Queston and concern about section 6b

#1

Quote:
b) Once a Game is delivered to Licensor hereunder, Licensor shall have unrestricted rights to use, modify, edit, license and sell the Games through any and all electronic media now known or hereinafter developed, throughout the world, including without limitation through the Website, through electronic delivery mechanisms, and in "hard" or "box" media formats for a period of five years

Your concern is correct. That is the way it works in the publishing buiness.

In English it says we get to use the IP in any game published on GarageGames for five years. If a game is a hit (or not) we can make a follow on or spin-off version.

We do not take the IP rights to movies, comic books, etc.

Traditional publishers traditionally take all of those rights.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#2 Well as I have said in prior posts, though we have been developing mods and text based games for sometime, we are new to the business side of the gaming industry. Which is why we are here :)

So I can help educate my staff, who is fairly protective of their work, can you point me to some literature on game publishing? so I can get them up to speed on the "facts of life".

It is greatly appreciated your guys efforts, and assistance.

Adrian Wright
MGO.NETwork
Max Gaming Technologies, LLC.
www.critical-subterfuge.com
www.mgonetwork.com

#3 This isn't the way it works in the publishing business. It may be the way it works in most of the publishing business, but Gathering of Developers states that they will never request that a developer sign over their IP rights. Their first of their "Ten Commandments" is that IP rights should should remain the property of the developer.

#4 GOD gets the electronic publishing IP rights, which is the same thing we require. They also get the ability to create spin-offs and follow-ons.

GarageGames is doing it the same way. If your product becomes a hit on-line, knock yourself out getting rich off comic books, movies, or books.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#5 I read Mike Wilson's 10 commandments a couple of years ago. After your post I went to their site to refresh my memory. I can't find a link anywhere. Am I missing something?

I don't want t link to a past article on a gaming site. I want a link that is on GOD's site today.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#6 GoD's Ten Commandments says "If at all possible, do not include sequel rights in your agreements, but at worst only sign the rights to one sequel, and make those rights 'matching offer rights.'". I find it difficult to believe that they then violate this themselves.

I'm not claiming I understand this at all. Just trying to figure it out. I appreciate the responses to this thread, as well as all the others.

#7 I found the commandments on their site yesterday, but can't seem to find it there today. No clue why. :( (Correction: It was two or three days ago I found it.)

#8 How odd. The page is here, but it's empty - plus there aren't any links to it any more.

I wonder why they removed it.

#9 How negotiable are these conditions?

i.e. If I was to create a new game, would it at very least be possible to retain the rights so that I could make a sequel that would be independent of Garage Games in exchange for a lower royalty percentage, is this something that you all are open to discussing?

Also, does beginning a project with your engine automatically contract us to publishing through you, and with your engine, or does that begin at the time when we formally submit the product for review?

i.e. could we begin with your engine for the $100 fee, and then later switch if we decide that your engine is not as suitable as we had hoped, for the game that we wanted to make? Or is the game still your IP, even though the gold candidate was never formally submitted for review/publishing?

#10 You could use the V12, find out it is not suited to your purposes, and be under no obligation to GarageGames as long as you are not using the V12 code.

Although it is not stated specifically in the license agreement, the IP obligations would not apply to anything that was not published on the GG site as long as it does not use the V12 code.

We are open to specific negotiations regarding the license agreement, but at this time, we are not too interested in changing it unless you have a lot of leverage such as previously published, successful games, are a famous developer, etc.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#11 Jeff ,

The restriction is imposes , in some cases , would be where the 'plan' of the developer is an initially smaller game with planned-in expansion if the core game is well recieved.

This is particularly important to talented programmers and graphic artists that are developing a game with their *free* time , that might have a unique and interesting game but it's nature is that it could be effective in a much smaller world than the team would do if it had human and financial resources.

IOW , the 'whole' game concept is in place and designed, but the game is released in a smaller module with part of it's advertising and appeal being that additional modules are coming if the first 'theatre' is well recieved.

Obviously..the intitial release may be sold cheaply to attract interest for the future planned modules .. and under a strict interpretation , GG would then control these *sequels* and/or add-ons.

Being able to take the concept , with another engine , rather defeats the initial promotion benefit to the developer from GG .. and GG still then owns rights to the core game , and seemingly could go forth adding these planned modules of it's own without further compensation to the developer.

In general too , if the initial developer did a good enough job that a initial release did well ,that developer should retain some rights and control over "spin-offs" and how his concept evolves.

I might be off base .. but it seems you should be offering mutual benefit across the board on any potencial profitmaking , as well as some mutual "directorship" control of future derived software.

#12 Just want to bring this thread back into light, as this subject concerns me a bit.

As Eric mentioned above, this restriction doesn't work well with developers who wish to release a game as a series of modules (I believe they're doing something like this with Serious Sam). We may also have a sequel planned, regardless of how well the game does. And if I'm reading all this right, once we hand over a game to GG, we lose the right to make a sequel.

For me, this isn't so much an issue of money, but the desire to see a project continue to develop. Even if it was a money issue, I'm a developer; I don't want to make it by creating comics/books/movies.

With regards to GOD's policy, if I remember correctly, they only retain first right of refusal on sequels. The IP remains in the developers hands and they have control over sequels. They do get control of ports, though.

Is there any further response from GG on this matter?

#13 As this thread shows, we have had some concern with this clause. In fact, we all feel it is a little too restirctive as well. Give us a little time to work out a compromise. I have an idea that needs fleshed out. Stay posted.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#14 Thanks Jeff

I think I have some appreciation of the difficulties you must have had reaching agreements with Sierra regarding the engine and sourse code.Most software "giants" would reject such an idea without discussion.

The GarageGames concept is new and,IMO, bold , coming more from a developer's mindset, because that's what you guys all are , than a "suit" mindset typical in software publishing.

#15 I'll throw my thanks in too, Jeff. Don't want you to think we don't appreciate what you guys at GG are trying to do for us.

Thanks!