I'd suggest not replying to any of seanmcads posts, hes just trying to build his post count and trolls. Most of his so called questions have been answered many times in both these forums and the official DF ones.

Originally posted by BoA*

I'd suggest not replying to any of seanmcads posts, hes just trying to build his post count and trolls. Most of his so called questions have been answered many times in both these forums and the official DF ones.

Yup.  I agree.

I'll not be quoting anything from him again.  Sadly he has joined the ranks of Darth, javac, and robertb

They can troll if they want to... but they will be invisible to me now. 

The point I was trying to convey, is this.

Even if AV is self  publishing in EU they could have a separate AV holding that contains a different set of US investors for the NA launch, that means they would still have to be responsible for selling the game all over again, to satisfy a whole other group of investors, even though they are self publishing the title there as well.

The shares of this contract held by Tasos and crew could account for the discounted transfer fee we have been hearing about.

Its possible for one company to have several franchises comprised of  some or all the same people. 

Originally posted by xxxfistxxx

The point I was trying to convey, is this.

Even if AV is self  publishing in EU they could have a separate AV holding that contains a different set of US investors for the NA launch, that means they would still have to be responsible for selling the game all over again, to satisfy a whole other group of investors, even though they are self publishing the title there as well.

The shares of this contract held by Tasos and crew could account for the discounted transfer fee we have been hearing about.

Its possible for one company to have several franchises comprised of  some or all the same people. 

That is true.

You will also have to admit though that when companies do that it is sometimes for unethcial reasons.  Enron anyone?

Some have already stated that they have absolutely no problems supporting an unethical or unprincipled company. 

There are some players though that is NOT the case for.  

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by xxxfistxxx

The point I was trying to convey, is this.

Even if AV is self  publishing in EU they could have a separate AV holding that contains a different set of US investors for the NA launch, that means they would still have to be responsible for selling the game all over again, to satisfy a whole other group of investors, even though they are self publishing the title there as well.

The shares of this contract held by Tasos and crew could account for the discounted transfer fee we have been hearing about.

Its possible for one company to have several franchises comprised of  some or all the same people. 

 

That is true.

You will also have to admit though that when companies do that it is sometimes for unethcial reasons.  Enron anyone?

 

Some have already stated that they have absolutely no problems supporting an unethical or unprincipled company. 

There are some players though that is NOT the case for.  

It could also be...

They established funding for the EU and launch say those investors had no interest in being part of the US launch, where does that put AV...

Establishing a second company with the same roll as the first, except to fund the US launch.

Ethically it would the only way to release in the US. It actually puts them in a shit sandwich sort of situation.

Originally posted by xxxfistxxx

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by xxxfistxxx

The point I was trying to convey, is this.

Even if AV is self  publishing in EU they could have a separate AV holding that contains a different set of US investors for the NA launch, that means they would still have to be responsible for selling the game all over again, to satisfy a whole other group of investors, even though they are self publishing the title there as well.

The shares of this contract held by Tasos and crew could account for the discounted transfer fee we have been hearing about.

Its possible for one company to have several franchises comprised of  some or all the same people. 

 

That is true.

You will also have to admit though that when companies do that it is sometimes for unethcial reasons.  Enron anyone?

 

Some have already stated that they have absolutely no problems supporting an unethical or unprincipled company. 

There are some players though that is NOT the case for.  

It could also be...

They established funding for the EU and launch say those investors had no interest in being part of the US launch, where does that put AV...

Establishing a second company with the same roll as the first, except to fund the US launch.

Ethically it would the only way to release in the US. It actually puts them in a shit sandwich sort of situation.

The only problem with that scenario is that it assumes some really naive investors.  Now granted, that may indeed be the case. 

I'm betting that investors in an MMO company would probably guess that a NA launch would generate more money than an EU launch. 

Even if your scenario is the case... what is stopping Aventurine from being up-front with their customers then?  Tell it like it is.  Don't try to hide it and hope nobody finds out.  MMO gamers are a lot smarter than most companies give them credit. 

The gamers are a lot more forgiving of a company that is honest but makes dumb decisions than a company that tries to BS their way out of a bad situation. 

Originally posted by rhinok

 

I'm pretty sure this has been addressed in your previous queries, but I'll bite. Traditionally, video game publisher's duties include: 

• Funding development
• Managing Accounts and billing
• Marketing the product
• Distributing the product

Publishers tend to give developers the freedom to develop the game without having to worry about how they're going to pay for development costs and resources, but there can be drawbacks, since the publisher might want to force the developer to stick to a schedule, implement changes to make the game more marketable, etc.  It's not uncommon for a developer to fold  if they lose their publisher.  An example of a "close call" for an independent studio is Spacetime Studios in Austin, which had major RIFs (Reductions in Force) after NCSoft pulled their funding.  The studio survived, barely, until it was able to pick up a new publisher.

In Aventurine's case, AudioVisual is the publisher for Europe, but they don't appear to have performed most of the traditional publishing duties. The only thing they appear to have done for Darkfall is manage the accounts/billing system and they don't seem to have done that very well.  So, why are they the publishers in the first place?  Probably because they invested in the game. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to having them involved at all.

At the very highest level, the simple answer to your question is "A publisher pays for development".  Without a publisher, the studio is left to their own devices to obtain funding in order to pay for development and resources.  The studio specializes in game development, whereas the publisher specializes in business.  While it's possible for a studio to self publish and be financially successful, thereby ensuring the overall success of the game, it's very unlikely.

~Ripper

 

eve-online lost the publisher(in 2004 or so) and now self publish and imo is doing quite well

Originally posted by cosy

Originally posted by rhinok

 

I'm pretty sure this has been addressed in your previous queries, but I'll bite. Traditionally, video game publisher's duties include: 

• Funding development
• Managing Accounts and billing
• Marketing the product
• Distributing the product

Publishers tend to give developers the freedom to develop the game without having to worry about how they're going to pay for development costs and resources, but there can be drawbacks, since the publisher might want to force the developer to stick to a schedule, implement changes to make the game more marketable, etc.  It's not uncommon for a developer to fold  if they lose their publisher.  An example of a "close call" for an independent studio is Spacetime Studios in Austin, which had major RIFs (Reductions in Force) after NCSoft pulled their funding.  The studio survived, barely, until it was able to pick up a new publisher.

In Aventurine's case, AudioVisual is the publisher for Europe, but they don't appear to have performed most of the traditional publishing duties. The only thing they appear to have done for Darkfall is manage the accounts/billing system and they don't seem to have done that very well.  So, why are they the publishers in the first place?  Probably because they invested in the game. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to having them involved at all.

At the very highest level, the simple answer to your question is "A publisher pays for development".  Without a publisher, the studio is left to their own devices to obtain funding in order to pay for development and resources.  The studio specializes in game development, whereas the publisher specializes in business.  While it's possible for a studio to self publish and be financially successful, thereby ensuring the overall success of the game, it's very unlikely.

~Ripper

eve-online lost the publisher(in 2004 or so) and now self publish and imo is doing quite well

it's definitely possible, but Eve's a notable exception.

~Ripper

Originally posted by cosy

eve-online lost the publisher(in 2004 or so) and now self publish and imo is doing quite well

Actually, I believe Atari is publishing now. At least for the retail box.

Though, just to add, they have had reasonable success and consistent growth self-publishing.