Posted 06 September 2004 - 01:15 AM
Posted 06 September 2004 - 02:08 AM
It's just like the movies, it's always the publishers logo (ie: universal, WB, etc) and then the "a <insert name> file" appears, and then the cast. and you dont even see the story writers and graphic artists till the very end...
Posted 06 September 2004 - 02:21 AM
Posted 06 September 2004 - 02:26 AM
Yeah...in a perfect world...
I think in our world, it sums up to who got the cash. It's the same thing in the more scientific domains. Research assistants, technicians are the people who are working hard and actually discover new stuff... but they don't get any credits, only the person who's in charge of putting money in get the fame.
Sucks...but... that's life :sigh:
:sigh: :sigh: :sigh: :sigh:
Posted 06 September 2004 - 02:34 AM
really depends on the contract between the publisher and the developper. In that case, I'd say Id Software is probably getting some percentages as they are an already big player in the business. They actually do a favor to Activision by letting them sell their game which they are nearly garanteed to sell millions of copies. Also, Id licences their (costly!) game engine without going through Activision I suppose. All in all I'm pretty sure they make a lot of money as developers :)
As for small developpers, I'd say most of the time they don't make that much money because publishers don't want to take any risk at all. So if they take a risk (by choosing an unproven developer), they are gonna take all the profits, intellectual properties, etc... they'll want it all just in case its a success so they can cash in some more.
Posted 06 September 2004 - 02:46 AM
That said, yes, it does hurt that you put your blood and soul into a game and some other guy gets to slap their name right on top of yours.
Posted 06 September 2004 - 03:15 AM
Posted 06 September 2004 - 03:24 AM
Most of the prophet usually goes to teh publisher. It does depend on the contract. You usually have royalities in there as well. When the sales have reached a certain amount, then after that, you get a bigger precentage of the sales. Or you get a big bonus or something. It varies a lot.
Using id as an example is probably not the best though. Cause id is one of hte last developers (are they *the* last?) that can actually define their own contract with a publisher as they want it. usually, the publisher is doing the developer a favour. With id, they do the publishers a favor...
Posted 06 September 2004 - 03:28 AM
Looking at the history of video games, most people in the past self published their own work. Origin (creators of the ultima series) both developed and self published their older games. Sierra use to be heavy in development working on the King’s Quest, Police Quest, Space Quest, and other games; all self-published. John Carmack self published his Wolfenstein and Quake under ID as he was starting out.
The difference between then and now is a high set of standards from the market that you must fulfill if you want to sell volumes of your game. I could write a book just describing some of the things you would need to program in any certain game (which has already been done by others =). Those would just be the “features”. That wouldn’t even touch actual game components such as special effects or interaction/plot/evolvement. Now if you’re starting from the ground up, you have a serious amount of work to do. Most developers feel it’s their duty to reinvent the wheel, so they go about writing everything on their own. This requires a tremendous amount of resources, so here comes the need for a Publisher. Someone to fork the bill and feed the pigeons.
I believe as software engineering matures (possibly within this century or thereafter) people will start to see developers self-publish their work more often. Rather than have multiple game engines like Unreal, Quake (or now Doom), Monolith, Garage Games, etc..., we’ll see complete packages from something like DirectX – free of charge. Thus eliminating a large amount of required time and costs associated with engine development & QA.
Posted 06 September 2004 - 05:03 AM
What we need is for game engines to mature to a point when an engine from 3 years ago is still good. Then we will see more stable opensource engines with good use of standards. This will become like OpenGL. Then of course Microsoft will make a unified game engine optomized for XBox 4 and useable only with DirectX and we will have yet another problem. Oh well.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users