Sony pisses off Korean developers

[Titanio]

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?

Yes. At least I assume as much with SCEE having ownership of the HS trademark.

Unfortunately if "all" you have to bring to the negotiating table is an idea, talent and some early code, your position is weak given the current status quo in the industry.

 

[eDoshin]

Even tho Mistwalker is technically a startup, I wouldn't exactly call them lightweights either. MS probably paid them a lot of money, and even if they did not buy the IP, probably had some provisions written in their contract for the games to remain 360 exclusive.

 

[cthellis42]

Even if Microsoft doesn't own Mistwalker's IP, they're still playing off Sakaguchi's (and Tanaka's, I imagine) reputation and a fervent desire to succeed in the Japan, so they have different considerations. (The aforementioned "exclusivity" among them.) No doubt if MS weren't interested or was trying to score a poor deal with them, Mistwalker could take a cab to the next publisher who would be happy to give them a better one.

 

[Edge]

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.

Most of all, they most likely do not need MS to fund the game development. They have made lots of profits off their past games.

I think developers who are new to this business either have to accept a raw deal or don't get any funding. It's a sad state of affairs, but somewhat understandable.

Now Activision's behaviour, based on that lawsuit's accusations being accurate, is immoral and inexcusable. Almost makes you want to boycott Activision, don't you think?

 

[cthellis42]

Most of all, they most likely do not need MS to fund the game development. They have made lots of profits off their past games.

With BioWare at this point, I'm actually surprised they don't just self-publish and encourage huge bribes to be exclusive to one console or another with their next game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Man seriously after reading this videogame development sucks. I hate it. I seems worst than the music industry.

That's the capticalist business model for you. The people who front the investment get all the power, and the legal resolutions favour the wealthy. Happens in all areas. It's amazing what a crap deal farmers get while merchants get rich off the food, but the merchants can withold payments making the suppliers destitute. As long as you need to pay for a roof over your head and food on the table, and send your kids to college etc., they have you by the short and curlies.

 

[Edge]

With BioWare at this point, I'm actually surprised they don't just self-publish and encourage huge bribes to be exclusive to one console or another with their next game.

They took a huge "bribe" to be an exclusive developer to Microsoft for some of their games.

I don't really like the word "bribe" used in this way, as I don't see it as a bribe, but since you used the word, and where just kidding around, I used it also. I have no problems with Bioware making exclusive arrangements with MS for one of their games. Good for them if they can negotiate with a publisher like MS and make reasonable profit off of their hard work.

 

[scooby_dooby]

They took a huge "bribe" to be an exclusive developer to Microsoft for some of their games.

I don't really like the word "bribe" used in this way, as I don't see it as a bribe, but since you used the word, and where just kidding around, I used it also. I have no problems with Bioware making exclusive arrangements with MS for one of their games. Good for them if they can negotiate with a publisher like MS and make reasonable profit off of their hard work.

They've basically had nothing but praise for MS and the freedom they gave them. I get the impression that these two companies have an excellent working relationship. I'm sure all things being equal(meaning money), they were glad to keep the status quo.

 

[Fafalada]

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.

It's not necesserily that much of a gamble - they actually want to see some kind of prototype/demo before funding starts, so it's not like either party is going in blindly up to Alpha.
Anyway, it's just Sony's way of growing online support in asian territories (the fact Korean goverment is helping along is just added benefit for PR). MS approach to the same thing is a lot less public but doesn't mean it's less 'draconian' from some angles.

 

[Farid]

The producer of a game, be it the publisher, the developer or a third party doing nothing but prodution on the project, gets to own all the rights on the game, and on its code.

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

id produces its games.
If Activision was to produce them, you can be certain that they won't do it for nothing in return.

 

[ERP]

The producer of a game, be it the publisher, the developer or a third party doing nothing but prodution on the project, gets to own all the rights on the game, and on its code.

id produces its games.
If Activision was to produce them, you can be certain that they won't do it for nothing in return.

Now if you'll just define what "produces" means in terms of game development, I'll know if I agree or not.
IP ownership is purely a contractual issue.

In game development there are really only two parties (3 in some bizarre cases) the developer and the publisher. Even if the developer provides all of the design work it has no bearing on if he keeps his IP or his code. It's all down to contract negotiaition, I've worked on projects where I own the IP or I own the code and I've worked on projects where the publisher has owned everything or combinations there of.

Depends on the project, the developer, the publisher and which side of the bed they got out of that morning. But it's getting rarer for a dev to maintain ownership of IP or code.

 

[ERP]

It's not necesserily that much of a gamble - they actually want to see some kind of prototype/demo before funding starts, so it's not like either party is going in blindly up to Alpha.
Anyway, it's just Sony's way of growing online support in asian territories (the fact Korean goverment is helping along is just added benefit for PR). MS approach to the same thing is a lot less public but doesn't mean it's less 'draconian' from some angles.

Wasn't really commenting on the "draconian nature" of it.

Game development is what it is... Any business deal you go into with your eyes open is something you have to take responsibiliy for, no point moaning about it.

Like most business it's a gamble at some level, the better business decisions are the one stacked more in your favor.

 

[Farid]

Now if you'll just define what "produces" means in terms of game development, I'll know if I agree or not.
IP ownership is purely a contractual issue.

In game development there are really only two parties (3 in some bizarre cases) the developer and the publisher. Even if the developer provides all of the design work it has no bearing on if he keeps his IP or his code. It's all down to contract negotiaition, I've worked on projects where I own the IP or I own the code and I've worked on projects where the publisher has owned everything or combinations there of.

Depends on the project, the developer, the publisher and which side of the bed they got out of that morning. But it's getting rarer for a dev to maintain ownership of IP or code.

On a console project, and that since the last five years, you can be certain that the producer of the game, the one that funds the project, will own the IP and the code. I honestly never heard a story stating otherwise, I repeat, from recent memory, not from years ago, back when, it's true deals were differents.

Of course it's a contractual matter, but nobody, except maybe capital risk funds (mainly the one owned by governments, since Capital risk never do fund video game projects usually), will produce (fund) a game these days without asking for the total control over the IP and the code.

 

[KOF]

It looks like these are the beefs most Korean devs have.

1. If Sony rejects the prototypes, not only the prototype belongs to Sony, but the devs also have to reimburse the development cost.

2. KIPA is a government agency funded by Korean taxpayers, and they also share the risk along with Sony. But deal is too much favored towards Sony. Wasting taxpayers money just to let Sony get away with all the good terms agrrevates them.

3. To put it simply, the deal blows, as there are lots of other alternative loan deals available around Korean banks.

4. Korean devs do not think they are gaining know-how through this deal, rather, they think Sony will be gaining know-how from them. They do agree that they are still in infancy in general console development. But this deal is mainly about MMOs, which Korean devs have edge over the Japanese. They feel Sony will exploit them and take away their know-hows on MMO networking coding and use it for themselves, since Sony is still behind MS in online infrastructure.

5. Korean devs look up to MS after the treatment and support Phantagram (coding developers on N3) MS has given to them. They expected the same from Sony and this wasn't what they expected. Either way, they can't afford such risks as PC development scene is still cozy, but they are now looking at X360 in more serious light.

Some of their comments are in nationalistic ferver, but their general concensus is that they have much better alternative ways to make money than this.

 

[jpr27]

ERP:

I just have a question about your IP ownership outlines you talked about. So in your opinion is it rare that a new developer gets to keep their IP at early stages even when it is an untested one? Or to continue with the IP if it turns out to be profitable for the involved parties that one have to option to buy back or continue the IP? I know most of it boils down to contracts etc. but I'm just trying to see how difficult it is to keep your IP. I know in my case I would try and keep my IP's if possible to give me as much flexability and control as possible in the future. Looks more and more like I would have to give up a larger share of the pie if I want to keep any sort of control but then again its tough enough just getting your foot in the door

As for code I'm not too concerned, although if I thought I had something truely groundbraking then I would choose a different route for protection.

 

[ERP]

ERP:

I just have a question about your IP ownership outlines you talked about. So in your opinion is it rare that a new developer gets to keep their IP at early stages even when it is an untested one? Or to continue with the IP if it turns out to be profitable for the involved parties that one have to option to buy back or continue the IP? I know most of it boils down to contracts etc. but I'm just trying to see how difficult it is to keep your IP. I know in my case I would try and keep my IP's if possible to give me as much flexability and control as possible in the future. Looks more and more like I would have to give up a larger share of the pie if I want to keep any sort of control but then again its tough enough just getting your foot in the door

As for code I'm not too concerned, although if I thought I had something truely groundbraking then I would choose a different route for protection.

In todays climate short of funding development, as an unproven developer, you will not get to own the IP. Look at naughty dog and crash, Universal own that property. On the plus side if you do build the next Mario or even just Crash, if your smart you milk it and get to write your own contract next time.

Having done the small company thing, I would very seriously think twice (or three ot four times) about attempting to start a company in this climate, especially with my own money. The only successful startups I know of first hand recently have been in the cell phone arena where at least today you can still do it with a couple of people.

Code is irrelevant, unless you embarassed about the quality

 

[one]

Some of their comments are in nationalistic ferver, but their general concensus is that they have much better alternative ways to make money than this.

Unless we know how much money is paid for participants in this project it's hard to tell if there are better ways.

It's interesting that it's not clear who expressed this opinion... Is that a genuine impression by a small developer, or an existent Korean publisher? If it's an opinion of Korean publishers who employ Korean developers in a sweatshop now, surely they'd hate a government-funded outsider reaching their workforce market...

 

[jpr27]

In todays climate short of funding development, as an unproven developer, you will not get to own the IP. Look at naughty dog and crash, Universal own that property. On the plus side if you do build the next Mario or even just Crash, if your smart you milk it and get to write your own contract next time.

Having done the small company thing, I would very seriously think twice (or three ot four times) about attempting to start a company in this climate, especially with my own money. The only successful startups I know of first hand recently have been in the cell phone arena where at least today you can still do it with a couple of people.

Code is irrelevant, unless you embarassed about the quality

Thanks for the info ERP. Sorry for late response but just had surgery (galblader ow). You must of been reading my mind for the example of cell phone development areas etc. because that is our plan (not exactly cell phone per say ) but building a foundation
"a resume of sorts" at a lower lvl (hardware wise) of game creation then as we prove ourselves through solid, innovative game creation make the climb to the larger budget titles and hardware. I was just hoping that there we some avenues that we could have controlling interest maybe not owning the IP but having a say on who would continue it etc. Guess I better not get too attached to our beginning IP if thats the case.