The recent announcement of the one million dollar Project Joystick competition, organised by Telstra BigPond and the Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI), was quickly followed by some negative reactions as readers noticed the terms and conditions of entry which relinquished finalists of intellectual property rights or discovered that the competition did not offer any real further participation in the game development process. To add to the confusion, popular gaming blog Kotaku had mistakenly reported that the one million dollars was a cash prize for the winner to develop the game.
Few have been as vocal about Project Joystick than AJ from AustralianGamer.com, and AJ pressed a few upfront questions to Craig Middleton (Corporate Affairs Manager of Bigpond) to find out what exactly the competition will entail for those entering it...
Q) If someone were to develop a game idea for this competition, and it were to place in the top 10, does that person still own the Intellectual Property associated with any characters, names, places, artwork or design concepts contained in the entry?A) The Terms and Conditions make it clear that the 10 finalists assign their IP to BigPond. Entry is entirely voluntary. The investment and risk in this project is all BigPond's. If someone thinks they have a better shot of making the game independently then good luck to them.
Click the following link for the entire interview at AustralianGamer.com
Having read the print, it just goes to show peoples rights are not respected.
Why do anything in this world if someone can take your idea/work away from you and they get all the rewards?
It's a screwed up world1
That Craig Middleton is one smooth talker... Or really he's just a robot with a corporate imprint. Can't blame the guy really, he has a job to do. But I like the part that they have pawned off the involvment clause post-comp. Seems that they are now trying to find a studio that could accomodate the origin of the IP coming in. Just My Thoughts on the matter, I'm thinking I'm just going to roll over on the matter. If it happens, it happens. I didn't do my part and didn't cover my interests, plus my name somewhere on there would be better than how i'm going anyhoo.
There is nothing odd here, when entering any competion it is standard fair to give up your IP rights in respect to the entry. Telstra are not the first major corportation to do this nor will they be the last. Do you think the disabled guy who has his likeness is in the new PS3 Ratchet and Clank will profit from it? How about all the create a custom vehicle for Test Drive Unlimited competion (Atari). Every one of those entrants and all entrants in all other submit a xxx competitions gave up their right to the IP by assigning it to the competition holder. These companies hold competitions for a reason, and it is not because they like you. No! It is because they are going to gain something from it, financially or not.
Just responding to lubby's comments. Yes corporations run comps to get involvement from the community but they are small compared to a whole game idea. If you create a car, u should get a special mention and a little pat on the back etc, its a sufficent reward. However IP is a different ballgame. Everywhere is all about the $$.
eg. In the music industry if you write the song, you own the song and royalties go to you. If you sing a song that you didnt write, you wont be making much or as much. Same thing with a game idea. You should own the rights in anything you create to protect yourself and if you are lucky benefit financially.
After reading the Q&A from Craig middlewank - im absolutly disgusted in your lack of respect for people and your arrogance. I hope your game sells 50 copies worldwide
this is a huge con
they are relying on budding new game designers to not read the fine print
so they can face the absolutely crushing dissapointment that they get no
royalties or even credit for the game, and just for another kick in the butt
they claim ownership of the material submitted buy people who made it into the
to ten finalists
shame on you telstra :(
"I won $1,000,000 on Lotto... but I had to pay tax on it... what a ripoff!".
I wonder what you're all expecting really... after handing a company the loose premise for a game, you'll all of a sudden be flying on private jets... snorting premium e off the stomachs of supermodels... having won the equivalent of one of those "set for life" scratchies.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
If you're working in a company and they offer you the promise of higher royalties rather than a salary increase, it's usually time to dig your heels in and insist on the salary. Maybe I'm just jaded, having heard the old chestnuts like"operating costs went up", or "the publisher printed another run, spending what would have been royalties". Stock options are tangible (though often conditional)... royalties have never worked for me. I'm quite possibly wrong, and I'd be keen to hear from people who have struck gold with royalties.
The artist who came up with the premise for Lara Croft is still working at Eidos for a base salary.
My beautiful face appears in a 2006 PC game, but I don't demand a (percent) of sales.
If there are to be royalties, I imagine those poor developer souls that have to work 80 hour weeks to compensate for an underbudget project would probably want a taste. They are the ones that MAKE the game.
*feels much better after getting that off his chest*
:)
On another note, Craig Middleton can't be much of a PR man if he's patronising the game media. Talk about biting the hand that feeds. He could be alaying some of the fears floating around here, but instead he opts to be condescending.
Scott.
Craig Middleton isn't just some coporate 'yes' man. He actually has quite a history in Journalism - being an award winning journalist in the 1980's.
As with any competition, if you don't like the Terms and conditions, don't enter. True comment about the guys who put in the real effort to actually 'make' the game too...they've got some long nights ahead of them.