sorry, this might be a newb question. im familiar with the role publishers play with books, where they market, print and distribute a finished product. is that the same for game publishers as well? are they involved in any part of game development?

They do what the book publishers do plus they often manage the development process. They assign a producer to manage the developer, review progress and approve milestones/payments. Many publishers also own development studios which develop games for them.

Jung wrote:

>are [game publishers] involved in any part of game development?

As Dan said, they often manage it. They pay for it, so they want to be the ones overseeing it. They take the risks when the product is released, so they do the quality testing as well.

Tom

Hi Tom, I've been reading through your site...lot's of great information.

Another question...this is for everyone. If an outside developer is contracted by a publisher, who owns the code for the final product?

>If an outside developer is contracted by a publisher, who owns the code for the final product?

Sometimes negotiable, depending on a variety of factors. Care to paint a detailed example?

here's a couple of scenarios...

who would own the production code?

if i, a private investor, had an idea for a game and hired a small independent developer.

if i found a publisher who was willing to partially fund the development of my idea, using their inhouse dev team.

if a publisher fully funded my idea, who hires an outside dev studio.

OK, in regards to those three cases:

1. You would be well-advised to stipulate in your development agreement that this is a Work For Hire job, that all IP is to be owned by you. Then when you go seek a publisher you'd need to stipulate in the publishing agreement that the IP is owned by you.

2. Unlikely ever to happen. But if the publisher is partially funding it, and if you insist on retaining the IP, your cut would probably be reduced accordingly.

3. Unlikely ever to happen. They probably wouldn't fully fund it unless they were getting the IP as part of the bargain.

Oh wait - you weren't asking about the IP. You were asking about the code.

1. Make it Work For Hire, as before. Who owns the code is spelled out in the agreement (do you want to pay extra to own it? What's the benefit in your owning the code itself?)

2. Since the publisher is developing it in-house, the publisher will want to retain ownership of the code.

3. Since the publisher is fully funding it, and probably will want to port it or localize it, the publisher will want to obtain ownership of the code.

The producer from a game publisher may be thought of as the editor for a book publisher, or the producer for a record company.

In fact, record companies and game publishers have a lot in common when you think about it:

"I have an idea for a great record! It will blend hip-hop, trance and soul in a new way never heard before! It'll sell on both coasts, to a wide demographic! Just give me studio time (money) and I'll make it!"

This wouldn't get funded at a record company, just like a "game idea" will not get funded by a game publisher. For a record company, you have to make actual music, produce a demo that lets the publisher understand what you can do, and then work with A&R people to actually get it noticed, appreciated, and funded. The process for game developers is actually very similar, in broad strokes.

> If an outside developer is contracted by a publisher,
> who owns the code for the final product?

Contract developers tend to build their own proprietary toolchains and it's on this technology and the know-how of their staff contract developers thrive. Some even have patented parts of their technology. You can write down in the contract that you own the final source code, but without the toolchain used to build the game assets and the guys who know the code inside out, its value is diminished.

-cb

Take a look at "The secrets of the game busniess" published by charles river. If you can pick it up for cheap, its a good read.