He just moved on to make the next films he wanted to make. When Spielberg made Jaws, he didn't get upset that it was made into a bunch of sequels, none of which he was associated with, all of which sucked. If they were good business men they'd know that if they didn't want to drive the ship, they'd have to let someone else, because investors would always want the ship running. If the developer didn't want to make Carma 3, BUT ALSO didn't want anyone else to make it, then they were being precious. The publisher knew that if the game was a success they'd need to follow up immediately with a sequel.
#CARMAGEDDON REINCARNATION EVENT NOT WON FULL#
The full interview with Patrick Buckland, where he details how the company reinvented itself with Xbox Live Arcade and creating the perfect game demo, can be read here.Īnother point: if the original Buckland admits that he didn't want to do Carma 3, but is still disappointed that the IP owner (the publisher) went ahead, then that proves he is unqualified to manage IP and should have sold it. They want to make a higher percentage return than they will by sticking their money in the bank." So if you can get the money in from that direction, then the IP is a moot point. "Theres lots of people trying to do this, and were talking to most of them. Obviously if wed known that they were going to get someone else, then wed have done it, but the first thing we knew about Carmageddon: TDR 3000 was a press release on CTW."īuckland said that he's hoping that the in the future companies will offer purely finance deals, but he's yet to come across the right model. "They treated that as us turning down the option. So they went off and brought someone else in. "After we finished Carmageddon 2, SCi said to us literally the day after 'right, off we go then, Carmageddon 3' and we went 'woah, hang on a minute, weve been doing nothing but Carma for three years, give us a break a minute and a chance to work on something else'. "That was a hard lesson for me," admits Buckland. The independent developer only regained the rights to the brand it created this year. After completing two successful Carmageddon titles for SCi, the IP was given to another developer for a sequel that flopped, before being passed around to Eidos and then Square Enix. Stainless knows the thorny issue of IP ownership well. So I think the only way you can get a deal like that at the moment is by offering a lot of sequels and derivative rights and whatever, because otherwise why should they do it?" They're putting a lot of money into this, theyre going to market it what they're doing is building up somebody else's brand. "You've got to look at it from their standpoint as well with my businessman hat on I can see their viewpoint. "There are people were talking to at the moment, in terms of getting Carmageddon funded, who are saying 'no, no, we dont want to take your IP from you anymore' actually getting that into reality is a different matter. "It should be avoided if you can, but good luck with trying," Buckland told in an interview published today. The only way you can get a funding deal like that at the moment is by offering a lot of sequels and derivative rights Last week the debate over owning IP reignited when digital publisher RebelPlay suggested it was necessary to give up properties in exchange for cash - prompting a debate on with contributions from Monumental, Ninja Theory, Setgo and Red Redemption, amongst many others. Holding onto intellectual property is part of the "holy grail" of being an independent games developer according to Stainless Games - but CEO Patrick Buckland admits the reality of the business is that studios are expected to give something up if they want funding.
0 kommentar(er)
