Do developers make the game first, then replace the placeholder art with licensed content when they get it, or do they secure the rights first?

I ask because I've been wondering if a developer could put out a game without any licensed content in the event they couldn't secure the rights.

Like, if someone wanted to make a game based on a Comic Book Super Hero.

1) Have $25 million.
2) Secure license
3) Hire some studio to develop

Do developers make the game first, then replace the placeholder art with licensed content when they get it,[/quote]

Not really, because IP holders don't care about the game or copies sold. To them, game is a merchandising and brand tie-in. Let's say they have Hulk. 3 years ago, they decided to go with a new franchise, the Avengers. They planned for 3 movie deal, 4 AAA games, 7 mobile games, ~30 game-like products (perhaps in hotels, airplanes, for specific gadgets or events, maybe on TV-like presentations, in mals, arcades, ...), along with toys, memorabilia, .............., and it keeps going, ..... And all of these need to have consistent designs and whatnot with currently hot Avengers theme.

They plan total expense at ~1 billion over course of 5 years with projected return of $5 billion. Or some such absurd number.

One AAA game itself will be tied along with movie #2 launch, and it will be tied along with release of toys to maximize marketing return. There needs to be viral campaign, Facebook campaign, regular marketing, [s]bribes[/s] advertising with game reviewers, all planed around certain dates, depending on how it best fits the target market (so Xmas, holidays, end-of-school, historical sales data, ...).

Since all of this involves tens of thousands of people over many years and many companies, you need to be in the know to be contacted by right people at the right time.

It's obviously always possibly to try and ask, but do have several million in bank - even if not for the license, as an insurance that you can actually deliver (whatever you might have built at that time will be thrown out and replaced with their designs, so existing work doesn't matter).

The reason these companies don't want third-parties making independent products is to avoid dilluting their marketing efforts. They might be hyping up Hulk as green, but then someone would make him blue. They would then say it "hurts the brand" or some such. It also annoys them since someone is mooching off their marketing costs without giving anything in return.

tl;dr; One does not simply license the rights

Like, if someone wanted to make a game based on a Comic Book Super Hero.[/quote]

Without a company, solid stack of cash and good connections, there is no way, definitely not for comic books.

The only exception might be if you license for a small market that is considered uninteresting to them, but computer games cannot be easily region locked, especially not outside of the main markets. It's easier with physical products.

Also: connections, connections, connections. Perhaps even more important than cash.

Step 1. Friends with someone who works at a company with the licenses.
Step 2a. If you are lucky, and you friend holds a powerful position in the company, he might grant you the permission to build a game with their license.
2b. If not, you might need to bid for a project proposal. Basically this step involves sending them a design document to propose that they hire you because your game is going to be oh-so cool. Other companies are doing the same btw, and no you won't know who else is bidding. So your one-man game studio might be competing with a major developer/publisher like Glu or Zynga.
Step 3. Build and Profit!

I ask because I've been wondering if a developer could put out a game without any licensed content in the event they couldn't secure the rights.

That depends on the contract clause between you and them. You can't build without contract, and even after the contract is there, things can still happen that can terminate your contract (bankruptcy, CEO changed his mind, whatever). Upon termination, you might need to surrender everything to the license holder including source code and art assets.

Usually, the license holder approaches you, and asks you to make a pitch for it. You then slave away for a month, producing draft GDDs, concept art, technical designs and budgets and production plans...
They'll then evaluate the pitches from a dozen potential studios, and evaluate which one can do it fastest/cheapest/best. They'll then negotiate with that studio to down both the price and deadline by 10%, and stick their nose in your business for the whole project, constantly compromising your creative integrity.

I ask because I've been wondering if a developer could put out a game without any licensed content in the event they couldn't secure the rights.

I worked on a Stargate game once, which wasn't completed. The CEO did consider re-branding the game as something like "Space gateway adventure squad", and changing all the artwork to remove stargate content... It's definitely possible, but it would've been very expensive (another year of development time?), and at the end he would've had a completely generic shooter game that couldn't possibly make back the tens of millions spent on it. So instead, when MGM pulled the license, he just cut his losses and liquidated the studio.

Do developers make the game first, then replace the placeholder art with licensed content when they get it, or do they secure the rights first?

I ask because I've been wondering if a developer could put out a game without any licensed content in the event they couldn't secure the rights.

Like, if someone wanted to make a game based on a Comic Book Super Hero.

It's a strange question, IMO. Get the license first. Because the license determines the game, not vice versa -- and if you don't get the license, design a different game.