

‘Angry Birds’ Developer: We Have Not Sold To EA - bjonathan
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/20/angry-birds-developer-we-have-not-sold-to-ea/

======
unexpected
I'm confused...Why is a publisher necessary for Angry Birds? Can't Rovio just
code -> publish straight to App Store?

~~~
sahillavingia
Chillingo had connections and credibility they didn't. It was worth the 10%
commission (it's around that for a friend of mine that is published by
Chillingo) for the potential of making much, much, more.

~~~
blasdel
For what? Selling games for Symbian / J2ME / WinMo phones through the carriers
five years ago?

------
treblig
What is the purpose of a game publishing company on the app store? Feels to me
like a remnant of the software-in-a-box distribution model.

~~~
ceejayoz
They can take the role of a VC for a startup - providing capital. EA can
absorb a $10 million budget for a new game, where Rovio might have difficulty
convincing a bank to loan them that much.

~~~
pmjordan
They probably didn't get an advance as Rovio still own the product and the
brand. You also would lose more than the 10% revenue share figure quoted
elsewhere in this thread if you got an advance. Though I also doubt Angry
Birds cost $10 million to develop.

~~~
ceejayoz
I'm not saying Antry Birds cost $10 million, I'm making a general statement on
why iPhone developers might still want a publisher. Rovio didn't sell to EA at
all.

------
TotlolRon
The angry birds are angry and the pigs better watch out.

------
mindcreek
I wonder If EA knows the independent developer owns the Angry Birds part, If
not they have a couple angry EA managers pulling out hair and asking
themselves now "How did we missed that?" :)

~~~
JoachimSchipper
I'm pretty sure they are not that stupid. And EA is mostly a distributor
anyway, so it makes sense to take that role in the mobile market as well.

