Sony pisses off Korean developers

[cthellis42]

True, I don't think any industry could be as bad as the "poor" recording industry, I just don't want games to head down that slippery slope.

A good point, but I don't think we're going to have any choice in the matter.

But I DO think, at least, we're going to see more and different solutions to funding, and--at least during these formative years of online distribution (while they can't yet stream everything to us )--more "personalized" options for developers to pursue if the choose. It should, hopefully, make for better studio releases.

Of course it's rather a good question as to whether or not the push for online/subscription games ITSELF is better for the video game community as a whole.

 

[eDoshin]

If only I had hit the lottery, I was going to start a Sundance for games....ah well.

EDIT: I want to point out that I am not demonizing Sony for doing this, my contempt is for the industry as a whole, regarding this issue.

The deals are definetly raw. But sometimes its a means to establish a reputation so that u would gain leverage in your next negotiation. Unfortunately, there are probably countless great games that have never been made b/c nobody would give a no-name a chance. Heavenly Sword (from the dev blog) almost didn't make it off the drawing table even tho their demos floored audiences. Its easy to believe that ideally, someone would just open their wallet and fund every great idea, and not ask for something in return. But the reality is that even if you win Super Lotto, you would not issue a blank check to every poor slob who comes knocking on your door to ask for money. There are risk involved, and the person receiving the gift must be held accountable in some way.

So what should Sony have asked for? Simply to be reimbursed for dev costs? .. a large share of the profits? .. and what reassurances would they have that the project that they funded does not show up on 360 or Revolution. And what are the specific terms of the ownership of this IP? If a new IP is successful, would they be able to negotiate a better contract ie Sony would retain the IP, but they get a better share of the profits.

The language may be vague as to what is defined as "good quality", but that's a summarization that is occuring in a small forum post. Contract negotioations will involved very specific language that can be held up in a court of law. If they can come up with a successful IP, then they can take the cash they generate and have the power to fulfil their own destiny .. but if you take money then you must be expected to pay SOME price for your freedom.

The thing is, if these startups really had a choice, then they can choose to go with the best deal possible. But its also possible that nobody else gives them a chance, gives them the exact same, or worse, terms, or simply will not have the clout to reach a worldwide audience, nor the patience to see your project thru. I think we've seen that the deals are fairly standard (however raw) .. I think what pissed them off was just some disparaging remarks about their technological skills poured onto a history of bad blood.

 

[ERP]

Most of this is pretty standard for a 3rd party developer with a major publisher. In fact it's unlikely that a dev would get a deal like this without already having a game design.

How good the deal is depends on the fine print in the contract and on the actual numbers, how much for initial development, what the royalty split is.

I'd be wary of signing any contract that contained clause 2, since it's a fuck you clause, although sometimes contracts with broad clauses can actually be a good thing, depends on how specific the rest of the contract is.

I'd also push to have the right to buy back the rights if Sony chose to back out, this would likely be at the cost of returning to Sony its investment, most contracts would require this anyway in the case of a breach.

But no external dev these days gets to keep their IP, unless their IP is partially their name like ID.

 

[mckmas8808]

Aha! I found it.





Read the rest here
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/callofdutybigredone/news.html?sid=6132290&mode=all

Damn that's horrible. A tear goes out to Spark on that one.

 

[ERP]

Damn that's horrible. A tear goes out to Spark on that one.

Unfortunately not very uncommon...

It's relatively common for a dev to be in breach and since publishers back end load royalties, they simply withhold payment until a dev "renegotiates".

I know of several publishers who commonly use this tactic.

 

[mckmas8808]

Unfortunately not very uncommon...

It's relatively common for a dev to be in breach and since publishers back end load royalties, they simply withhold payment until a dev "renegotiates".

I know of several publishers who commonly use this tactic.

But it sound like to me Spark wanted to make a sequal and not breach the contract. It seems like Activision wanted more profit out of nowhere. Isn't this illegal?

 

[Inane_Dork]

I'd be wary of signing any contract that contained clause 2, since it's a fuck you clause, although sometimes contracts with broad clauses can actually be a good thing, depends on how specific the rest of the contract is.

That's more or less what I was thinking. The balance of power in the contract is heavily in favor of Sony, but if Sony wants to be a good publisher and you actually make a good game, no worries. I can understand the agreement coming from Sony's angle. It's basically insurance, as I understand it.

The thing I don't understand is why Sony is targeting startups. If they really want to have more PS3 games, they should try to buddy up with established companies. The likelihood of a startup (not splintered from another developer) making a profitable MMO is not that great.

It seems to me that Koreans are most likely to stick with the PC.

But no external dev these days gets to keep their IP, unless their IP is partially their name like ID.

Usually, yeah. Microsoft seems to allow Bioware to keep all their IP, though. So there are exceptions.

 

[ERP]

But it sound like to me Spark wanted to make a sequal and not breach the contract. It seems like Activision wanted more profit out of nowhere. Isn't this illegal?

Depends on the contract..

My guess would be that Activision had the option to use Spark for sequels but there was no requirement, this is the most common sequel clause I've seen, usually coupled with a no compete clause so you can't just write another game in the same genere for another publisher. Alternatively Spark may have been in breach on one of the other clauses, or Activiaion may have been able to drag negotiations out to put them in breach or financial difficulty.

Renegotiating like this either during development, or prior to a sequel is more common than it ough to be. But the publisher usually has all of the cards, small devs rarely have the financial ability to drag out any sort of negotiation.

 

[mckmas8808]

The thing I don't understand is why Sony is targeting startups. If they really want to have more PS3 games, they should try to buddy up with established companies. The likelihood of a startup (not splintered from another developer) making a profitable MMO is not that great.

It seems to me that Koreans are most likely to stick with the PC.

People around the net keep saying that the Koreans are the hidden golden children that have undiscovered (if that's a word) devs that know how to make great online games. Maybe Sony sees this and is trying to grow their online library?

 

[mckmas8808]

Depends on the contract..

My guess would be that Activision had the option to use Spark for sequels but there was no requirement, this is the most common sequel clause I've seen, usually coupled with a no compete clause so you can't just write another game in the same genere for another publisher. Alternatively Spark may have been in breach on one of the other clauses, or Activiaion may have been able to drag negotiations out to put them in breach or financial difficulty.

Renegotiating like this either during development, or prior to a sequel is more common than it ough to be. But the publisher usually has all of the cards, small devs rarely have the financial ability to drag out any sort of negotiation.

Man seriously after reading this videogame development sucks. I hate it. I seems worst than the music industry. Why don't you guys bitch and complain more to make a change?

 

[ERP]

That's more or less what I was thinking. The balance of power in the contract is heavily in favor of Sony, but if Sony wants to be a good publisher and you actually make a good game, no worries. I can understand the agreement coming from Sony's angle. It's basically insurance, as I understand it.

The thing I don't understand is why Sony is targeting startups. If they really want to have more PS3 games, they should try to buddy up with established companies. The likelihood of a startup (not splintered from another developer) making a profitable MMO is not that great.

It seems to me that Koreans are most likely to stick with the PC.

Usually, yeah. Microsoft seems to allow Bioware to keep all their IP, though. So there are exceptions.

The way I read this is it's a minimal risk thing for Sony.

We don't have the contract, but If I were to guess what the intention is

Basically the Korean government funds (or splits funding with Sony) up to Alpha, with Sony providing devkits, they then decide if they want it, if they don't, minimal loss and no one else can use it. If it's the next tetris or super Mario they enter into a conventional development agreement with pre agreed terms.

It's gambling, startups, need the money. The Korean government does it with startups because they are trying to grow the industry.

 

[ERP]

Man seriously after reading this videogame development sucks. I hate it. I seems worst than the music industry. Why don't you guys bitch and complain more to make a change?

Bitch and complain to who?
There are lots of devs willing to cut each others (and often their own) throats to sign a contract. Until devs are a scarce resource they won't have any leverage. The problem with this industry is the people in it want to make games and they commonly make bad business decisions to do it.

 

[Bobbler]

It seems the deal isn't necessarily so bad, but there is likely some contention between the Japanese and Koreans in general. Everything but the fine details seemed pretty typical to me (I know a few people who have gotten worse deals, and were quite happy about it!), and I imagine the fine details would be fleshed out in the contract (possibly as to what is deemed "poor" quality, and certain the royalty rates).

 

[eDoshin]

much ado about nothing due to lack of news and lotsa speculation

 

[Edge]

Usually, yeah. Microsoft seems to allow Bioware to keep all their IP, though. So there are exceptions.

Bioware WAS and IS a successful game developer in the PC space, and thus don't need Microsoft. Bioware has power, and thus MS has to make concensions to get their support.

 

[cthellis42]

Bioware WAS and IS a successful game developer in the PC space, and thus don't need Microsoft. Bioware has power, and thus MS has to make concensions to get their support.

Also, what of BioWare's has MS published other than Jade Empire? I rather figured the publishing arrangement they entered with that was in part (or even "in most") for them to concentrate on building a custom engine for the Xbox and NOT also have it cross-port with the PC, as I'm sure BioWare would otherwise want.

But the main point is, of course, that they've been prominent in the industry for years, already delivered solid hits for Microsoft, and would never--EVER--remotely have to enter a contract like that. There's no reason for them to fight with a publisher for rights, as publishers would basically be fighting over EACH OTHER to sell their games.

 

[Inane_Dork]

People around the net keep saying that the Koreans are the hidden golden children that have undiscovered (if that's a word) devs that know how to make great online games. Maybe Sony sees this and is trying to grow their online library?

Eh... that doesn't sound like a business plan that suits would get behind.

Bioware WAS and IS a successful game developer in the PC space, and thus don't need Microsoft. Bioware has power, and thus MS has to make concensions to get their support.

Why I am right does not need to be recited to me.
I'm already aware of it.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Bioware WAS and IS a successful game developer in the PC space, and thus don't need Microsoft. Bioware has power, and thus MS has to make concensions to get their support.

What about Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon CryOn? I don't think MS owns the IP rights to any of these...and mistwalker isn't currently a successful studio.

 

[Titanio]

What about Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon CryOn? I don't think MS owns the IP rights to any of these...and mistwalker isn't currently a successful studio.

Blue Dragon, Losy Odyssey would appear to be MS's...they own the trademarks which suggests that. Ditto with Ninety Nine Nights, and Crackdown.

Gears would appear to be Epic's. But then Epic is a big dev now, with a lot of leverage, and strong technological base - not to mention the capability to fund themselves if need be, to a larger extent than most devs could (and they may indeed be contributing themselves to the development costs, in order to give them more control and to retain ownership of the IP).

If you're a smaller dev starting out and you need funding, you don't have a very strong position when dealing with publishers, and 90+% of the time, if not more, they'll insist on you signing over the rights to your IP.

 

[scooby_dooby]

so MS's actually own the BD and LO franchises? That's pretty impressive addition to their portfolio in the upcoming years. N3 as well? wow, this I did not know...

On a related note, were ninja theory forced to hand over rights for HeavenlySword to sony?