|
Designer Frequent Questions
Who may submit a game design to Core Talent Games, and how is a submission made?Anyone may submit. If you are a veteran game industry professional, feel free to submit to us any time. However, please first send us a query letter with a one-sentence description of your game design. If you are not a veteran professional game industry designer, we are planning to have an annual open submission window in the spring of each year. Please do not submit prior to that. We expect to receive design submissions from core talent. What is "core talent"?"Core talent" includes all developers at the heart of a game's design—the people who thought up the idea and did the early work on it. Typically it will be one to five people in size. These people may be artists, programmers and/or designers. Core talent can also be a single game designer. We prefer our submitters to be a very small group of individuals or a single person. A core talent team could be a self-contained game company. However, unless this company is very small with almost no overhead, we discourage this. If you are a company with considerable overhead and administrative burden to deal with, that adds more "moving parts" to the works, complicating things, distracting you from focusing on doing your game design work on this project with us. We are interested in funding new and original designs, and it takes a long time and a lot of focus to take a highly original design through the pre-production process. We want you to give total focus to developing this new design, not worrying about keeping your company's overhead paid for. What is Core Talent Games' basic process?You send a query email that you have a game design. If we are interested we will contact you to do an NDA. After the NDA is executed, you submit a design to us. If we like it, we will option that design document plus any prototype associated with it from you for a limited period (about 1 to 5 years). Having an option on your design gives us the exclusive right to purchase it during the option period. At the time of making the option deal, we negotiate terms for purchasing the design, and for hiring you (see below). During the option period you work on the design document and possibly do early prototyping, and we support, nurture and facilitate this work. You can work from your home(s) at this stage. There is little pressure—this is time to focus on working out the fundamentals without worrying about some pressing deadline. The terms of our option agreement will include a right to buy all intellectual property (IP) native to the design, if
we want to take it forward (keep reading...).
If we don't buy your design (exercise the option) before the option period ends—if we let the option lapse—all ownership of your game design and game reverts to you. That includes all the work you do on your design, including our feedback, during the option period. We may extend the option period, if we feel we need more time and believe in the design. That will be agreed to in the option. If we buy your design, Core Talent Games will purchase all IP of the game you submitted, as per the original option agreement. (That sounds crazy! Why on earth would you agree to that? Keep reading...) We own it and are going to take it forward to make it. Buying your design is a pretty big sign we like the game. Upon purchase, Core Talent Games takes your design into pre-production and then production. In pre-production we typically contract you (the core talent) and some outsource developers to prototype the game in series of expanding iterative cycles, resulting in a working slice that demonstrates the game's value. With each cycle we re-evaluate the game and see if we like it. If we don't, we shelve it. (We never "kill" game projects.) We may also negotiate to sell your game to another company, including one started by yourself. However, if we like how a game is turning out, we usually continue with it, ultimately reaching the next stage... After pre-production we enter production. The production phase is a scheduled ("waterfall" process) cycle that results in a final, released game. Again, Core Talent Games manages this, working in concert with outsourcing suppliers and a core team that usually includes you. You will always be paid the full production fee. When we enter production, we usually create a separate company that will own the game, to shield us from risk. This company licenses the IP back to Core Talent Games, which markets and distributes the game. In the released game, you will always receive a credit as a core talent member of the game—whether you remained on the project to completion or not—credited for what you did (e.g. "Core Design By Jim-Bob Johnson"). This credit will be agreed to in the original option contract. Core Talent Games distributes and markets its projects as well. At this point, we'll be doing digital distribution. If it makes sense, later we'll pursue physical retailing. By "market" we mean more than just distributing it: we'll advertise it; get the word out; do something other than just put it up on some portal somewhere and hope it gets discovered. We need to make sure the game gets in front of people because we want it to sell. What do you mean by "buying" a design?Our standard deal is we buy all intellectual property (IP) from you upon exercising our option. In other words, we buy your game story, characters, gameplay execution materials, code, branding, and so forth—everything. This will be stated in the original option deal. However, we will almost always place any new gameplay IP—i.e. any new methods of playing that could be patented—that is devised or discovered through your game design—into the public domain at the time of releasing the game. See why, below... Why on earth would I sell all my IP to you?To make money from it. You would sell it to profit from it—in a simple and generous manner—through a strong contract, without the hassle and distraction of running a game company. We are willing to pay residuals on gross sales if we like the design. The traditional game industry does not do that. We do. What does "gross residuals" mean? It means if your game is made and sells well, you—as in you, personally; not the company that makes the game—will earn a piece of every unit sold. This model is known in the film industry where it has made talented creators very wealthy while giving them creative flexibility. But selling IP in exchange for a strong cut is a practice almost unknown in traditional game development. It shouldn't be. A strong deal, particularly gross residuals, can be very lucrative. Indeed, a cut of gross is a holy grail of sorts: you get money for every unit sold, no arguing about whether it made "profit" or not. But the price for that holy grail is we need to own the content IP. The focus in the deal we make moves from the traditional view that ownership of IP is most important (a business software development view) to one where the contract the creator makes with the production company is most important (an entertainment industry view). For example, when Zack Snyder, director of the movie 300, signed a three-game deal with EA recently, he sold all his IP. Why would he do this if it didn't make sense? Again, film creators and other entertainment principals do this as a matter of course - and they get wealthy doing so. Game development is an entertainment industry. Entertainment revolves around talented individual creators. This deal is custom-made to reward individual creators of games while also motivating us to do business. If you want to actually profit from the success of your game's IP in the traditional game industry—if you want a share of the payoff if it's a hit—your only alternative now is to follow the typical game industry model: start up a game company and get bogged down administering it while simultaneously trying to do your creative work. And even then that payoff isn't certain over the long haul. What if you get forced out of that company? What if you lose control and the new management sells off its IP at firesale prices? (It's happened before.) What if you make a hit, but over the years the original company gets bogged down by a series of flops?—suddenly, you own part of a company worth very little because that hit you made is now mixed in with a bunch of garbage. Furthermore, why would you want to have a piece of profit over a piece of gross? Gross is a bottom-line figure; "profit" on the other hand is debatable. We're starting to see some publishers claim routine costs as "marketing expenses"—a practice that can ensure a game makes little if any profit. Again, profit is subjective—gross is objective. An agreement for a small piece of gross can be worth far more than one for a huge slice of "profit". Also, under the traditional game development model it isn't your name up front at the end of the day—it's the game company's. Didn't you and your core team members make the game? If you made it, why isn't the deal with you? Why don't you get your real name on the title screen or on the box? Why isn't the only brand tied directly to you—your actual name—being promoted? Imagine an opening splash screen that doesn't blast a studio name but your name. Wow. Finally, because the company you founded or work for gets all the attention—while you, as designer, remain nearly unknown—you'll end up remaking sequel after sequel, hindered from trying new things. So you would also make a deal with us to develop the only brand that is worth while to you in the long run: your actual name. And of course it is utterly in our interest to make sure any game sells. The more it sells, the more we make, the more you make (if we've done a residuals deal), the higher the chance for a sequel (which you'll get paid for either way), and the more exposure your actual name gets. As you develop your name you (not your company, you) can get an agent and command more compensation. Having a brilliant new design should do more than guarantee you employment. How does core talent get compensated?Our core deal is this:
All of the details around these terms are negotiable. Let's talk. We're willing to pay to get good core creative work. And if you, personally, have an agent, we're willing to negotiate with him or her as well. You say you will pay gross residuals? Explain.Interesting that you noticed that... Gross residuals is a cut on gross sales. Not net profit—gross sales! For every unit sold. And that is paid to you—the core talent members—not some company that employs you. That means even if you retire from game design and go off to live on a farm or an island, residual payments will arrive routinely for sales of the game you were instrumental in making for as long as it sells. Can you explain your position on new gameplay IP?We want to see fresh new gameplay IP. When we option a design, we option all rights to it including inventive gameplay that may be subject to patent. But in the purchase deal we make with core talent, we will almost always release any new gameplay IP (i.e. any new methodologies to play that could be patented) into the public domain upon release of your game. We will clarify what we will do with inventive new gameplay IP in your design—i.e. whether we will patent it or not—at the time we negotiate the option agreement with you. You will probably want us to not patent it, so we will abide by that wish. However, in order for our option agreement to stick, we need to claim the right to purchase the entirety of your design—i.e. all IP in your design, including inventive gameplay IP—for the duration of the option. In other words, since the code base for a design (which contains the executed inventive gameplay) may be thin to non-existent (i.e. your design might only be a short document), we need to have some substance to claim the right to purchase as per the option—so we can shop your project around. But our preference is to allow all inventive gameplay to go into the public domain upon release of the game. We have to do this to make this option system work. Why do we prefer to release inventive gameplay IP into the public domain, and why might veteran game designers prefer that? If we patent inventive new gameplay, this would discourage you and other designers from submitting to us. Why? Because if you created an entirely new genre of gameplay, when we bought you out we could patent your new gameplay after which you would not be able to do a new design using the original gameplay you devised until it enters the public domain, several years later, unless you licensed the gameplay methodology from us. We don't want to do that because we don't want to alienate or discourage design talent. So, paradoxically, in order for us to get access to the fresh new gameplay IP you are holding close to your chest, we believe we have to "set it free". We believe the best way for us to get the best new game designs from you is by focusing on buying and managing the content IP, and being open about the gameplay. The only time we might consider patenting new gameplay IP is if you want that to happen—but even then you'd really have to convince us because it's very expensive and time-consuming to patent stuff, and usually not worth it in the end. Also, you are free to patent your own inventive gameplay, and then license that gameplay to us at the time we option your design. Patenting new gameplay IP would seem to make sense—if game development were something like a business software industry. But it isn't. It's a creative entertainment industry. The history of the modern game industry has shown that wealth creation for new game genres (i.e. new gameplay IP formats) is best served by putting out new products sooner, and maintaining market and brand leadership—not by patenting and controlling them. For example, when TSR put out the first modern roleplaying game, Dungeons & Dragons, it could arguably have patented the mechanism and methodology of roleplaying gaming, thus preventing anyone but it from making an RPG for several years. But TSR didn't. As it turns out, this served it and D&D better, as it fostered an entire creative "movement" of RPG growth, popularizing that game type, and yet TSR still maintained a fairly commanding position over the RPG market through the active and rapid release of new products—by simply being "the first guys in" and supporting the enthusiasm of their audience. The same is true of the first-person shooter gameplay type. Certainly some company like id could have patented the FPS genre—but none did. Yet, those initial FPS releases did extremely well. Again, Core Talent Games runs according to an attraction and cultivation model—not a control model. So while we do want to see fresh new gameplay in submissions to us, we also do not want to place barriers between designers and their creative urges. We cannot attract submissions from the best talent if we lock everything up. (Would you want to license the new gameplay you invented back from us if you went your own way on a new game after us? We didn't think so.) Creating awareness and loyalty in the gaming audience is far more valuable than paying tens of thousands of dollars to lawyers to lock everything up and thus prevent a new creative scene from taking root. Can we cut a deal where I/we own the technology IP but you own the content IP?Yes, but read on... We want to buy you out of all your IP to make the deal clean and simple. But lets say you're making a new engine together with this game, and you are adamant you want to own that engine even if you sell to us the first game made with it. Okay, here's our view on this: First, any new patentable gameplay devised in your game we will almost certainly put into the public domain, as stated above, upon release of the finished title. So in our deal with you, it is likely neither you nor we would own that particular IP if we proceeded. Second, our focus is on bringing out fresh new gameplay and narrative design, not on new technology development. Our ideal scenario is a game that can be made using existing middleware—Flash, Torque, the Unreal Engine, whatever. That way we can focus on developing the heart of what makes the game fun—not re-inventing this or that technology wheel. Third, if you do write a custom engine for a game, when we outsource production of your game, your code may become entangled with that of our outsourcers. This potentially opens cans of worms. (However, see the outsourcer's FAQ.) Finally, to paraphrase Jason Della Rocca at a recent game finance convention in Toronto—a few years back everyone was going to make their own engine and not only sell the game but license the engine; but we can probably count on less than the fingers of one hand how many companies actually did that successfully. So that's another reason to not get hung up over new tech and just focus on the core design itself. Monetizing technology is a different pursuit. Now, this said, if you absolutely must create a new engine to achieve the vision of your game—and you want to own that engine IP—then yes: we are willing to negotiate this. We want to see a specific, ironclad reason why the design needs new technology. If it can be served as well with existing middleware, we will likely not fund new tech because it makes development more complex. But if you must create new technology along with a new game then to incentivize you, we would typically cut a guaranteed participation deal where we hire you as a free agent outsourcer and you keep the tech IP you create, licencing it to us for the game we're making together (see our outsourcer FAQ). What about creative control?Creative control is negotiable. However, unless you are a proven veteran designer, or we really believe in you, we will almost always require you to agree to waive creative control upon us purchasing your design. Why? Because we're forking out all the money to get your game made, and we're doing all the work to manage large-scale prototyping, production, marketing, and distribution. That is a huge risk. A dispute over creative control is potentially lethal to a project, so we need to absolutely know you are rock-solid before we agree to let you retain that. However, trust that we are facilitators. We are interested in cultivating relationships and your talent; and, again, if you are a veteran designer we can consider handing creative control to you. What is a "design"?What a "design" is, varies. At the minimum, it is a concept paper—a few pages long, illustrating what the game is going to be about. Ideally is a first-draft design document and possibly one or more working prototypes (tabletop or electronic) of arts of that design. A design document lays out core content, core game mechanics, core user interface, and organizes the production of assets. You design should be fresh. It should be motivated by new gameplay design and/or narrative design, and should point to a game that is executable using existing technology we can license. When you write design documentation, you need to focus on visualizing the gameplay as you do so. It is true many written designs don't work once prototyped, but often this is because the designers just rush into building stuff without first imagining the gameplay. Also, tabletop prototyping is an extremely rapid technique for prototyping and helping to find the core of a game's heart. Introductory InformationYour design documentation should have an author's notice (i.e. telling who wrote/designed it), a copyright notice, the designer's contact information, page numbers and a (preferably hyper-linked) contents page. (You'd be surprised how many people forget these basic things.) Give a one-sentence summary description of the game near the beginning. For example, "Lords of Fire is a third-person action game for consoles." (If you believe your game is of a new genre, simply state this.) All designs should have about three unique elements or selling points. List and briefly describe these. Gameplay Design DocumentationIf your game is driven by new gameplay design—a new way to play, new kinds of puzzles, et cetera—your design document should include:
Narrative Design DocumentationIf your game is driven by new narrative design—story elements, characters, setting and plot, interesting level design, unique artistic vision—your design document should also include:
If your game is driven by a combination of new gameplay and new narrative—and many will—you should get all the above elements into your design. Production DocumentationEventually your design document will need to include some production documentation, if it is to be made. If you can include samples of this, it will make us more inclined to agree to guaranteed participation (hiring you) during the pre-production or full production phases. There for please send us the following:
This documentation will be used to actually make the game if it goes into production—and it shows us you are thinking across the full spectrum of game design: from the highly effervescent ideas of new gameplay and story, at the one end, to considerations of how to build the sucker, at the other. Also, this simply helps your design become more producible—and the more producible it is, the more likely we are to buy it. Design ThoroughnessWe require no more than a first draft. Answer only the key questions. Focus on making the design simple. Provide only samples. Don't try to answer every question. Once we get into prototyping and development, the actual required gameplay mechanics asset descriptions, mission designs or whatever, will likely change. We want your document to answer not every single uncertainty—just describe core elements and answer key questions while leaving a modicum of flexibility. This also tells us how you think as a designer, and lets you get to the heart of your game design without jumping through too many hoops. Ownership of Design MaterialsAlso, you must own everything you design—or, if you are using third-party IP, you need to get rights to it or inform us that those rights must be acquired. For us to release a design as a finished game, we need to be able to shore up all the chain of title. Writing QualityYour design document should be well written. This means terse, well-edited, organized and readable prose—and writing that conveys the spirit of your game. Make it elegant, easy to understand and compelling. Core Talent Games believes design has value—that it must be read, visualized and understood (whereas a lot of game design docs get shelved—even while the game is being made—because they are badly written or the team too lazy to read them). If you can't write well about game design, you can't think well about it, and few people will read it. A game is a translation of a subject—many translate fighting to sitting at a computer pretending to fight, yet capture the spirit of fighting. Writing is also translation. If you can translate written design clearly to a reader, in our opinion it will translate well into a finished game. Will you sign a non-disclosure agreement?Upon sending us a query email about your game, if we decide to continue and wish to see your game design, we will send a mutual non-disclosure / non-use agreement for you and us to sign. What about having a say in the operations of the game company?The separate company your game will most likely become upon entering full production does not "operate" in a normal sense. It merely owns the IP of the game, and is in turn owned by Core Talent Games and external investors. It operates for the duration of production and marketing. After that, it's just an ownership vehicle for the game. In this new paradigm of game development what is important is the contract we make together, not company control and ownership. At the end of the day, you want to earn money from your creative work. You don't have to own a piece of a company to earn money from a creative effort. You can also make a strong deal with the entity ultimately owning the creative product (as laid out here), which can be just as powerful to you—and indeed more powerful, because it's much less of a hassle and lets you focus on doing your creative work and break free of the rut of having to run a game company. We own your game, but we also have a contract with the core creators we must honour. We make a company that lives only to own your game, so what takes on prime importance are the aspects of the agreement to actually make the game—not how the company operates in a monthly or quarterly manner. This is something the film industry figured out years ago. It's what enables it to continually reinvent itself and make new and relevant work; work that makes society's leaders sit up and pay attention . It's what allows writers, directors and stars to become powerful—to make a film for a year, then take another year off as they think over new creative projects. It's what the game industry needs to learn to do. It's simply project-based creative production, not operations-based creative production. The contract you make is just as powerful as control of a company. When a design gets put into pre-production and/or full production, where does this take place?This depends. Early cycles of pre-production typically occur in a distributed environment (over the Internet, parties working from their own locations). Later-stage pre-production and all of production proper will usually occur at a specific location—everyone having to be there for its duration. We will set up a temporary office for this, its location varying depending on where the core talent is, where the key outsourcers are, and so on. We can see a scenario where the core team has a temporary office at its location, with outsourcing liaisons also at that office, while the bulk of outsourcing staff are located at their own permanent facility. But if I design with you, won't I have less job security?Well, first: if you just want to submit a design to us, you don't have to quit your day job (though we have to be certain that if you still have a day job, you—and not your current employer—actually own what it is you're submitting to us). If we option your design, you can work on any improvements at home during the option period. We don't need you here at our office. Next, if we do buy you out—if we exercise the option and take full ownership of your design to bring it into development—you may choose to simply not work for us, staying at your day job while we take your design and finish it with other designers. Or you may work from your home for the first few prototyping cycles. However, after we purchase your design—which means greenlighting your project—we will enter larger cycles of prototyping and production. This requires full-time core talent. In all likelihood, we'll want you, as you understand the game best. However, that's full time work. So you'll obviously need to work with us as a free agent designer full time for the duration of the gig, which means quitting your day job. If you do this—if you have become a free agent game designer—you're right: you may have less job security. But with greater risk comes the potential for greater reward. And remember: we will also be promoting your name as a free agent game designer. Again, we believe in promoting the actual people who make the games, not just the companies those people work under. By the way: we don't employ game developers when we advance a project. We only outsource. When doing game development you can't work for us as anything but a free agent. At the end of the day it depends on how far you want to follow your talent as a game designer, and how much talent you think you have. If you believe you have that substance, then submit to us and let's begin this journey. But if I become a free agent, wouldn't my healthcare become too expensive?We recognize that one of the barriers to becoming a free agent in America is the fact you need to pay for your own healthcare—which is very expensive. To mitigate this, we are planning a group healthcare package that would be accessible to free agent designers and outsourcers whom we have worked with in the US. This would provide much less expensive coverage, and you could still subscribe to it even if you were no longer directly working with us. We do this because we want to promote free agency in the game industry. Stand by for details. Do we, the core talent, get a say in the way a game is marketed?Yes you do. In the traditional game industry, usually the publisher-side producer spearheads a game's marketing campaign with little input from the designers, handing it off to an advertising agency. This leads to a disconnect between the creative spark of the game—the core team—and the intended audience. Core Talent Games will directly include you, the key creators, in the marketing process. This will also have the added benefit of marketing you, the core talent, as well. What if you buy a core team's design/game, but cannot raise funds to take it into production? Will it languish, unmade?We will be flexible in raising funds for production. For example, when you and we have developed the prototype to an advanced stage, such as a vertical slice, we will be willing to approach external publishers to sell the contract to complete production of your game if that's what it takes to get made. Bear in mind we will prefer to make strategic decisions as such with your input, and by the time we have reached this point, the spirit of your design should be thoroughly ingrained in the prototype, and thus your creative input heavily secure. Besides, you are the core creators and will know it best, so the publisher too is most likely to secure you as a free agent core talent over full production. What's more, if we included a guaranteed participation clause, that would transfer as well in a sale of the contract to a third party publisher. If we have taken your game through pre-production, built the working slice, and it just isn't getting any traction—with investors, other parties or anyone else—typically we would shelve it (not kill it). However, we are open to negotiating a rights reversion—a deal that automatically revert the rights to the core team after a few years from the purchase if it hasn't been made. Naturally we would want our investment into it repaid if you can get it greenlit somewhere else. Also, if you really believe in the project we would be willing to take you on as a core team producer, renegotiating your compensation so that if you can find a third-party publisher or investor willing to fund full production, you would get compensation for doing this valuable producing work as well as get your design made and released. Again, we're willing to talk. We want to attract talent, not control it. |
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||