WISHLIST ON STEAM ► s.team/a/2214460 Wow, thank you for the overwhelming support on this video! I never expected this many people to be interested in my legal woes. I want to clear a few things up. I have not expressly said that Screen Australia had ill intentions. I am simply recounting my honest experience, and it is my hope that if Screen Australia are in fact 'closely monitoring' me, and if their intentions are to support the industry, that they use this criticism to improve the grants program for the next funding round. As an industry, we really should not be at the stage where we accept documents of this standard as 'normal', with this many contradictions in it, and for the government to treat its recipients in this manner. Still, intentions are irrelevant when it comes to what is written on the page in legal negotiations. I am of the opinion that the rigid framework government-owned bodies operate under made it difficult for us to build a trusting relationship. I experienced difficulty in communicating with them, and often felt mislead when they would tell us one thing in a video call then tell us something completely different in writing. For me, this was reason enough to decline, notwithstanding the ramifications for the IP. If they had been more upfront about their intentions for the Agreement, and maintained consistency over what those intentions were in their communications, I would have held much less scepticism towards executing the Agreement. I have received some criticism over my decision not to pick up the phone when Lee called. For context, the email I had sent prior to Lee's call was addressed to legal. I had absolutely no correspondence with Lee prior to his cold calling my number. I also get dozens of spam calls from Australian phone numbers every day and did not know it was Screen Australia until after I received the SMS. Still, I felt it was inappropriate for Lee, who is not a lawyer, to step in and assuage my concerns verbally on behalf of the legal team. To clarify, I did engage verbally with Screen Australia on a video call just after we had reviewed the Agreement. Unlike Lee's call, this was scheduled in advance. I did not have permission to record this conversation but was provided with supposed information and "context" in this call. However, the information provided in this call was later contradicted by written correspondence from the lawyers. For example, them saying on the call that the "Core Conditions" referred to only the funding amount turned out to be completely false as evidenced by the emails I later received from legal, stating that the "Core Conditions" referred to the entire "General Terms", which, makes no reference to the funding amount. It was also on this unrecorded call where I was told that Screen Australia's intentions for clause 6.8 were to protect their reputation from unsavoury publishers. This was later contradicted by the lawyers in writing, providing an entirely different reason being to ensure my IP was being "fairly valued" in all publisher deals. It was only after this incident where I decided to cease all verbal communications, as it had been demonstrated to only cause ambiguity. With email, I was able to keep a compressive record of exactly what Screen Australia had communicated to us over the 7+ weeks these negotiations took place, which later proved invaluable to our eventual complaint. This is why I was insistent on Lee using email. Evidently, the lawyers felt written correspondence was sufficient as I was never once cold-called by anyone on the legal team. I believe I had good cause not to trust Lee at his word at this stage of negotiations, whether well-intentioned or not. I would have been more trusting had they clearly articulated all of their intentions at the beginning, and if they had sent the Agreement immediately instead of having us wait twelve days so they could publish a press release first. I have also received some criticism over my interpretation over 'standard' language, or 'standard terms' used throughout the Agreement. To that, I would like to point out that the Games: Expansion Pack was deliberately targeted at "emerging or small to medium independent game developers", and I believe it to be unreasonable to expect that developers of this status have an intimate understanding of this language. I do not have $80 million to play with like Screen Australia, however my documents contained no errors. What is their excuse?
I'm confident a lot of other creators are watching these videos and are equally concerned for the implications of how your experience may relate to our own futures, so I hope we get to see updates on the previous and future opportunities. Best of luck, and good work.
"Hey this contract is broken" "It's our standard contract, we give it to everyone" "Why do you cover millions of investments with such a broken ass contract?" "We will closely monitor your public communication"
LMAO for real they say that shit but they just expect people to get excited about the money, click the boxes and call it a day. they didn't count on someone actually giving a shit about their own work
"You should seek legal advice with regards to this contract" Also Screen Australia: "I'll show you a pro gamer move. Now we wait for their probably legitimate concerns. This gives us free legal advice. Badabim, badabum we have just outsourced legal team and made aplicants pay for it."
@@georgev8590 They eventually went on to use our questions in their new FAQ, which didn't exist before we applied. It would seem that they stood to benefit from our free advice. screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/5f74d42a-caed-4e84-9264-81201f904867/Games-Expansion-Pack-FAQs-7-9-2022-issued.pdf
My guess is that it was based on the Screen Australia contract then they rushed to re-word it for the games industry and didn't get it per reviewed. The fact they can't even number the clauses correctly is a massive red flag and very concerning for a government department. My understanding is that these grants are suppose to be done to encourage game development in the Australia economy using tax payer funds. Therefore, I think the contracts should reflect that. I feel the contract is important and should be done to protect both the Australian government/payers and the game developers but done in good faith. Regarding that veto clause they could have wording it entirely differently saying that the developers should act in good faith to avoid selling/distributing their IP for purposes of pornography and gambling or something a long those lines. Finally, It is a grant/donation in which should not have so much strings attached, this why I don't like working with or for the government.
@@r6scrubs126 I would like to know the answer to that question myself. I mean think about it for a quick second, if Screen Australia had this type of contract with the number of errors, next to ZERO negotiation, no clear answers, and the blatant "legal stealing" of an IP. How are there REAL contracts like? Just as bad or one sided? or is it more versatile and flexible? Not only all of this but when decides to pull out they insist he give them a call? That is not how contracts are done. EVERYTHING needs to be in writing or its invalid. I have personally seen other get royally screwed by contracts done over the phone that they had been waiting for. When I got my Internet Provider they tried to pull a fast one on me, by telling me I told them differently. When I produced the emails, and written agreement they magically changed their mind.
@@StarKnight619 longer than that when you realise it was an amalgamation of Film Australia (1973 though it's predecessors date back as far as 1913), Film Finance Commission (1988) and Australian Film Commission (1975). So decades of experience with such agreements, and an ostensibly standard draft full of elements that made me cringe about as hard as RC's lawyer probably did.
Hidden text on a legal contract? What were they hiding? Remember, when signing a contract, the only thing that matters, is what is spelled out, in the contract. They can tell you they won't do something. But, if that assertion is not included in the contract, they can't be held to it. This $150K "Grant", seem more like a purchase of the IP, while trying to convince the developer that they still own their IP.
this was a draft so it seems author did not bother to properly clean up the file... still not presenting a proper draft is still dumb there is no legal basis for anything until you negotiate and sign a contract and this quality of a draft is not signable by a reasonable entity
I don't think they purchased the IP, this would be kind of more reasonable as it would have clear implications they tried to do something even weirder, witch often happens with copyright - trying to eat the cookie but have it too I'm not exactly sure if it is even legal to have veto rights to IP after the termination of the agreement doesn't sound like a way laws should ever work... generally agreements must make some sense to be legal giving control over ip for nothing in exchange doesn't sound like an enforceable agreement but going to court would be so much time and money wasted
@@ukaszs9833 its always the court fees that crumble smalls companies and devs :/ In the end, even if you win, you still loose, best just not to sign if your instincts tell you not to
Asset flipping isn't just using a few things from a game engine marketplace, it's when an entire game, including its design, relies on the pre-existing assets it uses. Especially when the assets are mushed together with no unifying style. Hence the name: Asset-flipping, you flip assets into a game to sell.
It’s worth considering in the context of the term ‘house flipping’ - the process of purchasing a property and selling it on for a profit while adding little or no additional value or improvement.
@@NotEmiliaNatsuki not impossible a brazilian game called 171 managed to get over 1m moneys in kickstarter and its like basically all assets are copy and past, one user in steam even made a list of all assets used and the price of them in the comments
@@NotEmiliaNatsuki There are entire games made with bought assets for games that aren't a scam. Yes, Dreamworld was a massive scam. Yet there are hundreds of games made with RPG maker, using assets fully made by others (purchased or included) that tell excellent stories. What the dev knows is the characters names, their personalities, their interactions in the world but not the world itself. You shouldn't just assume every non-original asset game is just a scam. To see how dumb this sounds lets take it out of the context of gaming and put it into the context of licensing a stock photo. There can be thousands of people with a license to use the same photo. If Company A uses that photo on the back of a post card, uses canva to put a funky text effect saying "Plan Your Next Getaway!" with a short text only sales pitch on the front side, then Company B uses that exact same photo and uses canva in a different style to say "Plan Your Next Trip" with again a short text only sales pitch on the back - it doesn't mean ether one is a scam lol. The entire "asset" of each postcard is a 100% licensed imagery with no editing at all. Both companies paid to use it, both did. This happens all the time if a company doesn't create their own IP or buy the rights to the image out fully. They both have value to their company. They both are identical copies that are licensed. They are both used for the same identical reason. Yet - neither one infringes on the other nor anyone should see it as a scam since both Company A and B are using the same graphic to PROMOTE THEIR TEXT NARRATIVE. Thats what game devs who use fully licensed assets to create an entire game do. They use them to push their story - often times by themselves without the help of multiple people, endless time, or even learning how to make assets at all.
The reason I believe Screen Australia prefers to talk / meet about things is because all emails can be accessed via a freedom of information request by third parties. Where as a meeting or phone call the exact contents cannot be accessed this way. Also since its government everything cannot be kept confidential unless it has national security concerns.
Not entirely true, while in theory you can request them via a FOI request they can simply refuse. Or redact everything. Activists (ie Posty who primarily deals with the DSS/DHS) have records of both, a lot of both especially when just trying to gain access to information that is already supposed to be publicly accessible and doesn't potentially involve PII.
in some cases discussing a contract over the phone/chat can result in modifications to the contract over the course of the conversations to save on revision counts. though this is usually reserved for "High Value" contracts, but it can also be used to make side offers ("in kind agreements"), or even "expected stipulations" that could be deemed unenforceable if actually signed. for those that suggest "just record the call..." : Australia is an "ALL PARTIES recording state" meaning that any party on the line can refuse the recording at any time during the communication; such that creation, and possession of the recording is now illegal.
What an absolute horror. I fear I’d be the kind of person that would read through this contract but not actually understand the implications of what they wrote. Thank you for taking this public, I’m not sure many others would have the balls to do so while being “closely monitored”
Look what he has done and you know how to deal that, because he made it right. If you don't understand anything, always ask and if you are not come to a point where you fully understand it, get a lawyer or didn't sign it (depends on the contract, on such a contract here that is so heavy you should use a good lawyer).
thats how they say the devil is in the details when it comes to contract read it read it and butcher it slowly because they tend to hide key parts where u could posible get fucked up.
You weren't kidding calling this a nightmare. I wish you good luck Raymond, and thank you for sharing your experiences and knowledge with the rest of us!
I've seen tons of these lazily written, vaguely worded contracts- primarily aimed at newcomers to business. Good on you for taking a critical look at everything. The first thing you should do when opening a contract for a grant is ctrl+f search "ownership" and "intellectual property". Literally any reference to those words would be enough for me to automatically pull out of a grant. Remember kids: Never sign without reading the contract; Never sign away your passion projects; Never step out of your comfort zone when it comes to legally binding contracts, it'll ruin you in the future.
To be fair, if it was to fund a throwaway game and you got funded, would be worth it to get into the industry, but for passion projects/any game you planned on having long-term goals for, this is indeed a shit hand to get dealt.
It seems like it should have been a simple clause saying 1. You agree to let Screen Australia review any offers you receive for your IP. 2. you agree not to sell any IP until Screen Australia as reviewed the offer and provided feedback and recommendations. 3. Screen Australia has three weeks to respond to any offer, or you are free to proceed without them.
This exactly! We had a small timeline in which to negotiate the contract, but I would like to think there would have been some combination of words that could have been written that would have give Screen Australia exactly what they said they wanted, and nothing more. I completely understand their concerns about association and branding, however the clause gave them more power than they perhaps intended. What you've written here is more in line with what I would have been prepared to sign.
@@RaymondCripps And (for example) a 2 year after termination of association vs. 'in perpetuity'. Maybe a clause binding any agreements going forward, 'formerly funded by Screen Australia'.
My thoughts on that grant is that it is something that might be worth accepting if it is a throwaway project. A game meant to get into the industry and get some experience with game development and some initial publicity. Projects that aren't meant to recuperate their cost or really make an impact on the industry, just to get out there so the next game goes smoother with all the additional experience. It is worthless for passion projects or even medium sized games, there's too many edge cases in that document for actual games with thought and care put into them and project feline is definitely one of the games that does not deserve to be hung up on such uncertain contracts.
So in the end they deal in terms that will filter out the honest, passionate people who care about their projects. Even if the whole thing is PR, that's just not good business.
@@theducvu5196 It seems like a standard way of government grats in europe too. Not dessigned to help but to write off money must spent in the safest way and highest controll. Every one I know and signed or got involved with gowernment money seen simmilar mess, the money got to go acording to the 150 years old procedures and some extra nonsencical buzz lines slaped on top. Every one sign it you should too. Its more of a neglect, just want to finish work and go home kinda thing than, corporate manipulation. But than Its still no way of doing busssines and some countrys do have departments exploiting these but most dont care.
@@theducvu5196 Tbf, often times you have to get experience with smaller projects in order to be able to do justice to the project you're properly passionate about. If this deal had good intentions and proper communication, it could be very good as an investment into still-learning developers.
@@corvidaeae Government operates like a scam. Legalized extortion, they can do anything with the money without "investors" consent, and any losses will be offset to the population through artificial index manipulation. They do all the things they prohibit other companies from doing. Its only purpose since monarchy is to manage the population as assets and serve as a convenient platform for embezzlement. Don't ever expect good intentions from a government.
A word document would make sense if it's meant to be negotiated. Which seemed to be their original intention. But someone wasn't willing to actually put any effort into negotiating, and so they flipped into trying to bully Raymond into accepting it largely unmodified. And with large institutions, once they start down that path, they tend to stick to it.
When expecting potential changes to a contract with person's that aren't exactly rich, it is best practice to submit documents in something like MS Word, where people are more likely to be able to view and edit the document with highlights and a tool that will make it easy to find the changes; you can do this with MS Word online for free. Whereas with PDF, in order to be able to edit, you have to have purchased a license from Adobe. You can sign and view for free.
The fact that they sent this error-ridden draft to seemingly all applicants is just mindblowing. I have only applied / received a much smaller grant myself, but we had absolutely no issues at all. Certainly nothing like this!
Most government agencies survive on very little funding. Finding mistakes like this in contracts is common. The indie's lawyer likely makes more annually than the agency's legal team. Of course, there is also, always, an embedded conflict. A lawyer is legally obligated to find any issues that may exist with a contract. They almost always do -- and it is how they earn a living. This is not a dig at the profession, just a fact/hurdle that we (generally globally), have not found a reasonable solution for. The interests of all parties in these exchanges are not aligned, nor is there a clear way to nudge them in that direction that we've seen. When any of us decide to run a business, we have to budget and plan internal resources for legal issues. It is neither cheap nor labor free. This video is a fantastic peak into what folk in many industries have to learn. We need more of these!
Oh my goodness. What a cluster. I’m sorry you had to go through this, but I’m glad you stuck to your guns and withdrew. Good luck with future development!
In the end, I would say that the stress caused by Screen Australia ended up pushing your game forward and make it look more like your vision. I also would like to believe it has reassured your trust in your own decisions for Project Feline Moving Forward
No matter how good or bad your experience is, you always learn from it. So maybe he didn't have that money yet, but he learned a lot about such things and is now even more aware of it. So after all, that all was not for nothing.
Shameless... Me and my team had a similar experience, except the team ended up signing the sketchy contract. Gladly, after over 2 years of fighting and other teams risking and coming public about the inside issues, we are finally being treated as we should have from the start. I love following your content and can't wait for more Project Feline.
Been following this project for over three years now. With every new devlog, I have newfound faith in it being an incredible game. The build you made for the grant shows so much dedication, passion, originality, and progress. I hope you can find another entity that can give you a game production grant, as you really deserve it! Project Feline deserves all of the help it can get. Wishlisting it on Steam right now. Here's to Project Feline! 🍻 (oh, and here's one for Gabi... can cats have beer?)🍺
good lord that's the sketchiest deal proposed by a _government_ I've ever seen ; it's a shame you couldn't get the grant, but you did the right thing imo. I wish you the best in the future, keep up the great work!
Man...This video is something all game devs need to see. Hearing your issues (especially in UE) is so relatable and seeing someone else going through a lot of the same things make me feel like I am not alone. And really awesome to see you working with Matt, seeing how he approach level design is massive, would love to see more tips and info on that stuff because I also really struggle with level design.
So many things happening on this video oh God. First, the editing is absolutely fire. Second, Gabi's first words being "Poggers!" is so silly I love it lol Third, your dad is awesome. Fourth, the moment you showed up all fancy with a tie my reaction was "oh no... this goes deep, Ace Attorney time" Business and contracts aside, ABOUT THE GAME, it's looking amazing dude, the updated visuals and new level design are just top notch, everything is looking better than ever. You're a legend of indie development, wish you the best for this game :)
Your friend creating 40s of gameplay with level design was eye opening. I always struggle with it but thinking about it in terms of spacing level elements that give the player something to do between goals gives me a while other way to approach it. Great video 🤩
Yep, I like to see such things, because you learn many different views onto things that can help you in your own projects as well. Sometimes you think too much from a specific view and that holds you back.
My only issue is you described them calling your phone as "cold calling", that has more to do with telemarketing. Its fairly normal in business to chat to over over the phone and then follow up discussions in writing.
this is very true. e-mails are quite intimidating when it comes to this stuff. Via a phone call you can both loosely discuss any issues you have without coming across threatening and without potentially being held accountable for every word you speak. You can speak freely until both parties understand each other and can find a solution that will then be put into writing. I feel like I've been in a similar situation where many things in a contract seemed wrong, and by engaging in a friendly way while staying persistent in demanding fixes, the contract eventually became perfect. Nobody had wrong intentions, people are just incompetent.
Could be, but context is important here. The email I sent prior to Lee's call was addressed to legal. I felt it was inappropriate for Lee, who is not a lawyer, to step in and assuage my concerns verbally on behalf of the legal team. While it may be commonplace to conduct regular business this way, I feel that legal negotiations in particular should be held to a more scrupulous standard. The lawyers evidently felt that written communication was sufficient for negotiations, as nobody from legal attempted to call me unsolicited. Earlier in the video, I did engage verbally with Screen Australia on a video call just after we had reviewed the Agreement. Unlike Lee's call, this was scheduled in advance. I did not have permission to record this conversation but was provided with information and context in this call. However, their supposed intentions and definitions I was provided with in this call were later contradicted by written correspondence from their lawyers. For example, them saying on the call that the 'Core Conditions' referred to the funding amount turned out to be completely false as evidenced by the emails I later received from legal, stating it referred to the "General Terms", an entirely different section of the document which makes no reference to the funding amount. It was only after this incident where I decided to cease verbal communications, and why I was insistent on Lee using email.
@@RaymondCripps They're doing a horrible job, no doubt about that. And there's nothing wrong with you requesting email. Maybe it was no use with these guys, but it might be something to consider next time, that even if you'd have to remind them 3 times in 3 separate 30 minute calls that you need everything they say backed up in writing, that's a lot less stressful for you to go through than writing an e-mail. I've been there and those kind of e-mails take hours to write and it can be counter productive. There is no way to brainstorm for solutions. And going in a call makes it more personal so they'll take your demands more seriously.
That moment when you (as an indie dev) has to give them advices on how to write their clauses and stuff... you know something is really wrong at this point...
It is simple: a contract between two entities is based on trust. If you have a bad feeling, never sign a contract. It's that easy. And they gave him a lot of reasons for bad feelings and having no trust.
Yeah, though i am more than sure that this contract was just half-assed by some "legal department" of theirs or some such entity, and they just don't have a good channel of communication with them, therefore the legal negotians looked like a "trust me bro" shenenigans since no one involved had any actual knowledge and/or practice in those matters. In other words some one half-assed it to begin with and they have no one to double check it and/or even professionaly revise it when issues arised. In my expirience it is theese type of situations, caused by stupidity, bad practices and incompetence, that are way more common by a long mile rather than a pure malice.
Project feline is looking great at the moment. I've found you while looking up character modeling and found the devlogs including modeling and shading. Was really cool to see the concept, and now as I'm working on my own project, i found this. Am so buying project feline when it's done, i love this shit so much and you inspire me a lot.
Might have to destroy upon collecting, I'm guessing the collecting block reappeared because there might be code that tells it to flip, and if it's restarted then it's flipping what has been hidden. Maybe even a boolean to check to see if it's hidden first at the start will solve it.
You appear to have handled yourself well. It's not easy for many to walk away from the money. I have angel funded a few projects and you are 100% correct, if it's not in writing then it doesn't count. You saved yourself potentially years of wasted effort. The cynic in me is now looking at Screen Australia as a gilded cage to keep potential massive IP within the borders. What if your game reached Minecraft level popularity, or the IP reached the size of Star Wars or Marvel? Something tells me in these scenarios they'd be far more likely to invoke that clause because your IP could act as a valuable mega-catalyst for new industry within Australia. They wouldn't want you selling out to a foreign entity or at least not without benefiting local industry first. Look at how huge the Internet boom benefited the US, a sizable chunk of the US's GDP emerged from that IP explosion. IP is serious business in today's hyper-connected and information heavy world, yet IP is easily scooped up during the early years by massive corporations (usually in the US, China or Japan). When you look at it objectively, the lawyers purposely attempted to mislead you. It's one thing for the contract to be poorly composed/edited, that can be chalked off to contract template errors or bureaucratic negligence. It's another thing for them to make assurances about ownership over the phone and then refuse to clearly put those assurances in writing. Those are the tactics of bad actors (or unreasonable egos). They're playing shady legal tricks with you over what is supposed to be a simple federal program to help citizens of Australia. The real question is, if the contract gives them ultimate veto power over transfer to third parties, why not just admit that? Your experience seems to indicate they are aware how much people would dislike the idea of the government having potential control over any project that accepts any Screen Australia funds. It's less of a grant and more of a mechanism in which they can put a leash around the next potential mega-IP that might emerge within their borders. Want to sell your IP to Microsoft for $10b? Nope, can't sell unless you stipulate to Microsoft that all future work on the IP has to be done within Australia using local work force. Seems like that could be the potential play, but who know, sometimes we can all get paranoid over what might just amount to a badly written contract.
From my experience, the badly written contracts just show malice already. They won't screw anyone until it benefits them, but they will have the contract to back it up the second it does. I might be biased though as I sat in an all staff meeting and listened to our CEO talk about how they would deport an ex staff member and sue them into the ground until they were bankrupt just because they got a better job at a non-direct competitor. Then they did sue and created a contract and situation nearly identical to this with me before firing me and then unfiring me so I would lose unemployment but still be out of the job due to the hostile work environment. Just so they could sue someone easier next time. Companies do this because enough people sign and then they can sue based on the contract. If they didn't have malicious intent the contract wouldn't state such extreme examples of perpetuity and sole discretion. At least that's what my lawyer stated when he advised me.
There's more. Upon reading the contract again, I noticed another clause: "6.2 You give to (or will procure for) Screen Australia all necessary irrevocable, free, perpetual, worldwide permissions to enable Screen Australia to reproduce, copy and use the Project and any other Delivery Materials (excluding any confidential information and any Personal Information) for public reporting and other non-commercial corporate and promotional purposes. These purposes include for Screen Australia’s strategy and research functions and to promote your details, the Project, Screen Australia and the Australian screen industry." I take this to mean that if I were to sell my IP to a third party at any point in the future, I would have to buy back (give or procure for) the rights from whomever I sold it to allow Screen Australia to continue reporting on the game and using it for their marketing materials. These rights also must be granted to Screen Australia for free and perpetually (irrevocable, free, perpetual, worldwide permissions), meaning the possible costs involved with obtaining these rights back from that third party would come out of my pocket. If I fail to procure these rights back for Screen Australia (i.e. they might be too expensive for me to afford. There could be many reasons, perpetuity is a long time) they can sue me for violating the agreement. So basically, as I understand it, the actual contract requires give them perpetual, worldwide rights to use my game for publicity, whatever the cost to me, while they simultaneously assure me in their emails that "Screen Australia does not provide grants to recipients in exchange for "goodwill and publicity"".
>Look at how huge the Internet boom benefited the US, a sizable chunk of the US's GDP emerged from that IP explosion The US literally invented the internet, so that's natural.
Proud of you for doing your due diligence on the business side and properly reading contracts... This is where A LOT of people drop the ball in any startup venture.
We signed a publishing contract for one of our games years ago. The company suddently stopped answering us and it seems that they stopped all their functions. we had been too blue eyed and had no clause in the contract that if they stopped replying us we would be cut lose in X time after not getting reply etc. Then we got another contract but had the one that we couldnt get out of since no one replied us but the company still existed.... That tought us a lesson of thinking about the worst case scenario. Never sign anything if you are not sure how you get out of it..
Whoageez. You really dodged the bullet with this one. But as a learning experience, it was doozy but insightful! Thanks for this and hope you can use this to see your dream project far to the end!
Here's the thing: he didn't dodge a bullet, he just lost 100k over for misinterpreting the contract. All of the clauses in the contract are to ensure everything he does is legal, and doesn't try to make a game with stolen assets and then hire a vietnamese team to actually make the game. Screen Australia is very reputable org and they funded dozens of games and hundreds of movies, the reason they accepted: they hired a lawyer rather than asking their dad. Shame he took down his reddit post, there were many more errors pointed out.
@@spliter88 He didn't misinterpret it, he interpreted it as it was literally written. Screen Australia might be "very reputable" but that contract is some shady bullshit and he most definitely dodged a bullet on it. If you watched the video you'd know he hired a lawyer too and was advised to NOT sign the contract. Hopefully he'll sue Screen Australia and get his legal fees recouped.
For the first 15 seconds of the voice intro I thought "Oh God did Simon Whistler make ANOTHER channel?" On a serious note I don't know how you guys do it. When I think about all the pieces and people it take to do the smallest thing. When I was younger I wanted to be an animator, then I realized being an animator is not "fun" like making art is. Thanks for sharing this, don't burn yourself out!
Absolutely amazing! I have been studying in the film and animation industry in perth for over the past 3 years, and I have also seen a little bit of how Screen Australia operates. It makes me upset that in such an age where the creative field is booming, the organisations are just trying to pump them through to make themselves look good rather than helping those that are making the projects. I am so glad you have stepped up to them Raymond, and yes, you are absolutely right. It is completely and utterly unprofessional of them to even consider doing things like calling rather than written formats. Screen australia do good things at times but I will never see myself making something and asking them for support unless they really put thought and care into their grantees. Final thoughts, I really like how far you have come. I popped in a couple years ago and thought that you had a pretty good idea for a game. Im so glad that you persevered, and i enjoy the quality in which you make these dev logs. You got yourself another sub. Good luck for the future man! It is 12am. Apologies for the incorrect spelling/use of terms. Goodnight
Once had a contract with a job agency that was full of grammar errors. It was a good warning sign. I did sign it after having my dad read it as well as his job involved contracts like that, he was skeptical but didn't see anything that could lead to harm. I left that job agency after 2 months cause they were just a bunch of amateurs and the contract reflected that pretty well. They forgot to mention certain things about the job they offered me, that meant I was at work 12 hours a day and if lucky getting paid 4 or 5 hours, no travel expenses covered even though the office folks did get paid that, just not us real working folks, things like that. Another job agency, offering a likewise job eagerly bought me from them and didn't screw me over. Every minute I was at the company got paid, including breaks. After a year the company took me over and still working there 5 years later. Never trust a official document that has grammar mistakes or broken references. They are legal binding documents, if something isn't mentioned in there, they don't have to stick to it even if they said so verbally. Yes they say verbal agreements count as well, but how are you gonna proof they said that if not recorded anywhere?
I m proud of you for being true to yourself & be firm about contracts. I hope you will get this game launched to the state of your desire. Really looking forward to your game launch! Just added your game to Wishlist!
I guess it was probably no malicious intent on their side but rather the well known incompetency of governments and public agencies that we know (almost) all around the world. I'm from Germany and stuff like that could have happened here too. I understand you could've used the money, but it's always better not to deal with the government when avoidable! Looking at your project it seems you'll get it funded anyway - looks super interesting and professional. Good luck with it!
I'm also an indie Australian Dev and applied for the grant. When I read the initial grant application, I was under the impression that it had to be a new game, developed for the grant itself. I spent three months writing a game from scratch, which was no where near as polished as the final drafts of successful applicants. When I saw the list I was really fucking pissed because all the other projects were either not indie games by indie studios, or prototypes/vertical slices that had been done in less than 3 months. I was going to apply again this year, but having seen your video I've changed my mind. Screen Australia and state Screen organisations can get fucked. I've been trying to raise capital in Australia for years, but venture capitalists, Australian banks and funding organisations have no fucking idea when it comes to the games industry. I'm so done wasting development time on applications to corporate and government paper pushers who only know buzzwords and theory. Fuck them. My game is almost done. I'm going to run a Kickstarter campaign then follow with a steam launch. Still the safest way to go. You can't trust the government and the incompetent people that work for them.
Well done sir. It's important to have honest reviews of companies like this. It really helps that you show texts and emails. Others who consider signing with this company now have a way to see the process and make an informed decision. Thanks!
Not that it matters because the specific song doesn't require attribution, but around 36:56, the song "Cast Of Pods" by Doug Maxell was playing. You don't have to, and this isn't me publically calling you out since it's one of the songs you don't have to provide attribution for. Great video, by the way! Inclined to check the game out!
Being a (hobbyist) game dev and being in Australia I dropped my enthusiasm for those two things together a while ago. So many horror stories overshadowing the successful ones. It's so sad because with the overflowing amount of creativity I see coming out of here, the governing bodies do not understand - even if they can't see the creative side of it - how much money they are letting trickle down the drain. I see this whole saga as more incompetence than maliciousness, though (as suits do) they did go with the reliable mafioso tactics towards the end there to cover their own incompetence. Sorry for what you went through, but hey, this is good marketing content for your game at least. Bet they didn't foresee that on the 3-page marketing plan.
As an indie game developer, myself, with a great deal of experience in the business side of things (not games per say, but software development contracts and data solutions), you did everything right and by the book. These groups have a tendency to take advantage of both the naivety or the desperation of the developers in order to help promote their own directives. And in many cases, if you are not required to pay back the investment money, you - yourself - are part of the product that they offer and market around. You made several points showcasing this exact thing and their stringency on controlling the future of your IP is part of that. They likely collect money through ad generation, marketing revenue streams or donations and you are one of many sources of financial boons for them. You made the right call and while it certainly makes the development process harder and more painful, you'll be better for it in the end. It is a shame that I have realized just how predatory the game development industry is compared to the standard business sectors, it is rather disheartening at times that there always seems to be people waiting in the wings to cut people down in one way or another - just because many people enter this industry out of aspirations to do something they are passionate about. In either case, hope your development goes well and I feel like we all need to support one another as developers and people going through what I will confess has been a much more challenging road than I realized it would be when I started. In either case, looking forward to getting to play Project Feline once it is ready :)
Amazing Video. It was really interesting to see and I cannot wait to find out more about it. I'm very happy for you and your dad to not 'fall' for that 'trap'. Keep it going my guy!
lamo it reminded me in university when we won an international competition for best project. and before the government funds our project, they wanted us to pay for it first... they said it to prove if we are trust worthy. yah sure... let us broke university students pay and run this project... why do need them again??
Your problem with goals spawning in wrong could be a timing issue. You might need a delay (although they can be buggy), or a timer. Delays can be set to zero to give you a frame delay.
I'm only thinking, was it really a bug or UE5 just being dumb. I've some issues with it, code working fine even item exists. Save close, open up item doesn't react. Recode it, works again... :/
@@gamerdweebentertainment1616 memory issues. I've had similar problems and worse when I made a load of code without knowing references are volatile. for example, You get something from your inventory, it is created... put it back in your inventory and it's DESTROYED, pull it out again and you have a bran new reference. You need a way of identifying references whether it be a tag, string or whatever. Also the garbage collector is your friend. Destroyed assets float around in memory until the garbage collector cleans them up. But treat the garbage collector with respect... for some reason the guys at epic feel sorry for that piece of code. I had to start the whole game again. Which is a good thing really because I'd do a much better job of it now.
"Yes technically that clause gives us absolute power, but we wouldn't use it, we're good guys honest. It's just there in case, in the least likely possible set of circumstances, we happened to... need it." What that clause should actually have said was something along the lines of "You agree not to execute licence or transfer of ownership of the IP without first notifying us and waiting at least 14 days to provide a chance for us to review, consult with and advise you with regard to the terms of any such agreement." And then maybe something about being offered first refusal, I don't know if that's something they cared about.
31:50 They are probably using "person" in its legal definition, that includes both "physical person" for actual people and "juridical person" for companies.
i seriously love watching all these updates. and i know its bad to say but its good seeing im not the only one that goes through the struggles of development. its rough. but your doing a bang up job!
I'm not applying for any grants, but I'm going to re-watch this later and give myself a list of things to do as if I _were_ applying for some, because I think that will get me to a much more "ready" place when things start to come up later! Great video, thank you for sharing your experience so transparently. Give your old man a hug, you're very lucky to have people like him around to watch your back!
I know this was aired a few weeks ago, but I want to just say anyway that you're correct. In a lot of ways writing legal contracts is like writing a piece of "executable" code, if they're undefined references or the syntactic structure of the document is not just right, then the interpretation or validity of the contract is in question. Good job taking such a critical position as someone new to the business side of things.
I remember trying one of the first demos a few years ago, it's crazy to see how much progress you've made! I've wishlisted Project Feline on Steam and I can't freaking WAIT for release, be it next year or next decade haha!
Hidden text on a legal contract?! That's fucking bogus. Yeah no, you were absolutely right to reject that grant, because the hidden text could have screwed you as well. Luckily they didn't hide anything in there, from what I can gather, which, even despite, I'd still would have taken it as a HUGE RED FLAG. So yeah, you're absolutely correct, you are better off in the long term rejecting that grant.
It really sucks the way this turned out, but look on the bright side, that tech demo level looks amazing, and the crunch work you put into it shows how awesome the vision for the game is!
I am a project manager at a large software company and I deal with contracts quite often. I can tell you the following - We do send clients draft contracts and we would go back and forth with them over wording and clauses. However we almost always sent drafted contracts in a state where it can be signed if given only minor adjustment to the verbiage. - Things in the contracts are sometimes left in ambiguity to leave wiggle rooms for our true intention. For example we would say we will implement a certain feature but without defining how or what it will look like. In your case, I believe they truly want to protect their image and not own your ip but they certainly don’t want to give you the ultimate power to sell your product to an adult game publisher, and if you signed that contract you can rest assured that they will invoke that clause whenever they choose to, even if they claimed that they have no intention to do so right now. - I believe you should thank them for giving you the push to get your game in a much more refined state.
What an appalling situation. I've never been a fan of film funding bodies being given the power to distribute funding for games, they are completely different industries from a development and distribution standpoint, and they just don't understand the games industry.
I feel the insistence on you getting a lawyer was to cover them from legal and public image problems if the contracts turned out to be exploitative. eg: for any accusations of a exploitative contract they can respond with: "They knew what the were signing since they should have had a lawyer present" Knowing full well small indie groups (not specific to videogames) generally can't afford it.
Signed a lot of game contracts before. I don't think this contract was written in malace but interpreted as. Gotta be careful but also curious how this unfolds. I don't think this is a bad scheme.
I just had the chance to watch this now. Man what a journey that was. This is pure gold. And the hidden text as the cherry on top. Dang I hate the business part of this stuff. Good luck man. I sometimes found some of your decision making rather too strict at times but keeping that attitude seems to quite well fit and work for you. Glad to see you got over this. Also props to dad, he knows his stuff 😎
The game looks amazing. I am not an anime fan but seriously this looks great, very artistic. It is crazy that they basically take most rights in this contract while claiming that they only want a "say" in some decisions. Surely, they do this on purpose.
It's really cool to see this project still coming along. RUclips has always sporadically recommended the update videos for the game over these past few years and it's cool to see that it's alive and going well! It's due to projects like yours and creators like Matthew Palaje and Ryan Laley that have pushed me to get into gear for my own project. Hope to see this game continue to progress!
Very good analysis of the legal paperwork you were given to sign. That is the correct call. Words mean nothing in the face of a signed contract. The contract is what the courts enforce.
Dude, props to you and good job for sticking to your guts To me, after seeing a bit of it, the contract already seemed shady from the beginning. I hope you have better luck regarding grants, and you can continue your development with a fresh mind. Hope things turn out great !
Indie game developer is a game designer, PR person, accountant, quality assurance, 3d animator, sound editor, optimizer, lightning/shader artist, programmer, 3d modeller, vfx artist, project planner, level designer, QA manager, CEO and now a business man and a lawyer
I don't think it was a backdoor attempt to control IPs, but allow them to disassociate with IPs and seek compensation from IPs who go rogue without informing them. That said, none of your suggestions would've been bad, and it seemed more like they were being lazy, cheap, and paranoid. They could've improved their contract moving forward and avoided any adversarial relationships in the future if their lawyer had properly coached them on the situation. Very unfortunate and unfair, and also naive of them. I look at all of my friends' contracts for things and I always have to catch companies on these boilerplate contracts that put them in the defacto driver's seat.
The hidden text part is probably just the cheap lawyer using a template for films and cutting out parts that didn't make sense. Again, not nefarious as it seems, but lazy as all hell, and easy for them to do whatever they want to make up for the lawyer's lack of ability.
This sounds like a legal nightmare! I'm no game dev. I've only worked WITH game devs/publishers/marketing agencies as a content creator. Absolutely nothing in the value of, what was it, 500 grand? This sounds like every scam I have ever run into. Whether the intentions were good, or bad, Disney's history shows that what the writing says matters more than anyone's intentions or not. After all, you're dealing with an entity; not a person. Intentions are irrelevant to an entity.
As someone who has turned down term sheets before, you absolutely made the right call here. This agreement would put you at a massive disadvantage in any future contract negotiation: 1) The process will be more complicated and drawn out by having more parties 2) If Screen Australia throws their weight around or digs their heels in unnecessarily, you may end up with less favourable terms simply because the other party _doesn't like them_ 3) Simply having them hanging around your neck during the negotiations will negatively impact YOUR mindset and approach to the deal 4) It will become apparent one way or another that Screen Australia isn't at the table by _your_ choice, and that you were suckered into giving them veto rights over your IP - and suckers get less favourable terms I've actually had experience of being in that "future deal" - trying to raise money while an investor effectively had veto rights over the round. We managed to close the deal but that is an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone. When that investor first came to us the amount on the table seemed like a lot, but after everything that transpired and where we are today, that amount now looks very small compared to the amount of power we handed over. I sincerely hope that one day, this grant looks very small to you too :) And Screen Australia are pigs for trying to hand-wave this away with "context". They gaslighted you dude. You don't want that energy anywhere near anything you care about, and you've done a great service by bringing this to light because clearly not enough people are holding them to account. I do have some advice though, both on the business side & also as a software engineer. These are all from mistakes that I've made. RE: "Screen Australia don't know what an in development game looks like" => change everything It's fine to "tweak" the plan for a funding deal, but don't ever "pivot" - it puts you at a disadvantage in negotiations because a) the sunk cost will weigh on you and b) you've "lifted up your skirt" way too early. Plus if it doesn't pan out you'll be a few steps backwards. You're far better off staying the course and focusing on creating more opportunities for yourself (which is impossible if you're going to pivot for every single one of them). RE: The sophisticated goal system you were working on and then abandoned Look up "YAGNI" on wikipedia. Most technical debt is created not by failing to invest in the future, but instead by overinvesting in the wrong future, or neglecting today's boring problems while you spend time on tomorrow's exciting problems. RE: The art crunch prior to submission When in the face of an uncertain outcome or being outside of your comfort zone, it can be very tempting to lean on the tasks you're best at and *create* work that makes you feel in control. You didn't *have* to do all that amazing art! Personally I still struggle with this even today.
*"It's free real estate"* Famous last words... _(hopefully not)_ It's awesome seeing what progress you've made with your friend improving the look of part the game, although when you said that you did it to impress it worried me if it'd end up being inadvertently being harmful in some way. And its interesting to see what you had to go through business wise, your dad's been a real one through out your development which is nice to see! It's also unfortunate you couldn't get the grant you wanted, however if you did you could have ended up with a game you didn't want to develop, so atleast you're still in control! _(for the most part, not with the bugs and some other stuff ofc)_ So I wish you good luck and good rest in your future endeavours and thanks for the 40 minute devlog, I appreciate this game and your videos, they're pretty nice to watch coming back from! college!
Mate I am very grateful for your video! Have been following your progress for years, played an early alpha build a few years ago, and still looking forward to Project Feline's eventual release. It is incredibly informative to see your dealings with Screen Australia and hoping to receive the grant, to ultimately withdrawing your application, it goes to show the unfortunate stereotype of Australian Government bodies often being inept at their job. All correspondence you have shown reveals their way or working multiple times over, and they clearly do not know how to do their job correctly, nor do their take it with great care; just one grant after another and hoping people sign away. I would be inclined to accept that they act in good faith all the time, but the ineptitude of their agreement is unacceptable and any individual going into any relationship with this mob should be weary. You made the definitively correct choice in protecting your IP as all it takes is one bad actor on Screen Australia's behalf to ruin your dreams. It absolutely should not be so hard, if they had a good lawyer send revisions to you, they would not be sending such a poorly formatted document. Appreciate your work and devlogs as always. Have a great day mate.
Although I do think you were overreacting a bit due to being *relatively* new to the industry and wanting to protect a passion project of yours, I don't think it was wrong of you to not sign a contract you weren't completely satisfied with. Regardless of the reasoning you did the right thing and personally wish you success with the game.
You're standards are high. That is good. High standards keep quality up. Pointing out their errors are good too. They likely have gotten away with the shoddy work and ripping off creators up until now. Their contract itself shows they have a lot to hide. Legal documents should be written in plain language not word salad. Thank you for standing up to the bulling and sticking to your morals and standards.
35 years in the game industry. While I've never used grant money, I've signed many contracts including with big organizations like Microsoft, Square Enix and Sony. Not to mention the sale of my interest in my own company to a third party. As such I can tell you that your experience with the contract phase of a deal is remarkably common. High level deal agreements are fairly easy to nail down if both parties are interested, but contractual language is a hell-scape. This is the point where sometimes the lawyers start running the show rather than business people. In large organizations, the business side is often subservient or at least constrained by legal to a degree that always struck me as absurd. Other times the parties have very different views on things that, during the initial discussions, seemed trivial but turned out to be rather onerous (like IP rights). And even if you do negotiate something you are comfortable with, it may only be much later that you realize the true implications of what you signed. Being cautious, as you are, shows you are well ahead of the curve in these matters. My advice is to stick to your guns no matter what. Don't get bullied and absolutely always ignore the "that's our standard language" type statements. Everything is always negotiable if the other party is engaging in fair dealing, especially when you are mostly just trying to remove ambiguity from the agreement. Always retain your IP rights, unless you are fairly compensated otherwise. Remember IP rights extend to merchandise and other matters should your game become a hit, so think wide. I wish I could give more advice about grants, but it's just never been my thing. But I can assure you, signing a deal with a publisher will be no less frustrating. The key thing to remember about contracts is that every obnoxious line in there was probably born from some incident in the past. In general, no one looks at the agreements after they are signed unless something goes wrong. And then you will have either thanked your foresight in sticking to your guns or curse yourself for not having done so. The good news is that each contract you do, or don't do, will be a great story in your career... starting with this one. There's also lots of funding out there, if you really need it at all. I'm reachable if any of my experience can be of use to you going forward.
Thanks David, that's comforting to know. I am sure it shows in the video but I am not experienced in these matters of contracting and had to do a lot of research and learning in preparation for this deal. In hindsight, looking at the response this has gotten, I think people are being a bit harsh on Screen Australia. I did not set out to make them look like bullies, I just wanted my community to know what happened and why I've been gone. Screen Australia may have been acting in good faith, however I think the rigid framework government bodies operate under made it difficult for us to build a trusting relationship, and I experienced great difficulty communicating with them. I, for one, felt mislead when they would tell us one thing in a video call and tell us something completely different in an email. That alone was reason enough for me to decline. For me, intentions are irrelevant when it comes to what is written on the page. I know not everyone will agree and that others may have made different choices in my situation, but I did what I felt was right given my circumstances and I appreciate the community support behind my decision. I'm not normally one to take advice from people I haven't met on the internet, but I would love to collect as much insight and knowledge as I can for next time. Thank you for sharing.
@@RaymondCripps "I think people are being a bit harsh on Screen Australia" It was the implied threat of legal action, and the claim of post facto "confidentiality", that confirmed their status as bullies. Whether you intended to portray them that way isn't a factor: it's simply what they are, based on your account.
At 7:35 your voiceover contains some really noticable high-pitched ringing. It's not the end of the world but I thought I'd let you know in case you want to do something about that in the future
depends on the scope. there is plenty of single man projects made in 1 to 4 or 5 years. but mostly in 2d or visual novel projects. most 3d single made games are awful asset flips.
On the one hand, I could see Screen Australias situation to be like: -We see potential in funding games -*Working hard bureaucracy to get funding on the road* -Damn, now we need some contract stuff... just grab some old standard one. Should be fine. From the indie dev side: -Wow! Amazing! We get so much funding and can finally realise our dream project. -Here, Screen Australias interest is most likely exactly that - And probably, you could just sign, get funded, create your game, be successful and do whatever you want with your game and most likely noone would care or question your decision. The big BUT: -You are being a smart*ss about the contract and it most likely is just a bureaucracy thing to them to get funding done... BUT the problem with being a smart*ss is... YOU ARE RIGHT! -Contracts are for exactly that: Talking so long about everything until both sides are happy and sign off. -But i bet in this situation, you were just being an annoyance to them in a pipeline where noone has complained until today -You were probably the first one to actually look into things, but probably also the the first one to care (from both sides). In the end: -You probably could have signed off, do whatever you wanted and get away with it -But still, YOU ARE RIGHT, this is not how contracts/business works and its quite unprofessional of them. -But in this case, sadly, doing things right ment not doing them at all.
To be honest, its usually how working with government contracts work from personal experience. Usually the staff isn't even responsible for drafting the contract. The government also isn't too sophisticated to really go into the minutia about your indie game IP, though they usually do this as a caveat in case you do something outrageous (for example suddenly making the game an R18 / or possess illegal content would make the government look really bad and they want to avoid that). Based on your story I would say they were acting in good faith to try to reach out to you after you rejected the initial offer. Having been in the game industry and experience with contracts with other game publishers, usually they can be more flexible on the minutia but the terms are usually much worse in favor on their side. But based on this I would say, that there wasn't really a bad intent coming from the government just misunderstanding and bureacracy. There is one bit of feedback though, by posting this video and making this public, you may have set a warning bell to any future publishers and it may risk you being blacklisted permenantly from a lot of future publishing options because no corporation wants to risk getting outed like this publicly. It's a bit too late now but just something to keep in mind for the future.
in all fairness, they didn't request signing an NDA so it's not exactly his problem, merely this company being bewildered by its own sheer incompetence. no company with good faith would create a document without transparency and hidden pages/clauses in the document. that's shady as fuck, and he's right to call them out on their seedy practices. i don't really think it massively alters his ability to get a publisher in the future, it just means that they know in hindsight he has decent people behind him who know laws and legal jargon so he can't be easily fooled into signing his IP or personal rights on his own project away.
"no corporation wants to risk getting outed like this publicly" And how on earth is that not a good thing? It warns others, it can help the corporation to see their shortcomings, and ensures he'll never need to deal with other similarly shitty corporations and their dubious 'practices'. Or perhaps you're suggesting others should not publicize the incompetence / shady practices they experience and just swallow the contract terms and take the money? If your answer is yes, you've completely missed the point of the video and are just part of the problem. When it comes to dealing with professional / competent organizations, the only thing he needs to worry about is if he has been unfair or deceptive is his own conduct in regard to this situation. Feel free to point out where this was the case.
@Nymbryxion101 @TheInfamousLegend27 @ChoiceOfIllusion Just came across this thread. Interesting discussion here and some interesting points raised. I would be more than happy to play ball and sign an NDA with any company, even if nothing comes of it. However, Screen Australia did not have me sign an NDA. If they did not want me saying anything, they should have been more careful. But yeah, if a single RUclips video is enough to deter companies from associating with me then that is their decision. I am not losing any sleep over it. The way I see it, I don't have millions of dollars or business experience, but I have a game that people want, the skills to produce it, and a small RUclips channel. Many publishers are eager to take advantage of naïve and ambitious emerging developers like myself, and this platform is my only leverage against that. But like I said, I would have been willing to sign an NDA before negotiations had proceeded. If that is somehow threatening to some publishes then I have no interest in working with them.
WISHLIST ON STEAM ► s.team/a/2214460
Wow, thank you for the overwhelming support on this video! I never expected this many people to be interested in my legal woes. I want to clear a few things up. I have not expressly said that Screen Australia had ill intentions. I am simply recounting my honest experience, and it is my hope that if Screen Australia are in fact 'closely monitoring' me, and if their intentions are to support the industry, that they use this criticism to improve the grants program for the next funding round. As an industry, we really should not be at the stage where we accept documents of this standard as 'normal', with this many contradictions in it, and for the government to treat its recipients in this manner.
Still, intentions are irrelevant when it comes to what is written on the page in legal negotiations. I am of the opinion that the rigid framework government-owned bodies operate under made it difficult for us to build a trusting relationship. I experienced difficulty in communicating with them, and often felt mislead when they would tell us one thing in a video call then tell us something completely different in writing. For me, this was reason enough to decline, notwithstanding the ramifications for the IP. If they had been more upfront about their intentions for the Agreement, and maintained consistency over what those intentions were in their communications, I would have held much less scepticism towards executing the Agreement.
I have received some criticism over my decision not to pick up the phone when Lee called. For context, the email I had sent prior to Lee's call was addressed to legal. I had absolutely no correspondence with Lee prior to his cold calling my number. I also get dozens of spam calls from Australian phone numbers every day and did not know it was Screen Australia until after I received the SMS. Still, I felt it was inappropriate for Lee, who is not a lawyer, to step in and assuage my concerns verbally on behalf of the legal team. To clarify, I did engage verbally with Screen Australia on a video call just after we had reviewed the Agreement. Unlike Lee's call, this was scheduled in advance. I did not have permission to record this conversation but was provided with supposed information and "context" in this call. However, the information provided in this call was later contradicted by written correspondence from the lawyers. For example, them saying on the call that the "Core Conditions" referred to only the funding amount turned out to be completely false as evidenced by the emails I later received from legal, stating that the "Core Conditions" referred to the entire "General Terms", which, makes no reference to the funding amount. It was also on this unrecorded call where I was told that Screen Australia's intentions for clause 6.8 were to protect their reputation from unsavoury publishers. This was later contradicted by the lawyers in writing, providing an entirely different reason being to ensure my IP was being "fairly valued" in all publisher deals. It was only after this incident where I decided to cease all verbal communications, as it had been demonstrated to only cause ambiguity. With email, I was able to keep a compressive record of exactly what Screen Australia had communicated to us over the 7+ weeks these negotiations took place, which later proved invaluable to our eventual complaint. This is why I was insistent on Lee using email. Evidently, the lawyers felt written correspondence was sufficient as I was never once cold-called by anyone on the legal team. I believe I had good cause not to trust Lee at his word at this stage of negotiations, whether well-intentioned or not. I would have been more trusting had they clearly articulated all of their intentions at the beginning, and if they had sent the Agreement immediately instead of having us wait twelve days so they could publish a press release first.
I have also received some criticism over my interpretation over 'standard' language, or 'standard terms' used throughout the Agreement. To that, I would like to point out that the Games: Expansion Pack was deliberately targeted at "emerging or small to medium independent game developers", and I believe it to be unreasonable to expect that developers of this status have an intimate understanding of this language.
I do not have $80 million to play with like Screen Australia, however my documents contained no errors. What is their excuse?
Have you considered reach out to Dunkey for his publishing company?
@@Alex-eu6rw I heavily doubt BIGMODE would fund an anime game especially with dunkey’s dislike of them.
@@smolarteffect He may not like anime, but i feel like if the core concept and gameplay of Project Feline does attract him will definitely help
@@smolarteffect I didn't know he didn't like the anime style, I thought he didn't like turn based RPGs which typically have an anime style.
I'm confident a lot of other creators are watching these videos and are equally concerned for the implications of how your experience may relate to our own futures, so I hope we get to see updates on the previous and future opportunities. Best of luck, and good work.
Screen Australia should invest the 100k they just saved in a lawyer or consultant to make them a functional PGA.
lmao
fr
was thinking the same thing 🤣
How does govt give money away for gaming? Not even close to a public good
@@quietlike Games are art, art is culture, more culture is a public good.
"Hey this contract is broken"
"It's our standard contract, we give it to everyone"
"Why do you cover millions of investments with such a broken ass contract?"
"We will closely monitor your public communication"
"I'm already making a video about this whole ordeal"
"We live in your walls"
@@carlosnava1471 "You are violating various laws by breaking into my home"
"I am 1 centimeter away from you"
@@kayleighmoore6951 "you are still violating the same laws"
"i will send you to jail"
@@Myron0117 "you can't send me to jail you are literally the one breaking laws"
"i will send you to prison"
the contract isnt awful if you need the money and dont care about selling out honestly
"You should seek legal advice with regards to this contract"
"You should not sign this contract"
"Wait, not like that-"
LMAO for real they say that shit but they just expect people to get excited about the money, click the boxes and call it a day. they didn't count on someone actually giving a shit about their own work
"You should seek legal advice with regards to this contract"
Also Screen Australia: "I'll show you a pro gamer move. Now we wait for their probably legitimate concerns. This gives us free legal advice. Badabim, badabum we have just outsourced legal team and made aplicants pay for it."
@@georgev8590 They eventually went on to use our questions in their new FAQ, which didn't exist before we applied. It would seem that they stood to benefit from our free advice.
screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/5f74d42a-caed-4e84-9264-81201f904867/Games-Expansion-Pack-FAQs-7-9-2022-issued.pdf
My guess is that it was based on the Screen Australia contract then they rushed to re-word it for the games industry and didn't get it per reviewed. The fact they can't even number the clauses correctly is a massive red flag and very concerning for a government department.
My understanding is that these grants are suppose to be done to encourage game development in the Australia economy using tax payer funds. Therefore, I think the contracts should reflect that. I feel the contract is important and should be done to protect both the Australian government/payers and the game developers but done in good faith.
Regarding that veto clause they could have wording it entirely differently saying that the developers should act in good faith to avoid selling/distributing their IP for purposes of pornography and gambling or something a long those lines.
Finally, It is a grant/donation in which should not have so much strings attached, this why I don't like working with or for the government.
That contract reeks of "we're trying to screw you by pretending to be incompetent... actually, we are also incompetent."
It definitely looks like one of those scam emails that are made so obvious so that only really dumb careless people get sucked in
It makes matters even worse when Screen Australia has been around since 2008. So they have 15 years of experience and this is the best they can do
@@StarKnight619 and in those 15 years, how many people have they screwed?
@@r6scrubs126 I would like to know the answer to that question myself.
I mean think about it for a quick second, if Screen Australia had this type of contract with the number of errors, next to ZERO negotiation, no clear answers, and the blatant "legal stealing" of an IP. How are there REAL contracts like? Just as bad or one sided? or is it more versatile and flexible?
Not only all of this but when decides to pull out they insist he give them a call? That is not how contracts are done. EVERYTHING needs to be in writing or its invalid.
I have personally seen other get royally screwed by contracts done over the phone that they had been waiting for. When I got my Internet Provider they tried to pull a fast one on me, by telling me I told them differently. When I produced the emails, and written agreement they magically changed their mind.
@@StarKnight619 longer than that when you realise it was an amalgamation of Film Australia (1973 though it's predecessors date back as far as 1913), Film Finance Commission (1988) and Australian Film Commission (1975).
So decades of experience with such agreements, and an ostensibly standard draft full of elements that made me cringe about as hard as RC's lawyer probably did.
Hidden text on a legal contract? What were they hiding? Remember, when signing a contract, the only thing that matters, is what is spelled out, in the contract. They can tell you they won't do something. But, if that assertion is not included in the contract, they can't be held to it. This $150K "Grant", seem more like a purchase of the IP, while trying to convince the developer that they still own their IP.
that is exactly what I thought, this seems like some kind of skunky business
💯%
this was a draft so it seems author did not bother to properly clean up the file...
still not presenting a proper draft is still dumb
there is no legal basis for anything until you negotiate and sign a contract
and this quality of a draft is not signable by a reasonable entity
I don't think they purchased the IP, this would be kind of more reasonable as it would have clear implications
they tried to do something even weirder, witch often happens with copyright - trying to eat the cookie but have it too
I'm not exactly sure if it is even legal to have veto rights to IP after the termination of the agreement
doesn't sound like a way laws should ever work... generally agreements must make some sense to be legal
giving control over ip for nothing in exchange doesn't sound like an enforceable agreement
but going to court would be so much time and money wasted
@@ukaszs9833 its always the court fees that crumble smalls companies and devs :/
In the end, even if you win, you still loose,
best just not to sign if your instincts tell you not to
Asset flipping isn't just using a few things from a game engine marketplace, it's when an entire game, including its design, relies on the pre-existing assets it uses. Especially when the assets are mushed together with no unifying style. Hence the name: Asset-flipping, you flip assets into a game to sell.
It’s worth considering in the context of the term ‘house flipping’ - the process of purchasing a property and selling it on for a profit while adding little or no additional value or improvement.
@@NotEmiliaNatsuki not impossible a brazilian game called 171 managed to get over 1m moneys in kickstarter and its like basically all assets are copy and past, one user in steam even made a list of all assets used and the price of them in the comments
@@NotEmiliaNatsuki Day of Dragons got half way there.
Yandere Simulator be like:
@@NotEmiliaNatsuki There are entire games made with bought assets for games that aren't a scam. Yes, Dreamworld was a massive scam. Yet there are hundreds of games made with RPG maker, using assets fully made by others (purchased or included) that tell excellent stories. What the dev knows is the characters names, their personalities, their interactions in the world but not the world itself. You shouldn't just assume every non-original asset game is just a scam.
To see how dumb this sounds lets take it out of the context of gaming and put it into the context of licensing a stock photo. There can be thousands of people with a license to use the same photo. If Company A uses that photo on the back of a post card, uses canva to put a funky text effect saying "Plan Your Next Getaway!" with a short text only sales pitch on the front side, then Company B uses that exact same photo and uses canva in a different style to say "Plan Your Next Trip" with again a short text only sales pitch on the back - it doesn't mean ether one is a scam lol. The entire "asset" of each postcard is a 100% licensed imagery with no editing at all. Both companies paid to use it, both did. This happens all the time if a company doesn't create their own IP or buy the rights to the image out fully.
They both have value to their company.
They both are identical copies that are licensed.
They are both used for the same identical reason.
Yet - neither one infringes on the other nor anyone should see it as a scam since both Company A and B are using the same graphic to PROMOTE THEIR TEXT NARRATIVE.
Thats what game devs who use fully licensed assets to create an entire game do. They use them to push their story - often times by themselves without the help of multiple people, endless time, or even learning how to make assets at all.
The reason I believe Screen Australia prefers to talk / meet about things is because all emails can be accessed via a freedom of information request by third parties. Where as a meeting or phone call the exact contents cannot be accessed this way. Also since its government everything cannot be kept confidential unless it has national security concerns.
Not entirely true, while in theory you can request them via a FOI request they can simply refuse. Or redact everything. Activists (ie Posty who primarily deals with the DSS/DHS) have records of both, a lot of both especially when just trying to gain access to information that is already supposed to be publicly accessible and doesn't potentially involve PII.
he should have told them the call will be recorded for revision later on xD
in some cases discussing a contract over the phone/chat can result in modifications to the contract over the course of the conversations to save on revision counts.
though this is usually reserved for "High Value" contracts, but it can also be used to make side offers ("in kind agreements"), or even "expected stipulations" that could be deemed unenforceable if actually signed.
for those that suggest "just record the call..." : Australia is an "ALL PARTIES recording state" meaning that any party on the line can refuse the recording at any time during the communication; such that creation, and possession of the recording is now illegal.
What an absolute horror. I fear I’d be the kind of person that would read through this contract but not actually understand the implications of what they wrote. Thank you for taking this public, I’m not sure many others would have the balls to do so while being “closely monitored”
Look what he has done and you know how to deal that, because he made it right. If you don't understand anything, always ask and if you are not come to a point where you fully understand it, get a lawyer or didn't sign it (depends on the contract, on such a contract here that is so heavy you should use a good lawyer).
thats how they say the devil is in the details when it comes to contract read it read it and butcher it slowly because they tend to hide key parts where u could posible get fucked up.
You weren't kidding calling this a nightmare. I wish you good luck Raymond, and thank you for sharing your experiences and knowledge with the rest of us!
lol
Seriously, more than half of this indie game production vid was about legal battle with the Australian Government.
I've seen tons of these lazily written, vaguely worded contracts- primarily aimed at newcomers to business. Good on you for taking a critical look at everything.
The first thing you should do when opening a contract for a grant is ctrl+f search "ownership" and "intellectual property". Literally any reference to those words would be enough for me to automatically pull out of a grant.
Remember kids: Never sign without reading the contract; Never sign away your passion projects; Never step out of your comfort zone when it comes to legally binding contracts, it'll ruin you in the future.
This is a good example of why you should *always read your contracts.* Did the other applicants just go "next next finish" on this program?
better yet, have a lawyer read the contract for you
@@ulrikfrikke-schmidt3327 better yet, do both
"what's up guys today we're doing the contract speedrun, lets see if we can sign our life away in less than 2 minutes"
To be fair, if it was to fund a throwaway game and you got funded, would be worth it to get into the industry, but for passion projects/any game you planned on having long-term goals for, this is indeed a shit hand to get dealt.
"Speedrun" underated comment.
It seems like it should have been a simple clause saying
1. You agree to let Screen Australia review any offers you receive for your IP.
2. you agree not to sell any IP until Screen Australia as reviewed the offer and provided feedback and recommendations.
3. Screen Australia has three weeks to respond to any offer, or you are free to proceed without them.
This exactly! We had a small timeline in which to negotiate the contract, but I would like to think there would have been some combination of words that could have been written that would have give Screen Australia exactly what they said they wanted, and nothing more. I completely understand their concerns about association and branding, however the clause gave them more power than they perhaps intended. What you've written here is more in line with what I would have been prepared to sign.
@@RaymondCripps And (for example) a 2 year after termination of association vs. 'in perpetuity'. Maybe a clause binding any agreements going forward, 'formerly funded by Screen Australia'.
My thoughts on that grant is that it is something that might be worth accepting if it is a throwaway project. A game meant to get into the industry and get some experience with game development and some initial publicity. Projects that aren't meant to recuperate their cost or really make an impact on the industry, just to get out there so the next game goes smoother with all the additional experience.
It is worthless for passion projects or even medium sized games, there's too many edge cases in that document for actual games with thought and care put into them and project feline is definitely one of the games that does not deserve to be hung up on such uncertain contracts.
So in the end they deal in terms that will filter out the honest, passionate people who care about their projects. Even if the whole thing is PR, that's just not good business.
@@theducvu5196 It seems like a standard way of government grats in europe too. Not dessigned to help but to write off money must spent in the safest way and highest controll. Every one I know and signed or got involved with gowernment money seen simmilar mess, the money got to go acording to the 150 years old procedures and some extra nonsencical buzz lines slaped on top. Every one sign it you should too. Its more of a neglect, just want to finish work and go home kinda thing than, corporate manipulation. But than Its still no way of doing busssines and some countrys do have departments exploiting these but most dont care.
@@theducvu5196 Tbf, often times you have to get experience with smaller projects in order to be able to do justice to the project you're properly passionate about. If this deal had good intentions and proper communication, it could be very good as an investment into still-learning developers.
@@corvidaeae Government operates like a scam. Legalized extortion, they can do anything with the money without "investors" consent, and any losses will be offset to the population through artificial index manipulation. They do all the things they prohibit other companies from doing. Its only purpose since monarchy is to manage the population as assets and serve as a convenient platform for embezzlement. Don't ever expect good intentions from a government.
Who’s making a throwaway project and looking for grants worth nearly 2x or 3x more than some people make in a year!
30:44 "Why did they send us a Word document, and not a PDF?"
Biggest red flag right there
A word document would make sense if it's meant to be negotiated. Which seemed to be their original intention.
But someone wasn't willing to actually put any effort into negotiating, and so they flipped into trying to bully Raymond into accepting it largely unmodified. And with large institutions, once they start down that path, they tend to stick to it.
When expecting potential changes to a contract with person's that aren't exactly rich, it is best practice to submit documents in something like MS Word, where people are more likely to be able to view and edit the document with highlights and a tool that will make it easy to find the changes; you can do this with MS Word online for free.
Whereas with PDF, in order to be able to edit, you have to have purchased a license from Adobe. You can sign and view for free.
@@OmniscientWarrior Fair enough I guess
@Verm Microsoft’s online version of word is free but has less features
@Verm pandoc --sandbox .docx --output .txt
The fact that they sent this error-ridden draft to seemingly all applicants is just mindblowing.
I have only applied / received a much smaller grant myself, but we had absolutely no issues at all. Certainly nothing like this!
Most government agencies survive on very little funding. Finding mistakes like this in contracts is common. The indie's lawyer likely makes more annually than the agency's legal team.
Of course, there is also, always, an embedded conflict. A lawyer is legally obligated to find any issues that may exist with a contract. They almost always do -- and it is how they earn a living. This is not a dig at the profession, just a fact/hurdle that we (generally globally), have not found a reasonable solution for. The interests of all parties in these exchanges are not aligned, nor is there a clear way to nudge them in that direction that we've seen.
When any of us decide to run a business, we have to budget and plan internal resources for legal issues. It is neither cheap nor labor free. This video is a fantastic peak into what folk in many industries have to learn. We need more of these!
You can never be too careful when it comes to legally binding documents--that stuff is terrifying. You made the right call.
When you fully read and understood it and didn't have any bad feelings, you can sign it. Went here very wrong.
Oh my goodness. What a cluster. I’m sorry you had to go through this, but I’m glad you stuck to your guns and withdrew. Good luck with future development!
In the end, I would say that the stress caused by Screen Australia ended up pushing your game forward and make it look more like your vision.
I also would like to believe it has reassured your trust in your own decisions for Project Feline Moving Forward
wise words
No matter how good or bad your experience is, you always learn from it. So maybe he didn't have that money yet, but he learned a lot about such things and is now even more aware of it. So after all, that all was not for nothing.
War always moves technology faster, doesn't it?
Shameless... Me and my team had a similar experience, except the team ended up signing the sketchy contract. Gladly, after over 2 years of fighting and other teams risking and coming public about the inside issues, we are finally being treated as we should have from the start. I love following your content and can't wait for more Project Feline.
whats your game?
@@splurgy. Back Then (the issues were not with Screen Australia mind you, it was another entity)
@@Mitsuray I’ll look it up!
@@Mitsuray was it a non profit entity?
@@VonsarYT no
A beautiful thing to see your dad getting involved with the project! That kind of support seems so rare! Respect!
Seems like Screen Australia should've gotten THEIR Dad's help in writing this document...
it's a dad-off
I don't think Captain Arthur Phillip knows what a video game is
@@Kezsora It's like they say, there are two kinds of governors - those who have written compilers and those who haven't.
Been following this project for over three years now. With every new devlog, I have newfound faith in it being an incredible game. The build you made for the grant shows so much dedication, passion, originality, and progress. I hope you can find another entity that can give you a game production grant, as you really deserve it! Project Feline deserves all of the help it can get. Wishlisting it on Steam right now.
Here's to Project Feline! 🍻
(oh, and here's one for Gabi... can cats have beer?)🍺
good lord that's the sketchiest deal proposed by a _government_ I've ever seen ; it's a shame you couldn't get the grant, but you did the right thing imo. I wish you the best in the future, keep up the great work!
Man...This video is something all game devs need to see. Hearing your issues (especially in UE) is so relatable and seeing someone else going through a lot of the same things make me feel like I am not alone. And really awesome to see you working with Matt, seeing how he approach level design is massive, would love to see more tips and info on that stuff because I also really struggle with level design.
So many things happening on this video oh God.
First, the editing is absolutely fire.
Second, Gabi's first words being "Poggers!" is so silly I love it lol
Third, your dad is awesome.
Fourth, the moment you showed up all fancy with a tie my reaction was "oh no... this goes deep, Ace Attorney time"
Business and contracts aside, ABOUT THE GAME, it's looking amazing dude, the updated visuals and new level design are just top notch, everything is looking better than ever.
You're a legend of indie development, wish you the best for this game :)
If this is the PGA Screen Australia uses for all their grants, I’d encourage all previous grant winners to examine their contracts
Your friend creating 40s of gameplay with level design was eye opening. I always struggle with it but thinking about it in terms of spacing level elements that give the player something to do between goals gives me a while other way to approach it. Great video 🤩
Yep, I like to see such things, because you learn many different views onto things that can help you in your own projects as well. Sometimes you think too much from a specific view and that holds you back.
My only issue is you described them calling your phone as "cold calling", that has more to do with telemarketing. Its fairly normal in business to chat to over over the phone and then follow up discussions in writing.
this is very true. e-mails are quite intimidating when it comes to this stuff. Via a phone call you can both loosely discuss any issues you have without coming across threatening and without potentially being held accountable for every word you speak. You can speak freely until both parties understand each other and can find a solution that will then be put into writing. I feel like I've been in a similar situation where many things in a contract seemed wrong, and by engaging in a friendly way while staying persistent in demanding fixes, the contract eventually became perfect. Nobody had wrong intentions, people are just incompetent.
Could be, but context is important here. The email I sent prior to Lee's call was addressed to legal. I felt it was inappropriate for Lee, who is not a lawyer, to step in and assuage my concerns verbally on behalf of the legal team. While it may be commonplace to conduct regular business this way, I feel that legal negotiations in particular should be held to a more scrupulous standard. The lawyers evidently felt that written communication was sufficient for negotiations, as nobody from legal attempted to call me unsolicited.
Earlier in the video, I did engage verbally with Screen Australia on a video call just after we had reviewed the Agreement. Unlike Lee's call, this was scheduled in advance. I did not have permission to record this conversation but was provided with information and context in this call. However, their supposed intentions and definitions I was provided with in this call were later contradicted by written correspondence from their lawyers. For example, them saying on the call that the 'Core Conditions' referred to the funding amount turned out to be completely false as evidenced by the emails I later received from legal, stating it referred to the "General Terms", an entirely different section of the document which makes no reference to the funding amount. It was only after this incident where I decided to cease verbal communications, and why I was insistent on Lee using email.
@@RaymondCripps They're doing a horrible job, no doubt about that. And there's nothing wrong with you requesting email. Maybe it was no use with these guys, but it might be something to consider next time, that even if you'd have to remind them 3 times in 3 separate 30 minute calls that you need everything they say backed up in writing, that's a lot less stressful for you to go through than writing an e-mail. I've been there and those kind of e-mails take hours to write and it can be counter productive. There is no way to brainstorm for solutions. And going in a call makes it more personal so they'll take your demands more seriously.
That moment when you (as an indie dev) has to give them advices on how to write their clauses and stuff... you know something is really wrong at this point...
started as a devlog , ended in a contract war, love the sht! keep up
That sounds sooooooo sketchy... holy shit... You definitely did the right thing. Its always better to be safe than sorry.
It is simple: a contract between two entities is based on trust. If you have a bad feeling, never sign a contract. It's that easy. And they gave him a lot of reasons for bad feelings and having no trust.
Yeah, though i am more than sure that this contract was just half-assed by some "legal department" of theirs or some such entity, and they just don't have a good channel of communication with them, therefore the legal negotians looked like a "trust me bro" shenenigans since no one involved had any actual knowledge and/or practice in those matters. In other words some one half-assed it to begin with and they have no one to double check it and/or even professionaly revise it when issues arised.
In my expirience it is theese type of situations, caused by stupidity, bad practices and incompetence, that are way more common by a long mile rather than a pure malice.
Project feline is looking great at the moment. I've found you while looking up character modeling and found the devlogs including modeling and shading. Was really cool to see the concept, and now as I'm working on my own project, i found this. Am so buying project feline when it's done, i love this shit so much and you inspire me a lot.
Might have to destroy upon collecting, I'm guessing the collecting block reappeared because there might be code that tells it to flip, and if it's restarted then it's flipping what has been hidden. Maybe even a boolean to check to see if it's hidden first at the start will solve it.
You appear to have handled yourself well. It's not easy for many to walk away from the money. I have angel funded a few projects and you are 100% correct, if it's not in writing then it doesn't count. You saved yourself potentially years of wasted effort.
The cynic in me is now looking at Screen Australia as a gilded cage to keep potential massive IP within the borders. What if your game reached Minecraft level popularity, or the IP reached the size of Star Wars or Marvel? Something tells me in these scenarios they'd be far more likely to invoke that clause because your IP could act as a valuable mega-catalyst for new industry within Australia. They wouldn't want you selling out to a foreign entity or at least not without benefiting local industry first. Look at how huge the Internet boom benefited the US, a sizable chunk of the US's GDP emerged from that IP explosion. IP is serious business in today's hyper-connected and information heavy world, yet IP is easily scooped up during the early years by massive corporations (usually in the US, China or Japan).
When you look at it objectively, the lawyers purposely attempted to mislead you. It's one thing for the contract to be poorly composed/edited, that can be chalked off to contract template errors or bureaucratic negligence. It's another thing for them to make assurances about ownership over the phone and then refuse to clearly put those assurances in writing. Those are the tactics of bad actors (or unreasonable egos). They're playing shady legal tricks with you over what is supposed to be a simple federal program to help citizens of Australia.
The real question is, if the contract gives them ultimate veto power over transfer to third parties, why not just admit that? Your experience seems to indicate they are aware how much people would dislike the idea of the government having potential control over any project that accepts any Screen Australia funds. It's less of a grant and more of a mechanism in which they can put a leash around the next potential mega-IP that might emerge within their borders. Want to sell your IP to Microsoft for $10b? Nope, can't sell unless you stipulate to Microsoft that all future work on the IP has to be done within Australia using local work force. Seems like that could be the potential play, but who know, sometimes we can all get paranoid over what might just amount to a badly written contract.
From my experience, the badly written contracts just show malice already. They won't screw anyone until it benefits them, but they will have the contract to back it up the second it does. I might be biased though as I sat in an all staff meeting and listened to our CEO talk about how they would deport an ex staff member and sue them into the ground until they were bankrupt just because they got a better job at a non-direct competitor. Then they did sue and created a contract and situation nearly identical to this with me before firing me and then unfiring me so I would lose unemployment but still be out of the job due to the hostile work environment. Just so they could sue someone easier next time.
Companies do this because enough people sign and then they can sue based on the contract. If they didn't have malicious intent the contract wouldn't state such extreme examples of perpetuity and sole discretion. At least that's what my lawyer stated when he advised me.
There's more. Upon reading the contract again, I noticed another clause:
"6.2 You give to (or will procure for) Screen Australia all necessary irrevocable, free, perpetual, worldwide permissions to enable Screen Australia to reproduce, copy and use the Project and any other Delivery Materials (excluding any confidential information and any Personal Information) for public reporting and other non-commercial corporate and promotional purposes. These purposes include for Screen Australia’s strategy and research functions and to promote your details, the Project, Screen Australia and the Australian screen industry."
I take this to mean that if I were to sell my IP to a third party at any point in the future, I would have to buy back (give or procure for) the rights from whomever I sold it to allow Screen Australia to continue reporting on the game and using it for their marketing materials. These rights also must be granted to Screen Australia for free and perpetually (irrevocable, free, perpetual, worldwide permissions), meaning the possible costs involved with obtaining these rights back from that third party would come out of my pocket. If I fail to procure these rights back for Screen Australia (i.e. they might be too expensive for me to afford. There could be many reasons, perpetuity is a long time) they can sue me for violating the agreement.
So basically, as I understand it, the actual contract requires give them perpetual, worldwide rights to use my game for publicity, whatever the cost to me, while they simultaneously assure me in their emails that "Screen Australia does not provide grants to recipients in exchange for "goodwill and publicity"".
>Look at how huge the Internet boom benefited the US, a sizable chunk of the US's GDP emerged from that IP explosion
The US literally invented the internet, so that's natural.
Proud of you for doing your due diligence on the business side and properly reading contracts... This is where A LOT of people drop the ball in any startup venture.
We signed a publishing contract for one of our games years ago. The company suddently stopped answering us and it seems that they stopped all their functions. we had been too blue eyed and had no clause in the contract that if they stopped replying us we would be cut lose in X time after not getting reply etc. Then we got another contract but had the one that we couldnt get out of since no one replied us but the company still existed.... That tought us a lesson of thinking about the worst case scenario. Never sign anything if you are not sure how you get out of it..
That was an insane story. It sounded more like a scam than anything proper.
Whoageez. You really dodged the bullet with this one. But as a learning experience, it was doozy but insightful!
Thanks for this and hope you can use this to see your dream project far to the end!
Here's the thing: he didn't dodge a bullet, he just lost 100k over for misinterpreting the contract.
All of the clauses in the contract are to ensure everything he does is legal, and doesn't try to make a game with stolen assets and then hire a vietnamese team to actually make the game.
Screen Australia is very reputable org and they funded dozens of games and hundreds of movies, the reason they accepted: they hired a lawyer rather than asking their dad.
Shame he took down his reddit post, there were many more errors pointed out.
@@spliter88 He didn't misinterpret it, he interpreted it as it was literally written. Screen Australia might be "very reputable" but that contract is some shady bullshit and he most definitely dodged a bullet on it. If you watched the video you'd know he hired a lawyer too and was advised to NOT sign the contract. Hopefully he'll sue Screen Australia and get his legal fees recouped.
For the first 15 seconds of the voice intro I thought "Oh God did Simon Whistler make ANOTHER channel?" On a serious note I don't know how you guys do it. When I think about all the pieces and people it take to do the smallest thing. When I was younger I wanted to be an animator, then I realized being an animator is not "fun" like making art is. Thanks for sharing this, don't burn yourself out!
Absolutely amazing! I have been studying in the film and animation industry in perth for over the past 3 years, and I have also seen a little bit of how Screen Australia operates. It makes me upset that in such an age where the creative field is booming, the organisations are just trying to pump them through to make themselves look good rather than helping those that are making the projects.
I am so glad you have stepped up to them Raymond, and yes, you are absolutely right. It is completely and utterly unprofessional of them to even consider doing things like calling rather than written formats. Screen australia do good things at times but I will never see myself making something and asking them for support unless they really put thought and care into their grantees.
Final thoughts, I really like how far you have come. I popped in a couple years ago and thought that you had a pretty good idea for a game. Im so glad that you persevered, and i enjoy the quality in which you make these dev logs. You got yourself another sub. Good luck for the future man!
It is 12am. Apologies for the incorrect spelling/use of terms. Goodnight
Major props to you for getting into indie dev! Never thought the funding process would be even more nightmarish than I originally thought...
Wow, that truly was an awful experience. Glad to see you dodged such a massive bullet, and good luck with future development!
Once had a contract with a job agency that was full of grammar errors. It was a good warning sign. I did sign it after having my dad read it as well as his job involved contracts like that, he was skeptical but didn't see anything that could lead to harm. I left that job agency after 2 months cause they were just a bunch of amateurs and the contract reflected that pretty well. They forgot to mention certain things about the job they offered me, that meant I was at work 12 hours a day and if lucky getting paid 4 or 5 hours, no travel expenses covered even though the office folks did get paid that, just not us real working folks, things like that. Another job agency, offering a likewise job eagerly bought me from them and didn't screw me over. Every minute I was at the company got paid, including breaks. After a year the company took me over and still working there 5 years later.
Never trust a official document that has grammar mistakes or broken references. They are legal binding documents, if something isn't mentioned in there, they don't have to stick to it even if they said so verbally. Yes they say verbal agreements count as well, but how are you gonna proof they said that if not recorded anywhere?
Never trust the words, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
If only people would have understood this in the context of the 💉 ...
Except he was the government and began the downfall of American wealth for the common folk.
@@Fallen_Ninja It started long before him.
I m proud of you for being true to yourself & be firm about contracts. I hope you will get this game launched to the state of your desire. Really looking forward to your game launch! Just added your game to Wishlist!
I guess it was probably no malicious intent on their side but rather the well known incompetency of governments and public agencies that we know (almost) all around the world. I'm from Germany and stuff like that could have happened here too. I understand you could've used the money, but it's always better not to deal with the government when avoidable! Looking at your project it seems you'll get it funded anyway - looks super interesting and professional. Good luck with it!
I'm also an indie Australian Dev and applied for the grant. When I read the initial grant application, I was under the impression that it had to be a new game, developed for the grant itself. I spent three months writing a game from scratch, which was no where near as polished as the final drafts of successful applicants. When I saw the list I was really fucking pissed because all the other projects were either not indie games by indie studios, or prototypes/vertical slices that had been done in less than 3 months. I was going to apply again this year, but having seen your video I've changed my mind. Screen Australia and state Screen organisations can get fucked.
I've been trying to raise capital in Australia for years, but venture capitalists, Australian banks and funding organisations have no fucking idea when it comes to the games industry. I'm so done wasting development time on applications to corporate and government paper pushers who only know buzzwords and theory. Fuck them.
My game is almost done. I'm going to run a Kickstarter campaign then follow with a steam launch. Still the safest way to go. You can't trust the government and the incompetent people that work for them.
Well done sir. It's important to have honest reviews of companies like this. It really helps that you show texts and emails. Others who consider signing with this company now have a way to see the process and make an informed decision. Thanks!
Not that it matters because the specific song doesn't require attribution, but around 36:56, the song "Cast Of Pods" by Doug Maxell was playing.
You don't have to, and this isn't me publically calling you out since it's one of the songs you don't have to provide attribution for. Great video, by the way! Inclined to check the game out!
Being a (hobbyist) game dev and being in Australia I dropped my enthusiasm for those two things together a while ago. So many horror stories overshadowing the successful ones. It's so sad because with the overflowing amount of creativity I see coming out of here, the governing bodies do not understand - even if they can't see the creative side of it - how much money they are letting trickle down the drain. I see this whole saga as more incompetence than maliciousness, though (as suits do) they did go with the reliable mafioso tactics towards the end there to cover their own incompetence. Sorry for what you went through, but hey, this is good marketing content for your game at least. Bet they didn't foresee that on the 3-page marketing plan.
As an indie game developer, myself, with a great deal of experience in the business side of things (not games per say, but software development contracts and data solutions), you did everything right and by the book. These groups have a tendency to take advantage of both the naivety or the desperation of the developers in order to help promote their own directives. And in many cases, if you are not required to pay back the investment money, you - yourself - are part of the product that they offer and market around. You made several points showcasing this exact thing and their stringency on controlling the future of your IP is part of that. They likely collect money through ad generation, marketing revenue streams or donations and you are one of many sources of financial boons for them.
You made the right call and while it certainly makes the development process harder and more painful, you'll be better for it in the end. It is a shame that I have realized just how predatory the game development industry is compared to the standard business sectors, it is rather disheartening at times that there always seems to be people waiting in the wings to cut people down in one way or another - just because many people enter this industry out of aspirations to do something they are passionate about. In either case, hope your development goes well and I feel like we all need to support one another as developers and people going through what I will confess has been a much more challenging road than I realized it would be when I started.
In either case, looking forward to getting to play Project Feline once it is ready :)
Amazing Video. It was really interesting to see and I cannot wait to find out more about it.
I'm very happy for you and your dad to not 'fall' for that 'trap'.
Keep it going my guy!
lamo
it reminded me in university when we won an international competition for best project.
and before the government funds our project, they wanted us to pay for it first... they said it to prove if we are trust worthy.
yah sure... let us broke university students pay and run this project... why do need them again??
Your problem with goals spawning in wrong could be a timing issue. You might need a delay (although they can be buggy), or a timer. Delays can be set to zero to give you a frame delay.
I'm only thinking, was it really a bug or UE5 just being dumb. I've some issues with it, code working fine even item exists. Save close, open up item doesn't react. Recode it, works again... :/
@@gamerdweebentertainment1616 memory issues. I've had similar problems and worse when I made a load of code without knowing references are volatile. for example, You get something from your inventory, it is created... put it back in your inventory and it's DESTROYED, pull it out again and you have a bran new reference. You need a way of identifying references whether it be a tag, string or whatever. Also the garbage collector is your friend. Destroyed assets float around in memory until the garbage collector cleans them up. But treat the garbage collector with respect... for some reason the guys at epic feel sorry for that piece of code. I had to start the whole game again. Which is a good thing really because I'd do a much better job of it now.
"Yes technically that clause gives us absolute power, but we wouldn't use it, we're good guys honest. It's just there in case, in the least likely possible set of circumstances, we happened to... need it."
What that clause should actually have said was something along the lines of "You agree not to execute licence or transfer of ownership of the IP without first notifying us and waiting at least 14 days to provide a chance for us to review, consult with and advise you with regard to the terms of any such agreement."
And then maybe something about being offered first refusal, I don't know if that's something they cared about.
It definitely is to make sure you keep the money in Australia so they would stop you from publishing with a foreign company
31:50 They are probably using "person" in its legal definition, that includes both "physical person" for actual people and "juridical person" for companies.
i seriously love watching all these updates. and i know its bad to say but its good seeing im not the only one that goes through the struggles of development. its rough. but your doing a bang up job!
I'm not applying for any grants, but I'm going to re-watch this later and give myself a list of things to do as if I _were_ applying for some, because I think that will get me to a much more "ready" place when things start to come up later! Great video, thank you for sharing your experience so transparently. Give your old man a hug, you're very lucky to have people like him around to watch your back!
I didn't expect that abrupt genre change from "quirky neurotic development blog" to "serious legal drama" 😅
I know this was aired a few weeks ago, but I want to just say anyway that you're correct. In a lot of ways writing legal contracts is like writing a piece of "executable" code, if they're undefined references or the syntactic structure of the document is not just right, then the interpretation or validity of the contract is in question. Good job taking such a critical position as someone new to the business side of things.
I remember trying one of the first demos a few years ago, it's crazy to see how much progress you've made! I've wishlisted Project Feline on Steam and I can't freaking WAIT for release, be it next year or next decade haha!
Video editor: How many times should I use that Celeste soundtrack piece?
Raymond: YES, ABSOLUTELY
So much respect for the standards you hold for all your hard work and protecting it without compromise.
Hidden text on a legal contract?! That's fucking bogus. Yeah no, you were absolutely right to reject that grant, because the hidden text could have screwed you as well. Luckily they didn't hide anything in there, from what I can gather, which, even despite, I'd still would have taken it as a HUGE RED FLAG. So yeah, you're absolutely correct, you are better off in the long term rejecting that grant.
I heavily enjoyed this video! Sorry for the nightmare that was the funding process. Wishing you the best for the future of Project Feline!
**I need 16 times the detail**
> Enables 16x MSAA.
It really sucks the way this turned out, but look on the bright side, that tech demo level looks amazing, and the crunch work you put into it shows how awesome the vision for the game is!
I am a project manager at a large software company and I deal with contracts quite often. I can tell you the following
- We do send clients draft contracts and we would go back and forth with them over wording and clauses. However we almost always sent drafted contracts in a state where it can be signed if given only minor adjustment to the verbiage.
- Things in the contracts are sometimes left in ambiguity to leave wiggle rooms for our true intention. For example we would say we will implement a certain feature but without defining how or what it will look like. In your case, I believe they truly want to protect their image and not own your ip but they certainly don’t want to give you the ultimate power to sell your product to an adult game publisher, and if you signed that contract you can rest assured that they will invoke that clause whenever they choose to, even if they claimed that they have no intention to do so right now.
- I believe you should thank them for giving you the push to get your game in a much more refined state.
What an appalling situation. I've never been a fan of film funding bodies being given the power to distribute funding for games, they are completely different industries from a development and distribution standpoint, and they just don't understand the games industry.
its pretty common to chat about contracts over the phone and after the call they'll send a contract with whatever changes yall agreed/talked about
when legal bindings become more of a curse
I feel the insistence on you getting a lawyer was to cover them from legal and public image problems if the contracts turned out to be exploitative.
eg: for any accusations of a exploitative contract
they can respond with:
"They knew what the were signing since they should have had a lawyer present"
Knowing full well small indie groups (not specific to videogames) generally can't afford it.
Signed a lot of game contracts before.
I don't think this contract was written in malace but interpreted as. Gotta be careful but also curious how this unfolds. I don't think this is a bad scheme.
I just had the chance to watch this now. Man what a journey that was. This is pure gold. And the hidden text as the cherry on top. Dang I hate the business part of this stuff. Good luck man. I sometimes found some of your decision making rather too strict at times but keeping that attitude seems to quite well fit and work for you. Glad to see you got over this. Also props to dad, he knows his stuff 😎
The game looks amazing. I am not an anime fan but seriously this looks great, very artistic. It is crazy that they basically take most rights in this contract while claiming that they only want a "say" in some decisions. Surely, they do this on purpose.
It's really cool to see this project still coming along. RUclips has always sporadically recommended the update videos for the game over these past few years and it's cool to see that it's alive and going well! It's due to projects like yours and creators like Matthew Palaje and Ryan Laley that have pushed me to get into gear for my own project. Hope to see this game continue to progress!
Very good analysis of the legal paperwork you were given to sign. That is the correct call. Words mean nothing in the face of a signed contract. The contract is what the courts enforce.
This is nuts. Good on you for sniffing out that it doesn't smell right and standing your ground through this.
Mate.... I feel ya! I've gone through 3 instances with Screen - and my experience has been very similar.
I'm actually glad to know it's not just me!
Three times? You're much more patient than me. Can you share any details?
@@RaymondCripps Nothing I'd want to say on public record 😅😅
@@scorpion666lair Ahh, the 'being closely monitored' I see :)
Dude, props to you and good job for sticking to your guts
To me, after seeing a bit of it, the contract already seemed shady from the beginning. I hope you have better luck regarding grants, and you can continue your development with a fresh mind.
Hope things turn out great !
I personally like how main character's fps is lower than gameplay fps. it feels unique
Unbelievable that making the game build was the "easiest" part. Thanks for the heads-up, don't sign anything without a lawyer.
Yeah, when it is such a heavy contract it is better to use a lawyer.
Indie game developer is a game designer, PR person, accountant, quality assurance, 3d animator, sound editor, optimizer, lightning/shader artist, programmer, 3d modeller, vfx artist, project planner, level designer, QA manager, CEO and now a business man and a lawyer
holy cow, this video was a journey. very entertaining to watch at the least.
"You should seek legal advice with regards to this contract"
The best gift ever from Screen Australia....
I don't think it was a backdoor attempt to control IPs, but allow them to disassociate with IPs and seek compensation from IPs who go rogue without informing them. That said, none of your suggestions would've been bad, and it seemed more like they were being lazy, cheap, and paranoid. They could've improved their contract moving forward and avoided any adversarial relationships in the future if their lawyer had properly coached them on the situation. Very unfortunate and unfair, and also naive of them. I look at all of my friends' contracts for things and I always have to catch companies on these boilerplate contracts that put them in the defacto driver's seat.
The hidden text part is probably just the cheap lawyer using a template for films and cutting out parts that didn't make sense. Again, not nefarious as it seems, but lazy as all hell, and easy for them to do whatever they want to make up for the lawyer's lack of ability.
This sounds like a legal nightmare! I'm no game dev. I've only worked WITH game devs/publishers/marketing agencies as a content creator. Absolutely nothing in the value of, what was it, 500 grand? This sounds like every scam I have ever run into. Whether the intentions were good, or bad, Disney's history shows that what the writing says matters more than anyone's intentions or not. After all, you're dealing with an entity; not a person. Intentions are irrelevant to an entity.
As someone who has turned down term sheets before, you absolutely made the right call here.
This agreement would put you at a massive disadvantage in any future contract negotiation:
1) The process will be more complicated and drawn out by having more parties
2) If Screen Australia throws their weight around or digs their heels in unnecessarily, you may end up with less favourable terms simply because the other party _doesn't like them_
3) Simply having them hanging around your neck during the negotiations will negatively impact YOUR mindset and approach to the deal
4) It will become apparent one way or another that Screen Australia isn't at the table by _your_ choice, and that you were suckered into giving them veto rights over your IP - and suckers get less favourable terms
I've actually had experience of being in that "future deal" - trying to raise money while an investor effectively had veto rights over the round. We managed to close the deal but that is an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone.
When that investor first came to us the amount on the table seemed like a lot, but after everything that transpired and where we are today, that amount now looks very small compared to the amount of power we handed over.
I sincerely hope that one day, this grant looks very small to you too :)
And Screen Australia are pigs for trying to hand-wave this away with "context". They gaslighted you dude. You don't want that energy anywhere near anything you care about, and you've done a great service by bringing this to light because clearly not enough people are holding them to account.
I do have some advice though, both on the business side & also as a software engineer. These are all from mistakes that I've made.
RE: "Screen Australia don't know what an in development game looks like" => change everything
It's fine to "tweak" the plan for a funding deal, but don't ever "pivot" - it puts you at a disadvantage in negotiations because a) the sunk cost will weigh on you and b) you've "lifted up your skirt" way too early. Plus if it doesn't pan out you'll be a few steps backwards. You're far better off staying the course and focusing on creating more opportunities for yourself (which is impossible if you're going to pivot for every single one of them).
RE: The sophisticated goal system you were working on and then abandoned
Look up "YAGNI" on wikipedia. Most technical debt is created not by failing to invest in the future, but instead by overinvesting in the wrong future, or neglecting today's boring problems while you spend time on tomorrow's exciting problems.
RE: The art crunch prior to submission
When in the face of an uncertain outcome or being outside of your comfort zone, it can be very tempting to lean on the tasks you're best at and *create* work that makes you feel in control. You didn't *have* to do all that amazing art! Personally I still struggle with this even today.
*"It's free real estate"*
Famous last words... _(hopefully not)_
It's awesome seeing what progress you've made with your friend improving the look of part the game, although when you said that you did it to impress it worried me if it'd end up being inadvertently being harmful in some way.
And its interesting to see what you had to go through business wise, your dad's been a real one through out your development which is nice to see!
It's also unfortunate you couldn't get the grant you wanted, however if you did you could have ended up with a game you didn't want to develop, so atleast you're still in control! _(for the most part, not with the bugs and some other stuff ofc)_
So I wish you good luck and good rest in your future endeavours and thanks for the 40 minute devlog, I appreciate this game and your videos, they're pretty nice to watch coming back from! college!
That was one hell of a ride. Glad you declined the offer man
Mate I am very grateful for your video! Have been following your progress for years, played an early alpha build a few years ago, and still looking forward to Project Feline's eventual release.
It is incredibly informative to see your dealings with Screen Australia and hoping to receive the grant, to ultimately withdrawing your application, it goes to show the unfortunate stereotype of Australian Government bodies often being inept at their job.
All correspondence you have shown reveals their way or working multiple times over, and they clearly do not know how to do their job correctly, nor do their take it with great care; just one grant after another and hoping people sign away. I would be inclined to accept that they act in good faith all the time, but the ineptitude of their agreement is unacceptable and any individual going into any relationship with this mob should be weary.
You made the definitively correct choice in protecting your IP as all it takes is one bad actor on Screen Australia's behalf to ruin your dreams. It absolutely should not be so hard, if they had a good lawyer send revisions to you, they would not be sending such a poorly formatted document.
Appreciate your work and devlogs as always.
Have a great day mate.
Although I do think you were overreacting a bit due to being *relatively* new to the industry and wanting to protect a passion project of yours, I don't think it was wrong of you to not sign a contract you weren't completely satisfied with. Regardless of the reasoning you did the right thing and personally wish you success with the game.
You're standards are high. That is good. High standards keep quality up. Pointing out their errors are good too. They likely have gotten away with the shoddy work and ripping off creators up until now. Their contract itself shows they have a lot to hide. Legal documents should be written in plain language not word salad. Thank you for standing up to the bulling and sticking to your morals and standards.
35 years in the game industry. While I've never used grant money, I've signed many contracts including with big organizations like Microsoft, Square Enix and Sony. Not to mention the sale of my interest in my own company to a third party. As such I can tell you that your experience with the contract phase of a deal is remarkably common. High level deal agreements are fairly easy to nail down if both parties are interested, but contractual language is a hell-scape. This is the point where sometimes the lawyers start running the show rather than business people. In large organizations, the business side is often subservient or at least constrained by legal to a degree that always struck me as absurd. Other times the parties have very different views on things that, during the initial discussions, seemed trivial but turned out to be rather onerous (like IP rights). And even if you do negotiate something you are comfortable with, it may only be much later that you realize the true implications of what you signed. Being cautious, as you are, shows you are well ahead of the curve in these matters.
My advice is to stick to your guns no matter what. Don't get bullied and absolutely always ignore the "that's our standard language" type statements. Everything is always negotiable if the other party is engaging in fair dealing, especially when you are mostly just trying to remove ambiguity from the agreement. Always retain your IP rights, unless you are fairly compensated otherwise. Remember IP rights extend to merchandise and other matters should your game become a hit, so think wide.
I wish I could give more advice about grants, but it's just never been my thing. But I can assure you, signing a deal with a publisher will be no less frustrating. The key thing to remember about contracts is that every obnoxious line in there was probably born from some incident in the past. In general, no one looks at the agreements after they are signed unless something goes wrong. And then you will have either thanked your foresight in sticking to your guns or curse yourself for not having done so.
The good news is that each contract you do, or don't do, will be a great story in your career... starting with this one. There's also lots of funding out there, if you really need it at all. I'm reachable if any of my experience can be of use to you going forward.
Thanks David, that's comforting to know. I am sure it shows in the video but I am not experienced in these matters of contracting and had to do a lot of research and learning in preparation for this deal.
In hindsight, looking at the response this has gotten, I think people are being a bit harsh on Screen Australia. I did not set out to make them look like bullies, I just wanted my community to know what happened and why I've been gone. Screen Australia may have been acting in good faith, however I think the rigid framework government bodies operate under made it difficult for us to build a trusting relationship, and I experienced great difficulty communicating with them. I, for one, felt mislead when they would tell us one thing in a video call and tell us something completely different in an email. That alone was reason enough for me to decline. For me, intentions are irrelevant when it comes to what is written on the page. I know not everyone will agree and that others may have made different choices in my situation, but I did what I felt was right given my circumstances and I appreciate the community support behind my decision.
I'm not normally one to take advice from people I haven't met on the internet, but I would love to collect as much insight and knowledge as I can for next time. Thank you for sharing.
@@RaymondCripps "I think people are being a bit harsh on Screen Australia"
It was the implied threat of legal action, and the claim of post facto "confidentiality", that confirmed their status as bullies. Whether you intended to portray them that way isn't a factor: it's simply what they are, based on your account.
At 7:35 your voiceover contains some really noticable high-pitched ringing. It's not the end of the world but I thought I'd let you know in case you want to do something about that in the future
I'd feel like I need a team to create my own indie game.
depends on the scope. there is plenty of single man projects made in 1 to 4 or 5 years. but mostly in 2d or visual novel projects. most 3d single made games are awful asset flips.
On the one hand, I could see Screen Australias situation to be like:
-We see potential in funding games
-*Working hard bureaucracy to get funding on the road*
-Damn, now we need some contract stuff... just grab some old standard one. Should be fine.
From the indie dev side:
-Wow! Amazing! We get so much funding and can finally realise our dream project.
-Here, Screen Australias interest is most likely exactly that
- And probably, you could just sign, get funded, create your game, be successful and do whatever you want with your game and most likely noone would care or question your decision.
The big BUT:
-You are being a smart*ss about the contract and it most likely is just a bureaucracy thing to them to get funding done... BUT the problem with being a smart*ss is... YOU ARE RIGHT!
-Contracts are for exactly that: Talking so long about everything until both sides are happy and sign off.
-But i bet in this situation, you were just being an annoyance to them in a pipeline where noone has complained until today
-You were probably the first one to actually look into things, but probably also the the first one to care (from both sides).
In the end:
-You probably could have signed off, do whatever you wanted and get away with it
-But still, YOU ARE RIGHT, this is not how contracts/business works and its quite unprofessional of them.
-But in this case, sadly, doing things right ment not doing them at all.
To be honest, its usually how working with government contracts work from personal experience. Usually the staff isn't even responsible for drafting the contract. The government also isn't too sophisticated to really go into the minutia about your indie game IP, though they usually do this as a caveat in case you do something outrageous (for example suddenly making the game an R18 / or possess illegal content would make the government look really bad and they want to avoid that). Based on your story I would say they were acting in good faith to try to reach out to you after you rejected the initial offer.
Having been in the game industry and experience with contracts with other game publishers, usually they can be more flexible on the minutia but the terms are usually much worse in favor on their side. But based on this I would say, that there wasn't really a bad intent coming from the government just misunderstanding and bureacracy.
There is one bit of feedback though, by posting this video and making this public, you may have set a warning bell to any future publishers and it may risk you being blacklisted permenantly from a lot of future publishing options because no corporation wants to risk getting outed like this publicly. It's a bit too late now but just something to keep in mind for the future.
A competent company will just be up-front about it with an NDA about negotiating in private.
that's because you still lucky, how if the worst case scenario happen and they lock you from your ip
in all fairness, they didn't request signing an NDA so it's not exactly his problem, merely this company being bewildered by its own sheer incompetence. no company with good faith would create a document without transparency and hidden pages/clauses in the document. that's shady as fuck, and he's right to call them out on their seedy practices. i don't really think it massively alters his ability to get a publisher in the future, it just means that they know in hindsight he has decent people behind him who know laws and legal jargon so he can't be easily fooled into signing his IP or personal rights on his own project away.
"no corporation wants to risk getting outed like this publicly" And how on earth is that not a good thing? It warns others, it can help the corporation to see their shortcomings, and ensures he'll never need to deal with other similarly shitty corporations and their dubious 'practices'.
Or perhaps you're suggesting others should not publicize the incompetence / shady practices they experience and just swallow the contract terms and take the money? If your answer is yes, you've completely missed the point of the video and are just part of the problem.
When it comes to dealing with professional / competent organizations, the only thing he needs to worry about is if he has been unfair or deceptive is his own conduct in regard to this situation. Feel free to point out where this was the case.
@Nymbryxion101 @TheInfamousLegend27 @ChoiceOfIllusion Just came across this thread. Interesting discussion here and some interesting points raised. I would be more than happy to play ball and sign an NDA with any company, even if nothing comes of it. However, Screen Australia did not have me sign an NDA. If they did not want me saying anything, they should have been more careful.
But yeah, if a single RUclips video is enough to deter companies from associating with me then that is their decision. I am not losing any sleep over it. The way I see it, I don't have millions of dollars or business experience, but I have a game that people want, the skills to produce it, and a small RUclips channel. Many publishers are eager to take advantage of naïve and ambitious emerging developers like myself, and this platform is my only leverage against that. But like I said, I would have been willing to sign an NDA before negotiations had proceeded. If that is somehow threatening to some publishes then I have no interest in working with them.