The worst part about anything is negotiations. Anything. Not only is it a show of how desperate any side is and how much they have to lose, but also how much power each side has. Of course, played correctly (as Mr. Smart Attorney was trying to do), this could lead to false assumptions and you could get what you want from the deal.

Wouldn't those two parties, technically, be the fucker and the fuckee?
(Yes, I randomly popped out of the Web woodwork Webwork simply to be annoying. Yes, my mother is ashamed.)

I've been thinking a lot lately about how when I make my first million dollars I'm going to start a company from which I profit very little personally, so I'll never have a porsche or a big house, but all the creative people like musicians and authors I sign up will benefit the most — actually earning what they worked for. What's left after that, my share and administration costs will be put towards signing up more creative peoples, and so on.

Either that or my first million dollars will corrupt me and I'll decide I quite like jet plans, cocaine and prostitutes.

I think it's a bit of a missed opportunity that the article doesn't make any sort of statement in the end, reflecting upon the contract and perhaps trying to inspire a better treatment of developers. It practically calls for this.

Gamasutra is like IGDA, they do very little to really help developers advance their "cause" (which is: more freedom, more recognition by name and more profit, and a healthier business model).

I found that extremely interesting, and educational. Big thanks for linking to it.

I agree with Roderick.

It calls for at least a statement and perhaps even action. Everybody always talks about how the money corrupts every thing, but we seem to take this into stride with everyday life.

In this case it might not look that choking because the concept is Activision's not the developers', but look at the way the Fallout legacy is being raped because of the rights lying in the greedy paws of the money.

But what is so grievous to me, in this case it is a new developer and they  are already practically manacled by this publisher. After making that game they can't create a game in that genre because it would compete with activision's product. But that's the only type of game they have expertise in. You can't expect them to fire half their crew and create a new team and start on a RTS, or something. They are taking up such a deal because it means experience, advertisement and therefore a chance to produce their own ideas next, with the money they generated from a mindless publisher's franchise.

Hundreds of thousands of people would have been perfectly happy with an isometric high-resolution turnbased game with prerendered levels.
But instead the money decides that it should be a something like oblivion because it sells better.
A fair profit is nice, but a grotesque profit is even better.

Perhaps if people would decide to buy a game such as Al Emmo en mass it would start a change, but more likely it's sequel would only feature prettier and more 3d sequences, taking controls away from the gamer, because that only proves challenging when it doesn't involve a trigger happy gym dude stuck in a world full of neurotic aliens with a bad hair day.

In a few years time when spending money online will be normal business for everyone there will be sites hosting a number of games, all concepts and works in progress and people can support these games if they like the concept. As the game is being financed through these donations the game in itself could be free and shared throughout the community. A developers' first will hardly be profitable, but it will help them make a name for themselves. They will have total freedom in their ideas, as long as their fanbase is behind it they can carry on.

This will all start out very small, perhaps a lot like Amberfish Arts and the like. The down side to this is people will have to learn to be patient instead of expecting immediate gratification.
But the supporters can perhaps be able to follow the process if they choose to, they can see a game being born knowing that they helped to make it possible.

The donations based on concepts will hardly trigger charletans, because a developer can be asked to state what the money is needed for and will have to show progress, though not in a grim, heartless, business sort of way.

I think with time this could grow out to become a major aspect of the game industry, turning it into a collective art form. It might even be that independent film industry will follow suit, posting their trials on a youtube like site asking for support to turn it into a real film.

This could help get the community in charge, creating games that address a particular minority and really touches them, rather than have tons of general games that generally amuse the general gamer.

This will not generate huge incomes, especially in the beginning, but who cares, only the publisher really at this point because they are the ones harvesting and they'll be out of the loop.
No fallout fan could care less whether he can see the positions of his enemies through the reflection of his power armour, as long as he can "kick a rat in the groin."

Nobody cares whether the Next le Chuck will have perfectly animated tentacles for a beard and perfectly human eyes in his sockets in the next installment, as long as it has mr. Gilbert's pleasantly deranged mind at the rudder.

p.s.

I'm sorry for such a long and useless ranting, but if nothing else it at least vented a little of my frustrations.

"In any contract there are two parties, the fucker and the fuckee and we are the fucker"

...Hmmm... I might have to try that on my wife next time she asks me to take out the trash while I'm tanking Ragnaros, replacing the word "we" with "you"

...I'm pretty sure I'd get a LOT of time to play WoW after that.

"Gamasutra is like IGDA, they do very little to really help developers advance their "cause" (which is: more freedom, more recognition by name and more profit, and a healthier business model)."

THANK YOU!

Finally, a voice of reason. I wonder just how many others feel the same way.

I agree with the above about Gamasutra, yet posting that will nonetheless provide for an informed public with an opinion based on actually reading a legal document. Perhaps I may be too idealistic, but I'd rather have a smaller group of people that know what they are talking about versus a large group of people that all cite "some asshole" (e.g. Bill O'Reilly and the fans of that show of his). So props to Gamasutra despite the lack of an (all too obvious) "bottom line summary."

I'm an attorney myself (in Germany), and unfortunately there are way too many "fucker attorneys" out there who ruin our reputation as mediators and helpers. I know from my own experience in a San Francisco law firm what the regular U.S. attorney cliché is, and I know that many non-litigation attorneys in Germany have absolutely nothing in common with it. I have the impression that 50% of my work is persuading people that I don't work like that "fucker/fuckee" attorney. Believe me, I hate him more than you do ;)
- This is just to say there is light at the end of the tunnel, we're not all like that... (Plus, some of us love computer games, too)
Best wishes from Germany!
Chris