RWarehall: Sometimes you really baffle me, the way you try to twist everything to be GoG's fault. I'm pretty sure every contract is pretty much the same. Just like every apartment contract is the same, because you can't go around making too many exceptions that you aren't giving to your other clients. Otherwise, they talk, it leaks out and the other publishers become unhappy. As I said in another post, a lot of people with no clue about how business works...
rampancy: Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how do you know? Are you privy to the negotiations or the contracts involved, or are you knowledgable of how such negotiations are commonly conducted in the industry? (And if you actually are, then I'm ready to put more stock in what you're saying.)
I'm sure that, as you state, GOG does have a baseline set of terms with regards to profit share, sales, etc. that their lawyers use for their negotiations, but would it really make sense for a large corporation like Nordic Games to have the exact same contract with the exact same terms as Spiderweb Software? It's likely that Nordic pressed for things like regional pricing for instance, something that Spiderweb couldn't do (hypothetically, assuming they'd ever want that). For smaller developers I'm sure GOG has a lot more bargaining power and leverage in their negotiations. For a publisher/developer like Microsoft or Take Two? It's likely the opposite.
In the end, it's not a matter of whether or not GOG's contract was "bad". It's whether or not their terms were agreeable to the party holding the rights to the game. (Nordic originally pulling all of their games is a good example of this.) In this case, it's Jonathan Blow, and everything else aside it only makes sense that he'd want more control over how
his game is priced and sold. I'm sure that others like Lars Doucet or Jeff Vogel don't care as much, as long as they see that they're getting their product out in front of as many eyeballs as possible.
Do you really think GoG or anyone else is intentionally adding clauses to the contracts expecting them to be argued as Mr. Blow claims? Any service business, one has to start on equal terms. It's the way one does business. Now, of course there were probably extensions to the basic contract. Details about the timing of the releases, maybe some pricing, But people like Amok and so many others take everything these developers say, no matter how stupid, as the complete truth.
"The general tactic of any game publisher is that they offer you a contract full of stuff you have to argue with them for a long time to take out"
Do you really believe this to be true? If you know anything about running a business, you know this to be untrue. And if you look into what Mr. Blow was talking about with Braid, it appeared he wanted full control over pricing and sales. My understanding, based on other idiot developers who have done crazy price changes, is that Steam and Desura were completely hands off. That Japanese developer who was complaining about his bank fees and charging $100 for his game to make up for it? Yup, you can put any price you want on Steam. That clearly is not GoG.
I'm sorry, but when I see people on this forum making shit up and buying anything a developer says as the full truth in their vain attempt to crucify GoG. I'm going to say something.
Mr. Blow sounds a lot like Derek Smart and that Star Citizen guy. Too much ego. Frankly, GoG might be better off without them. It's not like Braid and The Witness are that good that GoG needs to throw out everything they are doing to accommodate him. In the end, this time will be the same. And frankly with the way Mr. Blow is throwing out insults toward GoG in public media, I'm pretty sure GoG is having their own qualms about doing business with him. At least they are being professional about it and leaving it behind closed doors. Mr. Blow seems to be as unprofessional as they come.
@Jonathan_Blow
2012-12-13 19:51 UTC
@nothings @cmuratori @GOGcom @notch Braid is not signed with GoG because they were dicks during contract negotiation.
I think I can tell you who the "dick" was...
