petelewin.bsky.social
Video games lawyer & business advisor
Partner @ Wiggin
36 posts
163 followers
216 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Practical risk of being pursued obviously decreases if the entity you signed the NDA with no longer exists. However, legal risk does still exist - info can still be confidential even if not explicitly mentioned in an NDA, and enforcement rights are often transferred elsewhere before a company folds.
comment in response to
post
We have just locked CS1 as my firm’s first Games Club game, in prep for CS2 - cannot wait - good luck!
comment in response to
post
There are so many occasions though where the boundaries between the above start to erode, and one starts blending in the other, which can significantly impact deal terms. Terms can also vary based on project budget (indie vs AAA) and platform (mobile is its own beast).
comment in response to
post
PORTING: engaging a third party to create a version of a game for a new platform - typically flat fee deals - but can be some fun / complex variations on this (eg porting studio is developing and publishing a new adaptation of an existing game with creative differences / different monetisation).
comment in response to
post
IP LICENCE: typical licensor / licensee agreement - usually involves a licence fee or MG - where this gets interesting is in (a) tripartite relationships (eg deals involving 3rd party IP) and (b) mobile adaptations (eg licensing a popular Western PC IP to a Chinese Mobile studio).
comment in response to
post
CO-DEVELOPMENT: balance of responsibilities more 50/50 - one party may be providing the IP, another the creative and technical wizardry, maybe jointly funded - deal terms naturally more balanced (eg rev shares, approvals, IP ownership etc) but can vary significantly here in my experience.
comment in response to
post
WORK FOR HIRE: party A engages Party B to create part of (or sometimes the entire) game - could be dev / dev (eg studio outsourcing art services) or dev / pub (eg pub commissioning an external porting studio) - various payments structures (time & materials, flat rate, maybe a limited rev share).
comment in response to
post
SUB-PUBLISHING: pub sublicenses its publishing rights to another pub, usually to navigate territorial restrictions (eg China), complex markets (eg Japan) or to take advantage of another pub’s expertise (eg a PC pub working with a mobile-specialist).
comment in response to
post
CO-PUBLISHING: deal where publishing responsibilities are split - usually dev / pub where dev is assuming some of typical pub responsibilities (eg age ratings, localisation) - dev usually retains IP ownership - publisher usually collects revenues, but not always.
comment in response to
post
PUBLISHING: typical dev / pub deal - pub provides funding and/or publishing services in exchange for exclusive rights to distribute the game on specified platforms - typically a "net" revenue deal - dev typically retains IP ownership, but not always.
comment in response to
post
Ultimately what you call a deal doesn’t matter. But I do think that understanding the underlying nature of the relationship helps set baseline deal terms and expectations, which the parties then build from. Below are some of the main deal types I regularly come across in games:
comment in response to
post
Why am I just seeing this announcement now?! This looks fab - congrats!!
comment in response to
post
This is why getting registered trade marks is so important.
Platforms are usually far more reactive to trade mark complaints (when you have a registered TM) since those are easier for platforms to assess.
Copyright claims are generally much harder.
comment in response to
post
Source: www.gamefile.news/p/call-of-du...
comment in response to
post
Will this be the year of correction? I don't think so. I've actually seen reports of some studios investing more in a smaller number of larger projects. It feels we're near a tipping point of diminishing returns for all but a few of the biggest winners though.
comment in response to
post
With dev budgets like these, and the ever growing War for Attention, it's no surprise that it's harder than ever to generate a true AAA 'hit', and sustain the studios making those.
comment in response to
post
For comparison, the production budgets for some of the most expensive films ever made (e.g. Avengers: Endgame and Avatar 2) are reportedly around $350m.
comment in response to
post
Other reported budgets (take with a grain of salt):
- Genshin Impact - $700m ($100m base game, $200m / year ongoing)
- Cyberpunk 2077 - $441m
- Spider-Man 2 - $315m
- The Last of us 2 - $220m
GTA6 is rumoured to have a budget of $1-2 billion (though some estimate it'll generate $3bn in year 1).
comment in response to
post
I thought exactly the same! One of my fave reveals last night.
comment in response to
post
"Pay *and* play" clauses are even better - it means you have to pay them, *and* actually deploy their performance in the project.
Again, rarer in games deals, but they'll appear when working with big-name actors, writers, musicians etc.
Aren't contracts fun!
comment in response to
post
These clauses originate from Hollywood - the idea being that talent should be paid, even if the project is cancelled / they are re-cast, to compensate for the lost opportunity cost in signing up to a project.
These are rarer in games deals, but do exist, especially when dealing with agents.
comment in response to
post
😂😂
comment in response to
post
RIP my soul
Tbf there’s a bunch out there that genuinely are.
But some of those labelling themselves as such definitely aren’t.
comment in response to
post
Yeep. Last time I saw this and flagged this exact point to a dev they nearly fell off their chair and it killed the deal.
I've seen it from at least 3 different publishers.
comment in response to
post
Done! See pic above =)
comment in response to
post
Here's a slide from a presentation I gave a while back, which demonstrates the differences:
comment in response to
post
“Trust me bro”