[In his latest Asian-specific Gamasutra column, Beijing-based game developer Frank Yu asks a simple question, "what is it like to lead game development teams in China?", and comes up with some interesting answers on recruitment and retention.]
So what is it like to lead game development teams in China? Well, the best answer is it depends. Game development in China has some distinct differences based on many factors such as location, management style, capital, genre and most important of all clients.
The game industry of China can be divided into three main types of companies: There are companies that mainly provide game development outsourcing/work for hire, those that create original IP/franchises and those that operate foreign licensed games by localizing, distributing and running these games in China.
In some cases, many companies have done all three at some time or continue to provide two of the services concurrently at the same time.
As you can see, this leads to complications via conflict of interest or where outsource companies are also developing their own brands or operators are also developing their own version of the content they license. Although the concept of a “Chinese wall” exists, it is really up to each company on how strictly they wish to comply with those safeguards.
Some companies in China blatantly disregard or abuse this situation by actively outsourcing or licensing with the intent to copy or backward engineer content.
Another factor that seems to surface within the Chinese game industry seems to be that designers and engineers that are great at outsourcing and work for hire projects may not be the best type of engineers or designers for new product development, ideation and franchise creation.
One type of project values precision, risk averse, customer service and detailed planning while the other seems to need mavericks and wizards who can accept risk and literally think out of the box and zing some concepts out of the park.
This transition from outsourcing to ideation remains the largest challenge for many Chinese game companies wanting to move up the value chain ladder. To begin the climb, each company needs the right type of people.
What all these companies do face is a constant need for talented and bright engineers, artists, designers and producers. Although China graduates a staggering amount of engineers and software developers, getting the brightest and hardest working among recent graduates remain a challenge for all companies.
Companies like Microsoft, Google, Alibaba, Lenovo, Goldman and GE usually gets the first pick among the top graduates from the best schools in the country. Game companies in general pay less for engineers and artists than multinational or global fortune 500 companies.
Instead, many companies recruit from 2nd tier universities or even from cities in China outside of Beijing, Shanghai. Game companies look for graduates with both a passion for and deep understanding of games. Although we have the occasional elite school graduate in the game industry, like the U.S., some of the best workers come from lesser known universities or even self taught from high school.
Another problem is that China faces an extreme and dire shortage of competent leads and other middle management. In the game industry, finding producers, design, art, and tech leads remain a challenge as companies expand and poach staff from each other. Staff in China tend to jump more quickly than in the west to new jobs for faster advancement and higher pay in an economy and industry that grows at double digits.
However, that does not mean that the staff and engineers are not loyal hardworking employees but it does mean that retaining and training staff is just as hard as recruiting them. In local game companies, whole teams and departments will get poached by competitors simply because they follow their mentors and leaders to whatever entity has hired them away.
One also needs to consider the special needs of the skilled technology workers of China. They are the most employable and sought after labor sector in the country. Many of them need to accumulate cash quickly in their careers to buy houses and get married (they usually need a house first just to get married) to please both parents and rush into the middle class.
Although passionate for games and making great products, they also see themselves as the sole support for their families when their parents retire. So the pressure to work for cash comes as much from parents and girlfriends, as from a sense of greed or personal ambition. As many of us who hire in China know, finding those few superstars to lead and manage game teams can make or break any project.
As you can see, many of the issues in the west with recruiting game teams remain similar in China. Even if salaries are lower and more graduates are available, the need to train new staff and retain them can erase any gains from costs and surplus graduates can provide.
The industry continues to grow and evolve and so does the need to find the talent to drive the change.
[Frank Yu is the CSO and COO for Shouji, a Beijing based mobile game developer. Prior to his current position, Frank started and led the first China game team for Microsoft and served as the first Xbox Regional Business Manager for Asia. He can be reached by email at capital@gmail.com.]
The idea that outsourcing studios or work for hire houses creating their own IP is a conflict of interest is patently false. Massive Black has been doing work for hire, co-development, and next-gen outsourcing since 2002, including the creation of multiple new I.P. worlds under our Massive Black Entertainment division. We have led the outsourcing field in three key areas for many years now; total clients 180+, total projects completed 245+, and we work successfully with 19 of the top 20 publishers. We were also the first next-gen development studio in China...before even EA and Ubi were having success there. Our list of titles speak for themselves including Bioshock 2, Starcraft 2, F3, God of War 3, Killzone 2, Saboteur, and many many others. We are the primary art provider for the PS3, and develop our own worlds simultaneously. We always have. If there was an issue, we would not have accomplished all we have.
Work for hire, including outsourcing, is at best, a dead end proposition in this economy. Sure it can be a stable and profitable business, as it is here. However, service based companies are not as valuable as those who own their own I.P and technology. This is a simple fact. Epic Games is a an example of that. Not only do they own their own universes and tech, but they compete in the service based world. Any company who thinks they can run soley in the service based world in this economy is without foresight or vision, or an understanding of the industry.
In fact, outsourocing is no different than doing work for hire jobs, like those where entire titles are contracted out. Either way, the developer does not own the license, or the tech in many cases. Work for hire has been happening along with the development of new I.P. in this industry for a couple of decades now. Frank is simply wrong in his assumption that there is an issue there because one happens to only contract part of the project. That is rediculous.
The issue comes when a company does not have integrity and borrows from other projects. That is not an issue of contract work vs. new I.P....that is an issue of company integrity. Massive Black has done first party work for Microsofty, Sony and Nintendo simultaneously and has never behaved improperly in that regard. We would not lead the field if we did. This industry is too small. Crossing project lines is not only against international copyright law but would be a violation of NDA and trade secret agreements. That can happen whether a studio is doing outsourcing or contracting entire games...this has nothing to do with outsourcing as a general idea...it just comes down to whether or not you are working with a company that has proven integrity. The assumption Frank makes here that it is not, is simply ignorant.
Really Frank, that is a clueless comment to make. I am going to stand up for the rights of all contract developers to create their own worlds. Foundation 9 creates their own worlds, Sidhe Interactive, Epic Games, you name it...all three are contract, co-development (which is also outsourcing) and new I.P. production groups. The industry has already proven you wrong for many many years. Wake up.
I wanted to add...that above being said...that the rest of the article is on point. The cultural comments are particularly of interest and stem from obvious experience. Other than the one comment that must be challenged continually in this industry, the rest of the article is well done.
The simple fact is, the false idea that work for hire companies should not have the right to create wholly owned intellectual property needs to be continually nipped in the bud, as it is an incorrect assumption. Those studios with wholly owned I.P. are far more stable and independent. Given the status of the economy, would you rather have a stable company working for you or one that is at the mercy of the day to day business of the games industry? I would choose the stable company any day of the week.
Also, I do not defend or condone the garbage knock offs of intellectual property that is rampant in some studios in China. Whether it is The 9 and their WOW clone, or the ChinaJoy group using the GDC trademarks to sell themselves as Think Services does. The key is to be sure you are working with companies which are reputable, honorable, and of integrity..whether it is full contract work or those doing outsourcing. It is also of note that western based companies, developers and outsourcers are far more apt to follow the laws than those based wholly in overseas locations where IP abuse is rampant.
> The idea that outsourcing studios or work for hire houses
> creating their own IP is a conflict of interest is
> patently false.
It's actually patently true. In fact, it's tautological. How you _manage_ that conflict of interest is an entirely separate issue. If you do it well, and your clients suffer no ill-effects as a result, then that's great. You need to realise that it's not the case for everyone; and furthermore that Mr Yu appears to have some experience/knowledge of situations where that conflict of interest was to the detriment of the client.
It's also a bit naive in this day and age to suggest that providing services isn't a path to riches. After all, we live in a world which is rapidly becoming service-centric. I don't even really need to argue this point though, as you illustrate it with a rather strange statement juxtaposition:
> Work for hire, including outsourcing, is at best, a dead end proposition in this economy.
> Sure it can be a stable and profitable business
That's just a direct contradiction.
I wouldn't take such issue, but I feel like you should realise that bizarre, unnecessary rants like that probably won't do your company any favours. I might be wrong.
Does handling work-for-hire projects and original work create a conflict of interests? It certainly can do. Just like handling multiple WFH projects can do. I don't see why this is even a question.
Once upon a time, a publisher would sign a project with a developer, and the developer would do the work internally; since publishers and developers were close-knit, and the developers were bound by non-competes, a publisher could expect to hear if a developer was abusing information that they'd received or tech that should have been for the publisher's sole use, and some scary big lawyers could more or less ensure compliance. Problem solved - usually.
Now, however, the notion of a stand-alone developer is fast disappearing. Developments may be spread across multiple continents, and the publisher may lose track of who is even working on the project. How on earth is the guy paying the money supposed to know that the work he's paying for isn't being reused or otherwise misused?
The use of multiple specialists makes much more sense than trying to develop with a monolithic team in most cases, so the problem won't go away - but it's a very real problem, and it goes well beyond any one country.
What's being overlooked, however, is the observation that Frank makes about thought processes, development of skills, notions of success. The idea that it's hard for a specialist provider to shift to a different way of thinking and working seems obvious when it's written down, but the implications - globally - are profound.
>"It's actually patently true. In fact, it's tautological. How you _manage_ that conflict of interest is an >entirely separate issue. If you do it well, and your clients suffer no ill-effects as a result, then that's >great. You need to realise that it's not the case for everyone; and furthermore that Mr Yu appears to >have some experience/knowledge of situations where that conflict of interest was to the detriment of >the client.
As said...it is not an issue of outsourcing vs new ip or contract work vs new ip...it is an issue of company integrity. Even non-independent developers and publishers have those issues to handle...some do it well..others do not. To suggest that any developer not have the right to create their own IP is rediculous. The industry has been doing a mix of service and new ip development for many years. Every independent developer in the field has the right to make their own IP. They do not have the right to steal trade secrets or violate non-usage agreements. However, they do have the right to create their own IP and this has been going on for a long time, successfully. I will take a stand on that point every time it is made, that service providers should not have the right to make their own projects because of conflict of interest issues. That latter idea, as mentioned in the article, is ignorant of history and the business in general. Those companies doing trade secret theft are not limited to any one part of the industry. Even the publishers have issues with that.
>It's also a bit naive in this day and age to suggest that providing services isn't a path to riches. After >all, we live in a world which is rapidly becoming service-centric. I don't even really need to argue this >point though, as you illustrate it with a rather strange statement juxtaposition:"
Yes, outsourcing and service providers can be stable and profitable. That does not equal massive success. Every single independent developer doing contract work (with the exception of one I am aware of who tries to use that as a biz angle...which is unnecessary btw...), will tell you the same thing. The path to true independence is through ownership. Service companies do not own. They are at the mercy of their clients ups and downs, not of their own market which only they control.
Every independent developer who kicks major ass in this field, whether it be Valve, or Epic, or Zenimax/Bethesda/id, or....you name it. They all have one thing in common...OWNERSHIP of IP. Period. Service businesses have less value without IP...which is why we have focused on our IP and independence since day one as part of the secondary core of our business model. When I say "dead end" I mean this...if you don't own...you don't own. That is dead end to me. Sure the biz is moving heavily toward service...just like the film industry has been for the past few decades...but look at what the film industry service providers are going through right now..at this moment...the vfx field is taking a major major hit...why?? Because they do not own anything. They do not control their destiny. They are at the mercy of their clients and the failures of others. That is dead end.
George Lucas and his ILM/LucasArts/LucasFilm firms are also a great example of companies doing service and IP ownership simultaneously. They have been doing that longer than you or frank here have even been in the field. From the looks of their offices, the quality of product they have produced, and their industry success speaks for itself. Would Lucas firms be as valuable if he did not create and own Star Wars or his other properties? Would they occupy the most valuable land in San Francisco? Would they have a ranch in Marin County to create in peace? Would Lucas be a billionaire? No. Service jobs are service jobs. They pay and then they are gone. At best a full development service job where IP is not owned is going to pull 15-20 percent royalties if funded by the pubs and the game actually pays out...and that in itself is a risky path to take. I will say it again. The only true path to long term and deep independence in this field is through IP ownership.
To the companies who steal trade secrets...they have what is coming to them. To lump any one part of the industry into such assumptions is simply wrong.
Regarding your other comments, I might suggest some further studies in the field of business and IP ownership. Including what is considered valuable when companies are acquired. Go to DICE and have some conversations with the biz heads if you want. Youll find answers within that circle.
>Now, however, the notion of a stand-alone developer is fast disappearing. Developments may be >spread across multiple continents, and the publisher may lose track of who is even working on the >project. How on earth is the guy paying the money supposed to know that the work he's paying for isn't >being reused or otherwise misused?
That is what the non usage, nda, and trade secret agreements are for. They are inredibly strict. One misstep would potentially ruin the reputation of a company industry wide. The legal ramifications, especially if the party who was violated against has cash reserves and legal staff, are incredibly intensive. That is why I said that if the company has US offices or western offices, that one has a far better chance of dealing with them in the western courts...ie getting them to abide by local and international law. Firms wholly operating in countries where the legal systems are at best "to be bribed through" are less apt to need to follow the rules. They also may not even realize that they are breaking laws through trade secret violations. Getting caught doing such things is enough to put an offender out of biz for good.
Every publisher knows exactly who is working on what projects, and if not off the top of their heads its just a few clicks away. The industry infrastructure is in place for this business model finally. Most the pubs have settled on a handful of outsourcing providers now and while they may not know the individual they are surely aware who is working on what just due to the paper trails and constant system updates. Such development has tools which allow top down viewing of who is doing what nowadays too. Gotta keep an eye on everything...if they are not then their biz is at risk. The tools are in place, or going in place...to better track such things. The rigorous approvals steps one must go through nowadays to even get into the system helps the pubs keep track. Our systems here allow each client to watch their entire project on a day by day basis. Every communication, every update...all are tracked, recorded, and kept securely, within one or two clicks, should an exec or manager wish to see. It is all about transparency nowdays.
jason, like you I am in an outsourcing company too. Art outsourcing is a bit different than programming outsourcing since code can be reused, artwork cannot. As I stated, each company complies with the Chinese wall to safeguard IP. Like your own experience with rogue employees in the past, we try our best but some things cannot totally be locked down. If you still think I am clueless about my comments feel free to email me. capital@gmail.com
There are a variety of solutions to the code problem, including fully comprehensive on site audits, access to all financial and other records not covered by competing client nda's, and severe penalty based NDA's and non-usage docs (including immediate and extreme cash penalties) and many other things which can allow code business in China to happen. On the art side, any audits are unacceptable. On the code side, they are required. High cost, comprehensive insurance is also something that is required. The list is long. It can be done. Of course on our side we had to custom create every agreement which allows us to safely navigate those waters nowadays. Prior to such things, yes years ago, it was a challenge to learn to do business there. We were successful though...still are. There are many solutions...both for employees and clients. Many.
Being the first next-gen production studio in China meant we had to figure it all out for ourselves. The legal system there is full of murky waters which must be dove through to understand (whether you want to or not). We did that long ago. Hundreds of companies now have followed that lead. Figure it out...yep we did...and have shipped over 100 projects through that studio since then...including work on the biggest games in the field. If we did not have a secure system we would not be given access to all the technology we are. Trust me there Frank. The pieces are in place. Just because others have not figured out how to do business there well, does not mean that there are no solutions. There are. A lot of them.
Never said you were clueless about all your comments...just the one where you mistakenly suggest that IP should not be developed by contract based companies...which is not true, at all. The rest of your comments were on point and show experience, as I said above.
I never said that IP should not be developed by contract based companies. I said that there were conflict of interests and its up to each company to erect their own "Chinese Wall" to mitigate that. Thats an internal safeguard to compartmentalize the teams not just original IP from work for hire but also work for hire from seperate clients. As I mentioned, we are a mobile game outsourcer (one of the largest in China) and have most of the major mobile game developers as clients in both development and post-production so there is no need to lecture me on Work for Hire or Outsourcing. Go back and read what I said
"As you can see, this leads to complications via conflict of interest or where outsource companies are also developing their own brands or operators are also developing their own version of the content they license. Although the concept of a “Chinese wall” exists, it is really up to each company on how strictly they wish to comply with those safeguards."
I never said that outsource companies should not develop original IP or my company itself would be at fault as well. I maintain that each company needs to have strict safeguards to protect clients and "Chinese Wall" their teams to prevent IP loss or theft. I'm not sure what you read to think that I believe outsource companies should never develop their own IP.
I don't disagree with what you are saying only your claim to knowing what I said. You're preaching to the converted.
I guess we all know where is the gold, but actually it will be hard to keep balance on doing out sourcing work and building own IP. I have no experience on this, from what I see on my friends, when a company start up here, it will most likely to choose the out sourcing at first. Damn, we all got stupid IP empire dream inside our heart, but we have to eat break first every day we wake up..... unless we r doing games for domestic market, like net or web/social games.
Work for hire, including outsourcing, is at best, a dead end proposition in this economy. Sure it can be a stable and profitable business, as it is here. However, service based companies are not as valuable as those who own their own I.P and technology. This is a simple fact. Epic Games is a an example of that. Not only do they own their own universes and tech, but they compete in the service based world. Any company who thinks they can run soley in the service based world in this economy is without foresight or vision, or an understanding of the industry.
In fact, outsourocing is no different than doing work for hire jobs, like those where entire titles are contracted out. Either way, the developer does not own the license, or the tech in many cases. Work for hire has been happening along with the development of new I.P. in this industry for a couple of decades now. Frank is simply wrong in his assumption that there is an issue there because one happens to only contract part of the project. That is rediculous.
The issue comes when a company does not have integrity and borrows from other projects. That is not an issue of contract work vs. new I.P....that is an issue of company integrity. Massive Black has done first party work for Microsofty, Sony and Nintendo simultaneously and has never behaved improperly in that regard. We would not lead the field if we did. This industry is too small. Crossing project lines is not only against international copyright law but would be a violation of NDA and trade secret agreements. That can happen whether a studio is doing outsourcing or contracting entire games...this has nothing to do with outsourcing as a general idea...it just comes down to whether or not you are working with a company that has proven integrity. The assumption Frank makes here that it is not, is simply ignorant.
Really Frank, that is a clueless comment to make. I am going to stand up for the rights of all contract developers to create their own worlds. Foundation 9 creates their own worlds, Sidhe Interactive, Epic Games, you name it...all three are contract, co-development (which is also outsourcing) and new I.P. production groups. The industry has already proven you wrong for many many years. Wake up.
Jason Manley
President
Massive Black Inc.
www.massiveblack.com
The simple fact is, the false idea that work for hire companies should not have the right to create wholly owned intellectual property needs to be continually nipped in the bud, as it is an incorrect assumption. Those studios with wholly owned I.P. are far more stable and independent. Given the status of the economy, would you rather have a stable company working for you or one that is at the mercy of the day to day business of the games industry? I would choose the stable company any day of the week.
Also, I do not defend or condone the garbage knock offs of intellectual property that is rampant in some studios in China. Whether it is The 9 and their WOW clone, or the ChinaJoy group using the GDC trademarks to sell themselves as Think Services does. The key is to be sure you are working with companies which are reputable, honorable, and of integrity..whether it is full contract work or those doing outsourcing. It is also of note that western based companies, developers and outsourcers are far more apt to follow the laws than those based wholly in overseas locations where IP abuse is rampant.
Jason
> creating their own IP is a conflict of interest is
> patently false.
It's actually patently true. In fact, it's tautological. How you _manage_ that conflict of interest is an entirely separate issue. If you do it well, and your clients suffer no ill-effects as a result, then that's great. You need to realise that it's not the case for everyone; and furthermore that Mr Yu appears to have some experience/knowledge of situations where that conflict of interest was to the detriment of the client.
It's also a bit naive in this day and age to suggest that providing services isn't a path to riches. After all, we live in a world which is rapidly becoming service-centric. I don't even really need to argue this point though, as you illustrate it with a rather strange statement juxtaposition:
> Work for hire, including outsourcing, is at best, a dead end proposition in this economy.
> Sure it can be a stable and profitable business
That's just a direct contradiction.
I wouldn't take such issue, but I feel like you should realise that bizarre, unnecessary rants like that probably won't do your company any favours. I might be wrong.
Once upon a time, a publisher would sign a project with a developer, and the developer would do the work internally; since publishers and developers were close-knit, and the developers were bound by non-competes, a publisher could expect to hear if a developer was abusing information that they'd received or tech that should have been for the publisher's sole use, and some scary big lawyers could more or less ensure compliance. Problem solved - usually.
Now, however, the notion of a stand-alone developer is fast disappearing. Developments may be spread across multiple continents, and the publisher may lose track of who is even working on the project. How on earth is the guy paying the money supposed to know that the work he's paying for isn't being reused or otherwise misused?
The use of multiple specialists makes much more sense than trying to develop with a monolithic team in most cases, so the problem won't go away - but it's a very real problem, and it goes well beyond any one country.
What's being overlooked, however, is the observation that Frank makes about thought processes, development of skills, notions of success. The idea that it's hard for a specialist provider to shift to a different way of thinking and working seems obvious when it's written down, but the implications - globally - are profound.
As said...it is not an issue of outsourcing vs new ip or contract work vs new ip...it is an issue of company integrity. Even non-independent developers and publishers have those issues to handle...some do it well..others do not. To suggest that any developer not have the right to create their own IP is rediculous. The industry has been doing a mix of service and new ip development for many years. Every independent developer in the field has the right to make their own IP. They do not have the right to steal trade secrets or violate non-usage agreements. However, they do have the right to create their own IP and this has been going on for a long time, successfully. I will take a stand on that point every time it is made, that service providers should not have the right to make their own projects because of conflict of interest issues. That latter idea, as mentioned in the article, is ignorant of history and the business in general. Those companies doing trade secret theft are not limited to any one part of the industry. Even the publishers have issues with that.
>It's also a bit naive in this day and age to suggest that providing services isn't a path to riches. After >all, we live in a world which is rapidly becoming service-centric. I don't even really need to argue this >point though, as you illustrate it with a rather strange statement juxtaposition:"
Yes, outsourcing and service providers can be stable and profitable. That does not equal massive success. Every single independent developer doing contract work (with the exception of one I am aware of who tries to use that as a biz angle...which is unnecessary btw...), will tell you the same thing. The path to true independence is through ownership. Service companies do not own. They are at the mercy of their clients ups and downs, not of their own market which only they control.
Every independent developer who kicks major ass in this field, whether it be Valve, or Epic, or Zenimax/Bethesda/id, or....you name it. They all have one thing in common...OWNERSHIP of IP. Period. Service businesses have less value without IP...which is why we have focused on our IP and independence since day one as part of the secondary core of our business model. When I say "dead end" I mean this...if you don't own...you don't own. That is dead end to me. Sure the biz is moving heavily toward service...just like the film industry has been for the past few decades...but look at what the film industry service providers are going through right now..at this moment...the vfx field is taking a major major hit...why?? Because they do not own anything. They do not control their destiny. They are at the mercy of their clients and the failures of others. That is dead end.
George Lucas and his ILM/LucasArts/LucasFilm firms are also a great example of companies doing service and IP ownership simultaneously. They have been doing that longer than you or frank here have even been in the field. From the looks of their offices, the quality of product they have produced, and their industry success speaks for itself. Would Lucas firms be as valuable if he did not create and own Star Wars or his other properties? Would they occupy the most valuable land in San Francisco? Would they have a ranch in Marin County to create in peace? Would Lucas be a billionaire? No. Service jobs are service jobs. They pay and then they are gone. At best a full development service job where IP is not owned is going to pull 15-20 percent royalties if funded by the pubs and the game actually pays out...and that in itself is a risky path to take. I will say it again. The only true path to long term and deep independence in this field is through IP ownership.
To the companies who steal trade secrets...they have what is coming to them. To lump any one part of the industry into such assumptions is simply wrong.
Regarding your other comments, I might suggest some further studies in the field of business and IP ownership. Including what is considered valuable when companies are acquired. Go to DICE and have some conversations with the biz heads if you want. Youll find answers within that circle.
That is what the non usage, nda, and trade secret agreements are for. They are inredibly strict. One misstep would potentially ruin the reputation of a company industry wide. The legal ramifications, especially if the party who was violated against has cash reserves and legal staff, are incredibly intensive. That is why I said that if the company has US offices or western offices, that one has a far better chance of dealing with them in the western courts...ie getting them to abide by local and international law. Firms wholly operating in countries where the legal systems are at best "to be bribed through" are less apt to need to follow the rules. They also may not even realize that they are breaking laws through trade secret violations. Getting caught doing such things is enough to put an offender out of biz for good.
Every publisher knows exactly who is working on what projects, and if not off the top of their heads its just a few clicks away. The industry infrastructure is in place for this business model finally. Most the pubs have settled on a handful of outsourcing providers now and while they may not know the individual they are surely aware who is working on what just due to the paper trails and constant system updates. Such development has tools which allow top down viewing of who is doing what nowadays too. Gotta keep an eye on everything...if they are not then their biz is at risk. The tools are in place, or going in place...to better track such things. The rigorous approvals steps one must go through nowadays to even get into the system helps the pubs keep track. Our systems here allow each client to watch their entire project on a day by day basis. Every communication, every update...all are tracked, recorded, and kept securely, within one or two clicks, should an exec or manager wish to see. It is all about transparency nowdays.
thank you
Being the first next-gen production studio in China meant we had to figure it all out for ourselves. The legal system there is full of murky waters which must be dove through to understand (whether you want to or not). We did that long ago. Hundreds of companies now have followed that lead. Figure it out...yep we did...and have shipped over 100 projects through that studio since then...including work on the biggest games in the field. If we did not have a secure system we would not be given access to all the technology we are. Trust me there Frank. The pieces are in place. Just because others have not figured out how to do business there well, does not mean that there are no solutions. There are. A lot of them.
Never said you were clueless about all your comments...just the one where you mistakenly suggest that IP should not be developed by contract based companies...which is not true, at all. The rest of your comments were on point and show experience, as I said above.
"As you can see, this leads to complications via conflict of interest or where outsource companies are also developing their own brands or operators are also developing their own version of the content they license. Although the concept of a “Chinese wall” exists, it is really up to each company on how strictly they wish to comply with those safeguards."
I never said that outsource companies should not develop original IP or my company itself would be at fault as well. I maintain that each company needs to have strict safeguards to protect clients and "Chinese Wall" their teams to prevent IP loss or theft. I'm not sure what you read to think that I believe outsource companies should never develop their own IP.
I don't disagree with what you are saying only your claim to knowing what I said. You're preaching to the converted.