Sony has earned a reputation for funding daring indie games -- especially lately. Dyad and Papo & Yo, in particular, have picked up plaudits in recent weeks. Of course, this is not an accident, says Sony's Adam Boyes.
Boyes is the vice president of publisher and developer relations for SCEA. Installed in his job for around four months, he's heading up the company's push to find indies -- and fund them -- via its Pub Fund initiative.
While that's not the only part of his job, which also includes overseeing relationships with the U.S. triple-A publishing industry and external developers of all sizes around the globe, Boyes considers indies an important part of the Sony landscape.
"We’re always looking for things that people wouldn’t be able to do normally. Like, really art-house stuff," says Boyes. "We really want to feature them, and have an artful platform for people to put content out on."
As a gamer, he says, "I’m fine with paying $10, $15, $20 for something and realizing the creator has put their heart and soul into something." That, essentially, is what Boyes looks for.
"If it’s awesome, that’s sort of the first qualifier," he says. "If it’s something that really sets itself apart from what else is out there," that "always stacks higher."How it WorksOnce Sony gets interested in a game -- which could be all-new, or could have appeared on other platforms before, though that isn't as attractive to the Pub Fund team -- the first step is to get the developer licensed by Sony. Unlike with Xbox Live Arcade, licensed indie developers can self-publish on Sony platforms.
Rather than a publishing relationship, "Pub Fund is more of an incentive," says Boyes. "It’s kind of like a grant to get people that are interested in getting on the platform." Sony does not function as a publisher in the Pub Fund scenario; it simply funds the projects Boyes and his team believe in.
"So, we find a developer, we find a project, they pitch it to us, we say, 'Hey, we like it.' And then we pay them upon completion, advanced against the royalties," says Boyes.
Developers, in fact, are responsible for securing their own funding until the project is completed. Sony pays when the master version of the game is submitted.
"Why we really like the model [is] because, basically, once we recoup, we go to the traditional model that they would be getting with their self-publishing," says Boyes. He notes that since it's not a publishing model, Sony does not make any claims on developers' IP, either.The Financing QuestionOf course, since Sony doesn't pay until completion, developers are responsible for their own funding up to that point. "I’ve heard stories of teams taking that to, basically, the local banks, and getting that money advanced against that," says Boyes.
The company is also willing to work with developers who got going with Kickstarter -- "if a game gets Kickstartered, chances are people are excited about it," says Boyes -- or who self-funded their whole project but just need help at the end. "As a matter of fact, I had a meeting this morning where there was a team of guys that had self-funded for two years," he says.
Boyes was frank about what sort of funding developers might expect from the company. "What we usually say is $500,000, U.S., is sort of the ceiling. We have the ability to go over, but really that’s the top one."
But the company, he says, is "hands-off" during development. "We see a concept, we believe in the developer, and then basically we check in once in a while, but there’s no heavy, hands-on interaction with them. It allows them to take their own journey," he says. There are no deadlines set by Sony, either, as it pays upon completion. What Sony DoesSony will also work with Pub Fund developers to get them dev kits. "Our group works very closely with them to make sure they get all the stuff that they need," he says. It's worth noting also, that while Pub Fund is an SCEA initiative run out of California, Boyes' team works with developers around the globe, including the UK's Hello Games (Joe Danger).
Sony also worked on co-marketing with Canada's ][ Games on Dyad, inviting Shawn McGrath to repeatedly post to Sony's official blog. The game was also mentioned at Sony's E3 press conference, Boyes notes.
"We try to make the whole entire pathway easy for them and support [Pub Fund developers] in any way we can," says Boyes. "...there’s a myriad of things that we bring to the table to make it just more than a game on the platform, and really feature it."
Boyes recently instituted a policy that waives patch fees for Pub Fund developers, recognizing that indies don't have the deep pockets of major publishers. "I think you guys will see a lot of really exciting announcements over the coming six months about different evolving policies that make things easier for our partners. Self-publishing was step one. Then waiving patch fees for our Pub Fund partners," says Boyes.
"It’s important to us because developers are the gas in the engine, and that’s the important part we need to focus on: make their lives easier. Because, like I said before, there’s a lot of options these days, and we need to make sure that we’re evolving every day."
|
No problem for Sony who just turn around and drop the project if it takes too long. They haven't paid anything so who cares? And another small company goes bust.
Even so, you can see that though Sony's plans to help small 'art-house' developers might be commendable, there is no risk taken on their part until the game is complete. The developer meanwhile, having perhaps gone to the bank for funding as mentioned above, run the risk of being left in debt.
If you approach a publisher with just a game idea, you probably won't even get in the door.
If you approach a publisher with a game prototype, you might get to meet with some intern.
If you approach a publisher with a finished game, you'll get to pitch it to them, at which point they'll probably explain how surprisingly similar your game is to one they're just about to release.
If you approach a publisher with a game that's mostly done, that's when the publisher will sit up and take an interest. Here's why:
1. They figure that most of the "hard work" is already done (game design, engine, art, etc.) so they won't have to pay for that.
2. They figure that since you approached them, ostensibly asking for money and/or a publishing channel, you're weak but desperate, therefore you can be easily manipulated.
3. They figure that for pennies on the dollar, they can "take you under their wing" and help "guide you to completing a AAA game".
Once the publisher feels you "qualify", they'll offer you a "contract". Here's where the fun really begins!
The contract is specifically and carefully designed to:
1. Pay you a starving wage that's just enough money to keep you alive, but not enough for you to actually make any profit. Payment is conditional upon "acceptance" of each "milestone". These "milestones" are typically spelled out in vague words that have a wide latitude of interpretation intentionally inserted into them. (Also note I said "acceptance", not "completion".)
2. Give the publisher the "right" to amend, modify, adjust, attach, remove, or otherwise change just about everything IN the contract whenever they feel like it. And believe me, the FIRST thing they WILL change will be every milestone's description/qualification. (Usually that happens 5 days before each milestone is due.)
3. Strip away as many rights to your work and IP as possible, just in case your stupid game idea actually turns into the mega-hit of the decade.
4. Give the publisher every possible excuse known to mankind to not pay you the large $$$ when your game outsells every game ever published. (Remember, the publisher took a "big risk" giving you "advances" on the "profits". They get to fill their astronomically large and empty bank accounts FIRST.)
5. Prevent you from finding a better deal with another publisher.
Now, just so everyone understands, publishers aren't the only ones I blame here. Developers (indie or otherwise) who sign such horrible contracts are equally guilty. They're guilty of being that naive, trusting, gullible, stupid, or just plain desperate. As Jane Castle pointed out, in today's modern world, publishers are really not necessary (unless you WANT to get onto a console). Indies have lots of ways to get their product to the market. Hell, even id Software proved that with Wolfenstein 3D back in 1992! (Shareware for heaven's sake!)
@E McNeill: Evidence? What, you want to see the actual contracts? While I would dearly love to scan and publish every one that I've worked under, I'm sure that anyone you ask in the industry will agree with me that THAT isn't going to happen. Why would any developer risk destroying whatever relationship they've got with their publisher(s) by showing the world the terrible contract they signed? You're just going to have to believe me when I tell you that yes, I've actually read the contracts the companies that I've worked for have signed in the past. (Ask around - maybe you can sweet-talk some developers into slipping a copy of their publishing contracts under the table for you to read.)
Now it's true that once a developer earns a solid reputation for creating wildly successful video games, publishing contract terms quickly turn in favor of the developer. (But not always. Just ask Vince and Jason about that.)
I'd like to end with a comment about article here by Christian. Did anyone notice this line?
"Of course, since Sony doesn't pay until completion, developers are responsible for their own funding up to that point."
So, in a nutshell, Sony's new "indie" approach is: If we like you, we'll give you a dev kit and wait here while you scrounge for money and finish the game. Now go get coding kid!
I can't find any info AT ALL. Thanks!
And look at probably their biggest hit, Journey - they heavily promoted that, only to have the company start developing for other platforms (and key people leave to start companies on other platforms).
And for all this, which is the console that has gotten Minecraft? The 360, where it's sold millions.
Yes, I do think it's a big help since games like Unfinished Swan are all they've got to hold on to till the PS4 gets here. Unless Last Guardian ever comes out!
Former exclusive partners may leave, but Sony does a really good job of nurturing strange innovative devs as long as they're willing to surrender their IP.
It would be 'funding' if you'd be paid for the development cycle, all Sony does is actually buying exclusive platform rights, it seems.
That made me laugh a lot, because if he speak about exhaust gas, we have to get rid of them as fast as possible while limiting the potential polution... just funny.
On another hand, i think publisher largely earn to let guys develop the project themselves, without pushing them to modify part (read John Woznack post above). Indeed, if developers already have a good idea and a good "form", "shape" of their games, they know what's good for their games and how does the game can please the player. "Inciting" them bring them to make modification in contrary to the overall experience and give something less memorable or too much "rough". And if it's somethin like "it must look like a fps, with blood, skill, CoD", we can probably do without.
Ideas shouldn't come from a business-man who barely know how is made a game and why it works.
Video games comes like footbal (european) these days, break the leg of an opponent to win and get more money.
Uggggghh. /facedesk
I have far less use for a large chunk of money AFTER completing a game than when I'm trying to get it made, I'd rather be making royalties at that point. Especially digitally, when there's a fraction of the upfront cost to distribute and almost zero need for a publisher (besides for PR and exposure, that is).
Strange. Maybe I'm missing something though. If Sony really want developers to commit to developing for their platforms then I think they need to pay something up front. Otherwise I'm going to continue developing cross platform.