|
|
 |
 |  | | | | |  | |||
 | ||||||
          |  |  | ||||
|
Postcard
From GDC 2003: A publisher is taking a serious interest in your next project. Congratulations! Now what? There are many areas that need to be coordinated between the publisher and studio. Unfortunately, studios get so excited about the idea of having their game published that they often overlook the minor details. It's these minor details can grow into mountains of problems later on. In this roundtable, moderator Dr. Ray Muzyka (joint CEO of BioWare) led the various attendees into several discussion areas. 1. Schedules: In many cases, the publisher and studio may be working on completely different timetables. Studios should make sure that both parties' schedules are in sync before the project starts, and that as much detail about the game's development -- including proposed milestones and possible risks within those milestones -- be out in the open. And if changes are to be made, contact should be made with the publisher as soon as possible, with alternative solutions at the ready. Studios should communicate all happenings that relate to the game; they should pass on not only bad news, but good news too: encouraging milestones that have been reached and other information that will get the publisher more involved in what's going on in the studio. 2. Lines of Communication: Several participants agreed that it was vital that lines of communication be open immediately after an agreement with a publisher. Many times, studios have found themselves either with one contact on the publishing side through which they have to funnel all their requests, or alternatively, they have to travel and try to find their way through twisting roads before locating the right people at the publishing company. By having clear contact information at the outset, studios can save a lot of time and grief. This point was further broken down into trying to establish not only who to communicate with, but on what levels and when within the process should you be e-mailing, when should there be phone exchange, and at what frequency there should there be face-to-face contact. Most participants agreed strongly, though, that the more face-to-face contact made (especially at the beginning of a project), the more comfortable the work environment is. 3. Best-Fit Checklist: Even though this is something that should be considered before any agreement has been reached, a studio should see how compatible they will be with a publisher. This should cover the publisher's personalities, how they work, and past projects and project management styles. 4. Risk Management: It was almost universally agreed by all present that the best way to avoid confronting the publisher with any sudden changes in the gameplan or schedule is to give the publisher an as-detailed-as-possible list of all risks for each milestone reached. The more information you give the publisher beforehand, the easier it will be for you to explain your changes and for them to foresee them and be more lax about the situation. 5. Marketing: This was a big topic for a lot of people present. In many cases, a publishers' in-house marketing or advertising department will take over a games' marketing, and develop ads and other material without either the studios' knowledge or approval. How can this change? It was suggested that a studio should have some allocated people (or a single person) who could serve as an internal PR person, and be available to the marketing team to help in allocating or creating resources. Another solution was to bid on the marketing job to the publisher (at very low fees), to make sure the studio has control over the marketing materials. Another idea was to have the publisher give the studio a written guarantee (based on known marketing costs) that a certain percentage of the budget will be allocated to the direct marketing of the game. 6. Milestones and Payment: This was the last subject touched on, but based on the response, a very important one. Was it better for a studio to have a publisher sign off only on milestones and to accept payment only then, or where there other alternatives? Several participants voiced their opinion that a publisher should sign off not only on major milestones (paydays), but on other significant points throughout the development. This not only gives the publisher buy-in to the game, but it can prove legally that the publisher agreed that the studio was performing according to milestones, and so it would be harder for a publisher to deny payment. |
|
|
Features
