Game developer: the real pirates are my publishers
by Hugo Mardolcar · in General Discussion · 07/22/2004 (10:34 am) · 29 replies
www.joeuser.com/index.asp?c=1&AID=21895&u=0
Game developer: the real pirates are my publishers
From the author of Galactic Civilizations I and II:
"So don't talk to me about piracy. It's not the pirates that have ripped us off of hundreds of thousands in lost royalties. It's been "Real businesses" doing that thank you very much. The position of royalty eating parasite has already been taken."...
"So yea, tell me again how I need to put some dongle or whatever on my game to keep 15 year olds from pirating? When our contract with publishers forces them to wear a shock collar that I can press a button to shock them if royalties aren't paid on time then we'll talk about forcing customers to deal with massive copy protection. But it's not the pirates I worry about."
Game developer: the real pirates are my publishers
From the author of Galactic Civilizations I and II:
"So don't talk to me about piracy. It's not the pirates that have ripped us off of hundreds of thousands in lost royalties. It's been "Real businesses" doing that thank you very much. The position of royalty eating parasite has already been taken."...
"So yea, tell me again how I need to put some dongle or whatever on my game to keep 15 year olds from pirating? When our contract with publishers forces them to wear a shock collar that I can press a button to shock them if royalties aren't paid on time then we'll talk about forcing customers to deal with massive copy protection. But it's not the pirates I worry about."
#22
A) Retail Outlets [Ever hear of price protection?] Eb demands you sell 150/units per day + a nice marketing fee for 'space' and if your game doesn't measure up? They send it back(you pay the shipping cost)or demand price protection and the price of your game drops in half. Leaving you a much smaller slice of the pie because total costs remains the same. Lower income - same total costs = Less to you. Eventually, your budget game in the stores becomes your own competition. Why buy your game for full price online when I can get it for $2.99 in the bargain bin? You get zero, so does your publisher.
B) Pirates [They cost you money as a developer] You're not honest if you use a pirated version. Thats the simple truth.
C) Distributors, Manufacturers. But these guys are a necessary evil and you get what you pay for. Distributors get 20% [Digital River for example] and Manufactors get $2-3/unit for making you a CD, Box, and booklet for your game. If you want your game in a store, then these business expenses are part of the package. But you can increase sales so its good right? Only if you sell enough copies. You're going to hurt in sales until you sell 2500 copies at full price. So you need good sales immediately. Good sales after price protection sets in aren't worth crap.
D) Publishers take their agreed percentage and share with the developer after all development costs are paid back before you share any royalties.
Let's say instead of doing price protection you pay to have your games shipped back. Well, most of the boxes are going to be hammered and you'll need to repackage them. So you pay for that too.
07/25/2004 (11:11 am)
If you want to know the real villians or Where did all the money go?A) Retail Outlets [Ever hear of price protection?] Eb demands you sell 150/units per day + a nice marketing fee for 'space' and if your game doesn't measure up? They send it back(you pay the shipping cost)or demand price protection and the price of your game drops in half. Leaving you a much smaller slice of the pie because total costs remains the same. Lower income - same total costs = Less to you. Eventually, your budget game in the stores becomes your own competition. Why buy your game for full price online when I can get it for $2.99 in the bargain bin? You get zero, so does your publisher.
B) Pirates [They cost you money as a developer] You're not honest if you use a pirated version. Thats the simple truth.
C) Distributors, Manufacturers. But these guys are a necessary evil and you get what you pay for. Distributors get 20% [Digital River for example] and Manufactors get $2-3/unit for making you a CD, Box, and booklet for your game. If you want your game in a store, then these business expenses are part of the package. But you can increase sales so its good right? Only if you sell enough copies. You're going to hurt in sales until you sell 2500 copies at full price. So you need good sales immediately. Good sales after price protection sets in aren't worth crap.
D) Publishers take their agreed percentage and share with the developer after all development costs are paid back before you share any royalties.
Let's say instead of doing price protection you pay to have your games shipped back. Well, most of the boxes are going to be hammered and you'll need to repackage them. So you pay for that too.
#23
And it's certainly questionable as far as status quos go.
Their gripe is more with your D point, and the general "out to get you" a lot of third party devs are getting from the major and not so major publishers in the "traditional" game industry.
To illustrate your D point : the fair thing would be to repay dev costs from the gross, after cog, but that's not how it works, as in the general case, the whole development costs are repaid from the devs royalties. Meaning the small guy shoulders absolutely all the dev costs in the end.
This and highly inflated cog and creative accountig of the worst kind leads to a lot of devs never seeing a dime in royalties (without going into outright breach of contracts, misappropriation of distribution rights, etc.)
Why do you think Jason Hall's idea of success based royalties for hollywood franchises was so badly received by so many producers and managers ?
07/25/2004 (12:28 pm)
Eric, the people writing the article are aware of all those issues, they are seasoned veterans and are not per questioning what you're talking about : it's a fact of mortar and brick retail, and not just video games.And it's certainly questionable as far as status quos go.
Their gripe is more with your D point, and the general "out to get you" a lot of third party devs are getting from the major and not so major publishers in the "traditional" game industry.
To illustrate your D point : the fair thing would be to repay dev costs from the gross, after cog, but that's not how it works, as in the general case, the whole development costs are repaid from the devs royalties. Meaning the small guy shoulders absolutely all the dev costs in the end.
This and highly inflated cog and creative accountig of the worst kind leads to a lot of devs never seeing a dime in royalties (without going into outright breach of contracts, misappropriation of distribution rights, etc.)
Why do you think Jason Hall's idea of success based royalties for hollywood franchises was so badly received by so many producers and managers ?
#24
Ultimately, it comes down to a business decision.
07/25/2004 (2:57 pm)
@Axel - not at all. Just because it is an alternative doesn't mean it's preferable. Driving cross-country is a viable alternative to taking an airplane. Depending on your needs, one may be preferable to the other. If speed is your priority, the flight is clearly superior. Quote:Bottom line: if we as developers want the open source stuff to get better, we are going to have to grit our teeth and help MAKE it better.And at what point does the amount of time we've spent helping to contribute to the open source project exceed the cost of purchasing licenses of the more expensive solutions which save us the effort?
Ultimately, it comes down to a business decision.
#25
This article was posted recently, and mentioned on Slashdot.
Debunking Open-Source Myths
07/26/2004 (10:09 am)
Follow - up:This article was posted recently, and mentioned on Slashdot.
Debunking Open-Source Myths
#26
Having read the article, I am inclined to comment on two points which bear further examination.
Criticism is valid up to a point. Up to that point, yes, it points out the strengths of the program and the weaknesses to be improved. Beyond that point, it becomes a harrangue. "OOOHHH! You haven't made this better! You slackers! You're not serious about this!" (add your own verbal abuse for flavor) When it reaches the point where criticisms have been noted and at least addressed by the developers to the extent of a .plan update or forum post saying "Point taken. We'll see about addressing it in v2.0", criticism at that point becomes less of a tool and more of a hindrance. The people who continue to criticize and cannot offer any realistic support in terms of technical skill or code contribution need to quit criticizing and let the coders do their job. The people who continue to criticize who actually have the necessary skill to contribute to a project should, quite bluntly, put up or shut up. Continued verbal harrassment of open-source developers by programmers who have the ability to contribute but choose to instead annoy the people who are doing the work is not called for, nor is it polite, nor is it constructive in the slightest. A developer who would tell such a heckler to put up or shut up is not being unreasonable in a real world situation. True, it may not solve anything, and he may still be heckled, but he has made it clear that the criticism is no longer constructive.
This statement, while objective, only points to the current state. It doesn't include (or preclude) the possibility or the potential for more people to become involved. I would point to the RealmWars project as an example of people "tinkering" with the code. How many are there now which could be called "core developers," people who signed on at Day 1? Just because it is not common at the immediate second doesn't mean one shouldn't make the effort.
To answer your question, the point where somebody decides, "Screw it! We're buying Maya!" is one that will have to be determined according to each company's needs. Yes, it is a business decision, but since no two businesses are exactly alike, that point will vary depending not only on dollars and cents, but on corporate culture, resource and support needs, and long term goals.
07/27/2004 (2:24 pm)
@JayHaving read the article, I am inclined to comment on two points which bear further examination.
Quote:
Criticism is a valid way of participating in the process; we don't all have time to "fix it ourselves".
Criticism is valid up to a point. Up to that point, yes, it points out the strengths of the program and the weaknesses to be improved. Beyond that point, it becomes a harrangue. "OOOHHH! You haven't made this better! You slackers! You're not serious about this!" (add your own verbal abuse for flavor) When it reaches the point where criticisms have been noted and at least addressed by the developers to the extent of a .plan update or forum post saying "Point taken. We'll see about addressing it in v2.0", criticism at that point becomes less of a tool and more of a hindrance. The people who continue to criticize and cannot offer any realistic support in terms of technical skill or code contribution need to quit criticizing and let the coders do their job. The people who continue to criticize who actually have the necessary skill to contribute to a project should, quite bluntly, put up or shut up. Continued verbal harrassment of open-source developers by programmers who have the ability to contribute but choose to instead annoy the people who are doing the work is not called for, nor is it polite, nor is it constructive in the slightest. A developer who would tell such a heckler to put up or shut up is not being unreasonable in a real world situation. True, it may not solve anything, and he may still be heckled, but he has made it clear that the criticism is no longer constructive.
Quote:
Tinkering with the code is something that hardly anyone actually does, except for the core developers.
This statement, while objective, only points to the current state. It doesn't include (or preclude) the possibility or the potential for more people to become involved. I would point to the RealmWars project as an example of people "tinkering" with the code. How many are there now which could be called "core developers," people who signed on at Day 1? Just because it is not common at the immediate second doesn't mean one shouldn't make the effort.
To answer your question, the point where somebody decides, "Screw it! We're buying Maya!" is one that will have to be determined according to each company's needs. Yes, it is a business decision, but since no two businesses are exactly alike, that point will vary depending not only on dollars and cents, but on corporate culture, resource and support needs, and long term goals.
#27
09/18/2004 (3:39 pm)
Why does everyone think of Blender as a non-commerical modeler? Um, Blender was originally developed by a commercial company and used to make videos for movies and TV commercials. The company went belly up and the authors did not want to see it go to waste. So they open sourced it. So, the code IS commercial quality. Also, I am much more efficient with Blender than I am with Pro-Engineer. Pro-Engineer is a nightmare program designed for engineering modeling. It costs upwards of $100,000 a year! So don't tell me commercial programs are this great wonderful thing. BTW, this email is being written using NO Microsoft code!
#28
TGE is also, in a manner of speaking, open source because it is being improved by the community on an ongoing basis. So lets rather speak nicely of open source options like Blender or almost free like Milkshape.
11/17/2004 (8:05 pm)
We need to remember why indies use TGE in the first place. Yes it has many good points but above all, it's affordable, compared to "other" engines. The same argument holds true for MilkShape and Blender. I can't afford the big 4 graphics packages and I can't depend on making a game that sells enough to pay for a big 4 package because despite all the thousands of garagegames members, only a handful have gotten as far as getting a game published.TGE is also, in a manner of speaking, open source because it is being improved by the community on an ongoing basis. So lets rather speak nicely of open source options like Blender or almost free like Milkshape.
#29
If I were to use cheap tools, blender would despite its many features be pretty low on my list. It has a clunky GUI that doesn't make a lot of sense and gets in the way of productivity. Also there is a far bigger pool of talent avaliable with the big apps, and this is an important factor when choosing software. about 80% of jobs out there use either max or maya or both. Even a lot of tools programming and lievl design jobs require experience of at least one of these programs as they are more and more becoming the editors of choice for many of todays proprietary engines.
I'd love to have cheap tools, only one I currently use, and then seldom is Ultimate Unwrap.
11/17/2004 (9:25 pm)
At the end of the day there are a plethora of great tools that don't cost the earth. unfortunately none of them do everything well. And its here that the big apps win over. I for one would rather have all my art tools in one application and have the most compatibility with the widest range of engines. Plus the UI for the topp applications are well designed and intuitive to use. If I were to use cheap tools, blender would despite its many features be pretty low on my list. It has a clunky GUI that doesn't make a lot of sense and gets in the way of productivity. Also there is a far bigger pool of talent avaliable with the big apps, and this is an important factor when choosing software. about 80% of jobs out there use either max or maya or both. Even a lot of tools programming and lievl design jobs require experience of at least one of these programs as they are more and more becoming the editors of choice for many of todays proprietary engines.
I'd love to have cheap tools, only one I currently use, and then seldom is Ultimate Unwrap.
Axel Cushing
I could argue that the open source tools cannot get better without continued feedback and improvement. There's enough minds on here, some of them have to have the wherewithal to improve the programs out there. Given enough input and refinement, the changeover from a commercial package to an open source package can be minimized. As for the interface, it reminds me of trueSpace and Ray Dream Studio, though to be fair my own experience with those programs was not the best. Bottom line: if we as developers want the open source stuff to get better, we are going to have to grit our teeth and help MAKE it better.
@Jay
Isn't it a contradiction to say that Blender is a viable alternative to a commercial product if it is implied that an artist cannot be as productive with with Blender as with Maya? If it was a viable alternative, I would think we'd be seeing its increasing use in game projects primarily because the productivity hit that comes about from the changeover of one package to the other would be minimal. If that changeover hit is too great, then despite Blender's capabilities it cannot (as yet) be considered a viable alternative to the commerical packages. I refer back to my earlier conclusion with Joe as the means to resolve the situation. (And yes, we could argue this thing to death.)