The Ideal Flash Game Sponsorship
In the flash games industry, there are plenty of game licensing options to go around. With all these different licenses, it can be tough for beginners and veterans alike to choose between them and negotiate their way to a great deal with sponsors. I’ve been talking a bit with my fellow blogger Vlad of VortixGames, and I came up with my own take on the ideal flash game sponsorship.
The first part of my ideal sponsorship is securing yourself a primary sponsorship. Termed by the makers of Flash Game License, the primary sponsorship is when a sponsor purchases the primary branding in your game. This will include any sort of splash screen, logos, or other branding that you negotiate into your game with the sponsor. This branding will appear on all viral versions of your game, with one exception.
A primary license allows you to sell the second part of my ideal sponsorship; site-locked versions of your game. Site-locked versions, also called non-exclusives, can be appealing to both developers and sponsors.
Developers, you are given another revenue option for your game. You can sell multiple versions of your game, branded with different logos and APIs that each will net you a decent sum of cash. You’ll also gain exposure and game views from these big portals that can afford to purchase non-exclusives.
Sponsors benefit from a primary license because most of the portals that purchase non-exclusives won’t accept your game without sponsor branding removed. This means that the sponsor who buys an exclusive sponsorship won’t gain that many more views than if they had simply purchased a primary license. With exclusive sponsorships coming in at a higher cost than primary licenses, it is more efficient and cost-effective for a sponsor to just purchase a primary license.
The last part of my ideal flash game sponsorship has more to do with what you must be allowed to include in your game. Your game should be allowed the option of (1) having microtransactions, and (2) including in-game ads. It’s not necessary to have these bits worked into the contract if you don’t wish to utilize them, but they should always be an option.
Microtransactions are one of the brightest looking revenue options for developers right now. Many developers have been learning that players are willing to pay if you can offer them a great experience for buying your content.
The good thing is, if you’ve built a game around microtransactions sponsors aren’t really going to have a choice in the matter. Once a game is designed with the microtransactions concept in mind, it’s going to be tough to take it out. But with most of the microtransactions systems coming built with sponsors in mind, by allowing sponsors to take a certain percentage of the microtransactions, most sponsors are realizing that they’re going to have to go along with it.
In-game ads are a bit of a different story. They can be added and removed with ease. If you think your game might go big, in-game ads could be a great option. The more people that play your game, the more money you’ll make.
The thing is, in-game ads don’t really benefit most game sponsors. Sure, there are some ad systems that allow developers and sponsors to split the ad revenue, but earnings are most likely minimal compared to the amount the sponsor will earn on their portal. Plus, in-game ad’s can annoy players and cause damage to a sponsors reputation or brand. Sponsors want to be associated with happiness and fun. When was the last time you thought an ad on tv was fun?
If you do want to include in-game ads, most sponsors will be just fine with it. But, you may want to expect a little bit of a drop in your sponsorship amount.
So take my idea for an ideal sponsorship and start negotiating away with your favorite sponsors. Or, develop your own set of points your looking for in a sponsorship, and you’re sure to come out of it on top.
Related posts:
July 17th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Enabling all revenue sources would be nice. However, the sponsors i talked to this month declined to go into a sponsorship with microtransactions and ads enabled. Even getting Primary Sponsorship instead of an exclusive one is not easy. It’s like sponsors just want to exploit us developers instead of being fair and aiming for win-win situations.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I can see not allowing in-game ads, or forcing you to take a reduction in price for in-game ads. Since they annoy players and can take away from a sponsor’s branding.
But microtransactions, if done tastefully, shouldn’t be a reason for a sponsor to forgo sponsoring your game. Most players are actually happy for the chance to buy extra content, as seen in Fantastic Contraption and SAS Zombie Assault 2. Maybe even try sharing a percent of the microtransactions earnings with the sponsor.
True, their is the occasional sponsor who is interested in helping developers, but a lot of sponsors are only interested in benefiting their own site.
Try explaining to your sponsor that if you can’t sell site-locked licenses, it isn’t going to benefit them very much. Exclusives cost more than primary licenses for a sponsor, yet most of the site’s that purchases site-locked non-exclusives won’t allow your game on them if it isn’t with their branding. Thus your sponsor will not get that many extra views from buying an exclusive license.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Hey! Glad to see this post up! Sorry I’m late by the way.
Exclusive licensing + no-ads is usually asked mostly by smaller sponsors. I was under the impression that is was a lack of knowledge thing, now I think it’s one of the best weapons they have.
I think that right now primaries will be more available to medium to high quality games from medium to high profile portals. It just makes sense in my head, not sure why. Smaller games or lower quality games will find exclusive sponsorships easier to find through smaller portals.
I need to think this out really, but that’s my feeling right now.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Thanks Vlad.
I agree that tends to be the general way things work. Although it could go both ways, with small portals trying to make up for the smaller amount they offer you by letting you sell non-exclusives.
I think with the smaller portals it could either be a lack of knowledge or just a different mindset. Since there is less money to spend, a smaller portal will want all of the investment (and returns) to be theirs, and not share it with other portals too. That would be my guess, although if you can think of another reason, feel free to correct me. :D