What % should a Game Inventors get.

What % should a Casino Games Inventors get, if he use a Casino Games distributor? and why.

The question is too broad, I think. What is the current state of the game? Any installs or is it a brand new idea? Is there a patent or just an application? Is the game approved anywhere? Does it require new equipment (esp. electronics) or is it entirely manual? What is the expected lease rate going to be? What is the expected impact to the distributor's bottom line? All of those will have impacts on the rate you get.

I haven't voted because I think the answer to the questions depends on the state of the game at the time a deal is made.

Are there no installs & the game needs to be field trialed to see if it will resonate with players? Or are there 5 - 10 tables already installed generating positive operational data that will make future installs easier?

What is the status of the game's IP.....patent pending, patents issued, international IP protection, etc?

Every game situation is different so assigning a general percetage I think is difficult.

Stephen, it will depend in great part on what services the game distributor can provide, I would certainly take a smaller license fee if Shuffle master was pushing my game. If it was a smaller outfit, I would want a larger fee because my chances of success would be much less.

Having said that, I think 20% is unrealistically high,

Quote: buzzpaff

Having said that, I think 20% is unrealistically high,

I think it's about right, or maybe just a tad low.

Keep in mind what the inventor has to pay for: Patent, patent attorney, math analysis. Probably some other stuff too.

On The Wiz' Gaming Math side, he has a page for Marketting New Casino Games. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Unless you have connections in the business, it takes about $50,000 to market a new game past the trial. This $50,000 will be spent on licenses from the Nevada Gaming Control Board, patent attorneys, table cloth, signage, rule cards, game literature, gaming show and travel expenses, and a math analysis from someone like me. Below is a scan of an invoice sent to a dealer I know, trying his luck with a game he invented. This invoice is for just one game, and the tab is still running on it.

The invoice pictured, is for $17K. But it also shows a payment of $6K. It's unclear if there were other prior payments pushing the total even higher.

Giving a distributor 80% "buys" you that distributor's connections in the business. And that seem to me like a fair price if the disctributor does his job.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I think it's about right, or maybe just a tad low.

Keep in mind what the inventor has to pay for: Patent, patent attorney, math analysis. Probably some other stuff too.

What each aprty spends or invests ins't the determining factor. It's what does each party contribute. The developer contributes a game people want to play, something that provides enough fun, thrills, excitement or whatever that people are willing to spend money on it. The distributor provides marketing, palcement, manufacturing, financing, etc etc.

You can argue the game idea is the most important aprt, for without a good game there's nothing for the distributor to do. But the distributor already has games on the market. They need games, yes, but they may not need yours. In other words they have the upper hand. You can also argue that without the ditributor's contributions, the developer will have a harder time getting his game to the casino floor, which is the whole point of the exercise. So, again, the distributors have the upper hand.

I don't know the ruels for game development. In publishing it's considered very bad form to submit a work to more than one publisher at a time. That is, you must wait until publisher X rejects your story before you can submit it to publisher Y. This is sensible, for the publishers, since otherwise they can wind up bidding against one another without even knowing they're doing so. But in any case it's possible for any author who has her work accepted to be offered an advance that's too low, say, and for that author to say "Nuts! I'll sell it to Doubleday!" But that's ahrder to do without the chance of simultaneous submissions.

If it's like that with games, then it's harder to pit distributors against each other. if not, then go ahead and try. I'd be interested in hearing about a bidding war for one of our member's ideas.

I'd say a low % at first with a higher amount as sales increase. So the company should get about 75% at first depending on factors like the amount they invest into building and marketing, but it should move to the inventors favor upon high profit since the IP is more valuable at that point.

Probably varies with the ultimate success of the game. A distributor wants to recoup his expenses and turn a profit. If the game turns out to be a bonanza it could then trigger an amended royalty schedule. I assume the distributor does most of the work initially and reaps the rewards later but still markets the game and defends any encroachment on the graphics or the name or look alikes in other jurisdictions.

Best would be a schedule that gives a real incentive to the distributor and a reward for awhile but then redistributes the income more to the developer of the game when the work of placing it in casinos becomes easier because it has an impressive track record.

20 or 25%. This distributor has almost all of the on-going expenses: licensing the game, dealer training, salesmen travel, and in some cases covers the math reports.
If the game is a huge hit, 30% on the 2nd signing.