I concur.

Considering how the economy of the world has evolved during the past three decades, should we be surprised that the "nice" people get the short end of the stick?
Why do you think the video game industry would pioneer in fairness, when the true reality is one of relentless run for profits by a reckless and untamed capitalism?

Just wait one or two decades, cross fingers for the situation to change worldwide on ALL industrial fronts, and then you'll start to see some blue skies in games.

There is tremendous value in a publisher taking on risk taking from a funding perspective and some of the quotes above lack full context.

What I was attempting to say was that in the ONLINE world, there is increasingly a situation where the traditional publisher isn't providing as much value as they historically have (and do) in the offline market due to the changes in distribution.

The traditional offline publisher / developer deal, "is a terrible deal" in the ONLINE world, where distribution goes from manufacturing, warehousing and sales to the click of a button, where there isn't finite shelfspace, and where community and establishing a direct relationship with the end user is as important as marketing.

True, but VC funding isn't always the best answer either. You trade publisher project IP ownership for corporate ownership. First round you might not lose your company, but if you need to go back to the table, it's generally not a positive outcome for your independence.

@Stone, it has nothing to do with nice, or the evils of capitalism (which it isn't), it has to do with leverage. Box retail deals suck because most devs don't have the capital to fund the game PLUS the distribution, and without distribution it doesn't matter how great your game is, it's not gonna sell. Publishers know that, and they leverage the heck out of it. The question we ask internally is "Would we rather have great retail placement, fair royalty, and publisher backing while selling or giving up IP, or little placement, better royalty, and no publisher backing by retaining IP?” Even if your eventual goal is to own your own IP, you should be smart in how you get there, and it's preferred to retain corporate independence and give up IP in the short term, as opposed to jeopardize corporate independence and retain IP.

It can work both ways, just throwing in my opinion. Having options improves the playing field for all developers when they go to market with a project or strategy, so kudos to Riot.

Publishers treat developers like that because they're taking a risk -- they have no idea if the game that's developed will turn out to be the cheesiest, most corner-cutting version of the plan possible, and no control over it should that happen. True, they can refuse to do business with that developer in the future, but that doesn't help them during the current project.

Also, developers are free to make their own game, if they have the resources to do so. They then can try to find a publisher to sell the game.

But the article's point is taken...developing a publisher's IP, and having to deal with the publisher's whims, can be a thankless experience.

Steven, I dont feel the publishers should treat developers any different from VC 's. The article I feel is explaining that Publishers are almost acting as Angel investors these days. Your statement is valid for all kinds of fundraising, Every VC, angel or publisher is taking a large risk but in terms of the game it is a very similar risk. I feel the article is more explaining how publishers are starting to act like Angels where they are taking much more ownership and equity in the game as if the developer were about to hit bankruptcy. I feel this article is a very good read and has noted me to try to steer away from publishers and focus first and foremost on VC's or other methods of funding.

Tom: "Feel"? Damn...if I had feelings, I wouldn't have survived a month in this industry.

@ Joe Tringali

I didn't claim that distribution, public and press awareness didn't matter, or were not assumed by the publisher, but my observation tackles a broader issue. In these cynical days, I'm saying that we NEED to understand the value of a man's very own life, and every little second of a life put into a game, to cherish the creative aspect of it, not just how much efficient the worker is as how fast he brings dollars and how much it pulls a company up on the Dow Jones. That is something humanity will have to think about sooner or later, and the quicker the better. Contrary to the molded views of funded economical schools, which many even rewrite the economical history of ancient times, I don't believe in the absolute laws of free market, which is nothing more than a Trojan horse for the trampling behemoths to always get the upper hand, and in the end at the total expense of the alienated individual. At the very best, I only believe in a tamed capitalism that remembers it is a model created by humans, and that it should serve them, not kill them.
The leverage we talk about here is one that has power because the value of creative minds and taxed life time is minimal in comparison. Look at this: time is money. However, it only translates favourably when we're talking about massive investors, CEO paychecks and human resources (barbarism at its finest), but not when talking about the years people trade in hope that the ONLY game they worked on will work. In fairness, some get primes, but it's often peanuts if you look at the whole picture.
Would developers get more of the shares, studios would thrive, there would be more risks taken, more opinions, more culture and thus more creativity in return, and what publishers wouldn't get in terms of high percentages on few high sales, would get in return in smaller shares, but spread over much more games. Some would say it's a rose tinted view, but I'm not impressed. The decadence, cynicism and sarcasm that have people look away when someone gets beaten, raped or robbed, have gradually permeated societies and minds over decades, and it's the way to be on Internet, with the much necessary wit if possible. The upbeat happiness that existed decades ago kept being gnawed at, while at the same time profiteers kept pulling even more money into their caches, leaving the real solid economy of small and medium businesses choking.
One of the effects of this suicidal system is reflected in the nature of the entertainment we get these days: gloomy, decadent and grimdark, where originality and risks have been thrown out in favour of sequelitis, remakes and real TV. The class of the 60s has left place to the obscenity of the new millennium.
So that is why I am certainly NOT surprised about the complaint featured in this article, and it's relatively nothing new for our still young industry. An industry that has literally gone from obscure to almost crap, while all other media have at least known a "mainstream" golden age.
The days of Nintendo not caring about piracy because they make just too much money selling their plastic toys for people who think they'll lose weight by collecting stars, or become smarter by ticking boxes, is not a golden age; it's but one of the many farcical plastic faces of the current masquerade.

Yeah, I have to agree that "VC" versus "publisher"... who's worse is debatable, and it depends on who's you're publisher or who's your VC. Plenty of bad apples in both. Plenty of awful developers too, while we're at it.