Developers should have a veto right regarding bad marketting strategies forced by publishers.

[fireflame]

There are situations where a publisher decides that a difficulty mode will be a specific dlc you have to buy, or that a game will only be sold on one store, or tries to shoehorn lootboxes in a game,even though it is a singleplayer game.

The bad side of such a situation is that in many cases, it will be the developer, not the publisher, who gets all the bad feedback.Months, years pof effort might be ruined by a move that was decided by the publisher.It must be frustrating for the developers who worked hard, to see that their work is hindered by the decision of a marketing department.

I think that developers should have a "right of veto" to refuse that kind of decisions that can ruin the quality of their work.

 

[Ramstein]

In an ideal world, yes. Sadly, this is not an ideal world.

 

[kadotsu]

What you are describing is alienation. It's a basic principle of capitalism. I welcome you to the labor movement.

 

[Alexandros]

The problem is that publishers have the "you don't get any more money" power. I think this would be possible only for well established devs like Rockstar.

 

[Joni]

I think that developers should have a "right of veto" to refuse that kind of decisions that can ruin the quality of their work.

Click to shrink...

It is called contracts. They have signed away those decisions.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

No, developers should NOT have a veto right regarding this issue!! ...said no one ever.

 

[Hyun Sai]

That can work ! If the dev is the publisher.

 

[Dekim]

This might work if the developer and publisher are the same company. However, if the the developers and publisher are different companies, then I doubt that this would pass.

 

[Guaraná]

That can have anything they want. Just put that in the contract.

The thing is: they don't care, or they are not in a position to do that, as long and they get their games funded.

 

[Dust]

The problem is that publishers have the "you don't get any more money" power. I think this would be possible only for well established devs like Rockstar.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, publishers often are simply alpha and omega for developers, everything starts and ends with them.
Kinda like an abusive relationship.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Most developers aren't businessmen , they're good at making video games, not necessarily selling them. I do think that it's important that the developer and marketing team are on the same page though, if you're making one thing and advertising something different that can lead to a disconnect with the market.

But a developer isn't really in a position to tell a publisher how they should monetize a game that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make. If a publisher is forcing mechanics or monetization methods that the developer feels uncomfortable with then they should start looking for a different publisher.

 

[LewieP]

Developers who want that are able to negotiate it when signing the publishing contract.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

Developers who want that are able to negotiate it when signing the publishing contract.

Click to shrink...

Most aren't able to

 

[LewieP]

Most aren't able to

Click to shrink...

Well generally the party footing the bill would have the most leverage in negotiations.

Cases where a developer doesn't need external funding etc do result in developers having more leverage though.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

Reminder that Crosscode, an amazing game, was basically given away for pennies pre-launch because the publisher thought it would be a great idea to throw it into the lowest tier of some random indie bundle. Without the Crosscode devs knowing about it beforehand.

Publishers do what they want.

As for separating content, and stuff that devs obviously would have to know about - I agree they should be able to veto, but they won't be able to 99% of the time. Thank capitalism for that.

 

[Ganado]

Most aren't able to

Click to shrink...

So should it make it into the law? "Hear ye, hear ye, all developers are now able to veto what the funder of the project says!".
I do not say don't support devs getting more freedom but that is the cost of getting money for what you want to make. They're gonna want some input.

 

[DiscoShark]

Developers can have a veto right if they're the ones footing the bill for the game.

 

[Deleted member 49611]

no, who ever is funding and publishing it should be the ones to decide that.

developers/studios are there to make the games. once they complete it then it's up to the publisher to sell the product they paid for and they can market it how they see fit.

if the studio/dev is paying for it then fair enough.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

Reminder that Crosscode, an amazing game, was basically given away for pennies pre-launch because the publisher thought it would be a great idea to throw it into the lowest tier of some random indie bundle. Without the Crosscode devs knowing about it beforehand.

Publishers do what they want.

As for separating content, and stuff that devs obviously would have to know about - I agree they should be able to veto, but they won't be able to 99% of the time. Thank capitalism for that.

Click to shrink...

Actually they did write the Crosscode devs about it, but the devs "missed the mail".

Still an asshole-ish thing that the publisher went ahead with the idea in the first place though, of course.

 

[Zhukov]

Given that the publishers are paying for the game to be made, I don't see this happening any time soon.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Who are you to tell me how to run my marketing department?! Show me the research and data to support your argument. Present a counter proposal to me by the end of this week. Im assuming you going to be responsible if this fails??


.....I don't know if that's how it works but I'm pretty sure it's in the same ballpark

 

[Jiraiya]

Did the devs negotiate that into the contract? I mean... The option is always there if it can be agreed upon between parties.

 

[Com_Raven]

I don't necessarily agree. Having been on both sides of the equation (developer and publisher), I have seen a fair share of bad ideas for marketing from either side.

Developers obviously know much more about their game. Publishers usually know more about marketing said game, especially to people outside the hardcore community that devs tend to focus on.

Neither side should call the communication shits all by themselves.

 

[CrazyAndy]

No, they are not the ones funding the game so they shouldn't have a veto right.

 

[MrCibb]

Sadly I disagree with this.

Developers have their own ideas and will create promotional material, it's not like they're completely not involved in the marketing process of their titles and we've seen plenty of examples of developers putting their foot down in specific instances, like when Sony wanted Joel to feature more prominently on the box art of The Last Of Us than Ellie and Naughty Dog forced them to reverse that decision, but the publishers are funding it and so will always have the final say. It's their money.

 

[Eumi]

Noooohoho they should not. That's not their job.

When a developer is working for a publisher, then they are, you know, working for the publisher. If the publisher wants something, then the publisher gets to do that. They are the ones actually funding the development and paying the developers after all.

And to add to that, developers aren't marketers. They don't necessarily have any idea what they're talking about. Their skills don't give them any sort of authority on how games should be marketed.

The real, ideal situation is a relationship in which publisher and developer are in communication. So if a publisher wants something, they run it by the developer. If the developer is really against it then they can make their case as to why it is a bad idea, and the publisher will listen and hopefully respect their opinion. But at the end of the day, if you don't want your game to be compromised by business decisions then don't fund its development through a publisher who wants to make money. Nobody is entitled to funding for their artistic projects, if you want it, you have to earn it. If the publisher won't let you make what you want, then use a different source of funding that will.

Sometimes publishers make dumb decisions that harm the game. But that is no grounds to give people far less qualified for the job of marketing far more power.

 

[Kill3r7]

They can if they are funding the game themselves or have creative/marketing power. Otherwise the party who holds the purse strings gets to decide.

 

[jon bones]

It doesn't really make sense to do that, OP - developers core skills are developing, marketers core skills are marketing.

Let teams do what they are best at.

 

[BriGuy]

Who was responsible for John Romero making me his bitch?

 

[dabri]

These things happen on both ends though. I've heard some radically stupid ideas come from developers directly thinking it's going to be the key thing that brings in the $$$.

 

[Asuka3+1]

>developer should have the right to refuse the orders of those writing the checks
Is a noble idea but something tells me is not gonna work

 

[weblaus]

Wasn't Titanfall 2 basically dead on arrival despite being a great game because Respawn had the right to decide about the release date? When everybody but them though dropping the game right in the middle of COD and Battlefield was a terrible idea, which sadly proved to be right?

So, not quite on board with the original thesis of this thread, I guess.

 

[user__]

The production aspects of a game, in my ideal world, should never be put on the hands of the marketing. The marketing should always just have to do the best they can with the finished product as it is. They should just find a way to maximize profits basing on what's at hand, and not transform the game in something it shouldn't just because of some perceived trend.

 

[Glio]

Precisely for that reason there are indie studios.

 

[user__]

I think big publishers should have the courage to make great games with a good budget without being constrained by maximizing profits as the only possible direction. They could be as good as indie games, but contrarily to indie devs, they have the money to market them. I wish we could have both. Sometime we see some exceptions, but I wish it could be the norm.

 

[jroc74]

Noooohoho they should not. That's not their job.

When a developer is working for a publisher, then they are, you know, working for the publisher. If the publisher wants something, then the publisher gets to do that. They are the ones actually funding the development and paying the developers after all.

Click to shrink...

I know some already touched on this, but this is it basically.

>developer should have the right to refuse the orders of those writing the checks
Is a noble idea but something tells me is not gonna work

Click to shrink...

Yeah, exactly.

 

[Lua]

I agree but good luck making that happen in a world where those with money dictate the rules.

 

[fireflame]

It doesn't really make sense to do that, OP - developers core skills are developing, marketers core skills are marketing.

Let teams do what they are best at.

Click to shrink...

It's just that when Ii look at a series like Metro, I feel the image of their games might have been seriously damaged by the decision to get an exclusive deal with EGS, for example.

 

[test_account]

Honest question, how would a veto in this case take place? How would the process be?

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

It's just that when Ii look at a series like Metro, I feel the image of their games might have been seriously damaged by the decision to get an exclusive deal with EGS, for example.

Click to shrink...

The publishers have tons and tons of data and numbers people going over decisions like that, a developer likely wouldn't have much expertise in that kind of decision, especially with a new store front involved.

I think a scenario where a developer should have the right to speak up is things like trailers, box art, marketing slogans, etc. I remember Sony marketers didn't want Ellie on the box art for The Last of Us, and ND refused to allow that to happen because she's so core to what the game is.

 

[808s & Villainy]

I don't think you really understand the developer publisher relationship at all OP

 

[Pryme]

Eh, More often than not, the publishers know way more about how to market and sell a game than the devs or many of the consumers.

Many consumers don't even realize publishers have to run a business. Era is a classic example. Many here would rather EA ditch the FIFA series and focus their efforts on games like Mirrors edge.

 

[fireflame]

I don't think you really understand the developer publisher relationship at all OP

Click to shrink...

I would like to view it as a respectful relationship with cooperation and open discussion.Well, that is more how it should be. I feel sometimes publishers decisions are too "short- termist" as in when a decision can make money at first but reduce the quality or reputation of a game on the long term.

 

[808s & Villainy]

I would like to view it as a respectful relationship with cooperation and open discussion.Well, that is more how it should be. I feel sometimes publishers decisions are too "short- termist" as in when a decision can make money at first but reduce the quality or reputation of a game on the long term.

Click to shrink...

Ideally it should be. Publishers foot the bill and some risk, developers are the ones doing the actual work, and ultimately both make money from it, but the fact that publishers have the power of the purse inherently gives them an advantage in bargaining. Maybe if it's a well established dev team or there's an existing relationship they'll have more leverage (like I imagine what Kojima and Sony or Platinum and Nintendo have)

 

[Pyro]

If they get a good contract then they'll be able to.

 

[fireflame]

Ideally it should be. Publishers foot the bill and some risk, developers are the ones doing the actual work, and ultimately both make money from it, but the fact that publishers have the power of the purse inherently gives them an advantage in bargaining. Maybe if it's a well established dev team or there's an existing relationship they'll have more leverage (like I imagine what Kojima and Sony or Platinum and Nintendo have)

Click to shrink...

For example, I read articles from Don Rosa, who created a lot of Uncle Scrooge Stories. He mentions that many times his publisher helped by refusing or criticizing his stories and that thanks to that he improved them.Wheni read that, I feel a respectful and constructive relationship between the artist and his publisher. I don't know if the same quality of the relationship is possible between developer and publisher.

 

[Glio]

Do you really think that developers do not want to make money like publishers? That they work for the love of art? The biggest difference is that most publishers have more marketing and economic analysts.

 

[daybreak]

Contracts aside, it's funny you assume the developers would do a better job at making marketing decisions than the people who have specialized in marketing.

 

[test_account]

What you are describing is alienation. It's a basic principle of capitalism. I welcome you to the labor movement.

Click to shrink...

In terms of what the OP is mentioning, how would that work? Publishers and developers do sign contracts to begin with, so i wouldnt say its a case of alienation. But if there is a breach in the contract, at least thats usually clear and could be easy to document. But if its not a breach of contract, how do one go about the situation? If the developer disagree with a decision that the publisher does, or vice versa, theres often no key answer to whats right or wrong in those cases. How are those cases going to be handled in terms or working rights?

For example, I read articles from Don Rosa, who created a lot of Uncle Scrooge Stories. He mentions that many times his publisher helped by refusing or criticizing his stories and that thanks to that he improved them.Wheni read that, I feel a respectful and constructive relationship between the artist and his publisher. I don't know if the same quality of the relationship is possible between developer and publisher.

Click to shrink...

I guess it is like that today too. Its important to keep a good dialouge and listen to ideas, but ultimately it comes down to if theres an agreement or not. For example, did Don Rosa (love his work by the way) argued against the decision that the publisher sometimes offered? Or was there cases where they came to a compromise, a give and take situation?

 

[EdgeXL]

I cannot imagine many situations in which a publisher will hand over tens of millions of dollars to a developer and then allow said dev full veto rights over the distribution and marketing of a game. We may as well ask for our games to be delivered to us via unicorns and rainbows while we are at it.

Ideally a dev would sign with publishers who have similar ideologies but realistically a studio that is desperate for funding to pay its people will sign whatever deal they can get. Even if it means sleeping with the Devil.