video game software products.
(Figure 2.3) demonstrates the average revenue split received by each industry agent
from the sale of a video game software title:

Source: Compiled from various bibliography sources.


Figure 2.4 Financial Share of Sale Revenue per Value Chain Agents.

(Figure 2.3) demonstrates that typically only 10-20% of the sales revenue of a video
game software product eventually returns to the hands of the developer. In most cases
the developer receives one of the weakest shares of the revenue generated through the
sale of video game software products in the marketplace. This lack of financial
performance impacts negatively on the financial performance, market strength, and
operational capabilities of third party developers.

Amount Purpose Paid By Paid To


$3 Cost of Goods (CD’s, Cartridges, Platform Media Manufacturer*
Printing) Holder/Publisher
$7 Publishing licence royalty Publisher/Platform Platform Holder
Holder
$13 Retailer Profit Consumer Retailer
$3 Markdown Reserve Platform Retailer
Holder/Publisher
$8 Development Costs Platform Developer
Holder/Publisher
$10 Operating Costs Platform Internal (overhead, freight,
Holder/Publisher c-op, bad debt).
$6 Marketing Platform Ad agencies, press, media
Holder/Publisher buyers, media owners.
Items in bold can be converted to profit through careful publisher cost management.
* This can be a vertically integrated component of a platform holder/publisher operation.
Source: Secrets of the Game Business 2nd Edition, (2005:101)
Table 2.4 Generalised Breakdown of Revenue from a $50 Console Game

“Funding for a game's development can either come from internal resources or
the publishers and, less commonly, distributors of the game. Since the developer

18
does not handle the manufacturing or distribution, it receives a percentage
royalty on the net wholesale receipts to the publisher (i.e. gross wholesale price
less cost of goods, returns provision - usually 10%-15%, and in some cases
distribution costs). This royalty rate can vary from around 10% to as high as
40% (industry average is 15-25%) depending on a number of factors including
the following: the extent to which the game has been funded by the
publisher/distributor, the saleability of the title, the role of the
publisher/distributor.”

(Game Investor, The Development Process, 2006)

With such a small share of the overall sales revenue returned to developers (Table 2.4)
there is pressure to adapt operational structures, capabilities, and policies accordingly.
Third party developers focus resources on value chain activities that maximise cost
savings, reduce production and staff overheads, and speed turn around times for product
development. This affects all aspects of a third party developer’s structure, limiting
growth, and development in key competitive capabilities across primary value chain
activities (operations, and services) and secondary activities (firm infrastructure, human
resource management, technological development, and procurement).

Product Saturation

“Furthermore, because of the very large number of games battling for a share
of the player’s attention, each title can only expect to receive a minute fraction
of the industry’s lofty revenues. While Hollywood releases approximately 100
movies to the theatres every year – some of them in very limited distribution –
the games industry launches thousands of titles on multiple incompatible
platforms.”

(Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:5)

The practice within the industry is for the large value chain agents (platform holders and
publishers) to release numerous video game titles into the marketplace (retail and
distribution channels) in the hope that one or two hit products can cover the losses
generated by the majority of loss making titles in the marketplace. This leads to an over
saturation of products competing for press, advertising, PR retail, distribution, and
consumer channel coverage.

“And what does that buy you? Four weeks, maybe six. If your product hasn’t
sold by then, it is out of there, and don’t expect a second chance either. Even if

19
your product sells reasonably well, it probably won’t stay on the shelves for
more than 2-3 months, because their will be other newer games available by
then that could sell even better.”

(The Game Industry and the Economics of Failure, 2005)

The amount of money needed to advertise and market many comparable, competitive
products in the marketplace drives publishing, distribution, and retail costs upwards.
This in turn adds substantial financial risk for publishers who must make sure that their
products capture as much publicity, PR, and consumer attention in the limited time
frame available in retail channels.

Additionally the Christmas selling season accounts for about half of the industry's
yearly sales of video and computer games, leading to a concentrated glut of high-quality
competition every year in every game category, all in the fourth quarter of the year.
(Wikipedia, Video Game Publisher, 2005).

The effects of product saturation on third party developers occur mainly in pressure to
deliver products within set schedules and seasonal launch windows. This typically
affects third party developers across primary value chain activities (operations) and
secondary activities (firm infrastructure, human resource management, and
procurement).

Retail Life Cycle & Retail Agent Activities

“Rising costs, short life cycle. A video game is typically made for seven different
platforms (PC, consoles, handhelds, etc.) and distributed in three major North
American markets,… yet its life cycle on the market may only be six weeks.
That’s one shot at success, with a very expensive bullet”

(The Reality of Video Games, Stanford Graduate School, 2004)

Compared to other popular forms of entertainment such as music CDs and movie
DVDs, games suffer from serious disadvantages in the retail market: retailers don’t

20
stock many titles, games, and game platforms are perishable. (Laramée, F., D., 2005:31-
32) 2.

The retail stage of the production cycle is more and more the preserve of large
supermarkets and specialist chains, particularly in the USA where Wal-Mart,
GameStop, and Best Buy dominate. In Europe independent retailers still constitute a
significant part of the retail sector. (Kerr, A., 2006:65) 3.

“So where does that leave you? With a product that costs you millions of dollars
to market and with 60 days to recuperate that investment, assuming you manage
to get a decent channel to market. In all likelihood, it won’t work. As a
publisher, your strategy is to put a good selection of products out there, hoping
that a few will catch fire and more than make up for the money you will lose on
the others. Risky business, given that the safest way to conduct risky business is
to minimise costs, and knowing that ever-increasing sales and marketing
budgets are a fact of life, where do you cut? Why in developer advances, of
course.”

(The Game Industry and the Economics of Failure, 2005)

Most retail channels have limited shelf, PR, advertising and marketing space. Thusly
when faced with the large amount of annual video game titles presented to them they
must carefully decide which items to stock and for how long. Compounding this
challenge is the fact that there are multiple competing platforms and associated formats
in the marketplace. Retailers must devote resources, shelf time, and space to PC,
console, and handheld products as well as second hand and rental allocations.

“The retail market for games is difficultly for developers, and not much easier
for most publishers. Retailers wield enormous power over our livelihoods: they
stock few products, don’t keep them on shelves for very long, and reap much of
the income the games generate. Yet, alternative distribution schemes (e.g.,
online sales) have not yet supplanted retail, because of download sizes,
consumer habits, and publisher fears over channel conflicts. Learning how the
retail market for games works will help developers thrive in this competitive
environment.”

(The Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:34)

2
Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed.
3
The Business and Culture of Digital Games.

21
As the main access point to consumers, retailers can significantly influence the success
of a game through their allocation of shelf space and in-store advertising. As
supermarkets grow in size, they acquire more power to negotiate discounts on whole
sale products and returns to publishers. (Kerr, A., 2006:65) 4. Retailers have significant
power and discretion over what, where, when ,and to what degree they promote a
particular product or range of products for a platform holder, platform or publisher.

“The overwhelming majority of PC games sell fewer than 100,000 units before
going out of print; for most professionally developed and published titles, sales
will begin to taper off at 15,000 to 40,000 copies, with any remaining inventory
being liquidated by the publisher for little more than the cost of printing the box
and CD-Rom. The bottom line: the vast majority of game projects lose money
for the developer, the publishers, or both.”

(The Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:29)

This has dramatic effects on the ability for video game products to reach the critical
breakeven point necessary to cover growing development and advertising costs. The
chances that any individual video game product will not be able to recoup its
development costs in the short retail window are limited.

Retailers often charge publishers, market development funds to cover the cost of
posters, end-of-aisle space and other services. (Kerr, A., 2006:65) 5. Video games are
sold as consignment items: the retailer will only pay the publishers for copies of the
game that consumers actually buy, the rest will be returned, often at the publisher’s
expense. (Laramée, F., D., 2005:31) 6. There is a trend in video game retail channels to
sell pre-owned games to consumers. Publishers and platform holders are not satisfied
with this practice as they do not receive any revenues generated form such sales. Retails
have also adopted the trend of price discounting to drive through and maximise unit
sales and profits. It appears to us that retailers are quick to request discounts, and
consumers have been trained to wait for discounts. (Wedbush Morgan Securities,
2006:64) 7.

4
The Business and Culture of Digital Games.
5
The Business and Culture of Digital Games.
6
The Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed.
7
Wedbush Morgan Securities: Entertainment Industry Report.

22
“Electronic Arts’ UK MD Keith Ramsdale, criticised some retailers for
deliberately extending the reach of their pre-owned offers and “making brand
new product look worthless. As pressure has increased this year on sell-through
and pricing of new releases, so games publishers have become more sensitive
about the size of the pre-owned market – which is believed to be worth as much
as £50m a year to leading chain GAME and possibly £100m across the market
as a whole. Publishers have agreed to discuss privately what action may be
possible to stop the trend, either under the auspices of trade body ELSPA or
simply via legal protection.”

(Pressure Mounts on Pre-owned, 2005)

Product saturation and the various financial practices of retail channel agents have lead
to an overall trend of reduced prices of video game products in the marketplace. This
unduly affects the breakeven point for video game products. This increase the risk
inherent in developing video game products and less chance for an individual product to
sell through to profit in retail channels in the shot allotted retail channel window.

These practices typically affect third party developers across primary value chain
activities (inbound logistics, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, and operations)
and secondary activities (firm infrastructure, human resource management, and
procurement) as they try to adapt their operations, products, and value chain activities to
develop games that maximise profitability and unit sales throughout shortening
opportunities available in retail channels.

Hit Driven Industry

“The video game industry is still heavily hits-driven, with 5% of game titles
accounting for roughly 95% of sales, and a publisher who goes without
releasing a hit will quickly find itself in trouble. Of course, the odds of
publishing a hit increase when a company owns a valuable franchise and has
the wherewithal to bring many titles to retail; as a result, the market is more
hospitable to publishing giants.”

(Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:5)

With so many comparatively similar products within the marketplace there is a tendency
for consumers to support the best in category product within a particular genre. This
best in category product can be successful due to gameplay, graphics, characters,

23
franchise, brand name, marketing, advertising, PR, licence, or a combination of some,
all, or none of these factors.

These high selling hit products enjoy super-normal revenue and profits in the
marketplace. These hit products subsidise the substantial losses generated by platform
holders and publishers throughout their sizable product portfolios and account for the
most substantial profit generation centres for all agents of the industry wide value chain.

“There is a consensus in the industry that it has increasingly become more "hit
driven" over the past decade, with masses of consumers buying the game that is
best in quality and best-marketed in each game genre, and, by comparison, very
few buying any other games in that genre. This has led to much larger game
development budgets, as every game publisher tries to ensure that its game is #1
in its category.”

(Wikipedia, Video Game Publisher, 2006).

The hit driven nature of the industry typically affect third party developers across
primary value chain activities (marketing, sales, and operations) and secondary
activities (firm infrastructure, human resource management, and procurement) as they
try to adapt and develop products, and value chain activities that increase the chance of
achieving hit status and associated sales, revenue, and profits of products in the
marketplace.

Intellectual Property Ownership

“Another challenging and fundamental issue for game developers is the ability
to create long-term value in their companies. Typically, a game publisher will
attempt to acquire all of the Intellectual Property rights developed by a
developer in connection with a particular game project. Even if a developer can
hold onto its "development tools" (i.e., the game play or game development
engine that can be reused in other games), because of the need to rapidly
develop games, many developers are relying more and more on third-party
middleware to provide the engine for their games and are not developing those
tools themselves. Consequently, developers are often left with little, if any,
reusable intellectual property.”

(Part II – The Economics of the Game Industry, 2004)

24
Intellectual Property is the true value of the video game industry. With so many
products competing for limited access to distribution and retail channels and so many
games failing to breakeven or achieve profitably in the limited retail timeframes made
available by retail channels the industry relies more and more on content based on
established brand name Intellectual Property as a means of increasing sales,
profitability, cross advertising, branding, and PR opportunities.

“Moore, lamenting the “sequelisation” of the industry, added, “We’re starting


to live a bit vicariously through other people’s Intellectual Property. When I
look on the reliance on the Harry Potters, The Lord of the Rings, the James
Bonds, The Terminator 3s, I worry that the creative juices are drying up.”

(The Reality of Video Games, Stanford Graduate School, 2004)

There are three main types of Intellectual Property in the video game industry (Rocca,
J., D., 2005:38) 8

Original: games based on Intellectual Property (i.e. story, characters, concept, setting,
world, etc.) created by video game developers or other agents of the video game
industry.

Licensed: games based on Intellectual Property that originates from outside the game
industry (i.e. movies, sports, comics, books, etc.).

Franchise: A game based on Intellectual Property arising from a successful series of


games. These series can be based on original or licensed Intellectual property but may
have substantial success inherent due to prior success and brand name recognition in the
marketplace.

“In the U.S. in 2004, titles based on licensed IP, such as Madden NFL 2005,
sold 23% more units than titles based on original content. However, the report's
author suggests that short term revenue gains of licensed IP, does not
necessarily translate into greater profits, and that licensing costs are rising as
IP owners become increasingly aware of the growing importance of the game
medium.”

8
Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed.

25
(Survey Analyzes Strategies for Publishing Success, 2005)

(Figures 2.4 and Figure 2.5) show the comparison of sales of games based on both
original and licensed Intellectual Property. (Figure 2.4) demonstrates few games based
on original Intellectual Property make sales at the right end of the curve (i.e. profitable
sales). (Rocca, J., D., 2005:38) 9.

“The problem is control over IP and publisher influence, in the current market,
the equivalent of a distributor in the game business is a publisher. The
guarantee of distribution has to come from a publisher."

(Spector Talks Alternative Funding, 2006)

Breakeven

ICO
# Titles

Rez
Deus Ex

Prince of Persia

GTA
Sims
Myst Mario

Less Sales More Sales

Source: Secrets of the Game Business 2nd Ed., 2005: 39.


Figure 2.5 Sales Curve for Games Based on Original Intellectual Property.

(Figure 2.5) demonstrates that a much larger percentage of games based on licensed
Intellectual Property fall in the breakeven area of the curve. Whilst a great deal of
licensed games still fail in terms of overall profitability a significantly larger amount
than games based on licensed Intellectual Property manage to place on the right hand
side of the curve (i.e. profitable sales). (Rocca, J., D., 2005:38) 10.

9
Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed.
10
Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed.

26
This trend also leads to a lopsided generation and accumulation of wealth. For every
game based on licensed Intellectual Property, the publisher must pay a licensing fee.
This fee is money that flows out of the games industry and cuts into the profitability of
publishers and developers. (Rocca, J., D., 2005:40) 11.
Breakeven

Matrix
# Titles

Spider-Man

Cat-Woman
Tony Hawk

Madden NFL

E.T.

Less Sales More Sales

Source: Secrets of the Game Business 2nd Ed., 2005:39.


Figure 2.6 Sales Curve for Games Based on Licensed Intellectual Property.

“For games that are successful, the business case becomes considerably more
attractive. Assuming a premium quality console title is sold into retail at around
£20/unit, around £7 is spent on manufacturing and distribution (including the
console manufacturer's royalty), leaving the publisher with net receipts of
around £13. Of course, the speed with which the publisher recoups the advance
is dependent not only on sales but also the royalty level agreed with the
developer; the higher the royalty the quicker the advance will be recouped. The
process is also made more complicated by multi-tier and cross-collateralised
royalty deals.”

(Game Investor, 2006)

(Table 2.5) demonstrates the profit model for video games and the revenue generation
and loss that can be received through the development of a video game product.

Total Development Costs: £2,500,000


Marketing and Other Costs: £2,000,000
Total: £4,500,000
Unit Sales

11
Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed.

27
Net Revenue @ £14/ unit
150,000 (Low) (£2,400,000)
300,000 (Medium) (£300,000)
600,000 (High) £3,900,0000
1,200,000 (Super High) £12,300.000
Source: Game Investor, (2006)
Table 2.5 Profit Model of a Video Game Product

“However, is this really the case? Once again, taking a historical perspective,
games based on original IP are the top selling games, and the games that are
the most critically acclaimed.”

(Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:38)

The best selling video game products of all time on various platforms are based on
original Intellectual Property. PC (The Sims: 16 million, Myst: 11 Million, Half-Life: 8
million), PlayStation 2 (Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec: 14.36 million, Grand Theft Auto:
Vice City: 13.63 million, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas: 13.44 million) and Xbox
(Halo 2: 7.75 million, Halo: Combat Evolved: 6.61 million, Fable: 2.39 million).
(Wikipedia: 2006) 12.

Developers are all ready marginalised in terms of the financial return they receive from
publishing contracts. With the prevalent industry practice of developers signing away
rights to original Intellectual Property, technology, assets, and content for their original
games there is very little real value left to achieve sustainable competitive advantage
and long term operational profitability for the average third party video game developer.

This industry practice of Intellectual Property stripping enforces the marginalisation of


third party developers, increasing the power and control publishers have in industry
wide value chain activities and enforces the work-for-hire status of most third party
developers.

Intellectual Property ownership affect third party developers across primary value chain
activities (marketing, sales, operations and service) and secondary activities (firm
infrastructure, human resource management, technology development and procurement)
as margins are squeezed from non-development activities such as sales, marketing, and

12
Wikipedia, List of Best Selling Computer and Video Games.

28
services. Developers are forced to structure their internal vale chain around activates
that reduce costs and add profit margin through product development (i.e. methods,
processes and activities).

Developer M&A, Consolidation, Buyout and Closure

“The bigger publishers (including the console manufacturers) have sought to


buy, or part-buy, development companies and their own smaller rivals
(publisher-developers). While horizontal integration is largely concerned with
generating economies of scale and building up bigger and more diverse product
portfolios, vertical integration is motivated by the desire to control costs and
assure a steady flow of products through gaining control over the development
process.”

(New Media and Regional Development, 2000:96)

Due to consolidation activities on behalf of the large scale agents within the video game
industry and the marginalisation of commercial, revenue and profit opportunities
presented throughout developer activities a significant proportion of the best
independent development companies are purchased completely or in part by platform
holders or publishers. This activity is not a new phenomenon as there is substantial
precedent for M&A and buyout activities in the UK dating back to 1993.

Year Acquired Location Activity Acquirer Location Activity Stake


1993 Psygnosis UK PD Sony Corp. JP HW, PD 100 %
1995 Rare UK PD Nintendo JP HW, PD 25 %
1995 Bullfrog UK PD Electronic UK PD 100 %
Arts (EA)
1995 Domark UK PD Eidos UK PD 100 %
1995 CentreGold UK PD Eidos UK 100 %
Group (inc.
Core Design)
1996 Ocean UK PD Infogrames FR PD 100 %
1996 Probe UK PD Acclaim US PD 100 %
1996 Iguana UK PD Acclaim US PD 100 %
1997 DMA UK D Acclaim UK PD 100 %
1997 Mainstream AU PD Gremlin UK PD 100 %
Interactive
1997 Spidersoft UK D Take 2 UK PD 100 %
Interactive
1997 Millennium UK D Sony UK (JP) PD 100 %
Computer
Entertainment
Europe
(SCEE)
1998 Rare UK PD Nintendo JP HW, PD 25 %
1998 Crystal US D Eidos UK PD 100 %

29
Dynamics
1998 Centresoft UK DR Activision US PD 100 %
198 Reflections UK D GT US PD 100 %
Interactive
1998 Virgin (VIE) UK PD Interplay US PD 44 %
1999 Gremlin UK PD Infogrames FR PD 100 %
2000 LTStudios UK PD Argonaut UK PD 100 %
2000 Just Add UK PD Argonaut UK PD 100 %
Monsters
2002 Particle UK PD Argonaut UK PD 100 %
Systems
2002 Rare UK PD Microsoft USA HW, PD 100 %
2002 Zed Two USA PD Warthog UK PD 100 %
2003 Fever Pitch USA PD Warthog UK PD 100 %
2003 Pivotal Games UK PD SCI UK HW, PD 100 %

2004 Just Add UK PD Ninja Theory UK PD 100 %


Monsters
2005 Warthog UK PD Tiger UK HW, PD 100 %
Telematics
2005 Eidos UK PD SCi UK PD 100 %
Entertainment
2006 Lionhead UK PD Microsoft USA HW, PD 100 %
Studios
Key: HW = Hardware; D = Developer; DR= Distributor; PD=Publisher/Developer.
Source: New Media and Regional Development, (2006:96). The End Game How Developers Sold Their
Studios – Part I (2004).
Table 2.6 Selected Mergers and Acquisitions within the UK Computer and Video
Games Industry, 1993-2006.

Publishers have the financial resources necessary to acquire prominent developers.


Publishers purchase, fund, and invest in developers for their development expertise, to
increase in-house or external development resources. Developer acquisitions can
provide substantial growth opportunities and competitive advantage gains for large scale
platform holders and publishers. Proprietary technology and Intellectual Property are
key assets than can be acquired through successful M&A, purchase or investment.
(Rogers, D., L., 2004) 13.

“Publicly owned publishing companies have an insatiable appetite for growth


and net profits. Each is on a full-time mission to increase their revenue, trim
their operational costs, and take advantage from their competitors for the
hearths and wallets of game consumers. If your company can assist them in this
endeavour then you could be an acquisition target”

(The End Game: How Developers Sold Their Studios – Part One, 2004)

13
The End Game: How Developers Sold Their Studios – Part One.

30
Those developers that do not get acquired by large scale industry agents, either continue
operations as normal, or face closure as industry, market, financial, and/or operational
pressures force independent developers to cover the mounting cost of working in the
risk laden video game industry. A number of significant closures in the UK video game
industry have occurred in recent years demonstrating the inherent risks presented to
independent developers working in the video game industry in the UK;

Date Name Activity Location UK Operations Staff


2001 Pure Entertainment D UK Unknown
2002 Akaei PD UK Unknown
2002 Kaboom Studio Group PD UK 35 +
2003 Asylum Entertainment D UK 70 +
2003 Rage Software PD UK 245 +
2003 Silicon Dreams D UK 230 +
2003 Attention to Detail D UK 70 +
2003 Mucky Foot D UK 25 +
2004 Acclaim PD US 160 +
2004 Argonaut Games PD UK 120 +
2004 Confounding Factor D UK 50 +
2005 Blue 52 D UK 25 +
2005 Elixir Studios D UK 50 +
2005 VIS Entertainment D US 96 +
2006 Andromeda Entertainment DR UK Unknown
2006 DC Studios D US 29 +
2006 Visual Science D UK 92 +
Key: HW = Hardware; D = Developer; DR= Distributor; PD=Publisher/Developer.
Source: Various Internet sources.
Table 2.7 Selected Closures within the UK Computer and Video Games Industry,
2001-2006.

Developer M&A, consolidation, buyout, and closure affect third party developers across
all primary (inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing, sales, and
services) and secondary activities (firm infrastructure, human resource management,
technology development and procurement) value chain activities and dimensions. .

Closed Market, Sales and Distribution Channels

“First Law of the Game Industry: Channel to market is everything. Second Law
of the Game Industry: Whoever stands between you and the customer holds you
by the balls.”

(The Game Industry and the Economics of Failure, 2005)

31
Another key challenge facing third party developers is the fact that platform holders and
publishers control the pathways throughout distribution and retail channels and
subsequently monopolise direct access to the consumer and the marketplace. Since most
developers are employed as work-for-hire contractors enlisted by large powerful
industry value chain agents they have little if no real access to the marketplace either
directly or through indirect means such as retailers and distributors.

This is a significant operational challenge and goes a long way to explaining the lack of
power the developers have in the video game industry. Without dedicated branding and
marketing activities developers stand to lose market awareness in the eyes of the
consumer. Developers have a lack of control in terms of value added activities such as
marketing, advertising, community, and PR.

Closed markets, sales, and distribution channels affect third party developers across all
primary (inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing, sales, and
services) and secondary activities (firm infrastructure, human resource management,
technology development and procurement) value chain activities and dimensions.

2.2 Effects of Challenges Facing Third Party UK Video Game Developers

“As the technological sophistication of computer games has increased, raising


production values, budgets, and the time to market, developers have
increasingly been forced to turn to large publisher-developers for finance,
seeking advances against royalties to enable the game to be produced.
Alternative sources of finance, such as venture capital, are hard to come by but
not impossible. Small developers, though, often fell that venture capitalists want
a disproportionate equity stake in the company – 50 percent is quite common –
in return for financial backing. So stuck between a rock and a hard place, most
developers have fallen back on the publisher for finance.”

(New Media and Regional Development, 2000:94-95)

The International Game Developers Association, Developer Business Summit, 2004


concludes that the challenges facing video game developers affect video games
developers across the following ‘functional points of view’; production and operations,
marketing, public relations, finance, sales, distribution, contracts, legal and human
resources.

32
“The amount of time it took to develop a game was doubling. The amount of
people it took was doubling. Hence the cost was going up about five times, and
yet the cost of the software was unchanged if not descending. So the risk on the
product was going up and the potential profit per person per year was going
down. We sold the company to mitigate the risk.”

(Exploring the Business Side of the Business Side of Making Games, 2004).

This report categorises the challenges and affects facing video game developers using
Michael Porter’s (1985) value chain framework which considers competitive advantage
of firms through an understanding of individual capabilities sub-categorised into
primary and secondary activities. The value chain frame work is a means of analysing
and categorising specific firm activities and relating them to their contribution towards
that firm’s competitive performance.

“Competitive advantage cannot be understood by looking at a firm as a whole.


It stems form the many discrete activities a firm performs in designing,
producing, marketing, delivering, and supporting its product. Each of these
activities can contribute to a firms relative cost position and create a basis for
differentiation.”

(Competitive Advantage, 2004:33)

Ultimately the list of extensive challenges outlined in this report point to an increasingly
tough operating environment for third party video game developers. The true effect of
all these challenges is to put pressure on the competitive performance capabilities and
profit margins of third party developers.

33
3 INDUSTRY ANALYSIS

Delivering a game into a consumer’s hands has become an increasingly


complex, lengthy and costly process. Members of the interactive entertainment
industry constantly debate the relative importance of game developers as
creative authors versus publishers as soulless business people, or retailers as
channel arbiters versus media as opinion mongers. However, financial and
logistical market forces have created a system in which each ‘driver’ entity on
the highway to the consumer – developer, publishers, platform owner, and
retailer – is essential to the transaction, and profits accordingly. “Adjunct”
entities that feed into the channel offer a plethora of service alternatives that
reduce cost, save time, or improve quality along the channel and, ultimately, for
consumers.”

(Secrets of the Game Business, 2006:95)

3.1 Industry Analysis

UK video game industry sales accounted for more than £1.1 billion in retail sales
outside of the UK in 2000. UK developed video game sales produced a total positive
trade contribution of more than three-quarters of a billion (£757m) between 1997 and
1999, comparing favourably to film (£462m) and television (-£944m) in the same three
year period. (DTi, 2002:19).

The UK video game industry is a significant exporter of global video game products.
From a global perspective UK developed products account for 15.3% of the global
market. UK developed products represent the third largest single global contributor by
volume. The UK lags behind both the US (44.1%) and Japan (35.3%). UK developed
products have a significantly higher volume than the next major contributors Germany
(2.1%), France (1.7%) and Canada (1.7%). (DTi, 2002:18-19).

The UK video game industry is a major contributor to worldwide video game product
development and sales. UK developed video games account for 35% of the UK market,
11% of the US market, 23% of the European market but only 1% of the Japanese
market, which is dominated by domestic video game products. (DTi, 2002:17-18).

34
The value captured by the UK video game industry is represented throughout all
industry wide agents activities i.e. retail, distribution and publishing margins,
development advances and royalties. Independent UK developers account for £219m
(18.9%) of total value generated compared to the in-house development of non-UK
£155m (13.4%) and UK £83m (7.2%) developers which accounts for a total of £238
(20.6%). The total value generated by in-house developers is accounted as part of the
value generated by the owners (platform holders, publishers) of these in-house
development teams. (DTi, 2002:19-20)

£m 356

£m 93

£m 254

£m 83
£m 155

£m 219

Independent UK development In-house dev, non-UK publishers


In-house dev, UK publishers Publshing
Distribution Retail

Source: DTi Report, (2002:20).


Figure 3.1 UK Value of PC and Console Software Markets, 2001 (£m).

“Some 270 games related companies employ more than 20,000 people in the
United Kingdom. With 8,000 people involved in development, the United
Kingdom is the largest development community in Europe.”

(Digital Broadband Content: The Online Computer and Video Game Industry,
2005:16)

The UK video game industry employs more than 20,000 people, within an estimated
270 game related organisations, across all sub-sectors of the industry, including
development (in-house, external), publishing, distribution, retail, and other associated
functions such as manufacturing, agents and legal. Of these 20,000 employees 6,000 are
employed in the development sub-sector. (Figure 3.2) demonstrates the breakdown of

35
employees in the UK video game industry by sub-sector. The video game industry
represents 0.036% of the national workforce. (DTi, 2002:20-21).

9000
Retail
8000
7000
Developm ent
6000
5000
4000
3000 Publishing
Packaging/ Other
2000 Printing
Distribution
1000 Peripherals
0

Source: DTi Report, (2002:20).


Figure 3.2 Breakdown of Employment by Sub-sector.

3.2 Industry Structure (Value System)

“Globally the industry is thus increasingly structured around a core of between


10 and 20 major publishers. All of the major publishers have their own in-house
development teams, surrounded by a fringe of third party or ‘independent’
developers. Even these ‘independents’ are often closely tied to an individual
publisher by equity, retainers, and output deals – what have once been called
‘one-point-five’ or second party’ developers, as opposed to true third party
developers.”

(New Media and Regional Development: The Case of the UK Computer and
Video Game Industry, 2000:97)

36
Hardware Manufacturer
Licence Hardware Manufacturer
Licence Distributor Retailers
Licence
Holder Distributor Retailers
Holder Distributor Retailers Consumer
Holder
Publisher
Publisher
Publisher
Financial
Financial
Financial
Recruitment Developer (First Party)
Recruitment Developer (First Party)
Recruitment
Training Developer (First Party)
Training
Training
Legal
Legal
Legal
Supply
Supply Developer (Second Party)
Supply
Service Developer (Second Party)
Service Developer (Second Party)
Service
Support
Support
Support
Outsource
Outsource
Outsource Developer (Third Party)
Developer (Third Party)
Developer (Third Party)

Source: Compiled from various bibliography sources.


Figure 3.3 Video Game Industry Structure - Value System.

A firm’s value chain is embedded in a larger stream of activities which Micheal Porter
describes as the value system. Suppliers have value chains (upstream), buyers have
value chains (downstream), in addition many products pass through the value chains of
channels (channel value) on their way to the buyer. The value chains of individual firms
in an industry differ, reflecting their histories, strategies and success at implementation
and operations. One important difference is that a firms value chain may differ in
competitive scope from that of it competitor, representing a potential source of
competitive advantage. (Porter, M., 2004:34) 14.

The value system of the video game industry can be demonstrated in (Figure 3.3).
Platform holders and publishers utilise original or licensed Intellectual Property
acquired from licence holders, themselves or a developer. This Intellectual Property is
developed into video game products by a network of first, second, and third party video
games developers working directly or indirectly for platform holder and publishers.

After the video game products are manufactured a network of distributors and retailers
distribute and sell the finished goods to consumers. The platform holder and distributor
may also be vertically integrated and have its own distribution and sales channels and
capabilities. (Figure 3.3) displays the value system of the video game industry. (Figure
3.4) demonstrates the position of each entity in the production path of a console game.

14
Competitive Advantage.

37
Motion-capture Contract QA Delivery Media
Provider Provider Manufacturer

Finished Game Code


Data Bug List Game Code
Goods (Master Disk)

Developer Game Publisher Game Platform Holder Game Licence Holder


Code Code Code

Intellectual
Property
Data Data

Game
Samples
Art/Animation Distributor or
&
Provider Rep. Group
Marketing
Materials

Finished Goods

PR Firm & Regional or


Advertising National
Agency Retailers

Game Info Finished Goods

Media Game Info Consumer

Source: Secrets of the Game Business 2nd Edition, 2005:96. (Modified).


Figure 3.4 Position of each Entity in the Product Path for a Console Game.

3.2.1 Licence Holders

“A license makes the customer more likely to go to the store for your
masterpiece, because they don't have to watch G4 or Tech TV or read a game
magazine to learn a new game title and decide it sounds interesting. They
already believe it's interesting the moment they learn that there's a game based
on their favourite TV show, movie etc. The excitement they already feel about
that experience is transferred to the game, as is the assumption of quality. A
license makes them more likely to pick up your game and look on the back,
because they recognize the name and images on the front of the box. A license
makes them more likely to take the game to the checkout stand, because you get
the assumption of quality the license brings.”

(Building Big Licensed Game with Big Teams, 2004)

38
Licence holders are large media organisations (movie, music, book, board game, card
game, comic studios, companies or corporations) that control the Intellectual Property
rights of various brand name franchises. A licence holder typically licences the use of
Intellectual Property for a brand name franchise for use on a particular console,
hardware platform, or game device. In return the licence holder enjoys a significant
return of royalty and licensing fees and associated cross marketing, promotion, and
advertising benefits.

Licence holders derive their revenue from any of the following sources:

• Licensing fees from Intellectual Property rights of brand name franchises.


• Royalty payments from sales of video game software based on Intellectual
Property and brand name franchises.

3.2.2 Platform Holders

“The core business model strategy adopted by platform manufacturers in the


console segment is to sell their hardware as a ‘loss leader’ in order to build
market share and to rely on sales of software to make their profits.”

(The Business and Culture of Digital Games, 2006:58-59)

Platform holders are companies that manufacture the hardware devices on which game
software runs. Such companies own, control, and influence the software that appears on
their hardware platform either by providing application programming tools or by
licensing manufacturing, production, development, market release, and media
manufacturing rights to developers and publishers.

Frequently platform holders are vertically integrated and create their own games
software through single or multiple internal development teams.

Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony have all developed (Microsoft Xbox Live) or announced
the development (Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection and Sony PlayStation Network Platform)
of online distribution systems that allow them to sell, demonstrate, and distribute video
games directly to Internet enabled consoles.

39
Platform holders derive their revenue from any of the following sources:

• Sales of hardware (consoles and peripherals).


• Sales of (or licensing fees from) platform compatible hardware and peripherals.
• Sales of self-produced video game software (first party).
• Sales of externally produced video games software (second and third party).
• Licensing fees from development tools and APIs necessary to develop games
software for hardware platforms.
• Licence fees from development rights to produce games for a hardware
platform.
• Licence fees from manufacture rights to produce proprietary media for video
game software for a hardware platform.
• Licensing fees for media manufacturing rights.

3.2.3 Publishers

“If developers are the artistic brain behind video games, publishers are the
muscle and nerves that coordinate all aspects of bring a game to a consumer.
The publisher’s role is so extensive and influential that publishers have taken on
the aura of medieval fiefdoms, where money flows in mysterious directions and
decisions are cloaked in secrecy.” 15

(Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:99)

Publishers are the business, management, operational, and financial hub of the video
game industry value chain. Typically publishers are large global conglomerates with
multiple regional operations, overseeing internal and external development, marketing,
sales, Q&A, financing, and licensing activities. Smaller specialist publishers do exist
but consolidation activities within the industry, financial opportunities, and cost savings
presented through economies of scale and scope tend towards larger players dominating
the landscape of the video game industry.

15
Secrets of the Game Business 2nd Edition.

40
“During the 1990’s cornford et al. (2000) found that the global publishing
industry consolidated around a ‘a core of between 10 and 20 major publishers”

(The Business and Culture of Digital Games, 2006:65)

Publishers are the key negotiation, contract, licence, and intermediate agents between
other major agents in the video game industry value system. Publishers have
relationships with all major platform holders, distributors, retailers, and have
considerable marketing, advertising, and promotional infrastructures. Publishers control
substantial resources to produce, launch, market and promote video game software to
the consumer.

“While creating a sustainable economic platform can be extremely difficult for


a developer, there are also a host of business challenges facing game
publishers. Many smaller publishers have failed to survive and the industry is
increasingly dominated by a handful of companies. For example, in 2003 game
publishers Electronic Arts, Nintendo and Sony accounted for more than 50
percent of all console video games sales in the U.S.”

(Part II – The Economics of the Gaming Industry, 2004)

Publishers retain the largest share of the revenue generated by video game sales at retail
and enjoy significant profit margins. These profits are used to fund the development of
portfolios of video game products. Publishers enlist the services of internal, external,
and independent studios to produce video games software for launch on multiple
hardware platforms. Publishers typically install their own project managers and
producers at external developers directly or oversee production via some other form of
operational oversight and management system and process.

“In most instances, it is the publisher that funds the development of a game it
intends to publish. This normally takes the form of a royalty advance and is paid
on a milestone basis. Once a game is released, the developer receives no royalty
payments until the title has recouped the publisher's advance.”

(Game Investor, The Publishing Process, 2006).

Historically financial investment in development companies is difficult to obtain and


financing activities have been untaken by the publishers. In return for financial backing
development companies transfer full ownership of the assets (code, art, audio, engine,

41
technology), and distribution and Intellectual Property usage rights of the finished
games.

“The publishers, however, have no one else on whom to offload their risks.
Thus, their strategy becomes on of cost reduction (limiting the losses on any
individual title by reducing advances to a minimum) and risk balancing (by
publishing as many different games as possible to increase the odds of a hit).”

(Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:29)

Publishers derive their revenue from any of the following sources:

• Sales of self-produced video game software (first party).


• Sales of externally produced video game software (second and third party).
• Licensing fees for use of brand name franchises and Intellectual Property
(movies, comics, TV).

3.2.4 Developers

“Since all but the largest independent development companies release at most
one or two PC or console games a year, the low probability of a hit makes it
very difficult for developers to finance their own work. Therefore most
developers seek to shift the risk towards their publishers by negotiating
advances that cover the production costs ad a reasonable profit margin.”

(Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:29)

Developers are responsible for manufacturing video game software. Developers posses
all the disciplines, skills, knowledge, and assets necessary to create a video game
software product (art, animation, design, graphics, programming, project management,
and business development).

There are three types of video game development company:

First Party Developer: are internal teams which are owned and fully integrated with a
platform holder or publisher.

42
Second Party Developer: are external development companies that are contracted to
develop video game products based on licences owned by publishers, licence holders, or
platform holders. Second party developers may or may not be are owned and fully
integrated with a platform holder or publisher.

Third Party Developer: are independent development companies who develop their
own video game products and sell them to platform holders and publishers in return for
financial support to develop their products.

Developers derive their revenue from any of the following sources:

• Sales of self-produced video game software.


• Advance payments covering development of video game products.
• Royalty payments on predetermined sales figures of video game products.

3.2.5 Distributors

Distributors are organisations that act as intermediately agents between publisher’s


platform and licence holders and retailers. Usually they purchase bulk orders of video
game products and distribute these to large scale retailers making a margin on such
sales. Some distributors handle some of the publisher’s role by undertaking localisation
and marketing of products for particular territories, others undertake inventory risk by
purchasing finished video game products form publishers and selling it on to retailers.
Additionally many publishers and platform holders are vertically integrated and posses
their own full or partial scale distribution capabilities.

Distributors derive their revenue from any of the following sources:

• Sales of video game software.


• Distribution payments on predetermined sales figures of video game products.

43
3.2.6 Retailers

“Gaining wide and deep access to the retailer’s shelves is the determining
factor in a game’s commercial success. Securing good shelf space is therefore
the publisher’s most important job”

(Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Ed., 2005:29)

Retailers, throughout high street outlets, online or mail order sell finished video game
products direct to the consumer. Typically retailers will buy bulk order products from
distributors or directly from publishers or platform holder at wholesale price. Retails
make a significant margin above the wholesale price. Product saturation and the drive to
create and sell hit games and a saturation of multiple format types in the marketplace
drive consumer price and subsequent profit margins down. Retailers have started
adopting both rental and second hand resale models to increase their overall profit and
obtain additional revenue from existing products.

Retailers derive their revenue from any of the following sources:

• Sales of video game software.


• Sales of video game hardware.
• Sales of video game peripherals.
• Sales of video game support material (walkthrough guides, magazines, etc.).
• Sales of second hand video game software.
• Rentals of video game software.

44
4 DEVELOPER ANALYSIS

4.1 Performance Analysis (UK Third party Developers)

“Throughout the 1970s the originators of both video games hardware and
software were almost exclusively North American or Japanese companies. The
establishment of a UK based computer and video game industry, what became
known as ‘BrtiSoft’, originated later from the success of home computers in the
early 1980s. Many of the founders of today’s successful UK computer and video
game companies started to develop games on these relatively low-cost home
computers.”

(New Media and Regional Development: The Case of the UK Computer and
Video Game Industry, 2000:91)

This report has outlined the significant operational, market, and financial challenges
facing UK third party video game developers. To demonstrate the effect previously
outlined challenges have on UK third party developers this report has gathered the
financial data from twenty two of the leading development organisations producing
video game products in the UK. Data on these organisations has been gathered from
Financial Analysis Made Easy, (F.A.M.E.), a repository of financial data on registered
companies in the U.K and the Republic of Ireland. The list of organisations has been
compiled from T.I.G.A. membership data and the Develop 100: The World’s Most
Successful Game Studios list.

These companies are all independent video game development studios operating in the
UK video game industry as of September, 2006. Selection criteria is based on the
operational duration (2 years minimum), staff size (10 people minimum), operational
status (independently managed organisations registered, based, and operating in the
UK), and industry activity (video game development).

FAME Account
Records
Organisation Name Commence Staff Size
Aqua Pacific Limited 1999 Unknown
Atomic Planet Entertainment Limited 2001 53 (2004)
BigBig Studios Limited 2001 Unknown
Bizarre Creations Limited 1999 80 (2005)
Blade Interactive Studios Limited 2000 Unknown
Blitz Games Limited 1996 122 (2005)
Climax Group Limited 2000 251 (2005)

45
Coyote Developments Limited 1999 Unknown
Eurocom Developments Limited 1996 17 (2005)
Eutechnyx Limited 1997 69 (2005)
Exient Limited 2001 Unknown
Free Radical Design Limited 1999 73 (2005)
Frontier Developments Limited 1996 Unknown
Gusto Games Limited 2004 Unknown
Kuju Entertainment Limited 1999 142 (2005)
Mere Mortals Limited 2001 Unknown
Rebellion Development Limited 1996 74 (2005)
Relentless Software Limited 2004 Unknown
Revolution Software Limited 1996 Unknown
Sports Interactive Limited 1996 Unknown
Sumo Digital Limited 2004 Unknown
Team 17 Software Limited 1996 76 (2005)
Source: Various sources.
Table 4.1 Selected UK Third Party Video Game Developers List.

“No matter which way we look at it, one glaring fact remains: not very many
people make money in the game industry. Especially not the people who create
the product.”

(The Game Industry and the Economics of Failure, 2005)

Of the twenty two third party UK video game developers selected only eight posted
complete turnover, profit & loss, and profit margin records in their audited accounts.
The remaining fourteen organisations posted irregular records which did not provide
sufficient recording of revenue, profit & loss, and profit margin necessary for
comparative financial analysis.

(Appendix 1) shows a complete financial record of the selected organisations and the
deficiencies in the gathered accounting records. Organisations selected for comparative
financial analysis are companies with complete turnover, profit & loss, and profit
margin records for the three year period between 2002 and 2005.

Of the eight companies that posted complete revenue, profit & loss, and profit margin
records (Table 4.2) six recorded an operating loss (2005). Of the two organisations that
recoded positive profits (2005), profit margins of 5.67%, and 1.56% were posted. Of the
six organisations that recoded negative profits (2005) profit margins of -64.2%, -
30.81%, -15.25%, -14.92%, -1.5%, and -1.2% were posted.

46
Only one of the selected organisations recorded three consecutive years of positive
profit with 1.56% (2005), 1.07% (2004), and 5.7% (2003) profit margins being posted.
Only one of the selected organisations recorded three years of concurrent negative profit
with -2.78% (2005), -28.81%% (2004), and -9.86% (2003) profit margins posted. Two
of the selected organisations recorded two years of concurrent negative profits. Three of
the selected organisations recorded two years of concurrent positive profits.

The largest average turnover recorded in the three year period between 2002 and 2005
was £11,861,349 and the lowest was £1,263,579. Five of the selected organisation
recorded negative profits with average profit margins over the three year period 2002-
2005 of -15%, -20%, -14%, -10% and -8% posted. Three of the selected organisation
recorded positive profits with average profit margins over the three year period 2002-
2005 of 6%, 4% and 3% posted.

The largest average positive profit recorded in the three year period between 2002 and
2005 was £301,957 (6% profit margin) and the smallest was £107,124 (3% profit
margin). The largest average negative profit recorded in the three year period between
2002 and 2005 was -1,819,167 (-20% profit margin) and the smallest was -£189,495 (-
5% profit margin).

In analysis, the financial performance of the selected development organisations appears


to present a high chance of negative profitability being generated. Of a possible of
twenty four accounting periods (eight companies over 2002, 2004 and 2005), thirteen
negative profit periods were recorded compared to eleven positive profit periods over a
three year period (2002-2005).

Over a three year period between 2002 and 2005 only three selected organisations
recorded positive average profits. The highest average profit margin recorded was 6%
with profit margins of 4%, and 3% also recorded. This level of profitability is low by
most organisational, industry, and sector standards. Considering the inherent risks,
challenge, and operational impediments presented to video game developers very little
chance for sustainable growth opportunities or profitable return on investment seems to
be available to UK third party video game developers.

47
Additionally only eight of the selected companies provide sufficiently complete records
of their operational turnover, profit & loss, and profit margins. These discrepancies
could indicate reluctance by organisations to record the operational challenge of
generating sustainable profitability in this sector. It should be noted that these
accounting discrepancies could arise from particular standardised accounting practices
adopted by organisations operating in this sector.

This report posits that the financial analysis contained in this report presents a case for
arguing that the challenges, industry structure, operational, market, and financial
activities of large scale industry value system agents combine to create demonstrable
impediments towards positive financial, profit, and growth generation for independent
UK third party video game developers.

It would certainly seem that there is cause to assume that the limited profitability
generation presented in the selected organisations recorded financial reports affects the
long term competitive advantage, growth potential, and operational stability of
companies operating in the development sector of the video game industry.

This report argues that the existing publisher business model as well as other already
outlined market, operational, industry, and financial activities endemic within the video
game industry negatively affect the ability of UK video game developers to generate
and retain positive profits, growth opportunities, and sustainable competitive advantage
within the industry and the marketplace.

48
Profit (Loss)
before Profit
30/06/2005 30/06/2004 30/04/2003 Turnover Taxation Margin (%)
12 months 12 months 12 months (2003-2005 (2003-2005 (2003-2005
(GBP) (GBP) (GBP) Average) Average) Average)
Company 2 Turnover 869,084 2,052,938 868,714 1,263,579
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -267,782 143,866 -444,570 -189,495
Profit Margin (%) -30.81 7.01 -51.18 -25%
Company 6 Turnover 4,021,903 4,695,720 4,278,166 4,331,930
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -599,905 303,369 -620,436 -305,657
Profit Margin (%) -14.92 6.46 -14.5 -8%
Company 7 Turnover 9,639,555 18,372,000 7,572,491 11,861,349
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -6,188,839 548,000 183,338 -1,819,167
Profit Margin (%) -64.2 2.98 2.42 -20%
Company 10 Turnover 3,629,650 2,263,583 2,378,931 2,757,388
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 205,649 -703,194 -84,875 -194,140
Profit Margin (%) 5.67 -31.07 -3.57 -10%
Company 12 Turnover 2,972,832 4,814,655 4,286,132 4,024,540
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -44,498 695,774 254,596 301,957
Profit Margin (%) -1.5 14.45 5.94 6%
Company 15 Turnover 7,755,225 4,867,081 6,120,829 6,247,712
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -215,975 -1,402,211 -603,399 -740,528
Profit Margin (%) -2.78 -28.81 -9.86 -14%
Company 17 Turnover 4,079,333 3,628,515 4,160,116 3,955,988
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 63,589 38,702 219,082 107,124
Profit Margin (%) 1.56 1.07 5.27 3%
Company 20 Turnover 2,533,918 3,868,882 1,570,999 2,657,933
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -386,379 1,172,425 -40,924 248,374
Profit Margin (%) -15.25 30.3 -2.6 4%
Source: F.A.M.E.
Table 4.2 Selected UK Third Party Video Game Developers Financial Results Comparison, (2003-2005).

49
5 PUBLISHER MODEL

5.1 The Publisher Model

“Right now this industry has a business model that does not work. This industry
has been flat for the past six years; we've been selling games to the same people.
Our revenue model is based on one shot at retail - we have no back-end revenue
streams like a movie might in terms of DVD, TV, that type of thing."

(The Game Industry Business Model Does Not Work, 2006)

For the purposes of this report the term ‘Publisher Model’ refers to the prevalent and
well documented business model whereby publishers and platform holders control the
majority of power, finances, and chain control (retail, distribution) within the video
game industry and general marketplace.

In terms of third party video game developers the publisher model specifically refers to
the common practice of self operated, fully functional, video game development
organisations, possessing the staff, skills, assets, technology, and support mechanisms
necessary to manufacture video game products, obtaining financial investment (via
milestone, royalty, and advance payments) to manufacture video game products under
contract for platform holder and publishers.

“Today, many if not most games, don’t make money, and small publishers often
survive on the backs of just a single hit or two a year, if their lucky. Boost the
average cost of production up to $10 million and it will be even harder to turn a
profit. Analysts say that is almost certainly going to dampen publishers’
appetite for risk.”

(Developers Uneasy About New Games Consoles, 2005)

Additionally the model implies that in return for the provision of financial investment
third party video game developers are expected to transfer full ownership of Intellectual
Property, assets, technology, R&D, code, and other rights to the platform holders and
publishers.

5.2 Failures in the Publisher Model

50
“Another challenging and fundamental issue for game developers is the ability
to create long-term value in their companies. Typically, a game publisher will
attempt to acquire all of the intellectual property rights developed by a
developer in connection with a particular game project.”

(Part II – The Economics of the Gaming Industry, 2004)

Third party video game developers are the weakest agents in the value system of the
video game industry. This weakness is demonstrated not only in their marginalised
financial share of overall profits but also in terms of the lack of overall strength, scale,
and scope of operations within value system activities of the video game industry. It
could be argued that this weakness is the biggest single failure of the publishing model.

Platform holders and publishers have become large consolidated industry agents
wielding considerable strength, power, and control of all operational activities including
direct (first and second party), indirect (third party) control, and oversight of
development companies, operations, and processes. Their control of finance and more
importantly the instruments by which they provide this finance (advances, royalty and
milestone payments) has marginalised the long term return of investment, profitability,
and growth potential of third party developers.

Additionally the financial and business practices associated with financing video game
development projects is a detrimental model with low royalty percentage rates, royalty
payments received only after milestone and advanced payments have been recouped
through sales, and the full scale signing over of all ownership to Intellectual Property,
project assets, and other rights. This model is thusly damaging to the overall portability,
operational success, and long term sustainable competitive advantage capabilities of
third party video game developers.

“The number of profitable titles per year could fall as low as 80, as developers
and publishers are forced to focus on fewer and higher quality titles. The report
also predicts continued industry consolidation and the demise of smaller
publishers which lack viable growth strategies.”

(Survey Analyzes Strategies for Publishing Success, 2005)

The publisher model fails to provide equitable or adequate revenue share from software
sales to allow independent video game developers the opportunity to grow, achieve long

51
term sustainable profitability, and competitive advantage. The publisher model has been
designed to perpetuate reliance on publishers (financial, marketing, advertising,
distribution, and retail chain access services) by independent video games developers
and enforces a very limited set of possible long term operational outcomes for
independent video game developers.

The limited operational pathways available to independent developers are;

Closure: developers can experience operational failure and closure.

M&A, Buyout: developers can be acquired in part or fully by a large scale platform
holder or publisher.

Continuation: developers can continue operating in a marketplace that is increasingly


suffering from the wide array of challenges outlined previously in this report.

It should be noted that there are precedents regarding publisher’s heavy handed use of
power, scale, financial share, and chain access (marketing, retail, distribution) in the
overall value system of the video games industry.

Recently a large number of the largest video game publishers have announced Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) reports stating that they are being investigated over
lawsuits relating to alleged backdating of stock options. Electronics Arts (1), Activision
(2), THQ (8), and Take-Two Interactive (10) 16, all recently became involved in
investigations and/or lawsuits from shareholders regarding options backdating
allegations. (Gamasutra, 2006). 17

Take-Two Interactive faces NASDAQ delisting over failure to file 10-Q quarterly
financial reports citing continuing stock backdating investigations as the main reason
for this failure to comply. (September, 2006). (Gamasutra, 2006). 18

16
(#) Top Twenty Publishers Rank, Game Developer Magazine, (October, 2005).
17
EA Embroiled in Backdating Allegations.
18
Take-Two Faces NASDAQ Delisting Over Delayed Filing.

52
Also of note are precedents regarding publisher’s heavy handed use of power, scale,
financial share, and chain access (marketing, retail, distribution) in their direct dealing
with third party developers. Activision (2) was presented with a $10 million lawsuit
(2005) by independent developer Spark Unlimited producers of the Call of Duty: Finest
Hour hit video game. The lawsuit accuses Activision of gross misconduct including
breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Spark alleges that over the two years since its foundation Activision induced Spark into
reducing and delaying certain of its rights under the contract so it could realise an even
higher level of profit on the sequels than it had on the original game. Activision refused
to pay Spark the royalties owed on Finest Hour or the bridge financing due under the
contract, stole Spark's idea, and then hired away Spark's own employees to develop that
sequel, hoping that if Spark was sufficiently crippled, Spark would be unable to protect
its rights.

It is also Spark's contention that rather than supply the $750,000 in expenses the
developer claims it incurred while implementing Finest Hour's multiplayer, it actually
charged Spark $1,882,920.97 for the implementation, which it deducted from the first
Finest Hour royalty payment Activision sent it in March 2005.

Spark also claims that "Activision charged Spark millions of dollars in developer
assistance costs that were not approved by Spark and that were never contained on any
amendment" to the developer agreement, including $300,000 in licensing costs "related
to the Activision Game Engine." (Activision Accused of Trying to "Kill Off" Indie
Studio, 2005)

5.3 Value Chain Analysis

A value chain analysis of an average third party video game developer detailing the
activities and organisational core competencies and weaknesses follows. (Table 5.1)
details an approximation of the average value added activities possessed by an imagined
typical UK third party video game developer throughout the value chain.

53
Third party video game developers have structured their core competencies and
operational capabilities to allow themselves to operate within the demanding publisher
model and face the significant challenges in the sector.

Third party video game developers operate within a business to business environment
servicing the needs and commercial objectives of publishers and platform holders.
They have thusly focused on value chain activities that can provide value to those
business to business transactions.

So what are these activities and where have UK third party video game developers
structured and focused their value chain activities to benefit in the generation of profits?

54
Firm Infrastructure
Recruitment Recruiting
SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Human Resource Management


Training Training
Tools
Engine

Margin
Content Creation
System
Technology Development Q&A Systems
Content Management
System
R&D
CRM System
Procurement
Project Management
Product Specification
Client Relationship
Planning Q&A

Margin
Management Milestone Deliveries Pitches
Intellectual Property Fixes/Patches
Production Processes Beta & Alpha Builds Presentations
Management Updates
Specialist Skills, Gold Master Demos
Media Material Additional Content
Techniques, and
Management
Technology
Inbound Logistics Operations Outbound Logistics Marketing & Sales Service
PRIMARY ACTIVITIES

Table 5.1 Value Chain of Third Party Video Game Developer (Publisher Model).

55
(Figure 5.1) present the value chain of a third party video game developer and the
following breakdown presents a detailed description of the separate activities developed
throughout the value chain that developers have adopted to face the operational
challenges and effects of the publisher business model and the development sub-sector
of the video game industry.

Value activities in the value chain can be divided into two broad types, primary
activities and support activities.

Primary activities are activities involved in the physical creation of the product and its
sale and transfer to the buyer as well as after sae assistance. Support activities support
the primary activities and each other by providing purchased inputs, technology, human
resources, and various firm wide functions. The dotted lines reflect the fact that
procurement, technology development, and human resource management can be
associated with specific primary activities as well as support the entire chain. Firm
infrastructure is not associated with particular primary activities by support the entire
chain. (Competitive Advantage, 2004:39).

Primary Activities

Inbound logistics: Activities associated with receiving, storing, and disseminating


inputs to the product.

Video game Developers need to be able to manage the inputs for a video game project
which are generally the clients complex specifications for complete video game
projects, (Product Specification Planning), explicit usage, specifications, and
instructions for licensed Intellectual Property (Intellectual Property Management), and
the management of media material that is created by platform holders, publishers, or
licence holders relating to their video game products (Media Material Management)

Operations: Activities associated with transforming inputs into the final product.

Most of a video game developers capabilities are structured around the production and
manufacturing of video game products. Core capabilities that developers have focused

56
on to add value and create profits through these capabilities revolve around the
planning, management, technology, and processes involved in creating video game
projects for their publisher and platform holder client base (Project Management, Client
Relationship Management, Production Processes, Specialist Skills, Techniques, and
Technology).

Outbound Logistics: Activities associated with collecting, storing, and physically


distributing the product to buyers.

Video game developers have developed procedures than focus on providing value to the
milestone deliveries necessary to track video game project progress and the production
and delivery of the necessary beta, alpha and final gold master stages of product
development (Milestone Deliveries, Beta & Alpha Builds, and Gold Master).

Marketing and Sales: Activities associated with providing a means by which buyers
can purchase the product and inducing them to do so.

As video game developers operate within a business to business environment the core
capabilities that add value to their organisations is their ability to convince and inform
publishers and platform holder about their technical, creative, and production
capabilities. Developer do this by producing prototype products then presenting and
pitching these prototypes to various publishers and platform holders to obtain
development contracts (Pitches, Presentations, Demos).

Services: Activities associated with providing service to enhance or maintain the value
of a product.

Video game developers have developed services that test their products at various stages
of the production process. Developers are expected to support their video game in the
marketplace after launch and thusly produce additional software that fixes or patches
problems noted by publishers, platform holder, or consumers who use the products in
the marketplace (Q&A, Fixes/Patches). Developers will occasionally release additional
content and updates to their video games if market demand justifies additional expense.

57
This additional content takes the form of new maps, gameplay features, characters, or
other video game material (Updates, Additional Content).

Support Activities

Technological Development: Technological development consists of a range of


activities that can broadly be grouped into efforts to improve the product and the
development process.

Developers need to invest operational resources into developing custom development


and content creation tools, game engines, and the tools necessary to produce,
manufacture, and track the development of video game products (Tools, Engine,
Content Creation and Management System).

Developers are required to invest heavily in ongoing R&D to maintain technologically


competitive sets of tools, processes, and technologies and keep ahead of technological
developments in PC and console hardware (R&D).

Developers need to invest in customer relationship management systems to maintain


communication links with and allow clients to track progress of large scale video game
project development (CRM System).

Human Resource Management: Human resource management consists of all activities


involved in the recruiting, hiring, training, development, and compensation of all types
of personnel.

Video game developers are required to invest heavily in recruitment and training
activities to support their large investment in operational activities (Recruitment and
Training). Training and recruitment activities are focused on the operations and services
areas of the value chain where most of the staffing requirements are located.

Inbound Logistics, Outbound Logistics, Marketing & Sales

58
Video game development organisations do not require significant value support
activities throughout inbound logistic and outbound logistics as the primary
manufactured goods are digital in nature, and not in bulk quantities and thusly do not
require significant support activities in terms of marketing & sales resulting, inbound or
outbound logistics for operations within a business to business environment.

Direct, Indirect and Quality Assurance Activities

Every firm has direct, indirect, and quality assurance value activities. All three types are
present not only among primary but also among support activities. Direct activities are
directly involved in creating value for the firm. Indirect activities make it possible to
perform direct activities on a continuing basis. Quality assurance activities ensure the
quality of other activities. (Competitive Advantage, 2004:44).

(Figure 5.2) details the activity type of the primary and support activities detailed in the
value chain (Figure 5.1).

Of note is that primary activities relating to operations and secondary activities relating
to technological development provide the only direct contributions to organisation
value. This is not unexpected as the primary organisational role and capability
structuring focuses on the manufacturing, production, and development of video game
products. It stands to reason that third party video game developers would focus their
organisational capabilities on these activities.

It should also be noted that these direct activity types are very high cost and require
large investments in time, finances, staff, and resources.

As technical complexity and shortening market life cycles of console and PC hardware
increase so too do their affects on the cost, scale, and size of the associated direct
capabilities within a video game developer. More staff, more training, higher
recruitment costs, greater project management requirements are all necessary to scale a
organisations ability to develop commercially viable products. Technological
developments, R&D, and the tools and engines necessary to develop products also
increase in complexity, cost, and scale.

59
Activity Activity Type Activity Location
Product Specification Planning Indirect Inbound Logistics (Primary)
Intellectual Property Indirect Inbound Logistics (Primary)
Management
Media Material Management Indirect Inbound Logistics (Primary)
Project Management Direct Operations (Primary)
Client Relationship Management Direct, Quality Assurance Operations (Primary)
Production Processes Direct Operations (Primary)
Specialist Skills, Techniques, Direct Operations (Primary)
and Technology
Milestone Deliveries Indirect, Quality Assurance Outbound Logistics (Primary)
Beta & Alpha Builds Indirect, Quality Assurance Outbound Logistics (Primary)
Gold Master Indirect, Quality Assurance Outbound Logistics (Primary)
Pitches Indirect Marketing & Sales (Primary)
Presentations Indirect Marketing & Sales (Primary)
Demos Indirect Marketing & Sales (Primary)
Q&A Quality Assurance Service (Primary)
Fixes/Patches Indirect Service (Primary)
Updates Indirect Service (Primary)
Additional Content Indirect Service (Primary)
Recruitment Indirect Human Resource Management
(Support)
Training Indirect Human Resource Management
(Support)
Tools Direct Technology Development (Support)
Engine Direct Technology Development (Support)
Content Creation System Direct Technology Development (Support)
Content Management System Direct Technology Development (Support)
R&D Direct Technology Development (Support)
CRM System Direct Technology Development (Support)
Q&A Systems Quality Assurance Technology Development (Support)

Table 5.2 Direct, Indirect & Quality Assurance Activities.

60
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

“It is important to realise that a growing market does not necessarily mean an
opportunity to make money. It is easy to say that the game business will grow
substantially, but much harder to say if the game business will become a more
profitable industry.”

(Shake-Up of Game Business Model is Coming, 2005)

6.1 Conclusions

“Our industry is led by highly intelligent and creative people, and more often
than not, undisciplined managers, elevated to their roles through their
demonstration of exceptional abilities relating to software development, not
project management.”

(Exploring the Business Side of the Business Side of Making Games, 2001)

Companies exist to generate profits for their owners. Additional operational motivations
range from economic, financial, personal, ethical, and moral factors that owners embed
into their organisational structure and operational activities.

It could be argued, based on observation, that this is the opposite case in most third
party video game developers, who seem non-concerned about long term profits and
possess a strange desire to remain in a non-profitable sub sector of the video game
industry.

Long term competitive advantage, profit generation, and overall profitability of third
party video game developers would seem to be a pipe dream for most organisations
under present industry conditions. Committing your organisation to operating in the
video game development sector would seem to entail a high risk, high work volume,
and high stress factors with little long term growth opportunities and profit generation
potential.

It would therefore seem that if third party video game developers are not in the business
of generating profits they must therefore have other motivations for remaining in such a
risk laden and financially destitute sub-sector of the video game industry.

61
This report can only conclude that it is a combination of institutional inertia (i.e.
continuing a business practice because it has always been done that way), occupational
desirability (video game design is seen as a cool occupation), inability or unwillingness
to adapt new organisational behaviour, strategies, tactics, and business models that sees
video game developers continue to suffer at the hands of publishers, platform holders,
and the growing list of operational challenges.

It seems unlikely that video game developers are completely unaware of these
challenges and the detrimental effect of the publisher model on their operational
capabilities and performance.

It may be possible that they are aware of yet unable to respond to these challenges with
new business strategies, tactics, and business models. Possibly developers do not
process the necessary resources to successfully circumvent or penetrate exit barriers or
instigate wide ranging organisational changes.

Perhaps developers lack the necessary tools, strategic, and tactical capabilities, skills,
and knowledge necessary to realise the true effects of the publisher business model and
other challenges.

This report would argue that video game developers are managed primarily by owners,
operators, and mangers whose core skills sets are centred in the disciplines necessary for
the production of video games (programming, project management, art and design etc)
and not in the management of large scale media entertainment production organisations.

Criticism has been labelled against video game developers for their lack of management
skills. Publishers have placed a high value on business skills and profit generating
objectives. Video game developers, it would seem need to place a similarly high value
on their core objective that of making profits and placing a high value on tactical,
strategic, general business and management skills.

“A fresh look is needed by publishers, retailers, and platform holders to


position the game industry as a real business with growth potential for the

62
quickly changing, broadband media future. Someone’s got to make the first
move, who will it be?”

(How to Fix the Broken Games Business – The Retail Solution, 2006)

It is the conclusion of this report that UK third party video game development is on the
whole a risk laden, challenging, and unprofitable business activity.

Furthermore the challenges outlined in this report are placing increasing hardships on
profitability for independent developers. Those challenges will only increase in
difficulty and their long term detrimental effects will become more pronounced in the
future.

It is also the belief of this report that the existing publisher business model is
determinately to the long term sustainable profitability, competitive advantage, and long
term operational success of UK third party video game developers. The primary long-
term operational pathways that are open to the remaining independent developers are
seen to be;

Closure: developers can experience operational failure and foreclosure.

M&A, Buyout: developers can be acquired in part or fully by a large scale platform
holder or publisher.

Continuation: developers can continue operating in a marketplace that is increasingly


suffering from the wide array of challenges outlined previously in this report.

6.2 Recommendations

This report has gone into some depth regarding the challenges facing video game
developers, operating independently of publishers and platform holder. Surely there are
some strategies, tactics, and possible fixes for these challenges.

63
Recommendations have been suggested that can be explored by third party video game
developers to increase their profitability, increase long term sustainable competitive
advantage, and reduce the risks inherent in working in this sector of the video game
market.

For the most part these recommendations are gathered from various existing sources
gathered through the research of this project. It is the objective of this report to present
solutions that have at least some measure of precedence or level of discussion with the
video game industry and associated media, literature and news sources at large. Thusly
these solutions and recommendations have at least in some part been referred to by and
within the video game industry.

Larger Share of the Royalty

“If funding is required, a publisher will pay the developer a non-refundable


advance on anticipated royalties. Thus, once the game is released the developer
receives no royalties until sales have exceeded the amount paid out in the
advanced funding. However, the majority of titles fail to progress significantly
past this level and many entirely fail to do so. The smaller the amount of funding
required the higher the royalty that can be commanded and, of course, the
sooner post-advance revenue can be attained. Should a title be completely self-
financed, the royalty rate will be maximised and royalty revenues will
commence with the first unit sold.”

(Game Investor, The Publishing Process, 2006)

Development companies can explore opportunities that allow them to receive a larger
share of the royalty such as alternative sources of finances that allow them to cover the
cost necessary to develop of their own projects.

Self Funding

“The extent to which the publisher or distributor take on responsibilities such as


the game's promotion, localisation, multiplayer server hosting etc…also affects
the royalty rate.”

(Game Investor, The Publishing Process 2006)

By way of a comparison of the profits that could be realised by self funding games
compared to the standard advance payments typically provided by publishers refer to

64
(Table 6.1). As you can see developers that can afford to self fund or even partially self
fund a game stand to receive a much larger share of the overall return on profits.

Game funding After £2.5m advance Self-funded


Ave. net w'sale price £14 £14
Royalty % 25% 40%
Royalty £ £3.50/unit £5.60/unit
Unit sales Receipts to developer Receipts to developer
150,000 (low) nil £840,000
300,000 (medium) nil £1,680,000
600,000 (high) nil £3,360,000
1,200,000 (super high) £1,700,000 £6,720,000
Source: Game Investor, (2006)
Table 6.1 Profit Comparison of a Video Game Product (Advance vs. Self Funded)

Alternative Funding

Equity-funding: For those developers that cannot fund a new title from internal cash
flow and do not want to use publisher funding there is the alternative of seeking to raise
the funds needed to develop the title via external investors. This is usually done by
either issuing and selling new shares in the development company (thus diluting the
existing shareholders) but could also be done by creating a single purpose vehicle
(SPV). The SPV would retain the full intellectual property and royalty rights to the title
and since it would be this company that external investors invested in, there would be
no dilution of the core development company shareholders' holdings.

Debt Funding: A less common method of gaining the money to self-fund development
is by securing a loan. However, it is unlikely that a commercial bank would fund a full
development project (too risky) unless that company was both large and had a
substantial tangible asset base or consistent cash-flow (to use as security). However,
more creative use of debt is possible, especially where the money is secured from a non-
banking and thus more flexible source (e.g. from investors). More often than not, debt
raised from investors is in the form of convertible bonds (debt which can be converted
to new equity after a pre-set period).

“A more recently practised method of development funding is through the use of


completion bond or gold-master funding. In essence, a publisher's publishing
contract with a developer is used as security by a bank that provides debt
finance to fund the development. Thus, it is the bank that pays the development

65
advance which it recoups (plus interest) from the publisher once the title's
development is completed to the publisher's satisfaction. The advantage to the
publisher is that development can be done off the balance sheet and is much
lower risk (the publisher does not pay for titles that fail to meet their pre-agreed
specification); the advantage to the developer is that it potentially allows them
to command a higher royalty (they are essentially delivering a finished
product); the advantage to the bank is that it earns interest on the money
loaned. The bank will more often than not bring in a completion guarantor to
whom the completion risk is transferred. It is a model that has been employed
extensively in the film industry and, increasingly, within the games industry.”

(GameInvestor, The Publishing Process, 2006).

Completion Bond/Gold Master Funding: Completion bond funding is a more


complex derivative of debt-funding. In essence, a publishing contract with a developer
is used as security by a bank that provides debt finance to fund the development. Thus,
it is the bank that pays the development advance which it recoups (plus interest) from
the publisher once the title's development is completed to the publisher's satisfaction.

The advantage to the publisher is that development can be done off the balance sheet
and is much lower risk (the publisher does not pay for titles that fail to meet their pre-
agreed specification); the advantage to the developer is that it potentially allows them to
command a higher royalty (they are essentially delivering a finished product); the
advantage to the bank is that it earns interest on the money loaned. The bank will more
often than not bring in a completion guarantor to whom the completion risk is
transferred. It is a model that has been employed extensively in the film industry and,
increasingly, within the games industry. A UK provider of this service for the video
game industry is Wise Monkey.

Co-Publishing: co publishing is a shared publishing agreement with the publisher or


platform holder where the developer takes on some of the financial responsibilities and
cost of the development process whilst gaining a larger share of the overall royalties.
Shared publishing also entails the developer covering some of the costs of publishing,
marketing, distribution, and other typical publishing activities.

Work for Hire: This is usually reserved for conversion work i.e. converting a game
from one platform to another. Because of the number of different games platforms,
there exists a market for companies that specialise in converting (frequently referred to

66
as "porting") fully or partially developed games to run on other platforms. For example,
a publisher may want a version of an original PC game made for the Xbox. Because the
developers of the original game might have no experience of (or desire to do) Xbox
programming, the publisher commissions other developers to port the game to these
platforms.

Conversion work frequently involves heavily reduced royalty rates, capped post-
advance royalty quantities or no royalties at all (so the developer receives up-front
payments only). The challenge for the developer is far more technical than creative and
those companies that can keep to budget and schedule can secure a profitable existence
from such work.

Management Skills

"At 30 years of age, the games industry still suffers from an endemic lack of
professional management compared to less mature industries such as the mobile
telephony and the internet industries. The high number of bankruptcies - despite
favourable market conditions - is testament to this fact. Games companies must
complement their formidable creative and technological achievements with
strong business planning and analysis in order to reap the benefits of the next
phase of console market growth".

(Survey Analyzes Strategies for Publishing Success, 2005)

Video game developers need to invest in top level management skills, employees, and
training. Hiring MBA and top level managers from other more profitable media
industries may go a long way towards shifting operational goals and bring fresh new
strategies, tactics, and business methods, models, and processes to the video game
development sub-sector of the video game industry.

Business Models

“Competition is only going to increase and if the established players do not


pioneer new business models, someone else will.”

(Shake-Up of Game Business Model is Coming. 2005)

67
It is apparent that the existing business model is favourable to the large scale platform
holders and publishers and significantly less favourable to third party video game
developers. As part of a larger scale organisational change strategy to move away from
the oppressive challenges directly resulting from the publisher business model it could
be conceivable to adopt a new business model entirely.

“The game industry is undergoing a radical shift that few game companies
understood, and that game companies as we know them today would likely
become extinct if they do not alter their business models to adapt, just as the
dinosaurs died off when they could not adapt to whatever change it was that
decimated them.”

(AGC: Koster Says Game Industry Dinosaur Doomed, 2006)

During research for this project two possible alternative business models have been
discovered that could be explored as alternatives to the existing publisher business
models. These are commonly referred to as the Hollywood and Outsourcing business
model.

Hollywood Business Model

The Hollywood business model is the common name used to describe the process that
occurs when various participants (organisations, specialists, experts, and professionals)
band together to manufacture a movie or TV show. This model is widely adopted in the
TV and movie industries and has long been seen a panacea for the video game industry.

At its core the Hollywood model describes the process whereby a group of individuals,
organisations, financial backers, specialists, and agents come together around some
form of creative project usually a film script. The film script is typically owned by an
individual, organisation, or studio.

Once the script has received funding then a project development plan and budget is
agreed upon and any number of specialist contractors, specialists, actors, film crews,
post production/special effects companies etc. become attached to the project at various
stages each performing a core task and then disbanding again after the project is
finished.

68
The Hollywood model’s main benefit is it allows for a small core team who owns the
core intellectual Property and posses the necessary skills to bring the other agents,
specialist, organisations to the project and manage that task. This model allows for
much smaller overheads for the small core team, and the retention of valuable
Intellectual Property.

In the context of a video game studio it would enable small teams to create a video
game based on unique Intellectual Property and then build a funding structure around
that Intellectual Property and then manage the recruitment and production of that project
by various specialist organisations, individuals, and contract agents.

This model is being experimented with in the video game industry. Most notably UK
independent video game developer Revolution has adopted this mode of operation
allowing for a small core team of experts to develop the Broken Sword 4 video game
through management of a UK third party video game development company, Sumo
Digital Media.

Outsourcing Business Model

The outsourcing business model describes the practice of outsourcing elements of


production normal tasked to internal production capabilities to an external producer or
production organisation. Typically outsourcing is applicable to production activities that
are labour intensive, high volume, and can benefit from the cost savings presented
through cheap labour forces.

In terms of the video game industry this can be understood to relate to labour intensive
tasks such as 3D modelling, animation, artwork, graphics, and certain programming
tasks. These tasks can be outsourced to low cost labour regions such as China and India.

The outsourcing business model provides the ability to create costs savings and reduce
local staff numbers and associated overheads by getting high volume labour intensive
production completed in lower wage economies.

69
There is a significant attached management overhead along with the need for
technology and communication systems necessary to transfer and track the progress and
quality of the produced work. Language, communication, and Q&A issues are also
factors to consider in operational activities centred on the outsourcing business model.

The outsourcing model’s main benefit is it allows for a reduced core team who posses
the necessary skills to manage and oversee the outsourcing operation. Thusly the core
outsourcing management team would be high level specialist managers such as creative
directors and programming managers that would plan, oversee, and mange the
production, and quality control of the outsourced production process and the resulting
outputs.

This model is being experimented with in the video game industry. Most notably UK
independent video game developer Eutechnyx has adopted this mode of operation
allowing for a small core team of experts to manage the production of sizable amounts
of video game artwork using Chinese content creation companies.

70
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borland, J., (2005)


Developers Uneasy About New Games Consoles
http://news.com.com/Developers+uneasy+about+new+game+consoles/2100-1043_3-
5704069.html
(Accessed August 22, 2006)

Brightman, J., (2005)


Shake-Up of Game Business Model is Coming.
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/myturn/?id=10440
(Accessed August 20, 2006)

Brightman, J., (2006)


The Next Billion Dollar Videogame Opportunity
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=12988
(Accessed August 23, 2006)

Carless, S., (2005)


Survey Analyzes Strategies for Publishing Success.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=7200
(Accessed August 22, 2006)

Carless, S, (2006)
Sweeney Talks Cell Difficulties, PS3 Online Inclusivity
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10974
(Accessed September 24, 2006)

Coughlan, P., J., (2004), Harvard Business Review.


Note on Home Video Game Technology and Industry Structure (Abridged).

Cornford, J., R., Haylor ad S. Driver, (2000)

71
New Media and Regional Development: The Case of the UK Computer and Video
Game Industry, in Giunta, A., Lagendijk, A., and Pike, A., (eds), Restructuring Industry
and Territory: The Experience of Europe’s Regions. London, Stationary Office: 83-108.

Daglow, D., (2004)


Building Big Licensed Games with Big Teams
http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2004/features/20040326/daglow_01.shtml
(Accessed August 23, 2006)

Davies, D., (2001)


Exploring the Business Side of Making Games.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010907/davies_01.htm
(Accessed August 20, 2006)

Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, (2005)


Digital Broadband Content: The Online Computer and Video Game Industry.

Dinsey, S., and Parfitt, B., (2005)


Pressure Mounts on Pre-owned.
http://www.mcvuk.com/newsitem.php?id=655
(Accessed August 24, 2006)

(DTi), Department of Trade and Industry, Spectrum Strategy Consultants, (2002)


From Exuberant Youth to Sustainable Maturity: Competitiveness Analysis of the UK
Games Software Sector.

ELSPA, Chart Track, (2005)


Develop 100: The World’s Most Successful Game Studios.

GameDaily Staff, (2006)


Are Big Budget Console Games Sustainable?
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/advertorial/?id=12089
(Accessed August 20, 2006)

72
Friedler, M., (2006)
Opinion: Are Video Games the New Soccer?
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13163
(Accessed August 23, 2006)

Friedler, M., (2006)


Opinion: How to Fix the Broken Games Business – The Retail Solution
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13314&page=2
(Accessed August 23, 2006)

Friedler, M., (2006)


Opinion: The Video Game Industry is Broken
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13236
(Accessed August 23, 2006)

Game Developer Magazine, (October, 2005)


Top Twenty Publishers

Game Investor contributors, (2006)


The Publishing Process
http://www.gamesinvestor.com/Business_models/Publishing/publishing.htm
(Accessed August 27, 2006)

Game Investor contributors, (2006)


The Development Process
http://www.gamesinvestor.com/Business_models/Development/development.htm
(Accessed August 27, 2006)

Gurwin, D., A., (2004)


Part II – The Economics of the Gaming Industry.
http://news.pghtech.org/teq/teqstory.cfm?id=1276
(Accessed August 22, 2006)

International Game Developers Association, (2004)

73
Developers Business Summit: An IGDA Think-Tank.

Jenkins, D., (2006)


EA Embroiled in Backdating Allegations
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10445
(Accessed September 22, 2006)

Kerr, A., (2003), Irish Communication Review, Volume 9.


Live Life to the Power of PS2: Locating the Digital Games Industry in the New Media
Environment.

Kerr, A., (2006)


The Business and Culture of Digital Games: Gamework/Gameplay.
Sage Publications, London.

Laramée, F., D., (2005)


The Game Industry and the Economics of Failure.
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article867.asp
(Accessed August 19, 2006)

Laramée, F., D., (2005)


Secrets of the Game Business, 2nd Edition.
Charles River Media, Inc., Hingham.

Minker, J., (2006)


Game Industry Business Model Does Not Work
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=18929
(Accessed August 21, 2006)

Ofek, E., (2005), Harvard Business Review.


Home Video Games: Generation Seven.

Porter, M., E., (2004)


Competitive Advantage

74
Free Press, New York.

Rogers, D., L., (2004)


The End Games: How Developers Sold Their Studios – Part One.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040303/rogers_01.shtml
(Accessed August 20, 2006).

Screen Digest, (2005)


Game Software Publishing: Strategies for Market Success.

Schoback, K., (2005)


The Economies of a Next Gen-Game.
https://www.cmpevents.com/Sessions/GD/TheEconomics.ppt
(Accessed August 6, 2006)

Spector, W., (2006)


SXSW: Spector Talks Alternative Funding.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=8519
(Accessed August 20, 2006)

Thorson, T, (2005)
Activision Accused of Trying to “kill Off” Indie Studio
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/2005/08/30/news_6132290.html?sid=6132290
(Accessed August 13, 2006)

Vaughan, L., (2004), Stanford Graduate School of Business.


The Reality of Video Games
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/2004futurentertainconf_videogames.shtml
(Accessed August 20, 2006)

Wallace, M., (2006)


AGC: Koster Says Game Industry Dinosaur ‘Doomed’
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10803
(Accessed September 22, 2006)

75
Wedbush Morgan Securities, (2006)
Entertainment Industry Report: Flirting with Disaster, Will Sony’s Battle with Toshiba
Determine the Outcome of the Console Transition?

William, J., F., (2002)


William’s Almanac: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Video Games.
Gazelle Books Services, Lancaster.

Wikipedia contributors, (2005)


Comparison of seventh-generation game consoles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_seventh-
generation_game_consoles&oldid=67586138
(Accessed August 5, 2006)

Wikipedia contributors, (2005)


Video game console.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_game_console&oldid=68035311
(Accessed August 6, 2006)

Wikipedia contributors, "Video game publisher," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_game_publisher&oldid=66455722
(accessed August 23, 2006)

Wikipedia contributors, "Video game publisher," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_game_publisher&oldid=66455722
(accessed August 24, 2006).

76
TERMINOLOGY

Computer Games

A computer game refers to a game that runs on general purpose computers, which are
capable of operating other applications besides computer games. The most popular
personal computers in the market today (2006) are the IBM compatible PC and
Macintosh manufactured by Apple.

Video Games

A video game refers to a game played on dedicated video game hardware called a
console. The game itself is usually controlled and manipulated using a handheld device
connected to the console called a controller. Each video game is usually contained on a
proprietary disc or cartridge, which are generally sold separately from the console and
each other. In order to play a specific game, you need the specific console for which it
was designed.

The most popular consoles in the market today (2006) are the ‘Sony PlayStation 2’,
‘Nintendo GameCube’, and the ‘Microsoft Xbox’. All major Console manufactures
have launched or are planning to launch a new generation of video game consoles (7th
generation). ‘Sony PlayStation 3’, ‘Microsoft Xbox 360’ and ‘Nintendo Wii’.

Seventh Generation Console (7th)

The seventh generation is an era in the history of computer and video game industry that
began towards the end of 2005 with the release of the Microsoft's Xbox 360. The
transition into the seventh generation will be fully underway in 2006 with the release of
new video game consoles from Nintendo Wii, and Sony PlayStation 3. Microsoft has
labelled this generation as the "HD Era”. Consoles in this generation are typified by
advanced technology (multiple CPUs, CPU, APU), graphic, audio, physics media and
content delivery enhanced with high-speed Internet access and dedicated game, media
and content delivery infrastructures.

77
APPENDIX I FINANCIAL RECORDS

30/06/2005 30/06/2004 30/06/2003 30/06/2002 30/06/2001 30/06/2000 30/06/2000 30/06/2000


12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months
GBP GBP GBP GBP GBP GBP GBP GBP
Company 1
Turnover
Profit (Loss) before Taxation
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 62,799 58,894 57,049 59,136 128,546 -7,664
Shareholders Funds 62,799 58,894 57,049 59,136 128,546 -7,664
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%)
Return on Capital Employed (%)
Liquidity Ratio 1.35 1.31 1.32 1.2 1.44 0.77
Gearing Ratio (%)
Number of Employees

Company 2
Turnover 869,084 2,052,938 868,714
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -267,782 143,866 -444,570
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 40,573 179,535 57,749 215,876 64,427
Shareholders Funds -285,929 -148,667 -306,557 81,763 29,694
Profit Margin (%) -30.81 7.01 -51.18
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) 93.65 -96.77 145.02
Return on Capital Employed (%) -660 80.13 -769.83
Liquidity Ratio 0.55 0.82 0.45 0.75 1.16
Gearing Ratio (%) n.s. n.s. n.s. 164.03 116.97
Number of Employees 43 53 30

Company 3
Turnover

78
Profit (Loss) before Taxation
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 10 10 10 10 1
Shareholders Funds 10 10 10 10 1
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%)
Return on Capital Employed (%)
Liquidity Ratio
Gearing Ratio (%)
Number of Employees

Company 4
Turnover
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 681,986 1,072,829 1,651,681
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 3,299,799 2,707,551 1,692,019 427,338 170,286 -1,432
Shareholders Funds 3,283,904 2,691,922 1,657,852 411,462 156,069 -1,432
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) 20.77 39.85 99.63
Return on Capital Employed (%) 20.67 39.62 97.62
Liquidity Ratio 2.95 2.09 1.38 0.93 0.35 0.46
Gearing Ratio (%) 23.23 30.65 58.45 3.86 9.11
Number of Employees 80 67 62

Company 5
Turnover
Profit (Loss) before Taxation
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) -336,603 -407,505 -420,945 -531,827 -440,529 98,728
Shareholders Funds 704,655 601,462 470,458 336,015 114,483 266,039
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%)
Return on Capital Employed (%)
Liquidity Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.47 0.03 0.02 1.21
Gearing Ratio (%) 23.8 43.69 96.49 0.34 33.47
Number of Employees

79
Company 6
Turnover 4,021,903 4,695,720 4,278,166 6,784,233 5,546,863 3,757,849
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -599,905 303,369 -620,436 1,295,643 1,235,120 749,966
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 1,940,957 2,585,412 2,183,888 2,584,805 1,787,233 344,893
Shareholders Funds 1,940,957 2,540,292 2,183,888 2,568,689 1,679,045 988,768
Profit Margin (%) -14.92 6.46 -14.5 19.1 22.27 19.96
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) -30.91 11.94 -28.41 50.44 73.56 75.85
Return on Capital Employed (%) -30.91 11.73 -28.41 50.13 69.11 75.85
Liquidity Ratio 2.96 6.07 4.36 3.2 2.08 0.97
Gearing Ratio (%) 1.78 0.63 14.78
Number of Employees 122 109 114 111 92

Company 7
Turnover 9,639,555 18,372,000 7,572,491
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -6,188,839 548,000 183,338
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 2,486,338 4,475,000 3,555,411 69,851 51,415 100
Shareholders Funds 1,473,573 7,862,000 7,348,580 69,851 50,690 100
Profit Margin (%) -64.2 2.98 2.42
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) -419.99 6.97 2.49
Return on Capital Employed (%) -137.54 6.72 2.39
Liquidity Ratio 1.59 2.19 1.69 0.66 1.05
Gearing Ratio (%) 233.99 6.97 6.57 1.43
Number of Employees 251 354 115

Company 8
Turnover 656,757 341,292 384,364
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 27,132 -71,228 41,563
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) -137,620 37,081 -172,391 -34,491 40,576
Shareholders Funds 432 59,377 -16,144 -43,276 28,210
Profit Margin (%) 4.13 -20.87 10.81
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) -168.06 164.59 147.33
Return on Capital Employed (%) -259.76 206.51 102.43

80
Liquidity Ratio 0.32 1.04 0.21 0.51 0.74
Gearing Ratio (%) n.s. 383.95 n.s. n.s. 154.2
Number of Employees

Company 9
Turnover
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 1,180,783 379,904 850,372 400,892 460,040 341,038
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 3,021,700 1,659,446 1,332,428 493,078 1,665,832 1,430,834
Shareholders Funds 3,021,700 1,659,446 1,332,428 493,078 1,665,832 1,430,834
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) 39.08 22.89 63.82 81.3 27.62 23.83
Return on Capital Employed (%) 39.08 22.89 63.82 81.3 27.62 23.83
Liquidity Ratio 1.91 1.44 1.24 0.96 1.04 1.16
Gearing Ratio (%) 39.54 84.05 119.11 175.23 21.61
Number of Employees 217 185 175 132 93 80

Company 10
Turnover 3,629,650 2,263,583 2,378,931 1,734,972 2,079,205 1,612,996
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 205,649 -703,194 -84,875 105,687 138,498 156,226
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 51,068 -194,118 247,178 99,474 221,716 315,483
Shareholders Funds -31,543 -300,928 201,740 75,678 8,104 15,601
Profit Margin (%) 5.67 -31.07 -3.57 6.09 6.66 9.69
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) -651.96 233.68 -42.07 139.65 n.s. n.s.
Return on Capital Employed (%) 402.7 362.25 -34.34 106.25 62.47 49.52
Liquidity Ratio 0.85 0.72 0.86 0.28 0.87 1.18
Gearing Ratio (%) n.s. n.s. 230.33 160.18 3,078.13 2,011.45
Number of Employees 69 69 55 55 49 37

Company 11
Turnover 159,738
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 62,777
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 144,118 95,031 29,083 39,915 3,220
Shareholders Funds 144,118 95,031 29,083 39,915 3,220

81
Profit Margin (%) 39.3
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) n.s.
Return on Capital Employed (%) n.s.
Liquidity Ratio 1.15 1.16 1.05 1.13 0.78
Gearing Ratio (%)
Number of Employees

Company 12
Turnover 2,972,832 4,814,655 4,286,132 2,536,034 2,620,449
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -44,498 695,774 254,596 964,387 232,222
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 743,508 764,559 903,822 548,810 -315,195 -399,260
Shareholders Funds 728,119 715,184 863,538 458,428 -315,195 -399,260
Profit Margin (%) -1.5 14.45 5.94 38.03 8.86
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) -6.11 97.29 29.48 210.37 -73.68
Return on Capital Employed (%) -5.98 91 28.17 175.72 -73.68
Liquidity Ratio 1.33 1.16 0.77 1.25 0.63 0.56
Gearing Ratio (%) 2.11 6.9 4.66 19.72
Number of Employees 73 68 55 39 19

Company 13
Turnover
Profit (Loss) before Taxation
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 2,430,501 1,636,462 1,004,758 577,392 322,774 423,549
Shareholders Funds 2,414,801 1,636,462 1,004,758 577,392 322,774 423,549
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%)
Return on Capital Employed (%)
Liquidity Ratio 4.59 3.34 2.3 4.58 2.86 1.71
Gearing Ratio (%) 0.65
Number of Employees

Company 14
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 95,870

82
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 17,605
Shareholders Funds 16,467
Profit Margin (%) 28.02
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) 582.19
Return on Capital Employed (%) 544.56
Liquidity Ratio 1.14
Gearing Ratio (%) 6.91
Number of Employees

Company 15
Turnover 7,755,225 4,867,081 6,120,829 4,723,049 3,276,902 2,344,403
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -215,975 -1,402,211 -603,399 345,337 515,232 215,698
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) -1,192,548 -976,573 400,322 889,050 612,740 191,256
Shareholders Funds -1,192,548 -976,573 391,322 888,721 616,611 237,300
Profit Margin (%) -2.78 -28.81 -9.86 7.31 15.72 9.2
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) 18.11 143.58 -154.2 38.86 83.56 90.9
Return on Capital Employed (%) 18.11 143.58 -150.73 38.47 80.43 90.9
Liquidity Ratio 0.52 0.62 0.98 1.93 1.98 1.24
Gearing Ratio (%) n.s. n.s. 353.31 12.97 14.45 23.79
Number of Employees 142 120 133 95

Company 16
Turnover
Profit (Loss) before Taxation
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 79,629 -108,712 -124,157 2 1
Shareholders Funds 19,966 40,709 35,843 2 1
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%)
Return on Capital Employed (%)
Liquidity Ratio 1.17 0.29 0.29
Gearing Ratio (%) 1,020.05 25.99
Number of Employees

83
Company 17
Turnover 4,079,333 3,628,515 4,160,116 2,598,597 2,967,126
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 63,589 38,702 219,082 108,778 140,855
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 1,133,159 1,030,131 927,732 724,857 209,684 161,052
Shareholders Funds 1,015,984 944,502 891,862 705,973 209,684 71,329
Profit Margin (%) 1.56 1.07 5.27 4.19 4.75
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) 6.26 4.1 24.56 15.41 67.17
Return on Capital Employed (%) 5.61 3.76 23.61 15.01 67.17
Liquidity Ratio 0.85 0.85 1.2 1.05 1.34 1.2
Gearing Ratio (%) 60.79 53.53 60.6 40.5 0.98 125.79
Number of Employees 74 76 79

COMPANY 18
Turnover 1,474,783 644,346
Profit (Loss) before Taxation 429,890 257,423
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 334,724 115,505
Shareholders Funds 331,669 112,318
Profit Margin (%) 29.15 39.95
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) 129.61 229.19
Return on Capital Employed (%) 128.43 222.87
Liquidity Ratio 1.25 1.49
Gearing Ratio (%) 0.92 2.84
Number of Employees

Company 19
Profit (Loss) before Taxation
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 250,485 266,731 334,857 554,717 650,149 462,243
Shareholders Funds 89,915 65,018 133,144 554,717 650,149 462,243
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%)
Return on Capital Employed (%)
Liquidity Ratio 3.33 6.63 2.47 6.49 6.73 1.96
Gearing Ratio (%) 178.58 310.24 151.5

84
Number of Employees

Company 20
Turnover 2,533,918 3,868,882 1,570,999 3,021,404 2,221,157 1,474,602
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -386,379 1,172,425 -40,924 834,403 262,060 112,093
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 941,047 1,205,951 886,252 915,420 305,130 103,070
Shareholders Funds 941,047 1,202,814 886,252 915,420 305,130 103,070
Profit Margin (%) -15.25 30.3 -2.6 27.62 11.8 7.6
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) -41.06 97.47 -4.62 91.15 85.88 108.75
Return on Capital Employed (%) -41.06 97.22 -4.62 91.15 85.88 108.75
Liquidity Ratio 3.35 1.99 1.76 2.02 1.56 1.12
Gearing Ratio (%) 0.45 2.41 5.39
Number of Employees

Company 21
Turnover
Profit (Loss) before Taxation
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 176,738 35,915
Shareholders Funds 175,238 35,915
Profit Margin (%)
Return on Shareholders Funds (%)
Return on Capital Employed (%)
Liquidity Ratio 1.26 1.24
Gearing Ratio (%) 0.86
Number of Employees

Company 22
Turnover 3,053,203 2,670,933 1,674,477 6,071,759
Profit (Loss) before Taxation -675,990 224,234 185,808 -822,239 1,415,341
Net Tangible Assets (Liab.) 1,078,137 1,119,159 889,215 931,244 625,821 1,561,254
Shareholders Funds 856,640 781,792 432,482 431,244 125,821 814,275
Profit Margin (%) -22.14 6.96 -49.1 23.31
Return on Shareholders Funds (%) -78.91 28.68 43.09 -653.5 173.82

85
Return on Capital Employed (%) -62.7 20.04 19.95 -131.39 90.65
Liquidity Ratio 0.85 1.16 0.94 0.9 0.55 1.4
Gearing Ratio (%) 59.62 122.88 105.61 174.03 432.81 124.73
Number of Employees 76 70 56 56
Source: F.A.M.E. (2006).
Table 2.5 Profit Comparison of a Video Game Product (Advance vs. Self Funded)

86
APPENDIX 2 MANAGEMENT PROJECT PROPOSAL

U.K. 3RD PARTY VIDEO GAME DEVELOPMENT: BUSINESS MODELS,


OPPORTUNITIES, STRATEGIES AND TACTICS.

ALAN O’DEA

FULL TIME MBA

UB: 02009385

MBA Management Project Proposal


Bradford School of Management, 2005-2006.

87
Name: Alan O’Dea

Title: U.K. 3rd Party Video Game Development: Business Models, Opportunities,
Strategies and Tactics.

Supervisor: Dr Rana Tassabehji

Company: The Independent Video Games Association (www.tiga.org)

Submission: September 2006

Scope/Rational of Project

The U.K. video game industry is facing significant challenges. Development costs for
video games (PC and consoles) have risen dramatically in recent years. 3rd party U.K.
development studios cannot finance these development costs themselves, instead
relying on financial investment provided by video game publishers. In return for
financing, publishers expect development studios to sign over Intellectual Property
ownership rights of their game products.

The traditional “Publisher Business Model” (Game Investor, 2006) by which


publishers’ finance 3rd party developers in return for total Intellectual Property
ownership, control of distribution, marketing and supply channels and the majority of
profits is a detrimental business model.

Edit: Consequently 3rd party U.K. video games development may present itself as an
unprofitable business activity with most 3rd party U.K. development studios running at
an operational loss.

The project will review the current “Publisher Business Model” and evaluate its
strengths, weakness and effects on 3rd party U.K. development studios. The project
will investigate alternative business models “Hollywood Business Model” (C.
Grantham & J. Carr, 2002) and “Outsourcing Business Model” (A. Kerr, 2006,

88
Game Investor, 2006), opportunities, strategies and tactics as potential sources of cost
reduction, Intellectual Property retention and sustainable competitive advantage to
U.K. development studios.

The report will present a comparison of the advantages, disadvantages, strengths,


weaknesses and effects of the traditional “Publisher Business Model” and alternative
“Hollywood Business Model” and “Outsourcing Business Model” through a cross
sectional study of elements of the value chain (Porter, M., 1985).

The report will focus on the top ten 3rd party U.K. video game developers. These top
ten developers will be graded according to financial performance, staff levels, and
number of video game products in the marketplace and in development.

Research Questions

• Are 3RD party U.K. development studios financially profitable?


• Is the existing “Publisher Business Model” advantageous/disadvantageous to
the sustainable competitive advantage and financial profitability of 3RD party
UK developers?
• Is there a need/desire for alternative business models by 3rd party UK
developers to drive sustainable competitive advantage and financial
profitability?
• What are the financial and non-financial benefits, advantages, disadvantages,
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, cost savings, competitive features
represented by the “Publisher Business Model” throughout the value chain of
a 3rd party U.K. video game developer?
• What are the financial and non-financial benefits, opportunities, cost savings,
competitive features represented by alternative models “Hollywood Business
Model” and “Outsourcing Business Model” throughout the value chain of a
3rd party U.K. video game developer.

89
Methodology

The report will be an applied piece of business research. Exploring and analysing the
relevance, advantages, disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of extent and
alternative business models to a group of 3rd party U.K. video game developers. The
research will be descriptive in nature, focusing on identifying, classifying and
characterising various business models and features therein. The reports will focus on
gathering quantitative and qualitative data in various forms. The report will follow an
inductive approach to gathering data and a positivistic methodology utilising such
tools as surveys, one-to-one interviews and cross-sectional studies.

The primary objective of the report is to explore the existing “Publisher Business
Model” and determine its effects on sustainable competitive advantage, financial and
organisational performance of 3rd party U.K. video game developers.

Primary quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered from the top ten 3rd party
U.K. video game developers through a combination of one-to one interviews, surveys
and cross-sectional studies. Secondary quantitative and qualitative data will be
gathered from various sources; financial reports, industry reports, extent academic and
industry literature.

This data will present an exploration of financial and non-financial advantages,


disadvantages, strengths, weaknesses and effects of the existing “Publisher Business
Model” using the value chain as a frame work to present the findings.

The value chain categorises the generic value-adding activities of an


organisation. The "primary activities" include: inbound logistics, operations
(production), outbound logistics, sales and marketing, and service
(maintenance). The "support activities" include: administrative infrastructure
management, human resources management, R&D, and procurement. These
categories will form the structure by which comparisons of analysis,
performance, advantage and disadvantage are presented in the report.
(Wikipedia, 2006).

90
The secondary objective of the report is to explore a number of alternative models
“Hollywood and Outsourcing Business Model” in comparison to the traditional
“Publisher Business model”.

The benefits, advantages, disadvantages and operational differences portrayed


throughout the various business models (Publisher, Hollywood, Outsourcing) will be
explored and presented through a comparison of component elements of the value
chain. Primary quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered from the top ten 3rd
party U.K. video game developers through a combination of one-to one interviews
and surveys. Secondary quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered from various
sources; financial reports, industry reports, extent academic and industry literature.

A tertiary objective of the report is to present a toolkit of alternative opportunities,


strategies and tactics for 3rd party U.K. development studios to assist in strategic
business decision making, Intellectual Property retention, sustainable competitive
advantage and cost reduction. These opportunities, strategies and tactics will be
gathered from primary sources such as one-to-one interviews and surveys and
secondary sources such as financial reports, industry reports, extent academic and
industry literature.

Methods (Positivistic)

• Cross Sectional Studies - Financial performance of top ten UK 3rd Party


developers, Value chain analysis. (Quantitative).
• Surveys - Survey assessing advantages, disadvantages, strengths and
weaknesses and affects of “Publisher Business Model” on sample companies
and level of interest of alternative models within sample companies.
(Quantitative and Qualitative).
• One-to-one interviews - A number of one-to-one with members of the sample
organisation and video game industry in general to gather. (Quantitative and
Qualitative).

Sample

To obtain a viable sample size for comparative, relevant and thorough analysis a
larger number of independent U.K. video game developers will be included in the

91
research gathering process than are present throughout the top ten UK companies.
Surveys and one-to-one interviews will be presented to as many 3rd party U.K. video
game developers as possible to increase the initial sample size and response rate of
surveys.

Literature Review

The literature review will cover academic material presented as required reading (text
books) through key modules of the MBA course and secondary material such as that
found on Metalib, Athens, lecture notes, library, internet and other knowledge and
learning repositories.

The literature review will cover a range of industry reading including the authors own
extensive library of texts, books, trade magazines, industry reports and other reference
material. The internet and industry trade websites will also provide material to the
literature materials under review for this report.

Data Sources

Primary Information

• Cross Sectional Studies


• Surveys
• One-to-one interviews

Secondary Information

• Publications - Video Game Industry literature material.


• Publications - MBA Module Reading Material.
• Publications - Trade press, magazines, reports.
• Publications - Industry, market, sector reports.
• Websites - Industry, trade, market, reference.
• Resources - Metalib, Athens, FAME.

92
Aspects of MBA Syllabus Used

The project will involve aspects of the core courses in Strategic Management,
Advanced Strategic Management and the electives Strategic Technology and
Innovations Management and Intellectual Property in International Business.

Access to Industrial Primary Research Sources

TIGA’s membership and representation spans the entirety of the video game industry
in the U.K. As the premier trade association representing independent video game
developers in the U.K. they can provide access to the necessary sample of 3rd party
U.K. video game developers. This will have benefits to obtaining access to relevant
industry professionals and also help increase the repose rate to surveys during the
research gathering and capture part of the project.

93
Proposed Chapter Headings

Introduction

• Introduction
• TIGA
• Project Background
• Terms of Reference
• Project Methodology

Addressing the Issues

• The Need for Solutions, Not More Problems


• The Next Generation of Video Games Hardware
• Problems Facing UK Developers
• Failures in the Traditional Publishing Model
• Why seek Alternative Business Models

Industry Analysis

• Industry Analysis
• Global Market Analysis
• UK Industry Contribution
• Major UK Developers & Products
• Performance Analysis (UK Developers” Top Ten”)

Market Analysis

• Market Analysis
• Industry Structure
• Publisher Model
• Strengths and Weaknesses
• Effects on UK Developers
• Publisher Model Value Chain

Developer Analysis

• Operational Structure
• Operational Costs
• Strengths and Weaknesses
• Financial Dependence

94
• Intellectual Property Ownership
• Skills, Capabilities, Services Deficiencies
• Marketplace Servicing Strategy

Alternative Models

• Why use Alternative Models


• Hollywood Model
• Strengths and Weaknesses
• Outsourcing Model
• Strengths and Weaknesses
• Advantages and Disadvantages
• Value Chain

Supporting Activities

• Cost Reduction
• Distribution Methods
• Alternative Revenue Streams
• Alternative Financing Streams
• Financial Investment
• Tax & R&D Credits
• Advertising
• Operational Activities
• Strategic Change
• Value Chain
• Marketplace Service
• Strategic Management
• Intellectual Property Retention

Conclusions and Recommendation

• Conclusions
• Recommendations

Appendices

Bibliography

95
Work Program

96
Bibliography

Games Investor, “Publishing: The Publishing Business Model - Higher risk/reward”


http://www.gamesinvestor.com/Business_models/Publishing/publishing.htm
(accessed May 1, 2006).

Games Investor, “Outsourcing’s Time Has Come”


http://www.gamesinvestor.com/Thinkpieces/Outsourcing/outsourcing.html (accessed
May 1, 2006).

C. Grantham and J. Carr, (2002), “Consumer Evolution” Hoboken, John Wiley &
Sons.

A, Kerr, (2006), “The Business and Culture of Digital Games” London, Sage.

Hyman, Paul, “Game developers mull 'Hollywood model'


http://www.thehollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/video_games_display.jsp?vnu_co
ntent_id=1000799264 (accessed May 1, 2006).

97

You might also like