Sequel rights confusion
by Shayne Guiliano · in General Discussion · 03/11/2002 (4:08 pm) · 17 replies
I have read over the licensing agreement and am a little trouble over one detail. I believe that the agreement gives sequel rights to GG and I think that this contradicts the spirit of GG and could affect the development of the entire community. I will try to support this.
I have no problem giving over %50 monetary rights to GG. I believe they deserve it because they built the infrastructure and negotiated for the torque engine which gives us the technical power to make games. There is no doubt that none of this would work without GG and torque. However, I do have a problem giving creative rights to my ideas over to GG because they don't need them and because they don't have a hand in the creative development. I believe that if I create an idea and there is interest in it that I should have the power to either develop the sequel, pass it on, or kill it without having to worry about my idea being exploited by someone else who had no part in it's creation. I believe that GG would agree on this if given the opportunity. Not only that, but I believe that this forfeiting of sequel rights could end up destroying GG in the end and I will tell you why.
First of all, I believe that GG is very sincere, but I do not think they thought this one out. Of course they are a business and they think that this clause might create an opportunity down the road for them. What I don't think they realize is that GG is going to develop in a unconventional way so they don't need this clause.
None of us are going to make games that look or feel like the $50 games we can buy at EB. In fact we might not ever even make a game worth $10. It is unreasonable to think that a GG hobbyist developer could make a professional looking game that rivals the new releases of a major publisher. If they could, they wouldn't be here. Please don't get offended by this, I actually think this is cool. I say we wear our unpolished gaming vibe as a badge the same way indie movie makers do.
So, we all have great ideas. I know this. I read everyone's postings and am more than impressed with the minds in this community. But I keep hearing things like "business is our last priority" and "all we care about is creativity". I think this is great but typically doesn't lead to success, though it does tend to stroke our rebellious egos. You must understand business in order to change it with creative new ideas. Yes, business can be creative too! Imagine that!
So now I'll get a little closer to my point. It's really easy to look at all this and get excited about how successful this is all going to be and how we are all going to be famous game designers, etc. I think this is unreasonable and impractical even though I am without doubt an idealist and even think my ideas will change the world. I think that the most practical path for GG to develop successfully is through something I will call the Episodic Business Plan (EBP), which is made impossible with the sequel clause.
I believe that some of us will make some small games that are very creative and interesting. In fact, I think that should be our focus. We will have to give these away for free in order to get them played. Why would someone buy a game from me not knowing who the hell I am when they could buy it from Nintendo, who they've known for years. This is known as branding, which I have none of. Once you have a good brand, you will get a publisher to fund you. The problem is getting one, especially with no money to help out.
Some of these games will be good enough to attract more developers to work on them and maybe, just maybe, generate enough market interest to make it justifiable to a gamer to spend money on a sequel rather than the newest and hottest game from Miyamoto and the like. So this group of developers gets excited that they have found an idea that people are responding to and they start working really hard on the sequel, working hundreds or thousands of man-hours on it. It comes out selling for maybe $5 and the group sells maybe a thousand...maybe. Maybe somebody over at IGN agrees to review it and gives it a 5 or 6 (because it's all relative) with some nice comments and it maybe sells another thousand. This is spread between ten or so people so that everyone gets a couple hundred dollars for all the hundreds or thousands of man hours they spent on it. Maybe the team gets better and the episodes get better and so on and so on. Look at any good musician, movie director or producer, painter, writer, or any artist, even Miyamoto, and you will see that this is the hard path that they had to drudge through in order to get to where they are. It is unreasonable to think that we would or could skip any of those steps. In relation to video games, I'm calling this the EBP. However, this is made impossible by the sequel clause in the GG contract.
If GG were to take a sequel and try to develop it, they would undoubtedly destroy the idea, not because they are bad at development, but because the only person who can have the vision is the person that started it. I believe it is in GG's interest to ride the creative ideas of the community without creative interference despite how attractive interfering can look. They spent a lot of money on torque and I am sure that they would be tempted to interfere if they thought it would be a quick fix to a money problem. We are all human, and that is all I know.
I think that the contract should be rewritten so that the natural development of the creative ideas within this community shall never be hindered nor exploited.
I have no problem giving over %50 monetary rights to GG. I believe they deserve it because they built the infrastructure and negotiated for the torque engine which gives us the technical power to make games. There is no doubt that none of this would work without GG and torque. However, I do have a problem giving creative rights to my ideas over to GG because they don't need them and because they don't have a hand in the creative development. I believe that if I create an idea and there is interest in it that I should have the power to either develop the sequel, pass it on, or kill it without having to worry about my idea being exploited by someone else who had no part in it's creation. I believe that GG would agree on this if given the opportunity. Not only that, but I believe that this forfeiting of sequel rights could end up destroying GG in the end and I will tell you why.
First of all, I believe that GG is very sincere, but I do not think they thought this one out. Of course they are a business and they think that this clause might create an opportunity down the road for them. What I don't think they realize is that GG is going to develop in a unconventional way so they don't need this clause.
None of us are going to make games that look or feel like the $50 games we can buy at EB. In fact we might not ever even make a game worth $10. It is unreasonable to think that a GG hobbyist developer could make a professional looking game that rivals the new releases of a major publisher. If they could, they wouldn't be here. Please don't get offended by this, I actually think this is cool. I say we wear our unpolished gaming vibe as a badge the same way indie movie makers do.
So, we all have great ideas. I know this. I read everyone's postings and am more than impressed with the minds in this community. But I keep hearing things like "business is our last priority" and "all we care about is creativity". I think this is great but typically doesn't lead to success, though it does tend to stroke our rebellious egos. You must understand business in order to change it with creative new ideas. Yes, business can be creative too! Imagine that!
So now I'll get a little closer to my point. It's really easy to look at all this and get excited about how successful this is all going to be and how we are all going to be famous game designers, etc. I think this is unreasonable and impractical even though I am without doubt an idealist and even think my ideas will change the world. I think that the most practical path for GG to develop successfully is through something I will call the Episodic Business Plan (EBP), which is made impossible with the sequel clause.
I believe that some of us will make some small games that are very creative and interesting. In fact, I think that should be our focus. We will have to give these away for free in order to get them played. Why would someone buy a game from me not knowing who the hell I am when they could buy it from Nintendo, who they've known for years. This is known as branding, which I have none of. Once you have a good brand, you will get a publisher to fund you. The problem is getting one, especially with no money to help out.
Some of these games will be good enough to attract more developers to work on them and maybe, just maybe, generate enough market interest to make it justifiable to a gamer to spend money on a sequel rather than the newest and hottest game from Miyamoto and the like. So this group of developers gets excited that they have found an idea that people are responding to and they start working really hard on the sequel, working hundreds or thousands of man-hours on it. It comes out selling for maybe $5 and the group sells maybe a thousand...maybe. Maybe somebody over at IGN agrees to review it and gives it a 5 or 6 (because it's all relative) with some nice comments and it maybe sells another thousand. This is spread between ten or so people so that everyone gets a couple hundred dollars for all the hundreds or thousands of man hours they spent on it. Maybe the team gets better and the episodes get better and so on and so on. Look at any good musician, movie director or producer, painter, writer, or any artist, even Miyamoto, and you will see that this is the hard path that they had to drudge through in order to get to where they are. It is unreasonable to think that we would or could skip any of those steps. In relation to video games, I'm calling this the EBP. However, this is made impossible by the sequel clause in the GG contract.
If GG were to take a sequel and try to develop it, they would undoubtedly destroy the idea, not because they are bad at development, but because the only person who can have the vision is the person that started it. I believe it is in GG's interest to ride the creative ideas of the community without creative interference despite how attractive interfering can look. They spent a lot of money on torque and I am sure that they would be tempted to interfere if they thought it would be a quick fix to a money problem. We are all human, and that is all I know.
I think that the contract should be rewritten so that the natural development of the creative ideas within this community shall never be hindered nor exploited.
#2
To reiterate. You publish a game on GG, and you want to take it to another publisher. That is OK as long as you use a different engine, and the game is changed enough from what we published to be considered a sequel. In other words, a simple name change would not be enough to be considered a sequel.
Also, regarding the royalties. Most on-line publishers take 65% (Real, Dexterity as examples) but provide little or no technology or development support. In addition, as we have stated over and over, you can increase your royalties by participating in the community and giving back code or engine improvements.
There is no better deal for indie developers in the world. We are not out to screw you, to horde your content, or in some way take control of your content or intellectual property rights through licensing arrangements.
Jeff Tunnell GG
03/11/2002 (5:39 pm)
Read the EULA. We don't take sequel rights if you change the content of your original idea enough to truly call it a sequel. If you use the Torque for your sequel, you would still be obligated to publish here at GarageGames.To reiterate. You publish a game on GG, and you want to take it to another publisher. That is OK as long as you use a different engine, and the game is changed enough from what we published to be considered a sequel. In other words, a simple name change would not be enough to be considered a sequel.
Also, regarding the royalties. Most on-line publishers take 65% (Real, Dexterity as examples) but provide little or no technology or development support. In addition, as we have stated over and over, you can increase your royalties by participating in the community and giving back code or engine improvements.
There is no better deal for indie developers in the world. We are not out to screw you, to horde your content, or in some way take control of your content or intellectual property rights through licensing arrangements.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#3
BTW, I love your idea. I don't see how our EULA gets in the way of making it a success. GG does not want to take away games from our developers, and in my reading of the EULA, I don't even see a legal way for that to happen.
Maybe you can point out the clause that is causing you problems. Please make sure you have the most recent EULA because we changed it a couple of months ago to clarify the issue of sequel rights.
We eventually want our publishing arm to be so good that we don't even have to tie the publishing to the purchase of the Torque. GG would take that tie away right now, but it is a part of our master license with Sierra, so we must leave it in place.
Jeff Tunnell GG
03/11/2002 (5:45 pm)
Shayne,BTW, I love your idea. I don't see how our EULA gets in the way of making it a success. GG does not want to take away games from our developers, and in my reading of the EULA, I don't even see a legal way for that to happen.
Maybe you can point out the clause that is causing you problems. Please make sure you have the most recent EULA because we changed it a couple of months ago to clarify the issue of sequel rights.
We eventually want our publishing arm to be so good that we don't even have to tie the publishing to the purchase of the Torque. GG would take that tie away right now, but it is a part of our master license with Sierra, so we must leave it in place.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#4
Secondly, I just reread the EULA and would like to withdraw my argument about sequels because I based it on the EULA before the changes were made. I just came back to the site a couple days ago because I have finally gotten settled down and am ready to start working on games. I apologize for not being caught up. Jeff, I think it's awesome that you are so active on the boards and I really appreciate the response. This vision popped in my head yesterday of how GG will develop and it made me remember the sequel clause I read a while back so I wrote about it. I really do think that we need to embrace the fact the we are passionate and creative and promote the fact that our games are going to have a distinct look to them that could be improperly misconstrued as generic. I am looking forward to contributing to the community and getting to know everyone.
03/12/2002 (8:41 pm)
First of all, thank you for responding. Matt, if you read this, I want you to understand what I meant because I did not mean to offend. I did not mean to say that games published in GG will not be as "good" as games coming from an established publisher, I meant they will not be as "polished". None of us can afford to hire the texture artists that make a game like Halo look awesome. There is a level of professional experience that goes into those kinds of games that it would be unrealistic for us to think we could reproduce. I work for a software company. There is no replacement for the experience that comes from working on something for 10 hours a day and getting paid for it. I do believe that the games we make could definitely be more creative and enthralling, but that is up to us. I think our mark can best be made if we are able to create an "Indie" look and feel that people can expect and appreciate. Hope you understand. I also think that it's fine that GG tries to keep it's good series, I just didn't think they should have creative control. It's all good though.Secondly, I just reread the EULA and would like to withdraw my argument about sequels because I based it on the EULA before the changes were made. I just came back to the site a couple days ago because I have finally gotten settled down and am ready to start working on games. I apologize for not being caught up. Jeff, I think it's awesome that you are so active on the boards and I really appreciate the response. This vision popped in my head yesterday of how GG will develop and it made me remember the sequel clause I read a while back so I wrote about it. I really do think that we need to embrace the fact the we are passionate and creative and promote the fact that our games are going to have a distinct look to them that could be improperly misconstrued as generic. I am looking forward to contributing to the community and getting to know everyone.
#5
"..., I meant they will not be as "polished". None of us can afford to hire the texture artists that make a game like Halo look awesome. There is a level of professional experience that goes into those kinds of games that it would be unrealistic for us to think we could reproduce. I work for a software company. There is no replacement for the experience that comes from working on something for 10 hours a day and getting paid for it. "
You know in a way I can see the sceptical vision you see with, but I believe that a texture artist working in his spare time on something he loves has the ability to make something as great or greater than someone who is hashing out anothers ideas so he can get a paycheck. Sure, experience is something that will make that artist better, but I have seen images by people who made things look polished in their garage...look at MYST...that thing looked great and wasn't made by some corp.
As to the sequel rights...if GG has helped me in creating a first game I would feel honor bound to them to sell any sequel through them....they are helping me make my dream come true...can't put a price tag on that.
03/12/2002 (9:09 pm)
Shayne"..., I meant they will not be as "polished". None of us can afford to hire the texture artists that make a game like Halo look awesome. There is a level of professional experience that goes into those kinds of games that it would be unrealistic for us to think we could reproduce. I work for a software company. There is no replacement for the experience that comes from working on something for 10 hours a day and getting paid for it. "
You know in a way I can see the sceptical vision you see with, but I believe that a texture artist working in his spare time on something he loves has the ability to make something as great or greater than someone who is hashing out anothers ideas so he can get a paycheck. Sure, experience is something that will make that artist better, but I have seen images by people who made things look polished in their garage...look at MYST...that thing looked great and wasn't made by some corp.
As to the sequel rights...if GG has helped me in creating a first game I would feel honor bound to them to sell any sequel through them....they are helping me make my dream come true...can't put a price tag on that.
#6
Think of how indipendently made technology has evolved in the past few years alone.. Would anyone have imagined that software made in a college drop out's spare time would bring the recording industry to its knees?
By your logic, only art academy grads can create the great masterpieces of our time, that is rediculous, because time and time again it's proven wrong.
Again and again, those not associated with corporates are developing things that outsell and outshine corporate innovation.
Yes we do not have the computer tech or resources that the big companies, but we do have an edge. We don't have deadlines, we have time to perfect our creations, and put out robust product. Think of all the games that have suffered from the Deadline...WW2 online, anarchy online and the like were put out into the world without concidering the user, only concidering profit.
We can make something great because we believe in what we do, and not because we are paid to. We know what we make may never be appreciated on a large scale, but it doesn't matter. Right now most of us are doing this as a hobby.
oh man...too much stuff.
to sum up...yeah we can beat the pants out of anything Corporate Gaming giants do, just watch us.
03/12/2002 (10:21 pm)
I totally dissagree with the assertion that just because it's indy it's not as good as the corporate stuff.Think of how indipendently made technology has evolved in the past few years alone.. Would anyone have imagined that software made in a college drop out's spare time would bring the recording industry to its knees?
By your logic, only art academy grads can create the great masterpieces of our time, that is rediculous, because time and time again it's proven wrong.
Again and again, those not associated with corporates are developing things that outsell and outshine corporate innovation.
Yes we do not have the computer tech or resources that the big companies, but we do have an edge. We don't have deadlines, we have time to perfect our creations, and put out robust product. Think of all the games that have suffered from the Deadline...WW2 online, anarchy online and the like were put out into the world without concidering the user, only concidering profit.
We can make something great because we believe in what we do, and not because we are paid to. We know what we make may never be appreciated on a large scale, but it doesn't matter. Right now most of us are doing this as a hobby.
oh man...too much stuff.
to sum up...yeah we can beat the pants out of anything Corporate Gaming giants do, just watch us.
#7
Tribes 2 Beta looked incredible! There was talk of the wheeled veh. in T2 well before HALO. Oh yeah, and the videos of how nice HALO looks... I've played it on a nice large highend TV and its nothing special to look at - Further I think they dropped the ball on the human interface but thats another post....
T2 was an amazing beta that more than lived up to "Rumor Control". Yet look what came out. Abiet a very nice looking game overall (and a sequal) I don't think its close to what it could have been if [DEV](insert name here) wasn't being put through the meatgrinder to meet a money mongers deadline.
Now I'll get closer to my point. I think that gG is a great resource and I feel that the idea that has not been pushed enough about why gG is here and can exist and flurish in a world of start-ups and dot coms dying daily is simple - The gG team is providing the IS for a community to gather and create. That's all. Nothing more. Get the masses of game players together and get some new ideas on the creative "Drawing board" - Get Programmers together and get some new code ideas out there. Build a place where gamers and non-gamers can throw out ideas as to what they might think would be a kickass game to play someday. I don't think gG exists because they need a paycheck.
I am all for the idea of kicking them a cut should myself or any team that I associate with ever make a cent based on these resources. Hell I'd bet that anyone that is in this community that should ever get a job with a "major" game dev team - I'd bet that even if they never did make a published game here that they still wouldn't forget where it started for them. They would pay homage if nothing more, out of dev respect.
-Shooter
****
#include
int main()
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!\n";
}
****
03/12/2002 (11:13 pm)
To that last post (above) I'd like to add a game very near and dear to my heart - Tribes 2. I feel that it was pushed out the door under the heavy hand of new managers coming to the projects.Tribes 2 Beta looked incredible! There was talk of the wheeled veh. in T2 well before HALO. Oh yeah, and the videos of how nice HALO looks... I've played it on a nice large highend TV and its nothing special to look at - Further I think they dropped the ball on the human interface but thats another post....
T2 was an amazing beta that more than lived up to "Rumor Control". Yet look what came out. Abiet a very nice looking game overall (and a sequal) I don't think its close to what it could have been if [DEV](insert name here) wasn't being put through the meatgrinder to meet a money mongers deadline.
Now I'll get closer to my point. I think that gG is a great resource and I feel that the idea that has not been pushed enough about why gG is here and can exist and flurish in a world of start-ups and dot coms dying daily is simple - The gG team is providing the IS for a community to gather and create. That's all. Nothing more. Get the masses of game players together and get some new ideas on the creative "Drawing board" - Get Programmers together and get some new code ideas out there. Build a place where gamers and non-gamers can throw out ideas as to what they might think would be a kickass game to play someday. I don't think gG exists because they need a paycheck.
I am all for the idea of kicking them a cut should myself or any team that I associate with ever make a cent based on these resources. Hell I'd bet that anyone that is in this community that should ever get a job with a "major" game dev team - I'd bet that even if they never did make a published game here that they still wouldn't forget where it started for them. They would pay homage if nothing more, out of dev respect.
-Shooter
****
#include
int main()
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!\n";
}
****
#8
03/13/2002 (12:42 pm)
I get everyone's points, but I think you are making one bad assumption. You are assuming that those people making games for the big companies are not passionate about what they do. I would argue otherwise. They were passionate enough about it to study it professional and make a career out of it. I am not saying that no one within this community will be able to make great looking textures, but if you took ten random texture artists from this community and ten from any big publisher, I guarantee you will see a difference, and I am also saying THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. My whole point is realizing that we are just starting to get into the game (or we wouldn't be here) and that we should wear this fact like a badge of honor. We are bright intelligent people that have organized enough to have access to a million dollar engine. We could all get access to Maya and all the plugins but I doubt if we could ever reproduce the movie Titanic. Why? because the best 3-D artists in the world were paid millions of dollars to work on it. This does not leave us without options, though, because I do not believe that the creativity of a video game even has anything to do with the graphics. Understanding that we will not be able to reproduce the graphic excellence of a Halo (They spent millions of dollars paying high-paid professions over five years) will help us to focus our attention on the qualities of a game that can be better than Halo. I am going to start this argument over again in general discussions because there seems to be interest in it and it is no longer a sequel discussion.
#9
The corporate game devs are artists as well, and yes I'd love to work in this industry as a designer, and I'd thrill to the challange of putting out product on a deadline. But deadlines are killing games.
Perfect example is Freespace...the deadlines kept on getting pushed back and now they are leaving out the MP aspect of the game due to this.
Sucks..I hate that when pressure from above squashes ideas...it shouldn't be that way, but time is money, so that's the way it is. Yep I know this has gone way off subject so I've decided to join you in that discussion on the other thread.
later
03/15/2002 (12:35 am)
heheh your assumptions about my assumptions are wrong.The corporate game devs are artists as well, and yes I'd love to work in this industry as a designer, and I'd thrill to the challange of putting out product on a deadline. But deadlines are killing games.
Perfect example is Freespace...the deadlines kept on getting pushed back and now they are leaving out the MP aspect of the game due to this.
Sucks..I hate that when pressure from above squashes ideas...it shouldn't be that way, but time is money, so that's the way it is. Yep I know this has gone way off subject so I've decided to join you in that discussion on the other thread.
later
#10
Try Halo and maybe Attack of the Killer Tomatoes... something cheap and cheesy. That's what I think you're failing to realize. Indie games can (and if you've been following the mod scene, have) beat many retail products on a budget of $0 or so! Indie movies can't (with exception of Blair Witch Project... ugh)
If we don't live with the idea that our product can be the next evolution in gaming, then we might as well curl up and die right now. I guess it all depends on where you want your game to go and how you want to get there. Obviously, taking one game and "improving" it won't win you any awards nor would it sell that well.
Indie games aren't going to have the advertising budgets even crappy professional titles have. If we want to be sold and be successful, we have to bring something new to the table. People won't flock to your game if the tag-line is: "It's like Counter-Strike, but overall we believe it is a slightly improved experience!". Naw, if we want to break out we're going to have to try some new things.
Gamers are a fickle bunch. Many are idiots. Did you know many people still want Duke Nukem Forever? Hell man, I've seen herion addicts give up on the drug in a tenth the time. Why do they want that game that we know won't be much more than Serious Sam with naked chicks and cliche soccer-mom-hating "gameplay"?
If you can't crack through the shield these suburban idiots have installed from giants like EA or Sony, then you might as well give up now if your goal is to make a "hit". Personally, I am making a game that I want to be innovative and fun. I Don't care if I don't sell much, but it won't be the same ol' same ol'. JimmyJones won't see this advertised on his Nickelodean cartoons, but damn if I'm going to screw myself by ignoring the only tool I have to be successful.
Creativity.
03/15/2002 (11:18 am)
Hehe comparing Halo to Titanic is a pretty big leap.Try Halo and maybe Attack of the Killer Tomatoes... something cheap and cheesy. That's what I think you're failing to realize. Indie games can (and if you've been following the mod scene, have) beat many retail products on a budget of $0 or so! Indie movies can't (with exception of Blair Witch Project... ugh)
If we don't live with the idea that our product can be the next evolution in gaming, then we might as well curl up and die right now. I guess it all depends on where you want your game to go and how you want to get there. Obviously, taking one game and "improving" it won't win you any awards nor would it sell that well.
Indie games aren't going to have the advertising budgets even crappy professional titles have. If we want to be sold and be successful, we have to bring something new to the table. People won't flock to your game if the tag-line is: "It's like Counter-Strike, but overall we believe it is a slightly improved experience!". Naw, if we want to break out we're going to have to try some new things.
Gamers are a fickle bunch. Many are idiots. Did you know many people still want Duke Nukem Forever? Hell man, I've seen herion addicts give up on the drug in a tenth the time. Why do they want that game that we know won't be much more than Serious Sam with naked chicks and cliche soccer-mom-hating "gameplay"?
If you can't crack through the shield these suburban idiots have installed from giants like EA or Sony, then you might as well give up now if your goal is to make a "hit". Personally, I am making a game that I want to be innovative and fun. I Don't care if I don't sell much, but it won't be the same ol' same ol'. JimmyJones won't see this advertised on his Nickelodean cartoons, but damn if I'm going to screw myself by ignoring the only tool I have to be successful.
Creativity.
#11
Shayne, I haven't read the agreement so I don't know where it stands on letting developers keep their intellection property rights (IP or IPR as it's common called). But my company, Apogee, used to be the leader among all indie developers/publishers in the late 80's and early 90's, and had we not maintained ownership of our IP rights, like Duke Nukem , we'd be nothing now. IP rights are *everything* if you end up making a successful game.
Just a few months ago we sold the IP rights for Max Payne, for $45 million, to our publisher, Take-Two Interactive (that's on top of the $12m in royalties the game made for us and Remedy). I say this to give you an idea of the true value of IP. Duke Nukem is worth $100m. And yet the first publisher of Duke Nukem casually asked for ownership of the IP rights back in 1993 because it was standard business to do so. We turned them down. Whew!
So, I would NOT sign ANY deal in which you do not maintain ownership of your own creative IP, because if you happen to make a successful game, that IP can be worth a fortune.
Unfortunately, this is one of the toughest issues going in the game industry now, as practically all major developers who provide advances (funding) to game studios, require that the studio hand over the IP rights. Developers worldwide are getting screwed out of owning their IP, and therefore they have little chance to become financial independent like Id, Valve, Epic, and 3DR.
I recommend you read the 10 Developer Commandments I wrote several years ago when I was a partner of Gathering of Developers: http://www.igda.org/Endeavors/Articles/smiller_10.htm
07/09/2002 (5:34 pm)
>>> However, I do have a problem giving creative rights to my ideas over to GG... <<<Shayne, I haven't read the agreement so I don't know where it stands on letting developers keep their intellection property rights (IP or IPR as it's common called). But my company, Apogee, used to be the leader among all indie developers/publishers in the late 80's and early 90's, and had we not maintained ownership of our IP rights, like Duke Nukem , we'd be nothing now. IP rights are *everything* if you end up making a successful game.
Just a few months ago we sold the IP rights for Max Payne, for $45 million, to our publisher, Take-Two Interactive (that's on top of the $12m in royalties the game made for us and Remedy). I say this to give you an idea of the true value of IP. Duke Nukem is worth $100m. And yet the first publisher of Duke Nukem casually asked for ownership of the IP rights back in 1993 because it was standard business to do so. We turned them down. Whew!
So, I would NOT sign ANY deal in which you do not maintain ownership of your own creative IP, because if you happen to make a successful game, that IP can be worth a fortune.
Unfortunately, this is one of the toughest issues going in the game industry now, as practically all major developers who provide advances (funding) to game studios, require that the studio hand over the IP rights. Developers worldwide are getting screwed out of owning their IP, and therefore they have little chance to become financial independent like Id, Valve, Epic, and 3DR.
I recommend you read the 10 Developer Commandments I wrote several years ago when I was a partner of Gathering of Developers: http://www.igda.org/Endeavors/Articles/smiller_10.htm
#12
I have a good knowledge of how the Quake engines function and C. I can generally get it to do what I want, I am tinkering with the Quake 2 engine with the intention of using it as the focus of my final year project.
I agree perhaps we couldn't create a game that looks as stunning as Doom 3 or UT2003 but I don't feel that is a major blow, I do believe that motivated teams with talent can produce games that look as good as the corporate ones, many of which are produced simply to satisfy contractual obligation rather than desire, and I believe that quite a few will be very innovative.
To knock down indies because they aren't corporate is foolish, the majority don't stand a chance because they wont see it through till the end, but those of us who will suceed will produce games of suprising quality because they are games that we want to produce and will spend however long it takes to get it done, rather than being forced to realise it 6 months prior to when it should be.
07/09/2002 (6:29 pm)
I think one thing that has to be mentionned is that as a group we will not produce a ton of highly polished incredible games, but I have a friend on my team who can do some incredible vehicle modelling, infact I have seen many games released over the last few years which don't even live up to his level of excellance, yet he is not an art grad, or even taking an art degree, infact he is taking a pure comp-sci.I have a good knowledge of how the Quake engines function and C. I can generally get it to do what I want, I am tinkering with the Quake 2 engine with the intention of using it as the focus of my final year project.
I agree perhaps we couldn't create a game that looks as stunning as Doom 3 or UT2003 but I don't feel that is a major blow, I do believe that motivated teams with talent can produce games that look as good as the corporate ones, many of which are produced simply to satisfy contractual obligation rather than desire, and I believe that quite a few will be very innovative.
To knock down indies because they aren't corporate is foolish, the majority don't stand a chance because they wont see it through till the end, but those of us who will suceed will produce games of suprising quality because they are games that we want to produce and will spend however long it takes to get it done, rather than being forced to realise it 6 months prior to when it should be.
#13
GG does not take IP rights. That is not where we are trying to make our money.
Jeff Tunnell GG
07/09/2002 (6:31 pm)
Scott,GG does not take IP rights. That is not where we are trying to make our money.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#14
Further, no one said you need to give it up in the first place, only if you want to have it published - what happens if you never get it "Published"? is that within the rules...?
Either way, get a few done first and people knew the rules going in... there is NO OPTION to start complaining about it now.
-Shooter
07/09/2002 (6:42 pm)
<2 cents>I think more than a few people are jumping WAAYYY ahead of themselves here.... first order of business is get a game done. Then worry about getting it published.... No where does it say that you need to give it up - Only that they get first shot at it.... If they turn it down and you get it published somewhere else and it goes big, oh well...thats their loss.Further, no one said you need to give it up in the first place, only if you want to have it published - what happens if you never get it "Published"? is that within the rules...?
Either way, get a few done first and people knew the rules going in... there is NO OPTION to start complaining about it now.
-Shooter
#15
Why? If you build your game using the Torque engine and fail to full understand the licensing, you could make bad business decisions later. Believing that, for instance, GG is responsible for helping pay for development (seen that in a thread once already), that GG owns none of the rights to your game when you are done thus alowing you to distribute it however (seen that one too), etc. All of these would be a Bad Thing to do.
In business, you know UP FRONT what you are going to do, how to handle it, how to make the product, and how to distribute it.(*) It's a Business Plan and a Marketing Plan. Don't by-guess and by-golly when doing business. Read the licenses you purchase, understand the license, etc. These are all important things to do, and saying "Make the game first, then complain about licensing" is a pretty flawed statement(**) If you do that, and you can't come to an agreement about licensing terms after you've finished the game then you've got all the time and expense of re-tooling your self (or team) to move everything to a different engine, redo your scripts, blahblahblah.
Having said that - I've got no problems with GG's license. It's pretty good all in all, and fits my needs pretty well. When Jeff tapped me after an email I sent to the GameBusiness mailing list, I read the licensing terms, then proceeded to pick it apart and ask Jeff questions. Before I had ever seen the engine. (Heck - did the same thing to MS over my VBA licensing. I had never seen the SDK, but, wanted to know ALL the details (all 28 pages!!! of licensing agreement!) before I did something silly like fall in love with the idea of using it ;-) After I got those questions outta the way, then I evaluated the license.
Oh, and to whoever tried to make the sweeping generalization of people on here, that we seem to be less concerned about business and more concerned about other things - well, that's definitely not everyone :-) More than one person is concerned about the business aspect of game development. Me personally, I believe if you want to sell a game at all, you should really be thinking about the business end of it from the begining - but that's just me :-)
(*) Well, that's mostly true. Sometimes it doesn't really work out that way, like ending up with a product you have no clue how to market. Stuff happens, and you learn to adapt. Just another part o' doing business ;-)
(**) And just and FYI - I'm not jumpin' all over your case or anything Shooter. Hope I didn't come across that way, just realized towards the end I might be coming off sounding nearly as grumpy as Matt ;-)
07/10/2002 (6:23 am)
Shooter - I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this subject. Yep, people need to get thier games done. But not questioning the licensing before building a game on top of the Torque engine would be one heck of a' mistake if you saw there was a problem down the line.Why? If you build your game using the Torque engine and fail to full understand the licensing, you could make bad business decisions later. Believing that, for instance, GG is responsible for helping pay for development (seen that in a thread once already), that GG owns none of the rights to your game when you are done thus alowing you to distribute it however (seen that one too), etc. All of these would be a Bad Thing to do.
In business, you know UP FRONT what you are going to do, how to handle it, how to make the product, and how to distribute it.(*) It's a Business Plan and a Marketing Plan. Don't by-guess and by-golly when doing business. Read the licenses you purchase, understand the license, etc. These are all important things to do, and saying "Make the game first, then complain about licensing" is a pretty flawed statement(**) If you do that, and you can't come to an agreement about licensing terms after you've finished the game then you've got all the time and expense of re-tooling your self (or team) to move everything to a different engine, redo your scripts, blahblahblah.
Having said that - I've got no problems with GG's license. It's pretty good all in all, and fits my needs pretty well. When Jeff tapped me after an email I sent to the GameBusiness mailing list, I read the licensing terms, then proceeded to pick it apart and ask Jeff questions. Before I had ever seen the engine. (Heck - did the same thing to MS over my VBA licensing. I had never seen the SDK, but, wanted to know ALL the details (all 28 pages!!! of licensing agreement!) before I did something silly like fall in love with the idea of using it ;-) After I got those questions outta the way, then I evaluated the license.
Oh, and to whoever tried to make the sweeping generalization of people on here, that we seem to be less concerned about business and more concerned about other things - well, that's definitely not everyone :-) More than one person is concerned about the business aspect of game development. Me personally, I believe if you want to sell a game at all, you should really be thinking about the business end of it from the begining - but that's just me :-)
(*) Well, that's mostly true. Sometimes it doesn't really work out that way, like ending up with a product you have no clue how to market. Stuff happens, and you learn to adapt. Just another part o' doing business ;-)
(**) And just and FYI - I'm not jumpin' all over your case or anything Shooter. Hope I didn't come across that way, just realized towards the end I might be coming off sounding nearly as grumpy as Matt ;-)
#16
You can make/build/create your game on the Torque (V-12) Engine and never go to market with it. That is what I asked in my previous post....is that "Within the rules"? If it is, then I think, and I'm sure, that there are people out there focused on their parts in creating the next set of great games.
DRS, I agree with reading the EULA's and all contracts....hell I read the work order when the cable guy had to upgrade me to digital....
What I don't agree with (whole heartedly) is that one would need to come up with a business plan/marketing plan/circulation strategy/demographic research.... in order to get a game cranked out....
*I gotta go to work now - more later*
Thanks for the nice words up there DRS Jr.
07/10/2002 (6:37 am)
No problem with all of that, Maybe there was a break in commo here.... Correct me if I am wrong (Please), Does it say anywhere that you have finish a project and submit it to Sierra or not? I'm thinking 'NOT'.You can make/build/create your game on the Torque (V-12) Engine and never go to market with it. That is what I asked in my previous post....is that "Within the rules"? If it is, then I think, and I'm sure, that there are people out there focused on their parts in creating the next set of great games.
DRS, I agree with reading the EULA's and all contracts....hell I read the work order when the cable guy had to upgrade me to digital....
What I don't agree with (whole heartedly) is that one would need to come up with a business plan/marketing plan/circulation strategy/demographic research.... in order to get a game cranked out....
*I gotta go to work now - more later*
Thanks for the nice words up there DRS Jr.
#17
You are completely correct - if you start a game, and either distribute it as a freebie (ie, a mod or just freeware game) or just toss it out the window, you are out nothing besides the money for the SDK. Kinda nice, actually :-)
The only counter point here - it depends on what you want to do with your game. If you want to sell your game (IE, you do the labor for marketing, etc. GG has already said they won't be doing anything besides non game specific marketing to get traffic for all the games, and the possible handling it with a publisher if it for some reason gets picked up.) then you need to be thinking of those things, and doing the work behind the marketing / business plan. It really IS important. But if you aren't looking to make money off of it (or, you just don't really care that much about how much it sells) then you are indeed correct - none of it matters :-)
07/10/2002 (7:05 am)
Definitely a breakdown in communication Shooter - you wrote one meaning, and I read a totally different one ;-)You are completely correct - if you start a game, and either distribute it as a freebie (ie, a mod or just freeware game) or just toss it out the window, you are out nothing besides the money for the SDK. Kinda nice, actually :-)
The only counter point here - it depends on what you want to do with your game. If you want to sell your game (IE, you do the labor for marketing, etc. GG has already said they won't be doing anything besides non game specific marketing to get traffic for all the games, and the possible handling it with a publisher if it for some reason gets picked up.) then you need to be thinking of those things, and doing the work behind the marketing / business plan. It really IS important. But if you aren't looking to make money off of it (or, you just don't really care that much about how much it sells) then you are indeed correct - none of it matters :-)
Torque Owner Matt W
Yeah uh, you don't get out much do you?
Majority of the stuff produced by major publishers is so crappy, that I wouldn't be surprised if they were made by accident. Crap like Tomb Raider or well, a lot of stuff I don't feel like listing.
You contradict yourself a few times here. GarageGames wouldn't make sequels of crummy games, but you state very clearly that no one here can made good games. Why is that? So why would you even have to worry about this "issue" if you don't think that we have the talent to make something better than... Diakatana. Haha.
GarageGames has answered this question a few times in the past month, and the reason is that they want to "hold on" to successful "franchises". Personally, I doubt we'll see something like that. Even amazing games rarely get put into a series and produce sequels. As was said, this is standard for many publishers dealing with start-ups. Make something big, and if you want to make a sequel you'll have to use us as your publisher.
This won't change, and it's been said before. If GarageGames' community produces a game that sells great and is marketable for sequels, then GarageGames has the rights to ensure you'll make it with them attached.
I doubt you could come up with a mainstream series that has done different. Same company producing the game... same publisher.
I think you're just paranoid in that giving up ANY control. They are supplying us the engine at a very low cost. So either use it... or not. Also, if you have a "statement" again try to search around for recent similar posts. This was answered quite a few times now.