Printable View
Has anyone else been struck by just how much money seems to be in smartphone apps and the like? With a couple of hundred million smartphone users within the relatively easy reach of app-developers, I can't help but think that app-development must be one of the most lucrative businesses or side-businesses in existence today.
Have you taken a slice out of this pie??
I know a guy who made an app with a bunch of card games. It's been well received, but basically he makes like 5 cents/dollar from every 99 cent app sold.
Out of curiosity, who steals the rest of the money?
This is why I'm excited by the idea of ads in e-books. It's working for mobile applications pretty well:
Quote:
Angry Birds On Android Projected To Generate $1 Million Per Month In Advertising
Erick Schonfeld
Dec 3, 2010
One of the most successful mobile games right now is Angry Birds, which has been downloaded more than 30 million times across different mobile platforms, with 12 million of those being paid downloads on iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches. But on Android, the game is free, and is supported by advertising. Angry Birds has been downloaded more than 5 million times on Android since that version launched in October. “By end of year, we project earnings of over $1 million per month with the ad-supported version of Angry Birds,” says Peter Vesterbacka, the “Mighty Eagle” behind the game at Rovio Mobile.
He appears in the video above taken by Google’s AdMob team, which kicks off a mobile developer series. In the video, he doesn’t mention the $1 million a month figure, but he does reveals some other stats, such as the fact that the apps have an 80 percent retention rate, measured by the number of people who download updates. And on the iPhone alone, people spend a collective 65 million minutes a day playing the game.
He also talks about different ways to make money from mobile games—whether that is paid downloads, advertising, or toys. (Expect to see ads for the Angry Birds plush toys in the game itself).
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/03/ang...n-advertising/
Given the rapid growth of the PAID e-book market I have no doubt at all that the ad-supported e-book/magazine/news market will be hugely successful, Lolli's peeves notwithstanding.
Angry Birds is in fact exactly what I was thinking of when I posted this! Last I heard they'd reached 50 million downloads accross all platforms, which is ridiculously good for such a simple idea. I'd like to know where all of the money's going, in this borderless world of ours.
They're a Finnish company, actually.
I think the relevant question is how much is their advertising revenue compared to their paid download revenue. EG if they get 3.99 from a game download, how much revenue are they getting per user for the game? It could be more depending on how long people play the game for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Plus they could use that ongoing revenue stream to improve the game and keep people playing, this keeping the cycle going and enriching all of Finland.
Not going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Well, it may happen with a few starry eyed indie developers, but if the (phone)mobile gaming market manages to pull itself up out of the slums, the in game advertising will simply become another revenue source like it is in console and PC games. Consumers don't see shit in return.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. There will always be winners and losers in any kind of creative market (books, games, etc). But for those who are successful, they get a revenue stream to reward their hard work. I, on the other hand, get a free game that I enjoy. People on iPhones who don't see ads have to pay for the game. The benefit to me is very clear.
Reply #9 doesn't involve any of the revenue going back into the game thats creating the revenue, which is what you mentioned in reply #7. You took 2 totally different approaches to the same concept.
How does revenue going to the game developer not go to the game developer?
Magnets!
money going to the game developer ≠ revenue stream to improve the game and keep people playingQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Maybe not in the number-theoretical sense but given that they're still releasing angry birds updates and merch I think revenue may help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Of course it does, since paying the hardly extortionate fees of 59p each for Angry Birds and Doodle Jump I've received multiple free updates for the games; far more than for any traditional PC or Console games. Were the developers not getting revenues, they'd not be updating the games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
obviously revenue helps, just look at Minecraft, a PC game, or any of the Valve games. How many times have they updated TF2, the HL games, or Portal. Hell they updated Portal 1 just to advertise for Portal 2 :haha:
but ad revenue doesn't mean the money has to go back into the game, industry leader EA is good example, or even TDU if we need an Atari/Activision example.
Theres a threshold that game developers reach, and once there ad revenue simply becomes removed from game support. Its a common complaint about online games games. "Realism" ads advertising a movie that comes out next week, when the last game patch was at launch, while the bug list continues to grow.
Just because games are mobile doesn't mean they are going to behave differently from PC or console titles :noob:
Angry Birds for example makes a million a month, how much of that do you feel is put back into the game in updates? Whats to stop that number from changing?
It doesn't have to go directly back into the game, but usually people don't fold their businesses and close shop after they see some success. They often want to develop and grow the business, either by investing in their existing product or making a new one.
In the case of advertising-supported applications, there is an especially strong incentive to improve and update the existing application because the ad impressions behind your revenue stream comes from people continuing to play your game that they installed.
I doubt Angry Birds is costing $1 million/month to develop, but it's sure keeping Roxio's doors open so they can keep working on the game and make new ones.
Comes to a point however where you don't have to invest back into the program. It becomes sorta self reliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Blizzard took 2 years to take Diablo II from 1.09 to 1.10. All the while running battle.net ads. EA's sports titles are an excellent example of ad supported games, and not only do they charge for team updates, but the yearly releases have 2 things in common; 1) reviewer complaints of same game different number 2) record setting sales.
Personally, in this context a quote like "keep people playing" to me means keeping them coming back to that specific game, as the article talked about. Investing ad revenue from one game into the production another game doesn't "keep people playing" in the sense of increasing the ad revenue game's retention rate as the article mentioned.
Are you seriously arguing, with a straight face, that Blizzard's track record with Diablo 2 is a sign of lack of customer care in the gaming industry? :bulb:
No, only that ad revenue and game support shouldn't be so strongly connected. Otherwise I wouldn't have a screen full of spam when playing in battle.net with Diablo II. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Hell, its 14 years later and I can still jump on battle.net to play Diablo. Which is god damn amazing considering how they nickel and dime the warcraft community.
Pfff battle.net didn't cost blizzard any money time or energy to maintain for 14 years, don't fall for their tricks
I don't think many things become self reliant. And many businesses don't like to leave that to chance unless they are complacent (in which case a competitor can undercut them).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
But if they do decide to just sit on their revenue-generating product, it leaves all the more money to be invested in new products. Or just pocketed. The point is that it gives developers ongoing options. If a developer is earning a million dollars a month from their hit title, they can invest that money in the existing product, pocket the cash or split the money between the existing game and new games.
My point is it becomes a viable ecosystem when that choice is presenting itself to a lot of developers. Whether mobile application ads fulfills the "a lot" part is up for debate, but the trend is certainly positive.
This is where I was getting to. This is the goal of a game developer. So yeah, some starry eyed indie may show the fans some love with an aggressive update schedule, but after a certain point they simply don't have to. They can sit and wait until someone is able to challenge them; which is becoming harder and harder (across all platforms). Blizzard did an interview about this complacency a while back, about how they get away with charging so much and leaving certain things as is in the WoW community. No competition, and if someone did come across they have a bag full of tricks built up to keep anyone from becoming a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The reddit timing on this cannot go ignored :haha:
http://i.imgur.com/Mfayh.gif
Of course it's not $1mn/mo - if it was, Roxio would fold and there'd be no more updates. The company needs to make a profit. If any of it goes back to the game then Dread's point is right, it doesn't need all of it to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer