GAMECOCK
Mike Wilson, CEO and head of marketing
Harry Miller, President and head of development
Rick Stults, Chief Financial Officer

GI: How would you describe the relationship between your average developer and publisher? What power does the developer have in that relationship?

Wilson: It's like mother and child. Or maybe more like stern military father and child (and in case you couldn't guess, the developer is the child in this relationship). Publishers want developers just independent enough to run themselves without supervision, but not so independent that they start drawing outside the company lines.

Stults: And since the publisher is putting up the money for the project, it ultimately makes the decisions. Like a parent, a publisher will reprimand a developer for doing something out of line, but the punishment will be fiscal rather than emotional.

Miller: Even a developer that isn't already working for a publisher is trying to develop a game idea that will appeal to a publisher (i.e., make money), so it's like you're restricted before you've even begun. No publisher will give you any freedom unless you've proven that you've learned the rules. Hey, this parent/child analogy is pretty good!

GI: What's the most important aspect of the publisher/developer relationship that needs to be changed?

Miller: It's a publisher's job to be good at making money. It's a developer's job to be good at making games. Developers don't tell publishers how to balance their books, but publishers will tell developers how to make their games. Publishers need to mind their own business more.

Stults: I agree with Harry that both publisher and developer should focus on their own jobs, but I also think both should know exactly what the other is up to. It's this unnecessary layer of secrecy between developer and publisher that causes a lot of distrust. Just like the game-design bible should be open at all time for the publisher to look at, the accounting books should be open for the developers to peek at whenever they want. Maybe neither has a say in the other's affairs, but at least they'll know exactly what's going on.

GI: In your experience in marketing, can you talk about how a marketing department can work well with a developer and their product, and when it goes wrong?

Wilson: A marketing department should be just slightly behind the developer itself in knowing where the game is at and where it's headed. Marketing needs to understand the developer's vision and effectively translate it to an audience. The simplest idea of just playing the game often times just never happens. This leads to the biggest mistakes a marketing department can make, which are not knowing anything about the game and thinking that advertising is more important than the game itself. That probably sounds obvious, but you'd be surprised at how many people and companies have fallen into that trap.

GI: What ways can publishers protect their investments that don't require low royalty rates to the developer or outright owning the IP itself?

Stults: The best way to protect your investment is to only sign great games from great developers. Easier said than done, I know. Most publishers, however, act like they're a part of the gold rush. They think if they don't sign Game X, which has a little potential and maybe could do well, some other company will and they'll regret having missed that opportunity. Personally, I'd rather regret missing out on one hit than pump out a dozen stink bombs.

GI: It seems there's a vicious cycle where developers have to have a guaranteed million seller just to recoup the high development cost of the project, but without lots of polish, you're never going to hit big numbers. Is there a way for developers to not be slaves to sales numbers while still making quality product?

Wilson: That cycle is completely caused by the public companies and Wall Street cycle. They have to perpetually show growing profits to their shareholders, and to do that they have to sell more games. No amount of profit will ever be enough. Even if a game sells 10 million copies, a publisher will tell investors that the sequel will sell 15 million.

Miller: To avoid that trap, developers have to be very canny in their business dealings. Naturally, you want your game published, but be smart about what you're capable of and what you're willing to sacrifice before signing that dotted line.

GI: Can you talk about some of the concessions on a game a developer typically might have to make that are directed from the publisher?

Miller: The appearance of characters in the game so they'll appeal to the right audience. Altering game content to get a milder ESRB rating. Changing items in a game because an outside sponsor is paying to be in it. I've barely scratched the surface.

GI: It seems inevitable that more and more developers will get bought out by publishers and brought in house. Can you talk about the pressure this puts on developers to try and stand on their own?

Stults: In a way, getting bought by a publisher can make a developer's life easier in that they don't have to always be worried about making a small misstep and losing everything. Bills will be paid and salaries taken care of. On the other hand, as a part of a publisher, you're putting your livelihood in the hands of someone else. If the publisher isn't doing well, than neither are you.

Miller: I do know some developers that love being a part of a publisher, but only if they're the creators behind the company's best games. When you're on top, you're the publisher's golden child that gets kudos and respect all around. If you're anything but...well, let's just say the publisher doesn't do a lot to help inspire confidence.

GI: Do you anticipate more publishers arising with a more developer-friendly model like Gamecock?

Wilson: If we succeed, yes. If we fail, sorry everybody!

Dirty dealings and power plays that go on between publishers and developers. Come peek behind the curtain and see the forces that shape your favorite games. The following quotes and interviews are just a taste of everything we got from publishers and developers. For the full story, read the feature in the August issue of Game Informer Magazine.

ANONYMOUS PUBLISHERS & DEVELOPERS

"If there isn't a little gumdrop coming down the conveyor belt this month, we're dead."

[On how publishers and developers have little benchmark for the money and time numbers that other companies use.]
"There's only gossip, rumors, and hearsay."

[On publishers hiring sub-standard development studios]
"[Publishers think,] "I would rather pay for cheap products and hope for a hit, rather than buy expensive products with a larger chance of hitting."

"The worst part of this business is that publishers think developers are out to screw them and developers think publishers are out to screw them. Unfortunately, publishers are the ones that set the time and money, and the way they inject those pieces into the deal really guarantees the developer will get screwed or he doesn't get the job. It's 'Don't eat.' Or 'Bread and water in the dungeon.'"

"Those who can't do, publish. Publishers tend to be the last stop before you exit this business or any other business. Like Nabisco and Sara Lee and all these other places where Tide is Tide. It's not the same business. We're this weird business where packaged goods meets entertainment. You need people who understand how to manage creative, not manage a box. We fail when people try to turn entertainment into pound cake. You get this situation where you have people on the publishing side who don't have a f------ clue how to make a game, and so they look over there and you're doing some mystical voodoo guru thing and then all of a sudden a milestone doesn't come exactly as planned, and that creates this wave of panic. Why? Because deep down, everybody on the publishing side realized they have no f------ clue what you are doing. Rather than educating themselves, they use the mechanisms at their disposel, which is, 'Okay, I want to see this, and I want to see it right now or I'm rejecting this milestone.'"

"The publisher doesn't want to hear there's a problem, he wants to hear there's just a ton of solutions coming his way. He wants to hear that he put a quarter in the machine and out came the Coke bottle. It's not a f****** Coke bottle. If it was like that, you'd be really miserable."

ANONYMOUS INTERVIEW

GI: What is the pitch process like in front of a publisher for a nascent game?

I don't think it exists, at least not in the way you imagine. That is to say, nobody takes a fragile new idea to a publisher expecting them to get it immediately to the point where they're willing to fund it. The only way you'll get that is if you have a relationship with those people involved, and they're willing to make a bet on you and your team rather than the idea itself.That's much stronger.

I still don't think it happens.From my experience, that sort of thing has to happen at a studio level. You start small. You get the people around you excited by the idea.It has to beat out all other ideas - and it should!People have to want to be a part of it.Like a snowball, it grows and grows until everyone wants to be a part of the killer project.This goes from the studio level and then leaps to the publisher level, too.

Now at this point you're pitching something pretty mature, anything from a movie to maybe a playable.Millions have probably been spent on it to date, so it'd better hang together.If the right sounds aren't being made along the way, the plug will probably get pulled.
Finally the numbers get crunched and it has to look like it can sell. At that point, the 'pitching' is less important than the believers, allies and friends you've earned along the way.They'll all decide if the game will happen as they go along - in the final meeting, it's really all decided... the process as your project picks up momentum is really what decides whether the game will get greenlit.

That's all a rarity though - that's a game coming from the ground up.The most common is top-down assignment.The opportunity for a game (e.g. a shooter, a racer, a fighter, a licenced title) is identified at an organizational level, a shipping/revenue window is agreed upon, a team is assigned to that game in long term planning and it simply switches over to it when its previous game is done.The team may be internal or it may be third party.If external, publisher staff will hunt around to find who would be good for their upcoming shooter/fighter/racer, etc.

GI: Please tell us about the milestone process. What kind of pressure does it put on you? Is it efficient/a good model?

It's a tool like any other.Milestones are great because they encourage you to plan and think logically about an order to construct pieces of your game.They also give you visibility when the pieces come together.I value milestones highly. Pressure is often good for bringing people together.

GI: On the whole, is it the developer or publisher who controls the overall schedule for the game (milestone dates, release date, marketing, etc.)? How much negotiating can be done on this?

It's neither, it's the organisation in general.Our studio is owned by the publisher now, and that's different to when you're a third-party developer.I think when you're third party you're definitely filling a slot that's been identified before you even got involved; the publisher has already made a lot of decisions about what sort of game it needs and by when.The game has to be made to fill a slot. As a part of the organisation we work together to make sure we get a good game with the solid budget, targeted at a meaningful launch window.

At the end of the day, the schedule is determined by budget.What can you ship, and when?It takes more money and/or time to do more stuff.If the publisher wants more but won't pay more, quality goes down.If you make that clear, it's pretty easy to work with.Developers have the same wrestling matches on an internal level all the time.

GI: Have you ever had a marketing department or other outside force try to influence the game in a negative way? In a positive way?

I am sure there are many horror stories for this question.Thankfully, I don't have any.Everyone tries to do what they think is best.As long as you're not being forced to do something that you know will actively hurt the game, you can generally accommodate what various publisher departments may be after without compromising the integrity of the game.

GI: Do you believe that developers are at a disadvantage to publishers? How do publishers and developers change to address this if there is an imbalance?

Third-party developers can be at the mercy of a publisher, for sure - the publisher can threaten to withhold cash if the developer doesn't do what they want which in theory could mean the studio closes.The key is to work with people who don't want to try and chokehold you into fulfilling their "vision" of the game from a few thousand miles away from where the game is getting made.That means winning their respect and trust as early as possible.

Everyone has to realize that the guys that are actually making the game are the guys who are making the game. I.e. Scorsese isn't in L.A. while his movie is getting made in New York. Deal with it.If you want to make a game, join a developer.I get the impression many expensive mistakes are made when people ignore this home truth.

GI: What has your experience been in regards to buyouts? What are the good and bad sides of moving from being independent to an owned portion of a larger publisher? What changes tend to be made after a buyout?

Culture can change.Developers tend to be hungrier, due to the fear of missing a milestone. That can be good for productivity. It can be bad for long-term plans; no-one wants you to be a gleaming jewel in the crown; that's reserved for internal studios. We've been lucky that way; we have a strong culture and a desire to produce great games that's not driven by the threat of losing our jobs if we didn't.

Some studios definitely implode after being acquired... I think a lot depends on the right match between developer and publisher.Some publishers have a very bad track record on this.I am sure you'll get some better and more specific stories from other people.

GI: From a development perspective, what makes for a good publishing partner?

Publisher: Have a willingness to collaborate, not dictate.Don't think you're Scorcese at 2,000 miles.Respect the developer. Collaborate. If you're a publisher, hire staff that are from developers.Understand development. Communicate what's important to you.Understand the game.Find a way to trust the team.Help the developer to make the best game possible. Finally, find a way to sell that game to consumers!

Developer: Have contacts in the publisher organization, understand it, embrace it. Understand the business.Develop great contacts in the organization. Reach out to all levels of the organization. Make a great game.Make sure the publisher understands it.Keep them excited throughout development.Keep informing them.Keep them mindful of you.Make friends.At every opportunity, find a way to share the success with your publishing/developing partners.

GI:What level of responsibility falls on a developer when a game does very poorly or alternately very well? In other words, do publishers tend to primarily blame a developer if a game hits poor sales, and does a publisher highly praise the development house if the game succeeds?

I am sure that's down to publisher-developer double-teams. Ideally, after each product ships then both parties take a long and hard critical look at how they did and then learn from it; next time around you build on the things that worked and sidestep the mistakes.Not everyone is willing to do that self-examination. The best policy is to be humble-- everyone has the capacity to learn and improve, but you have to want to.