The discussion generated by Obi-Tom: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=179305 makes me wonder about IP ownership. Is it the typical case that publishers keep the IP of a commercial game? How many developers manage to walk away from a completed project with the IP in their hands? Hence I wonder: what is the value of IP ownership to the developer? As long as the publisher agrees to give sufficient control to the developer during development, will IP ownership afterwards still matter? Obviously, the developer needs to know what level of control he/she wants. Perhaps we should be prepared to make many, many games and not put all our eggs in one basket? [edited by - flamewill on September 9, 2003 10:25:31 AM]

It all comes down to risk vs reward. When a publisher invests $millions to fund a project they expect to reap the reward and that includes owning the IP. Is it of value? Big time, just look at Tomb Raider, Red Alert, Medal of Honour and GTA. Hundreds of millions in game revenue and potentially even more from other media (films, comics, cartoons, toys).

Several of the larger developers plan to build up cash reserves with which to fund the development of a game which they will then own the IP for. Some, like Rebellion have gone out and bought IP (2000AD comics) and others have found interesting ways to get their hands on it (the guys who now own Cinemaware). Unfortunately owning IP doesn''t mean that everything will automatically be rosy. Some publishers are less likely to want to work on marketing your IP when they have their own to sell.

Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant

> what is the value of IP ownership to the developer?

There are 2 types of IP here: the artwork / models / technology / tools of the game title itself (i.e. the ''game assets''), and there is the characters, marketing, exclusive deals and storyline that makes up the brand (the ''franchise''). Publishers want to spread their investments across multiple titles, and so they will do anything they can to get ahold of the franchise. Disney and Ubi''s Tom Clancy franchises are perfect examples. Developpers who want to spread their work across multiple franchises will want to keep the game assets so they can repeat the game genre. A2M, a multi-franchise classic platformer, comes to mind here.

Obviously owning the franchise is where the big money is, but as Dan pointed out this is also where big risks are involved. In a game''s life cycle, 80% of the time is spent in development; that''s a BIG fixed cost since it''s mostly salaries. Smart publishers will want to spread their franchise across developpers and markets (say, EU/USA/Asia, PC/Mac/Xbox/GBA/PS2/GC, RPG/FPS,RTS); LucasArt''s StarWars franchise is spread widely like this. Managing a franchise like a product portfolio and keeping the option of pulling the plug on current projects are the only way to mitigate the risks involved. Smart developpers OTOH will try to spread the development of an engine and supporting tools across multiple titles; the franchise has less value here. I see an trend over the last few years: publishers with a franchise spread across developpers and developpers with game technology spread across multiple franchises.

Now, nothing prevents a developper from owning both the game assets and the franchise. Valve does it. The risk is that your reputation as a developper is intertwined with the franchise, and when the franchise goes down the tube you sink with it (like Infocom with Zork).

-cb

In other words (if I understand correctly), you guys are talking about these two properties:

Creativity - mainly to discourage copy cats.
Commercial - control over the game.

> Creativity - mainly to discourage copy cats.
> Commercial - control over the game.

It's more technology vs fun factor; it's an eternal balancing act (even at the studio level). Technology delivers and reproduces fun in the product. Fun is this non-physical aura surrounding the product that generates sales. Developpers manage the technology and the production pipeline needed to deliver the product, and publishers manage that aura around the product to maximize sales.

Granted it's a crude if not naive model, but it allows some insight as to which party wants to control what chunk of the total IP. For example, publishers' tendency to release sequels and for developpers to license their tools. It also explains what part of the value chain has the most effect on revenues and on costs.

-cb

[edited by - cbenoi1 on September 9, 2003 1:12:04 PM]