Dirty dealings and power plays that go on between publishers and developers. Come peek behind the curtain and see the forces that shape your favorite games. The following quotes and interviews are just a taste of everything we got from publishers and developers. For the full story, read the feature in the August issue of Game Informer Magazine.

ANONYMOUS PUBLISHERS & DEVELOPERS

"If there isn't a little gumdrop coming down the conveyor belt this month, we're dead."

[On how publishers and developers have little benchmark for the money and time numbers that other companies use.]
"There's only gossip, rumors, and hearsay."

[On publishers hiring sub-standard development studios]
"[Publishers think,] "I would rather pay for cheap products and hope for a hit, rather than buy expensive products with a larger chance of hitting."

"The worst part of this business is that publishers think developers are out to screw them and developers think publishers are out to screw them. Unfortunately, publishers are the ones that set the time and money, and the way they inject those pieces into the deal really guarantees the developer will get screwed or he doesn't get the job. It's 'Don't eat.' Or 'Bread and water in the dungeon.'"

"Those who can't do, publish. Publishers tend to be the last stop before you exit this business or any other business. Like Nabisco and Sara Lee and all these other places where Tide is Tide. It's not the same business. We're this weird business where packaged goods meets entertainment. You need people who understand how to manage creative, not manage a box. We fail when people try to turn entertainment into pound cake. You get this situation where you have people on the publishing side who don't have a f------ clue how to make a game, and so they look over there and you're doing some mystical voodoo guru thing and then all of a sudden a milestone doesn't come exactly as planned, and that creates this wave of panic. Why? Because deep down, everybody on the publishing side realized they have no f------ clue what you are doing. Rather than educating themselves, they use the mechanisms at their disposel, which is, 'Okay, I want to see this, and I want to see it right now or I'm rejecting this milestone.'"

"The publisher doesn't want to hear there's a problem, he wants to hear there's just a ton of solutions coming his way. He wants to hear that he put a quarter in the machine and out came the Coke bottle. It's not a f****** Coke bottle. If it was like that, you'd be really miserable."

ANONYMOUS INTERVIEW

GI: What is the pitch process like in front of a publisher for a nascent game?

I don't think it exists, at least not in the way you imagine. That is to say, nobody takes a fragile new idea to a publisher expecting them to get it immediately to the point where they're willing to fund it. The only way you'll get that is if you have a relationship with those people involved, and they're willing to make a bet on you and your team rather than the idea itself.That's much stronger.

I still don't think it happens.From my experience, that sort of thing has to happen at a studio level. You start small. You get the people around you excited by the idea.It has to beat out all other ideas - and it should!People have to want to be a part of it.Like a snowball, it grows and grows until everyone wants to be a part of the killer project.This goes from the studio level and then leaps to the publisher level, too.

Now at this point you're pitching something pretty mature, anything from a movie to maybe a playable.Millions have probably been spent on it to date, so it'd better hang together.If the right sounds aren't being made along the way, the plug will probably get pulled.
Finally the numbers get crunched and it has to look like it can sell. At that point, the 'pitching' is less important than the believers, allies and friends you've earned along the way.They'll all decide if the game will happen as they go along - in the final meeting, it's really all decided... the process as your project picks up momentum is really what decides whether the game will get greenlit.

That's all a rarity though - that's a game coming from the ground up.The most common is top-down assignment.The opportunity for a game (e.g. a shooter, a racer, a fighter, a licenced title) is identified at an organizational level, a shipping/revenue window is agreed upon, a team is assigned to that game in long term planning and it simply switches over to it when its previous game is done.The team may be internal or it may be third party.If external, publisher staff will hunt around to find who would be good for their upcoming shooter/fighter/racer, etc.

GI: Please tell us about the milestone process. What kind of pressure does it put on you? Is it efficient/a good model?

It's a tool like any other.Milestones are great because they encourage you to plan and think logically about an order to construct pieces of your game.They also give you visibility when the pieces come together.I value milestones highly. Pressure is often good for bringing people together.

GI: On the whole, is it the developer or publisher who controls the overall schedule for the game (milestone dates, release date, marketing, etc.)? How much negotiating can be done on this?

It's neither, it's the organisation in general.Our studio is owned by the publisher now, and that's different to when you're a third-party developer.I think when you're third party you're definitely filling a slot that's been identified before you even got involved; the publisher has already made a lot of decisions about what sort of game it needs and by when.The game has to be made to fill a slot. As a part of the organisation we work together to make sure we get a good game with the solid budget, targeted at a meaningful launch window.

At the end of the day, the schedule is determined by budget.What can you ship, and when?It takes more money and/or time to do more stuff.If the publisher wants more but won't pay more, quality goes down.If you make that clear, it's pretty easy to work with.Developers have the same wrestling matches on an internal level all the time.

GI: Have you ever had a marketing department or other outside force try to influence the game in a negative way? In a positive way?

I am sure there are many horror stories for this question.Thankfully, I don't have any.Everyone tries to do what they think is best.As long as you're not being forced to do something that you know will actively hurt the game, you can generally accommodate what various publisher departments may be after without compromising the integrity of the game.

GI: Do you believe that developers are at a disadvantage to publishers? How do publishers and developers change to address this if there is an imbalance?

Third-party developers can be at the mercy of a publisher, for sure - the publisher can threaten to withhold cash if the developer doesn't do what they want which in theory could mean the studio closes.The key is to work with people who don't want to try and chokehold you into fulfilling their "vision" of the game from a few thousand miles away from where the game is getting made.That means winning their respect and trust as early as possible.

Everyone has to realize that the guys that are actually making the game are the guys who are making the game. I.e. Scorsese isn't in L.A. while his movie is getting made in New York. Deal with it.If you want to make a game, join a developer.I get the impression many expensive mistakes are made when people ignore this home truth.

GI: What has your experience been in regards to buyouts? What are the good and bad sides of moving from being independent to an owned portion of a larger publisher? What changes tend to be made after a buyout?

Culture can change.Developers tend to be hungrier, due to the fear of missing a milestone. That can be good for productivity. It can be bad for long-term plans; no-one wants you to be a gleaming jewel in the crown; that's reserved for internal studios. We've been lucky that way; we have a strong culture and a desire to produce great games that's not driven by the threat of losing our jobs if we didn't.

Some studios definitely implode after being acquired... I think a lot depends on the right match between developer and publisher.Some publishers have a very bad track record on this.I am sure you'll get some better and more specific stories from other people.

GI: From a development perspective, what makes for a good publishing partner?

Publisher: Have a willingness to collaborate, not dictate.Don't think you're Scorcese at 2,000 miles.Respect the developer. Collaborate. If you're a publisher, hire staff that are from developers.Understand development. Communicate what's important to you.Understand the game.Find a way to trust the team.Help the developer to make the best game possible. Finally, find a way to sell that game to consumers!

Developer: Have contacts in the publisher organization, understand it, embrace it. Understand the business.Develop great contacts in the organization. Reach out to all levels of the organization. Make a great game.Make sure the publisher understands it.Keep them excited throughout development.Keep informing them.Keep them mindful of you.Make friends.At every opportunity, find a way to share the success with your publishing/developing partners.

GI:What level of responsibility falls on a developer when a game does very poorly or alternately very well? In other words, do publishers tend to primarily blame a developer if a game hits poor sales, and does a publisher highly praise the development house if the game succeeds?

I am sure that's down to publisher-developer double-teams. Ideally, after each product ships then both parties take a long and hard critical look at how they did and then learn from it; next time around you build on the things that worked and sidestep the mistakes.Not everyone is willing to do that self-examination. The best policy is to be humble-- everyone has the capacity to learn and improve, but you have to want to.