Who owns the IP? Developer or Publisher?

[dallas]

game

[Pixelpusher]

Publisher

[Jej]

Publisher.

[Fragile Waters]

Publisher

[E3kHatena]

If you have an idea for a show and you pitch it to a network and they say yes, it's in your contract that they own the property now, and you just write/direct/produce it. If you quit or end the show, the network can revive it with an all-new team, and it can be nothing like the original for better or for worse.

That's also how it goes with gaming. If I go up to Activision with a new idea for a game and they say yes, it's their property now, but I am directing and designing the game. If I leave, Activision then could make a sequel with a completely different team and there's nothing I can do because the contract stated I was willing to sell my idea to them for the money to make it happen.

This is why a lot of companies who used to work with publishers are going indie. Overkill paid their way out of their contract with 505 over Payday, and Valve pulled out of their deal with Sierra as soon as they could to stay in control of their properties (which at the time was pretty much just Half-Life and Counter-Strike; Team Fortress, Ricochet, and Day of Defeat were nowhere near as popular). On the other hand, a publisher that is willing to cooperate with a team to make the best possible game happen (as is the case with Gearbox and We Happy Few, since their publisher is letting them produce retail copies of the game as well as give them the money they need to expand the game) can still help a developer realize their vision, even if the publisher is now the man in charge.

[tmwfte]

Depends on the contract and situation.

[dallas]

thanks all

[dallas]

Originally posted by E3kHatena:

If you have an idea for a show and you pitch it to a network and they say yes, it's in your contract that they own the property now, and you just write/direct/produce it. If you quit or end the show, the network can revive it with an all-new team, and it can be nothing like the original for better or for worse.

That's also how it goes with gaming. If I go up to Activision with a new idea for a game and they say yes, it's their property now, but I am directing and designing the game. If I leave, Activision then could make a sequel with a completely different team and there's nothing I can do because the contract stated I was willing to sell my idea to them for the money to make it happen.

This is why a lot of companies who used to work with publishers are going indie. Overkill paid their way out of their contract with 505 over Payday, and Valve pulled out of their deal with Sierra as soon as they could to stay in control of their properties (which at the time was pretty much just Half-Life and Counter-Strike; Team Fortress, Ricochet, and Day of Defeat were nowhere near as popular). On the other hand, a publisher that is willing to cooperate with a team to make the best possible game happen (as is the case with Gearbox and We Happy Few, since their publisher is letting them produce retail copies of the game as well as give them the money they need to expand the game) can still help a developer realize their vision, even if the publisher is now the man in charge.

but regarding ownership of hitman, developer eidos hold the ownership instead of publisher square enix

[Ⓥenom Ⓢnake 🐍]

Originally posted by someone called the doctor?:

but regarding ownership of hitman, developer eidos hold the ownership instead of publisher square enix

No, it does not, as Edios is Owned by Square Enix. They get credit as the development house under Square Enix Europe, but all software rights are the property of their parent company since 2009.