Op Ed

Destructoid - Publishers accused of trying to exploit Kickstarter.
"We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter," he revealed on his team's own KS page. "I said to them 'So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for, using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don't get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits.'

"They said, 'Yes'."

View : : :
25.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 20, 2012, 16:07
25.
Re: Op Ed Sep 20, 2012, 16:07
Sep 20, 2012, 16:07
 
Quboid wrote on Sep 20, 2012, 15:16:
Bhruic wrote on Sep 20, 2012, 14:21:
I've read that a bunch of times and I still can't figure out exactly what the publishers are offering. Are they basically offering developers the option to "double dip"? Ie, they do a kickstarter, get financed from that, but then the publisher pays to make the game anyway?

I think it's a very poorly written article and the claim of "free" has to be wrong, almost by definition - if the publisher doesn't spend any money, why involve them at all? Distribution and marketing expertise perhaps? I can't believe that they could expect to own the brand if that's all they bring. I would guess that a large part of the budget would still be needed from the publisher.

Right, that's kinda what I was thinking. If the publisher wanted to simply be a distributer, there's absolutely no incentive for the developer to grant them any favours. If the publisher is expecting to get the game rights and the majority of the profits, they have to be kicking in a something substantial - which would almost have to be money. But if the developer does a successful kickstart, what do they need the money for?

Unless they are doing one of those "try and get publisher's attentions" type kickstarts. But if the publisher is already interested and talking to them, that would seem redundant. I dunno, it'd be nice if Obsidian would clarify exactly what the offer was - I don't care about the "who" so much, as they are all almost equally bad these days.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
2.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
3.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
4.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
   Re: Op Ed
5.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
    Re: Op Ed
24.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
6.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
7.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
8.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
   Re: Op Ed
12.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
    Re: Op Ed
26.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
     Re: Op Ed
27.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
      Re: Op Ed
10.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
13.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
15.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
   Re: Op Ed
9.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
11.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
14.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
17.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
22.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
 25.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
  Re: Op Ed
18.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
19.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
20.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
21.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
   Re: Op Ed
23.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
28.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
29.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
30.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
31.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
32.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
33.
Sep 20, 2012Sep 20 2012
34.
Sep 21, 2012Sep 21 2012
35.
Sep 21, 2012Sep 21 2012
36.
Sep 21, 2012Sep 21 2012
37.
Sep 21, 2012Sep 21 2012