Current Events > Why do Developers seem to lack so much power vs Publishers?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I know Developers sign contracts with Publishers but it always seems like they submit the game. Then, the Publisher says no and to change a bunch of stuff. It's like they get creative freedom... until they submit it and they lose a big chunk of it. I know you need money for development but you would think you can flex your muscles some as Developers in the contract stage. Especially these major Development studios.

The only one I can think of in recent memory that gets most of their freedoms is Blizzard with Activision. Blizzard made the game they want. They did have to add loot boxes but they didn't have to go beyond cosmetic only like other publishers. If it was up to Activision they would have put new Heroes in loot boxes. That or they would have put new characters and maps behind DLC packs.
---

$$$
---

So Developers with high accomplishments and ideals constantly sell their soul to Publishers?
---

Control over the means of productions affords you control over other things, too.
---

Publishers write the checks, homie.
---

If I am paying you to build me a house, I'm not gonna just let you do what you want with no input.
---

If publishers are the ones funding the game, they have the ultimate say in the content. This is pretty much the way it works in every single aspect of life. Only a few creative elites are given full control of the content while someone else foots the production bill.
---

pres_madagascar posted...

If I am paying you to build me a house, I'm not gonna just let you do what you want with no input.

If I don't want to build a one story house... I wouldn't sign the contract to build a one story.
---

DepreceV2 posted...

I know Developers sign contracts with Publishers but it always seems like they submit the game. Then, the Publisher says no and to change a bunch of stuff. It's like they get creative freedom... until they submit it and they lose a big chunk of it. I know you need money for development but you would think you can flex your muscles some as Developers in the contract stage. Especially these major Development studios.

The only one I can think of in recent memory that gets most of their freedoms is Blizzard with Activision. Blizzard made the game they want. They did have to add loot boxes but they didn't have to go beyond cosmetic only like other publishers. If it was up to Activision they would have put new Heroes in loot boxes. That or they would have put new characters and maps behind DLC packs.

Well, they did do that in Heroes of the Storm they just didnt remove the option to outright buy them.
---

pres_madagascar posted...

If I am paying you to build me a house, I'm not gonna just let you do what you want with no input.

Bad Anology

More likely. Someone wants to build a house, dont have the money, get a loan from the bank... then the bank is all like "This needs a patio, why is there no wheelchair access? Put in a spiral staircase over here."
---

youngfossil posted...

pres_madagascar posted...

If I am paying you to build me a house, I'm not gonna just let you do what you want with no input.

Bad Anology

More likely. Someone wants to build a house, dont have the money, get a loan from the bank... then the bank is all like "This needs a patio, why is there no wheelchair access? Put in a spiral staircase over here."

that's an even worse analogy
---

This is why more devs should just go indie.
---

If I don't want to build a one story house... I wouldn't sign the contract to build a one story.

When you start getting hungry, you might reconsider.
---

DevsBro posted...

If I don't want to build a one story house... I wouldn't sign the contract to build a one story.

When you start getting hungry, you might reconsider.

If you are well know for building decent to great houses... you won't go hungry. Lol
---

youngfossil posted...

pres_madagascar posted...

If I am paying you to build me a house, I'm not gonna just let you do what you want with no input.

Bad Anology

More likely. Someone wants to build a house, dont have the money, get a loan from the bank... then the bank is all like "This needs a patio, why is there no wheelchair access? Put in a spiral staircase over here."

Developers aren't paying off a debt or loan.
---

lmao at Antifar trying to force his communism bullshit onto everything

DepreceV2 posted...

I know Developers sign contracts with Publishers but it always seems like they submit the game. Then, the Publisher says no and to change a bunch of stuff. It's like they get creative freedom... until they submit it and they lose a big chunk of it. I know you need money for development but you would think you can flex your muscles some as Developers in the contract stage. Especially these major Development studios.

The only one I can think of in recent memory that gets most of their freedoms is Blizzard with Activision. Blizzard made the game they want. They did have to add loot boxes but they didn't have to go beyond cosmetic only like other publishers. If it was up to Activision they would have put new Heroes in loot boxes. That or they would have put new characters and maps behind DLC packs.

Blizzard and Activision are partners. Activision doesn't publish Blizzard games. Activision also doesn't mess around with the day-to-day affairs of Blizzard.

the whole Activision is ruining Blizzard thing is horse shit and always has been. Anything bad Blizzard has done (such as RMAH) was something they did to themselves.
---

Consoles.

Most console players are still buying physical media, so that's nearly half the cost of a game going to the retailer, cost of goods, distribution, and returns. When you factor in royalty fees to MS, Sony, and Nintendo a developer isn't even getting half of that $60 you spent on the game.

This means most independent game developers have to get a publisher to fund their projects, and the agreement made between the two is always one-sided. The developer might never even see any profits from the game. Publishers get bigger and bigger and end up buying development teams giving them even less freedom.

Small developers are still thriving in the PC market but they're pretty much extinct on consoles.

developers do all the work and publishers abuse them to make money. it's like a pimp and a prostitute.

Publishers are the guys who actually sell the game.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lmao at Antifar trying to force his communism bullshit onto everything

What are you even talking about.

youngfossil posted...

pres_madagascar posted...

If I am paying you to build me a house, I'm not gonna just let you do what you want with no input.

Bad Anology

More likely. Someone wants to build a house, dont have the money, get a loan from the bank... then the bank is all like "This needs a patio, why is there no wheelchair access? Put in a spiral staircase over here."

Banks do do this though. They send inspectors when building or buying homes with their money.

They don't just hand you 200,000 and tell you to go nuts
---

Developers aren't paying off a debt or loan.

What in the world makes you assume that?
---

If you are well know for building decent to great houses... you won't go hungry. Lol

Sure you will, unless you have the capital to fund it yourself or build it the way the funder wants it.
---

Because the publishers are the ones footing the bill, obviously.
---

DevsBro posted...

Developers aren't paying off a debt or loan.

What in the world makes you assume that?

I've never heard of a developer requiring to pay off their debt to a publisher before.
---

Teddytalks posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lmao at Antifar trying to force his communism bullshit onto everything

What are you even talking about.

I have no clue.

DevsBro posted...

If you are well know for building decent to great houses... you won't go hungry. Lol

Sure you will, unless you have the capital to fund it yourself or build it the way the funder wants it.

If you are great at what you do.. People will seek you out. You don't have to go find them.
---

DepreceV2 posted...

DevsBro posted...

If you are well know for building decent to great houses... you won't go hungry. Lol

Sure you will, unless you have the capital to fund it yourself or build it the way the funder wants it.

If you are great at what you do.. People will seek you out. You don't have to go find them.

>Asks a question
>Tries hardest to make any answer wrong
---

Darmik posted...

DevsBro posted...

Developers aren't paying off a debt or loan.

What in the world makes you assume that?

I've never heard of a developer requiring to pay off their debt to a publisher before.

Look up what happened to Kurt Schilling / Kingdoms of Amalur.
---

We seem to only ever hear about when publishers ruin games, I wonder if there are cases where a publisher actually saved a game or made it better?
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Darmik posted...

DevsBro posted...

Developers aren't paying off a debt or loan.

What in the world makes you assume that?

I've never heard of a developer requiring to pay off their debt to a publisher before.

Look up what happened to Kurt Schilling / Kingdoms of Amalur.

Wasn't that a loan to the local government or something? That's a reason why getting a loan to develop a game isn't a good idea lol.

MC_BatCommander posted...

We seem to only ever hear about when publishers ruin games, I wonder if there are cases where a publisher actually saved a game or made it better?

Retro Studios and Metroid Prime I think is an example.
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

We seem to only ever hear about when publishers ruin games, I wonder if there are cases where a publisher actually saved a game or made it better?

A publisher saved The Last Guardian (maybe you don't like the game but we only got it at all because of Sony), a Publisher saved Tyranny, a publisher saved dramatically improved on Smash Bros (it was literally going to be just wireframes) etc.
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

We seem to only ever hear about when publishers ruin games, I wonder if there are cases where a publisher actually saved a game or made it better?

I think Bayonetta 2 is one such example.
---

Darmik posted...

Wasn't that a loan to the local government or something? That's a reason why getting a loan to develop a game isn't a good idea lol.

Yes the loan was from Rhode Island but the same basic idea applies. Developers could be paying loans.

And publishers aren't lenders so they'll never give a loan. Loans will only come from banks or credit unions (or state treasury in the case of 38 Studios)
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

And publishers aren't lenders so they'll never give a loan. Loans will only come from banks or credit unions (or state treasury in the case of 38 Studios)

That was more my point really. I'm sure plenty of indie devs have funded games through loans.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

a publisher saved dramatically improved on Smash Bros (it was literally going to be just wireframes) etc.

Well, not quite wireframes, but it was going to have an original cast before they decided that using Nintendo characters would drastically improve the game's appeal and pitched the idea to Nintendo.

St0rmFury posted...

I think Bayonetta 2 is one such example.

Not only that, but they gave them quite a bit of freedom, and when the devs made the Link costume and gave it an undershirt out of fear of offending Nintendo, Nintendo told them to remove the undershirt because they felt it'd be out-of-character for Bayonetta to have it.
---