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

[AzrealMaximillion]

All of the people saying "Jaffe's in a position to say this because he's with a big publisher" don't know his history. David Jaffe was told that he'd be fired by Sony if he didn't create a game that sold well. Then he worked his ass of and made Twisted Metal. Keep in mind this was back in the 90s, when there wasn't much of an indie gaming scene to fall back on. The indie developers today have the option to reject the AAA companies and sell their product on their own. And some they choose to go with the AAA companies get screwed and complain about it the whole way through when they could have chosen other easier routes.

It's why I can't feel sorry for any indie developer that complains about MS treating their indie title in a bad manner. You knew what you were getting into and chose to do through with it anyways because you thought your game was good enough to bypass the BS. In reality you have to make a Minecraft sized success for MS to give you special treatment, and they'll still charge you thousands for updates.

I think David Jaffe has earned the right to have his opinion stated on this and many other matters in the gaming world.

 

[Callate]

...Because high levels of artistic ability are inexorably linked to superior negotiation skills...?

There's the merest glimpse of a valid point, here, in that when more developers stop accepting things like giving away the rights to their IP as an inevitable cost of a contract with a major publisher, it will become easier for developers as a whole to do so. (See also EA's repeated use of "industry standard" as the battering ram of doom for hateful decision after hateful decision.)

Otherwise, the statement sounds a lot like "work smarter, not harder"- looks great on a poster, allows the source to pat themselves on the back for "motivating" the work force, net actual effect: f@%$ all.

 

[weirdee]

I don't think think so. Origin simply doesn't have the same stranglehold on the PC market as Steam does. Also, I don't think many of the big publishers are going to want to willingly hand over sales royalties to EA. I don't see Ubisoft or Bethesda or THQ willingly give EA money. Valve can get away with it, because they're not competing for the same market in the way EA is. Valve is mostly PC now, and they release console titles once in a blue moon. EA is pushing out console titles left, right and centre, and any money given to them by Ubisoft or Bethesda would be money that would be actively used against them in future.

There'd be some pissing and moaning, sure, but I think Valve is a powerful enough company that they could push unionisation through.

because they're ea? valve takes royalties too, y'know

i see the largest obstacle to this being that developers only seem to do something when they see another developer doing it, and with this one, unless most of them are onboard, the rest will only be too eager to exploit the difference, and since nobody seems to think about the long term as far as sensible decisions go (they won't invest in their staff, but they will invest in an IP because they think a fictional property is more useful than their indentured serfs), we haven't even heard of attempts to unionize in the news

a lot of folks gotta be strongarmed at once and i've only seen sony do that with bluray

 

[Eveonline100]

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?

Money the the publishers pays for the devolment and the marketing.

 

[Magmarock]

I half agree to what he is saying in that devs should try and push for better contracts, but the way he's wording it is very optus. Success in the games industry is down to dumb luck mostly so it's not so much about being good enough as it is about being lucky enough.

 

[FloodOne]

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.

Yeah, because ensuring your piece of the pie when the money comes rolling in is SUCH a bad thing.

Give me a break. Sometimes, unions get favorable contracts, sometimes they don't. It's the same as any other contract out there, that's why they're called "collectively bargained agreements". But go ahead and be happy with your $7 dollars an hour, with no benefits, no paid time off, and no bonuses when the money starts to rain down. I mean, it's not like you doing your job makes the company all that money or anything...

 

[Something Amyss]

so lets see who the image of the video game world turns out to be.

I'd say that the digital model that exists makes the Image model irrelevant in the first place, making the liklihood that one rises pretty small.

because core gamers- as always- will continue to follow the talented teams

Except this is an outcropping of the typical stunted libertarian fantasy right here. The notion that the base will follow the talent and the cream rises would in itself justify EA's position at the top of the market.

oh goody unions,demand more pay more benefits so game prices triple overnight and sit at their desks bsing half the day.

Which is an especially valid point, since publishers have been so restrained up until this point. Look at how inexpensive the triple a market is to produce, and thank God unions aren't involved, because self-regulation and trust!

 

[Strazdas]

No, you are not worth what you can negotiate. you are worth what you are worth regardless of your negotiation skills. however publishers abuse negotiation ability and do not pay developers what they are worth. Publishers in fact should be the minority person in this case, not the majority like it is now.

 

[Thoric485]

Thing is it doesn't seem to be very important to publishers exactly what group of people works on a game. Franchises and brands are what's important and publishers make sure to wrangle those out of the studio's hands as soon as possible. When they have the franchise and the brand they can get rid of every key member and as far as sales go, nobody will give a shit.

And they actually go ahead and do it, and they profit from it, and it's what wins them so much ire.

 

[Fasckira]

I see Mr Jaffe is still running with the "lets draw attention to obvious things to appear insightful" system. Fair play, David, fair play.

 

[SecondPrize]

Mike Myers is totally right about this. Refuse to allow yourself to get fucked and it'll happen to you less often.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

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.

Yeah, because ensuring your piece of the pie when the money comes rolling in is SUCH a bad thing.

Give me a break. Sometimes, unions get favorable contracts, sometimes they don't. It's the same as any other contract out there, that's why they're called "collectively bargained agreements". But go ahead and be happy with your $7 dollars an hour, with no benefits, no paid time off, and no bonuses when the money starts to rain down. I mean, it's not like you doing your job makes the company all that money or anything...

Meh, problem is unions can become just as or even moreso corrupt than employers. So when that happens you're really screwed because you can't easily get rid of a corrupt union.

Pretty shitty situation really. They need a union to help prevent abuse and then when the union becomes abusive where do you go?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

He sort of has a point, but I feel like it would only work if developers were united on this, otherwise they'll just go with the developers willing to take a shitter deal. Perhaps some sort of developers' union? I guess it runs the risk of swinging the other way then, with developers just starting to be unreasonable.

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.

Err... Don't you think that's a bit of a generalization? There are a lot of shit unions, but they do have their reasonable benefits. For example, my mum's part of the teachers' union Unite, they provide a lot of legal defence for teachers which is otherwise pretty expensive. When her boss tried to fire her and replace her with a cheaper, less qualified substitute, the union stepped in.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I would think digital distribution may provide an avenue for developers to circumvent the publisher. A similar phenomenon is occurring for music, books, and image art (and I wouldn't be surprised to find film also doing the same). Basically, the digital age is reducing the necessity of the publisher and giving content creators an alternative avenue to market and sell their works.

ADDENDUM: The more I consider it, the more I feel the game industry is in desperate need of a crash to kill off the excess of stupid that has built up over the years.

No, digital distribution isn't going to help. If a studio can self-fund their own game, and only need the publisher for distribution, they're in a much better bargaining position in the first place. It's when publishers are needed to fund the game's development that they have to start bending over backwards.

But publishers aren't just being capriciously mean to developers. They aren't rolling in filthy lucre that they've squeezed out of the poor developers. EA is still posting a loss, THQ went under completely, and Squeenix might be next. They're regularly having trouble making their money back on some very large investments, and are trying to take steps to improve the situation. They often aren't doing it very competently, but if you're an unproven developer asking to play with a very large amount of their money you should certainly expect some conditions to apply. If you can't make that money back for them, you have no business complaining about how you got screwed.

 

[Something Amyss]

Meh, problem is unions can become just as or even moreso corrupt than employers. So when that happens you're really screwed because you can't easily get rid of a corrupt union.

So the problem is that unions might, at worst, be a lateral move?

 

[geizr]

I would think digital distribution may provide an avenue for developers to circumvent the publisher. A similar phenomenon is occurring for music, books, and image art (and I wouldn't be surprised to find film also doing the same). Basically, the digital age is reducing the necessity of the publisher and giving content creators an alternative avenue to market and sell their works.

ADDENDUM: The more I consider it, the more I feel the game industry is in desperate need of a crash to kill off the excess of stupid that has built up over the years.

No, digital distribution isn't going to help. If a studio can self-fund their own game, and only need the publisher for distribution, they're in a much better bargaining position in the first place. It's when publishers are needed to fund the game's development that they have to start bending over backwards.

But publishers aren't just being capriciously mean to developers. They aren't rolling in filthy lucre that they've squeezed out of the poor developers. EA is still posting a loss, THQ went under completely, and Squeenix might be next. They're regularly having trouble making their money back on some very large investments, and are trying to take steps to improve the situation. They often aren't doing it very competently, but if you're an unproven developer asking to play with a very large amount of their money you should certainly expect some conditions to apply. If you can't make that money back for them, you have no business complaining about how you got screwed.

Except, if I understand the situation correctly, digital distribution is precisely what has allowed the Indie industry to develop and flourish. Many such developers have to put up their own money up front and do not have the clout necessary to get a publisher to even give them the time of day. What are they to do to get their game out and sold to gamers? Digital distribution gives them that path, and it can do the same for other small developers. What you are talking about in your first statement is true for the traditional model, in which a publisher provides money up-front to a game developer to create a game and then markets that game for the developer. For small and independent developers, that model doesn't apply. So what can they do?

The big publishers have been losing money because they have been over-investing, not managing costs, and not understanding the market viability of their games (that is, making better, more realistic estimates of sales expectations and controlling the upfront investment accordingly).

Also, the very point of the article is that the publishers HAVE been acting capriciously toward developers (and unreasonably so), and developers are wanting a way out, for which David Jaffe is giving advice to such end. I am simply further suggesting digital distribution precisely because it has the ability to allow a game developer to publish a game independent of a publisher, as has been shown through the Indie games industry.

ADDENDUM: I should also add that Kickstarter has proven a wonderful avenue for obtaining upfront investment from the community for game development. There are also other possibilities, such as contests.

 

[Madman Muntz]

I think Mr. Jaffe speaks truth on many levels as the history of all entertainment markets is rife with tales of artists being disenfranchised by bad contract choices. However I have to ask, what about game studios that get engulfed devoured and usually ruined by larger companies? For example, just about every company EA has ever touched. What are those individuals to do when years of hard work are suddenly tainted by an outside bully, other than seek employment elsewhere?
While I agree people in the game industry should have been, and should continue to be, more savvy when it comes to making deals, I simply don't feel its fair to say they shoulder the blame one hundred percent.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Except, if I understand the situation correctly, digital distribution is precisely what has allowed the Indie industry to develop and flourish.

That's because the retail distribution was a huge barrier to small projects. Retail is very poorly suited to low-volume, low-cost, low-marketing, low-budget sales that indie games run on. Once digital distribution solved that problems, the hurdle of funding was quickly overcome in various ways.

AAA developers are in a very different position. Retail isn't holding them back; they can get shelf space and they can demand $60 for their games. Their problem is that $100 million for development and marketing is a lot of money, and not many developers can afford to front it themselves. Even if they do, one game that doesn't make its money back can shut them down. Digital distribution won't solve those problems. They'll still need to go to the developer to get the cash to run on while they develop their game.

What you are talking about in your first statement is true for the traditional model, in which a publisher provides money up-front to a game developer to create a game and then markets that game for the developer.

That's the situation that the vast majority of AAA studios are in, and the one that all of the ones complaining about publishers are in. Studios which are successful enough to fund their own games aren't the ones who are getting micromanaged and have their bonuses being paid out by the publisher. But pretty much all of those have been bought by publishers anyway.

The big publishers have been losing money because they have been over-investing, not managing costs, and not understanding the market viability of their games (that is, making better, more realistic estimates of sales expectations and controlling the upfront investment accordingly).

But none of those things are consistent with the narrative of the publishers being exploitive of the developers. The current AAA game industry is highly dysfunctional in many ways. Shamus had been taking them to task rather often recently. But developers are part of that game too; if you've entered into the business of spending $100 million to develop and market a game, and you aren't successful at that business, then you can't expect to be kept on in favorable conditions. It would be one thing if publishers were making hundreds of millions off of games while the developers were getting shafted, but if the publisher is barely breaking even on the game you made for them you aren't due to be treated like a rockstar who can set your own terms.

Also, the very point of the article is that the publishers HAVE been acting capriciously toward developers (and unreasonably so), and developers are wanting a way out, for which David Jaffe is giving advice to such end. I am simply further suggesting digital distribution precisely because it has the ability to allow a game developer to publish a game independent of a publisher, as has been shown through the Indie games industry.

The correlation of the article with reality is under question, both by myself and Jaffe. The "blame everything on the publisher" mentality is just as absurd as the "blame everything on the developer" one. Creative people in all industries are subject to executive pressures, some of which are bad and some of which are helpful. Some of those people have the talent to succeed regardless, and some don't. Some even become to successful, and wind up floundering the in the absence of editorial control.

Knowing how to manage executives and sell them on your ideas is an important skill. Creative people regularly overestimate their own genius, so executives have to use discretion with them. Knowing how to be on the right side of that discretion is an important skill for somebody in a creative lead position.

ADDENDUM: I should also add that Kickstarter has proven a wonderful avenue for obtaining upfront investment from the community for game development. There are also other possibilities, such as contests.

Kickstarter is in the rising stages of a bubble. Its good for smaller projects, but I don't see it taking over AAA funding.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I have always thought the same thing. I don't know anything about the game industry in particular but I do know that you negotiate what you want in your contract. Contract negotiation is always a compromise, you start with what you want, the other party starts with what you want, then you start compromising until you have a contract both parties can live with or you don't end up with a contract at all.

The better developers should be able to dictate a lot of terms in these contracts. If you are the team that makes The Elder Scrolls you can dictate that your bonus be tied to sales, not to a Metacritic score. What is Bethesda going to do, go pick some completely new developer to make the next Elder Scrolls game, risking a very successful game on an unknown quantity? No, they aren't.