What is a new table game concept worth?

In another thread, Unusual way to bring a new game, SWITCH posted a reply to a possiblely new developer, "if you haven't got the funds to cover the necessary groundwork then you can try and approach a games company and work with an NDA. However, any success going this route would depend heavily on the novelty and appeal of your concepts and you will be offered a reduced compensation for approaching a company so early on.

I've yet to see it but if I was offered to work with a new game that I thought was exciting and original then I would quite happily pay for patent, analysis and approval/marketing if a % deal could be agreed upon."

What % do you think a concept is worth? What is the general rule of thumb in the market? May be SWITCH has a number in mind.

Quote: UCivan

I've yet to see it but if I was offered to work with a new game that I thought was exciting and original then I would quite happily pay for patent, analysis and approval/marketing if a % deal could be agreed upon."

What % do you think a concept is worth? What is the general rule of thumb in the market? May be SWITCH has a number in mind.

That really depends on what you'd bring to the table, no pun intended. If you're the sort of person who can guarantee that a game will be properly produced and developed (math, dealer procedure, regulatory, patent, etc.) and guarantee a field trial once that's completed, that's probably worth more than someone who just wants to try to sell something on your behalf. So it's hard to put a number on it without that additional information. There's certainly no general rule of thumb.

Math Ex,
The thread was posted because of the statements Switch made. Let's assume the person "can guarantee that a game will be properly produced and developed (math, dealer procedure, regulatory, patent, etc.) and guarantee a field trial once that's completed", (i.e., HE MUST BE God if not SWITCH) what do you think? I am kinda of looking for an opinion.

It would depend on the concept itself and how it fitted within a game or games.

If the concept comprised of a complete game and it just needed to have analysis and IP protection work then it would command a higher % than a conceptual rule that could be used to either offset other rules (push 22) or to add a new twist to a game (switching).

My thoughts are around the 10% - 20% mark.

Personally, in general(not specifically the gaming industry), I put an good central idea at around 5% of a project's value. As I understand it, this is the statutory penalty for unintentional patent violation. The bulk of the value is in execution. I read startup blogs and similar sources a bit and for a while it was really really trendy to say the idea was worthless, it's all execution. Then, there was a little pushback with people saying, no, ideas have some value. I'm sure there are exceptions, say if someone with a lot of experience has prepared a thought out document, then maybe it's more than just an "idea". As a point of reference, the author of the article I linked to in the other threads(on NDA's) suggested that having a 10 page business plan was necessary, but not sufficient for him to sign an NDA.

Quote: Switch

It would depend on the concept itself and how it fitted within a game or games.

If the concept comprised of a complete game and it just needed to have analysis and IP protection work then it would command a higher % than a conceptual rule that could be used to either offset other rules (push 22) or to add a new twist to a game (switching).

My thoughts are around the 10% - 20% mark.

10-20%? that is way too generous for a mere concept!!! Even a completely approved product only gets at most 15%-20% from a distributor (e.g., Galaxy, SHFL). I think GOD would offer about 0-5%. Switch, you would get a lot of solicitations. How much royalty a book author gets, 8-15%?

Quote: RoyalBJ

10-20%? that is way too generous for a mere concept!!! Even a completely approved product only gets at most 15%-20% from a distributor (e.g., Galaxy, SHFL). I think GOD would offer about 0-5%. Switch, you would get a lot of solicitations. How much royalty a book author gets, 8-15%?

The way I'm reading that is if you expect to get, say, 10% of a game's revenue, then the idea itself is worth 10-20% of that 10%, or 1-2% of the total eventual revenues. That's what I mean when I say the idea is worth 5%, that it's worth 5% of whatever income I would expect to receive. I think this is a useful perspective if someone approaches you with a game idea and wants to work with you. Does it happen any other way? The industry always wants more than just an idea when you approach them, so does it make sense to make the value a proportion of the game as a whole. I guess this is different from a typical startup that's developing products for a consumer, not a business, but would a business facing startup not think in terms of their idea vs their revenue?

I guess it might be an informative thought experiment. If the idea is worth 5% of the eventual revenue and IGT/WMS/... gives you only slightly more than that for everything you put in, is there a market inefficiency here? An opportunity... maybe a design firm that works more actively with developers? Are game developers just willing to work for less than they may be able to make elsewhere because games are fun? (this was always a fear in computer games when I was younger, that you'd be competing against teens who would stay high and work 70hrs a week... and that's just one guy I happened to know)

Does this make sense? Seems to me like the best way to think about it is as a percent of your segment in the value chain. It gives you a tool to work with if someone approaches you with an idea, and I suspect it's more consistent with how other people view an idea's value.

If you look at the story Switch gave us, the original idea was "players switching hands". That wasn't enough on it's own. He executed, found out it wasn't enough, took what he learned back to the drawing board and had a second idea that led to his success. I'm not really counting that second idea as an "idea". To me thats simply what happens in the course of good execution.

I think it's be really interesting to see a discussion on the broader economics of game dev.

I think the value of an idea is directly linked to its perceived appeal in the market place and whether or not the math works. To me the toughest part of new game development is getting the math to work using rules that players will accept.

If you look at Switch's original Blackjack Switch game concept, to get his math to work required a rule that the players didn't accept (i.e. losing on ties of 17-19). So the Switch concept was good, but without the right compensating rule, the game wasn't worth very much.

Huge value to the game concept was created with the idea of the compensating rule (Push 22) to be used in correlation with the Switch feature. Marrying a good game concept/feature that players will want with a compensating rule that player's will accept (and has the correct HE carve back needed with the specific feature) is where value is created in game development.

Then as ME added you have dealing procedures (and these aren't always easy to get to be smooth and fluid) & patentability (even with the Bilski issue, you need some path to clean IP protection).

So with that said, game ideas by themselves are relatively easy & not worth much ("Give players a chance to replace a card in BJ"), but getting that concept to work mathematically with a compensating mechanism they will accept and dealing procedures that are practical and smooth....that is a lot more than having an idea. Lucky & I put a lot of time, effort and $$ in to "Mulligan 21" (a game that Lucky & I developed) beyond the concept of "let's allow players an opportunity to replace a hit card in BJ".

I wouldn't pay much for a game idea alone.....but a game that has a new hook for players with rules that I think players will accept & math that works, well if it is novel enough and has a clean path to IP, then I think you do have an idea that is worth 20% of revenue. That is the type of deal that you get with a distributor and they set the bar in these types of arrangements. Add a few installs with proof that the concept works on the floors of multiple properties, well now you have something worth more than 20%.

The reason the game alone isn't worth more than 20% is the work that is required to get a game on the floor and the risk (& game tweaking) that is inherent in getting a game to work for both players and the casino. I think this last hurdle is a much bigger to get over than developing the game. And until you get over this hurdle....you own 20% of nothing :-).

I think the poll should've had some absolute negative #, like -$1000 in case someone wanted to say that a generic idea is more likely than not to cost you money.

Of course, this would've required a more ridiculous control answer, maybe "When does the hurting stop?!?!"

Generalities from what I have learned in the past year. Not intended to be authoritative, just informative.

I was offered a better contract by having 2 math reports done by professionals, and having filed provisional patents, and having a marketing document, brochures and table cards, and a professionally printed felt, than I would have been otherwise. I had a fully developed presentation, had worked out a usable layout and dealing procedures, game protection procedures, known vulnerabilities and mitigating procedures, and could quote reliable figures for single deck and 6 deck HE, penetration, win percentage, proposed sidebet payoffs, hands per hour, a lot of other minutia. I was told the amount of work that goes into these prepatory items before approaching a distributor is directly related to the quality of the offer they are able to make.

There are 2 types of deals a distributor will make. In one, the inventor retains the IP rights, and the distributor provides part of the sales force, making the game available to their customers. They are paying for the right to markeet and distribute your game, and that's about the limit of their exposure. I don't know much more about this option, because we went the other way. However, if the inventor retains the IP rights, they retain the liability for the game, which includes lawsuits for patent infringement (legitimate or bogus), the costs of perfecting the patent, and the cost of obtaining and keeping licensed for the game's play in more than 300 jurisdictions in just the US market. The inventor also must pursue any infringement lawsuits worldwide against people stealing the IP or trademarked aspects of the game and using them without payment/attribution. The average cost of each such lawsuit is reportedly $1 million US, either defending against one or pursuing thefts.

A bit more on licensing: if you are distributing your own game, you as an entity (sole proprietor, corporate, or partner) and up to each person in your entity, depending on that jurisdiction's laws and regulations, must qualify as a distributor and/or inventor/manufacturer, which involves paperwork, fees, and weeks/months of time waiting to be qualified. Then the game itself has to pass the gaming board in that jurisdiction for equipment used, HE, qualified math report, a dozen other aspects. Then, once both you and the game are qualified, many jurisdictions charge annual fees to maintain those qualifications.

The second type is for the outright sale of the IP to the distributor in exchange for a percentage of royalties (if any) and, on some contracts, a signing bonus. The reason we went this way is that we did not have the deep pockets necessary for all the licensing, liabilities, and patent perfection, let alone the marketing costs, and while we would have gone forward as self-distributors had we not been so fortunate as to be offered this opportunity, it would have been much different (lesser, I'm sure) in scope and quality, at least from the launch.

The distributor assumes all liability, fights any lawsuits, is already licensed to do business in the jurisdictions they're marketing, polishes the game for commercial distribution and tailors it to different markets and casinos, already has a relationship with casinos and card rooms, and has everything necessary available, from commercial graphic artists to licensing specialists to a trained sales force, to place the game quickly and widely. Their expense and exposure in doing this is considerable, so they tend to take (and earn) the majority of any royalties. I consider this a win/win, with an entire company moving forward with my product, and risking a lot of up-front money in order for us both to profit down the road.

Each contract is individually negotiated, with different percentages, time frames, minimum guarantees (if any), formats covered, kickout clauses. I don't think I can say much more without violating confidentiality agreements, so I'll stop there, but Switch and Paradigm have both offered insights I would consider accurate to my experience.

Edit: re: the poll itself. I would have voted for 20% if it were an available option, but took 15% as closest to it. 50% and above is completely unrealistic, but there is significance to a unique idea that proves itself mathematically which ranks above the lower values offered. If it is an improvement to an existing game, or a sidebet, I think 5-10% is a more realistic range.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The distributor assumes all liability, fights any lawsuits

I am not a lawyer by any means, but, doesn't this create a problem where they are not particularly motivated to defend against a lawsuit?

In particular, consider the situation where they do not give you a signing bonus (or, give you a relatively insignificant one). You make only a percentage of royalties, but they own the IP. Suppose they install it in a few test markets. Then I come forward with a mostly bogus patent lawsuit. I sue for damages, but am willing to settle if they simply "cease and desist", and stop offering the game.

It seems like the distributor doesn't really have a dog in this fight. At this point they are not that sure if the game is going to be successful, and they have not invested that much yet. Simply settling and giving up on the game might be a smarter move (on their part) than fighting, even if they are likely (though not guaranteed, of course) to prevail at trial. They can just settle, and move on to the next inventor's game, with very little hassle and expense. You get screwed over, but they don't particularly care.

I guess, I would always be worried about putting someone else in control of something like this, if their interests were not aligned with mine.

Do you have the option to "buy it back" from them and go with a different distributor if it doesn't get installed (or if it gets installed and subsequently removed?)

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I am not a lawyer by any means, but, doesn't this create a problem where they are not particularly motivated to defend against a lawsuit?

In particular, consider the situation where they do not give you a signing bonus (or, give you a relatively insignificant one). You make only a percentage of royalties, but they own the IP. Suppose they install it in a few test markets. Then I come forward with a mostly bogus patent lawsuit. I sue for damages, but am willing to settle if they simply "cease and desist", and stop offering the game.

It seems like the distributor doesn't really have a dog in this fight. At this point they are not that sure if the game is going to be successful, and they have not invested that much yet. Simply settling and giving up on the game might be a smarter move (on their part) than fighting, even if they are likely (though not guaranteed, of course) to prevail at trial. They can just settle, and move on to the next inventor's game, with very little hassle and expense. You get screwed over, but they don't particularly care.

I guess, I would always be worried about putting someone else in control of something like this, if their interests were not aligned with mine.

Do you have the option to "buy it back" from them and go with a different distributor if it doesn't get installed (or if it gets installed and subsequently removed?)

Your concern may be valid. In our particular case, I do not have numbers, but it's my perception that the distributor has already invested a significant amount of money and salaries in the game and has an investment to protect. I think that evaluation you suggest would have to be on a case-by-case basis. The structure of the contract has to be to both parties' satisfaction as to commitment and investment before signature. I am satisfied as to their commitment, and from what I've seen, they have been following through very well. They have demonstrated to me that their interests are well aligned with mine, and we will succeed or fail together.

Any contract can make any provision possible, including a "buyback". I'm not at liberty to discuss my particular arrangements, sorry.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Your concern may be valid. In our particular case, I do not have numbers, but it's my perception that the distributor has already invested a significant amount of money and salaries in the game and has an investment to protect. I think that evaluation you suggest would have to be on a case-by-case basis. The structure of the contract has to be to both parties' satisfaction as to commitment and investment before signature. I am satisfied as to their commitment, and from what I've seen, they have been following through very well. They have demonstrated to me that their interests are well aligned with mine, and we will succeed or fail together.

Any contract can make any provision possible, including a "buyback". I'm not at liberty to discuss my particular arrangements, sorry.

That is good to hear! I hope you're successful. If I ever see your game in Vegas I will probably buy in for $100 and see how it goes. $200 if it replaced a casino war table.

I wasn't necessarily talking about your specific case, but more about the general case. It's generally something to keep in mind. The concept comes up a lot in other situations as well. For example, some people feel that it is always a good idea to get enough insurance such that the insurance company's liability is enough that they are motivated to fight for you. If you get sued for $2 million and have $50k in coverage, the insurance company may just pay their $50k and let you fend for yourself for the rest. On the other hand, if you get sued for $3 million and have $1 million in coverage.. the insurance company will probably be willing to put up quite a fight on your behalf! Now your premiums are not only paying for $1 million in liability, but also (probably) getting you a free legal defense as well, should you get sued.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

That is good to hear! I hope you're successful. If I ever see your game in Vegas I will probably buy in for $100 and see how it goes. $200 if it replaced a casino war table.

I wasn't necessarily talking about your specific case, but more about the general case. It's generally something to keep in mind. The concept comes up a lot in other situations as well. For example, some people feel that it is always a good idea to get enough insurance such that the insurance company's liability is enough that they are motivated to fight for you. If you get sued for $2 million and have $50k in coverage, the insurance company may just pay their $50k and let you fend for yourself for the rest. On the other hand, if you get sued for $3 million and have $1 million in coverage.. the insurance company will probably be willing to put up quite a fight on your behalf! Now your premiums are not only paying for $1 million in liability, but also (probably) getting you a free legal defense as well, should you get sued.

When I was an Air Traffic Controller, I started carrying a 2 million liability umbrella the first year. It was likely unnecessary, because part of my contract with the government was that they would always step in if any lawsuit was directed at me in the course of my duties. But I still carried it, and continue to, for the reasons you mention. Whether it would kick in if I were to be sued personally over the game, I'm not sure, but I'm not the one with the deep pockets the litigants would be pursuing. I still think it's the best use of insurance money out there, especially living in the US, though I've never had to prove it.

It's likely you'll get that chance very soon from what I hear, and I'll hold you to it, in fact I'd be honored. No firm date yet.

Quote: Paradigm

... ...

Huge value to the game concept was created with the idea of the compensating rule (Push 22) to be used in correlation with the Switch feature. Marrying a good game concept/feature that players will want with a compensating rule that player's will accept (and has the correct HE carve back needed with the specific feature) is where value is created in game development.
... ...
So with that said, game ideas by themselves are relatively easy & not worth much ("Give players a chance to replace a card in BJ"), but getting that concept to work mathematically with a compensating mechanism they will accept and dealing procedures that are practical and smooth....that is a lot more than having an idea.

.....but a game that has a new hook for players with rules that I think players will accept & math that works, well if it is novel enough and has a clean path to IP, then I think you do have an idea that is worth 20% of revenue. That is the type of deal that you get with a distributor and they set the bar in these types of arrangements. Add a few installs with proof that the concept works on the floors of multiple properties, well now you have something worth more than 20%.

... ...

Some excellent points here and also by other posters. The game itself is not necessarily the key factor, it's the concept that lies within the game and whether it will work out mathematically.

A game that will attract players while retaining a sufficient house edge is reasonably attainable on paper but when you have to factor in the math' then the concept can have zero value.

There are other factors that have to be catered for and each criteria either tightens up the concept or involves having to implement other rule changes to incorporate it. I feel that I have good experience in weighing up these factors and assessing the merits of a new game quite quickly. Usually I find something within the game that causes me to lose interest.

The keys are to keep it unique, simple and interesting.

The higher the rating for the 3 above then the higher the chance of success. As we know, most games don't make it to the casino floor so my threshold is very high on the ratings.

SHFL or Galaxy offers several Vegas and other states-approved games 15%-20%. (I prefer not to give any examples here.) If we use this as the benchmark, how could an unproved concept deserve over 10%? Enlighten me!! Please note the poll was for situations where a concept is raw, someone has to start spending money to prove if it ever works. The concept presenter is requesting certain % if successful. If you have to pay / fund for everything beyond the concept, what % would U agree to offer to the concept presenter?

Quote: UCivan

SHFL or Galaxy offers several Vegas and other states-approved games 15%-20%. (I prefer not to give any examples here.) If we use this as the benchmark, how could an unproved concept deserve over 10%? Enlighten me!! Please note the poll was for situations where a concept is raw, someone has to start spending money to prove if it ever works. The concept presenter is requesting certain % if successful. If you have to pay / fund for everything beyond the concept, what % would U agree to offer to the concept presenter?

This is a better explanation, and was what I was thinking when I answered 5%. From another angle, as I understand it, 20-1 is in the ballpark of what early stage Angel's and VC's look for. Iirc, y-combinator wants 5-8% of the company for their typical $10-20k, although I believe they are looking at ideas that scale better than a single casino game, so it's not a perfect comparison.

If 15-20% is the standard, why not offer 10-20% to a concept you believe has a real potential to be profitable ? Assuming you have the money to invest. That's what it is after all, an investment ! R&D is very, very, expensive.

Better add that it's always easy to spend someone else's money !

Quote: UCivan

If we use this as the benchmark, how could an unproved concept deserve over 10%? Enlighten me!! Please note the poll was for situations where a concept is raw, someone has to start spending money to prove if it ever works.

Quote: Switch

If the concept comprised of a complete game and it just needed to have analysis and IP protection work then it would command a higher % than a conceptual rule

Quote: Paradigm

So the Switch concept was good, but without the right compensating rule, the game wasn't worth very much.

I think the 15%-20% applies to more complete game ideas that already have math done that falls into the proper range of HE for that type of game.

If you are talking about a raw idea with no math, a set of rules that won't be smooth to deal or easily accepted by players, than the idea isn't really worth much.....I would say less than 5%, likely closer to zero. A game concept alone isn't worth much because until the math illustrates that the idea could work, it is worthless.

As an example, how much is this idea worth: "BJ game where the player gets to replace one of their initial two cards with the next card in the shoe". So you ask the developer, "What does the player have to give up vs. normal BJ rules to get the HE within the 0.5% - 1.2% range", Developer: "I don't know, the math isn't complete". My guess is what is required as a carve back in this example is so onerous that the game would never be accepted by players. So the idea is a zero. Until you know whether or not the game can work mathematically, you have nothing.

But if you have a game with math & provisional IP protection, a hook that players will like and a set of rules players will accept based on the view of discriminating veterans of the industry (e.g. Pacman, Switch, Paigowdan, etc.), than you are looking at that 15%-20% range. Even before you have proof of concept that it will work on the floor, any state approvals or have pitched the game to any properties.

If you polish up the commercialization (e.g. logo, layout design, rack cards, AP Analysis, table sign design, etc), get it on a floor for trial and start to accumulate performance data that proves the game works for both the players & the casino, well then you have a lot more to offer a distributor.

High Card Flush was such a game. An 18 month plus operating run down in Laughlin from what I heard, but only the single install. Galaxy comes in and I am sure offered more than 15%-20% in a royalty agreement. That game is going to be a winner and Galaxy knew it.....you have an install that has lasted and provides proof of concept. That is when the value of a distributor with a good sales network that is wanting a new premium game can really super charge a game's growth.

Saw HCF installed on my last trip to WA, 4 ladies and 2 gentlemen all in their 70's took up all the seats on a Thursday night at 10PM. Think about it, all you have to do is look for suits amongst the 7 cards and decide to make a play bet or not. The simplicity of Three Card Poker, but you get to squeeze 7 cards to determine your hand. And a natural side bet opportunity with an 8000-1 pay off. That game will be very big!

I'm surprised so many people have voted for no value for ideas. I think it's important to realize that, at least to me, pitching an idea involves much more than just sharing a concept you came up with while eating your corn flakes. I think preliminary sketches with well thought out rules is necessary at minimum. Personally, and since it was my thread that was quoted here, I intend to have the basic mathematical principles in place as well although a more in-depth analysis would be necessary. I think another overlooked aspect is who the idea person is. Is it someone smart who you would want to foster a lasting relationship with? Are they willing to put in time and effort to get the idea to fruition or are they just throwing ideas out there? Can they bring something to a pitch? Do they have an interesting or unique background?

Execution is where the rubber meets the road but without a sound idea with the base work already handled, you won't even have rubber to meet the road with. Before pitching an idea, I would make sure I have taken it as far as I can and need assistance with the next steps. It would literally be ready for math analysis and patent with the rules and kinks flushed out completely. With all of these components of an idea in mind, it is foolish and short-sighted to say that ideas aren't worth anything. 20% sounds about right to me but it's only that low since those who front the cost are taking more of a risk.

Quote: DrMeh

I'm surprised so many people have voted for no value for ideas. I think it's important to realize that, at least to me, pitching an idea involves much more than just sharing a concept you came up with while eating your corn flakes. I think preliminary sketches with well thought out rules is necessary at minimum. Personally, and since it was my thread that was quoted here, I intend to have the basic mathematical principles in place as well although a more in-depth analysis would be necessary. I think another overlooked aspect is who the idea person is. Is it someone smart who you would want to foster a lasting relationship with? Are they willing to put in time and effort to get the idea to fruition or are they just throwing ideas out there? Can they bring something to a pitch? Do they have an interesting or unique background?

Execution is where the rubber meets the road but without a sound idea with the base work already handled, you won't even have rubber to meet the road with. Before pitching an idea, I would make sure I have taken it as far as I can and need assistance with the next steps. It would literally be ready for math analysis and patent with the rules and kinks flushed out completely. With all of these components of an idea in mind, it is foolish and short-sighted to say that ideas aren't worth anything. 20% sounds about right to me but it's only that low since those who front the cost are taking more of a risk.

Based on this, what would you suggest should be the value of a game that is fully patented and fully analyzed, but needs regulatory approval and sales/marketing/support?
What if a game is patented, analyzed, and approved, and all you need are the sales and post-sales pieces?

Quote: MathExtremist

Based on this, what would you suggest should be the value of a game that is fully patented and fully analyzed, but needs regulatory approval and sales/marketing/support?
What if a game is patented, analyzed, and approved, and all you need are the sales and post-sales pieces?

I can honestly say that I have no clue as I am new to the industry. However, just my opinion would be 20% to the idea/creator, 40% to the guy who patented and analyzed, and 40% to marketing and sales. Possibly a 20%, 30%, 50% split too. But again, that's just what seems fair to me and I have no experience with it.

Quote: MathExtremist

Based on this, what would you suggest should be the value of a game that is fully patented and fully analyzed, but needs regulatory approval and sales/marketing/support?
What if a game is patented, analyzed, and approved, and all you need are the sales and post-sales pieces?

I think that is a 20%-25% proposition if the sales distributor piece thinks the game has potential. Sales efforts and leveraging connections to get placements is hard work and takes time. Plus there is huge risk that the game won't work on the floor for a variety of reasons, many of which can't be predicted until the game hits the floor.

The distributor takes all that risk in spending the time and $$ to get the game out there. Trade Shows, travel, sales force labor costs....none of those are cheap. My guess is 90%+ of games they put on a floor don't make it and the distributor is out the dollars & time it took to get the game in place. With less than a 10% success rate on field trials (and that rate may be too high), they need to own a lot of the games that do actual find some success.

This is the type of situation that I would think Galaxy & SHFL/Ballys would prefer to have.....find a game that they like, with most of the details worked out and know it is just a matter of using the sales team/network to get it on the floor. If it works in a few initial installs, you can go network wide and get the game in multiple jurisdictions quickly. Ability to get a game on the floor for trial and then to push it out quickly to multiple jurisdictions is the main benefit a distribution deal has value.

Forget about 40%-60% to the developer/creator/patent funder.......you would only get that kind of deal (& likely it is a 30%-35% deal for both pieces) with multiple installs (like 10-15) in place for 12-24 months that were working in multiple jurisdictions. That type of footprint would indicate to the distributor that successfully expanding the game to other properties/jurisdictions was a matter of getting the game licensed and the risk that it won't work on other casino floors has been minimized.