David Jaffe to Developers: "You Deserve What You Get"

[rembrandtqeinstein]

This sounds a wee bit like victim blaming.

There are no victims, only volunteers. Why anyone would work 80-100 hour weeks just so a publisher's stock can go up and the executives/board members can take all the money and credit from your work is beyond me. Developers need to learn to negotiate and more importantly to walk away if they can't get the deal they want.

Nobody NEEDS to work on a "AAA" game. If you have a good game idea there and a little skill there are tons of tools available at every budget level to make your idea happen. From my 3rd hand info most "big" studio level game development is not very satisfying, because the developers work on a tiny pieces of the massive overall project that they personally have no control over. Same with models/textures, level design, sound, scripting, etc.

 

[ThriKreen]

I don't get why a Publisher is even needed. Aren't most AAA development houses big enough to publish their own games without the need of a 3rd party publisher? Or am I missing something?

Logistics and marketing - they often don't have the resources for manufacturing and distribution of physical products. Nor have need of it running all the time when they only release a game periodically, while a full publishing company would always be churning out products to be shipped to stores.

While that's going away for PC games with digital distribution, it's still a factor for console games.

 

[Living Contradiction]

There are no victims, only volunteers. Why anyone would work 80-100 hour weeks just so a publisher's stock can go up and the executives/board members can take all the money and credit from your work is beyond me.

Because having the money to fund a project on the front end and the ability to absorb extra costs should they arise is a powerful one. That's what a publisher offers to a developer: financial strength.

Why work long hours to drive up a publisher's stock? You might as well ask, "Why work long hours on a game that might flop harder than Jim Sterling in a kiddy pool?" Developers work on a game because they believe in it, pour their time and effort into it because they believe that the game will dazzle and amaze or, at very least, earn enough to pay the rent and cover everyone's salary.

That need for covering the expenses goes away when a developer signs with a publisher. Several logistical nightmares (getting the product to market, making people aware of it, ensuring that any difficulties at launch are handled) get taken care of, and considerably more resources get made available, by publishers. The thing is, as developers keep pointing out, such deals carry with them a hefty intangible price: self-determination. As tempting as a bottomless wallet may be, it's still just a wallet and the owners of the wallets in the video game industry are used to getting executive carte blanche in exchange for their cash.

I don't like the way Jaffe puts it, but I can't deny there's validity in his argument. When you pursue a dream, you can lose focus on the world around you and sign away something you will really need later on to take care of a problem now. Developers need to be reminded of that before they give their self-determination away to publishers, not after.

 

[Atmos Duality]

That's all well and good in theory, but given how Publishers have been sacking their firms willy-nilly in the last 3 years, I'm pretty sure the demand for developers (relative to publishers) isn't so high as for them to make such demands of the publisher.

See, the publisher has to sign off on that too, and they sure as hell aren't going to agree to harsh exit terms and concessions when the ball is in their court.

 

[grigjd3]

At first I was going to write the guy off as one of those wanna-be Libertarians who's got theirs and sneers at anyone who dare protest. But he goes on to say this:

...when you are talking digital games for $14.99 (and ideally less), talent can begin to demand amazing deals if they have the track record to back up their demands because core gamers- as always- will continue to follow the talented teams and average gamers will take chances at those lower 'impulse buy' price points. We will see this more in the coming generation of games as getting core games digitally stops being something that only the core gamers do and -with each passing year- becomes the normal way for all gamers to acquire new content.

The gist of his article is that if you want triple-A money for your game, you're going to have to sell your soul (or at least your game's soul) to get it. He's been there, he's done that. The advice he gives is to go indie if a publisher won't give you what you want. And that's looking like better and better advice.

Wait, context??? NOT ALLOWED ON THE INTERWEBS!!!!

 

[jklinders]

Somebody had to say it.

I'm glad there are a few insiders out there that are finally willing to say it. I mean really expecting people to take responsibility for what they sign for on a legal contract? Scandalous.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I don't get why a Publisher is even needed. Aren't most AAA development houses big enough to publish their own games without the need of a 3rd party publisher? Or am I missing something?

Dear LORD no! Most devs aren't THAT big and are mostly hired by publishers from project to project. You really need publishers for advertising, marketing, etc

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't get why a Publisher is even needed. Aren't most AAA development houses big enough to publish their own games without the need of a 3rd party publisher? Or am I missing something?

Logistics and marketing - they often don't have the resources for manufacturing and distribution of physical products. Nor have need of it running all the time when they only release a game periodically, while a full publishing company would always be churning out products to be shipped to stores.

While that's going away for PC games with digital distribution, it's still a factor for console games.

I don't get why a Publisher is even needed. Aren't most AAA development houses big enough to publish their own games without the need of a 3rd party publisher? Or am I missing something?

Dear LORD no! Most devs aren't THAT big and are mostly hired by publishers from project to project. You really need publishers for advertising, marketing, etc

Yes, but some Developer companies are pretty big so I was thinking that at least some of them could handle that stuff in house which would eliminate or at least cut down on a lot of these woes. Maybe not.

 

[PureIrony]

Because in an industry with 20 men to a job,where a 10 hour game can cost 40 millions, every person/studio totally has the clout to negotiate on their terms.

What a load of crap.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Maybe he's right, i dunno, but if judging by what he says, that only a company that can get a good contract deserves to be treated fairly, then something is still wrong with that part of the industry regardless.

Well, the basis of that part of his argument is that they simply aren't viewed as being valuable enough (i.e. they are unproven and still need to prove themselves). In that case, it doesn't make sense for a business to sign the greatest of contracts because the person is a greater risk than someone like Jaffe who has proven himself. The idea is hardly exclusive to the gaming industry. It's why a person fresh out of college won't get paid as much as the guy who's been working in the field for 30 years, and it's why it's harder to get a loan when your credit score is down. Of course, I understand that we would love to see a level of risk-taking greater than what we currently have, but at the same time, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to invest millions of dollars on the greatest idea in the world when the person handling that idea is likely to mess it up horribly. In that case, we may overlook its wonderful idea for all the mistakes it made, and while some games get over it, others don't.

As for Jaffe's comment itself, he seems a little arrogant. He's certainly in a better position to demand something from publishers than most people are, and he seems to be forgetting that. Still, reminding people that they need to prove themselves or assemble a proven team is good advice, and it certainly beats whining about an issue you don't seem to realize how to fix. On the other hand, though, I can't imagine that is an easy task, so it's easy to understand the frustration some developers go through when they have a lot of ideas but realize they must prove themselves before being able to pursue those ideas.

 

[cerebus23]

oh goody unions,demand more pay more benefits so game prices triple overnight and sit at their desks bsing half the day. and the same complaints will be we still dont get enough we want more control more money.

unions and the way they are run are not a good thing. you will never convince me of that unless we are talking turn of the century slave ownership and dangerous work conditions before we regulated the minimum wage and the like then by all means if your only recourse is to unionize which is how unions initially formed, but their modern day incarnation is nothing but corruption and greed on every level.

no thanks they can work this stuff out between them and their supervisiors and if that does not work go up higher and keep going till you get your say or get fired. you get fired "unjustly" for asking not to work 60 hours a week then sue.

and if you waved the right to sue i dub thee an idiot.

 

[loc978]

I guess that's why I'm not in business for myself. I feel that if there's a law telling me I can't cut a guy's throat for attempting to steal my car, there should be a law against cutthroat business tactics... such as waiting a developer out over a contract negotiation (bleeding their accounts dry with inaction. The one with the most money can do that in a business relationship). Publishers have the reputation they do because they hold all the cards in their little game, and often use those cards without remorse.

 

[senordesol]

Jaffe makes good points. Damn good points. If you want the choicest cuts, you've got to prove yourself. That's true.

But he misses some other points. Mainly: proving yourself can break studios that didn't need to be broken. Yes, as the financiers, Publishers shouldn't be expected to long put up with a failing dev but when publishers actively SABOTAGE their own developers (Battlefront 3, anyone?) I'd hope that even Jaffe would have to admit that's not the dev's fault. It is not a fault if someone presumes that a negotiated contract will be executed in good faith. It is not a fault of a developer to hum along with production, content with their funding source, only to have the dream of their game cruelly ripped out from under them. Let us also not forget, that even if the studio is able to secure a new funding source that they still may not be able to produce the original title because the Publisher still owns the IP.

Yes, they signed on the dotted line. Yes, no one held a gun to their head. But if we can agree that the publisher hasn't done anything 'wrong' or illegal, such practices are still predatory (and needlessly so)?

 

[weirdee]

I don't get why a Publisher is even needed. Aren't most AAA development houses big enough to publish their own games without the need of a 3rd party publisher? Or am I missing something?

Logistics and marketing - they often don't have the resources for manufacturing and distribution of physical products. Nor have need of it running all the time when they only release a game periodically, while a full publishing company would always be churning out products to be shipped to stores.

While that's going away for PC games with digital distribution, it's still a factor for console games.

unfortunately, the publishers have really been dicks lately, plus their marketing teams are off the mark more often than not, although EA did sack a chunk of their marketing department recently, so hopefully they found better folks to replace them

Yeah, thing is, as others have pointed out, the industry isn't the same place it was when Jaffe started out.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem is a lack of unions. Video gaming is one of the last industries to remain completely un-unionised, and that's had a negative effect on how the industry runs. Every other industry, including other entertainment industries such as music and film, have unions which ensure that workers are being treated fairly. Corporations have so much money that being in a union is the only way to give yourself a chance when it comes to taking legal action for malpractice or exploitation.

Right now, developers have got no-one looking out for them. Ideally, publishers would be mindful of the needs of developers and would ensure they're treated in a fair fashion, but we've seen time and again that this isn't the case. A Game Developer's Union with a full legal team paid for collectively by its members would be a huge boon to anyone looking to challenge publishers for screwing them over. You can bet your sweet arse that Bethesda wouldn't have screwed Obsidian over royalties if there was a chance they'd get attacked by a Union legal team.

Unfortunately, any developer which tries to set up or join a union is a developer which probably won't be getting any work from the big publishers anytime soon. This is where I really wish Valve would step in. They've got the clout and the financial security to be able to set up a developer's union without seeing contract work from triple-A publishers dry up. And as gatekeepers to Steam, and that ever so profitable PC market, they would be in a unique position to 'encourage' other companies to join the union, or to prevent publishers screwing over developers who do join. "Oh, you're blackballing these developers because you don't like the fact they joined the Game Developer's Union? Well, I guess we won't put your big game on our super popular and profitable marketplace then..."

Do it Gabe. For the love of God do it.

you'd be risking losing business to origin there, though

considering how easy it is to get people to buy games no matter what you do to them, this is actually a legitimate concern

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

That's all well and good, Jaffe, except that your company made God of Freakin' War. You struck gold and then start acting like everyone else has it so easy. Maybe I just have a personal bias against Jaffe, because every single thing he says seems to be soaked in snarky rhetoric. Maybe he's right, i dunno, but if judging by what he says, that only a company that can get a good contract deserves to be treated fairly, then something is still wrong with that part of the industry regardless.

This is a guy who was on the brink of being fired by Sony and made Twisted Metal as a result. He desrves some respect. He's also right in a sense. A lot of indie developers recently have done nothing but cry about how they've been treated, yet they repeated the same idiotic business choices that their predecessors warned them about. Like The creator of Retro City Rampage and the Creator of Fez crying about how MS treated their projects as if they weren't important. We've known for year that MS has been atrocious with indie developers, yet they chose to go with them anyways. That's like complaining about being told to build a sandbox on a beach AFTER you built it.

 

[JagermanXcell]

So being apart of the gaming industry (which is tooooootally viewed with respect by everyone on the planet *cough* sarcasm *cough*), you think its okay to have the ego of a rockstar and point fingers at the consumers because you helped make ONE successful franchise?

Very cute Jaffe, now take of Daddy's big boy tie and shoes, he needs to go to work.