If you don't want to sell your IP rights for money, then don't sell them for money!
That depends a lot on the specifics of the publisher/developer deal.
Sometimes a studio won't get any money at all from the sale of a game -- they simply get paid a lump sum for making it.
Other times, the studio/publisher's contract will specify an amount of royalties that they'll get per sale. Sometimes there's conditions on these royalties, such as the game having to sell X copies first, or the game not being late, or the game receiving a certain meta-critic score, etc...
Publishers practically rule the game industry. Not only can they squeeze IP rights from devs, they can also charge players for second-hand games. That is just pure greed.
I think you misread Toms quote. Only if the publisher demands it, and then the developer agrees to it, such as is common when a publisher hires a studio to work for them.
Yea, I did.
There's no 'standard' contact that says that publishers always end up owning all IP rights. Plenty of studios own their own IPs.
There's even some very strange cases, like with Operation:Flashpoint, where the deal involved the publisher owning the name of the IP, but the development studio owning the rights to make sequels. This meant that their sequel legally had to be named "Arma" instead of "Flashpoint 2".
That is interesting. So developers do have some leverage against publishers. But that raises another point: normally, when you say "sequel", it usually looks like "Something Game 1/2/3/4"; or it can look like "Game X: The something else", "Game X: The other thing" and such. The Flashpoint series stayed true to the second type of sequel naming. On the other hand, if you name the sequel "Arma", first time players wouldn't even know its a sequel (or the second game of the series if they played Arma first). If you take the name away, is that really a "right to make sequels"? Or am I missing something here?
Well, they're agreeing to be "screwed". The publisher is offering to bankroll them, they can turn down this offer freely.
If you turn away and you do not have sufficient resources to develop the IP on your own, your IP is worthless. If you bow down to the bankrollers, your IP gains value, but you lose the IP. A hard place and a rock, eh?
It depends. Books and music can be commissioned (e.g. the score for a film). Even if you create the work yourself, you can end up signing away IP rights when want your book/album to be published.
Seriously, publishers have it good, taking IPs left, right and center.
This reminds me of Team Bondi and the whistleblowers. If their story is to be believed, there are people who worked on the game, couldn't take the pressure, decides to leave, and have their names removed from the credits. Is that even possible? Shouldn't they get partial credit for the work they have already contributed to the game? I refuse to believe they signed a document saying "you can remove my name from the credits if I quit halfway through the project". That is just nasty.
3) I misread that. I thought you meant the one retaining the IP in the second half was the publisher, not the developers. My bad.
On the artist part, I think the artist still retained the right to reproduce copies of the same painting, so he don't really have to get back his first painting. On the other hand, the publisher/developer relation is akin to being paid for the painting produce and then being forbidden from reproducing it. If the developer refused to give up his IP rights, he doesn't get work. It may be legal, but somehow I cannot see this as being ethical/morally right. The developer just don't seem to have a valid choice. Its either draw or die. And their compensation is a pittance compared to what the publisher earns from the developer's work.
(Now that I look at it this way, maybe I should retract my previous statement about being fine with giving up my IP for the things I was paid to make.)
6) I like to read and I am inherently curious, so if there are any citations at all I would love to click those footnotes and see what new things I can find. I started with a simple RAGE reaction thread and end up going into some law-ish reading materials. Fun stuff.
7) Point taken.
8) You're saying I might still have a claim despite the IP being held under the studio's name?