Outrider developer People Can Fly haven’t been paid royalties

I don't think People Can Fly is wholly blameless here. Outriders did appear to have the wind at its back, launching with over 120,000 players on Steam, quadruple what a comparable game like Marvel's Avengers did at launch.
It did 4x as many as Avengers? And Avengers failed to break even too right?..Sounds more like Square is having an issue selling some of these titles more than anything. Some of the other articles that have come out on this situation over the last 24 hours made it seem like they simply spent more making the game and marketing it than they've brought in so far, which is why they haven't hit whatever target they wanted to hit to pay out the royalties.

Im no expert on it tho, gonna watch this thread so some of you more knowledgeable on how things like this go can provide some detail. Pretty interesting situation
 
I have seen people want to blame it being on Gamepass I for one am glad it was because from what I remember it was a buggy pos and thank goodness I didnt give them money for it.
 
looks like it hasn't recouped costs. initial sales can be deceiving, and after they blew up everyone's inventory, I would not be surprised if there were a significant number of refunds.
 
The other problem? The game does not appear to be profitable yet. The reason they're talking about this with investors at all is because this month they were supposed to earn royalties on the game, paid by Square Enix. But…they didn't, indicating the game had not yet recouped its development, QA and marketing costs, so People Can Fly has earned no royalties from it.

Interesting. This piece of information contradicts earlier statements that Square-Enix was happy with the sales of the game and the amount MS paid them for placement on GamePass.


Someone's telling fibs. And I'll bet a Coke Zero it's the accountants.
 

Theories?
Is it common that developers haven't been paid this long after a games launch date?
That information is usually established in the contracts so we can only speculate. That said, it's not ridiculous if money is still held back at this point. Royalties are usually paid out on a quarterly basis, but creative accounting can sometimes delay that by an extra month, or sometimes even an extra quarter.

Outriders launched at the start of April, so I would have thought the earliest they'd be paid would have been July, and we're only in mid-august so it's not exactly a full red flag yet. That said, if they're not seeing any monies by October 1st, then something is either very fishy or their numbers are horribly off.
 
I mean. It's Square Enix we are talking about. This is company that is notorious for making expensive CG trailer and throwing money on stupid shit and making 3,6 million sellers that failed to meet expectations.

If you want to tell me, that new IP that had 125k concurrent players on Steam, and Microsoft gave you huge chunk of money so it can be on Game Pass is not "in green" then you are the problem. Your planning, your marketing budgets and everything about you...
 
Could it be Square simply doesn't want their results to look even worse (having already written off 11bn yen on Avengers) by paying royalties and is trying to save as much time as possible?

Source: https://www.thesixthaxis.com/2020/11/25/square-enix-11-billion-write-off-marvels-avengers/

They clearly say it put the sub-segment (w/e that means) in the red.
That would be quite shitty thing to do, especially when MS paid them upfront, so they surely made a deal which worked for them.
 
Theories?
Is it common that developers haven't been paid this long after a games launch date?
Depends of the contract.
If the contract signed says SE will start to pay royalties only after the game break even with development costs then it can take months, years and even never.

It is a usual thing when you fund a game… you already paid all the costs for the development and before that cost is not covered you won't pay royalties.

Let's say royalties are only paid over profitable sales… the initial sales to cover the dev costs usually doesn't have royalties to devs.
 
Last edited:
I have seen people want to blame it being on Gamepass I for one am glad it was because from what I remember it was a buggy pos and thank goodness I didnt give them money for it.
There were people thanking Phil on bringing this big AAA TP game to GP, game that brings levels of fun never seen since Crackdown3. :lollipop_anxious_sweat:

My theory/guess is the game did better than expected, even with GP ... there just has to be some wrench in the gears in the deal/relations between Squeenix and the Studio.
 

Theories?
Is it common that developers haven't been paid this long after a games launch date?

Honestly 2-3 million for such a title is a bit of a failure. Development costs may have been high and SE is waiting for break even on their investments (marketing, dev costs)
 
Bizarre. But if I had to guess, S-E may still be trying to formulate an answer as to what the developer is owed since the publisher elected to send it to GP. But if they're acting intentionally, I imagine they want to obfuscate the actual revenue performance for as long as possible and present it in as rosy a light as they can.
 
I have seen people want to blame it being on Gamepass I for one am glad it was because from what I remember it was a buggy pos and thank goodness I didnt give them money for it.
i had a blast with this game day 1 from start to finish on PC
maybe once servers down.. smooth sailing for me
 
That would be quite shitty thing to do, especially when MS paid them upfront, so they surely made a deal which worked for them.
yeah. They knew what they were doing. It's the easiest way to make sure the execs get the money up front while devs who rely on sales targets are left hanging.

SE has done this before. They took millions from ms for rise of tomb raider knowing full well that not launching a traditionally PS title would cost them sales. But since the execs would get their bonuses from Microsoft's next big check at the end of the year, it didn't really matter to them how well it performed overall.

Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney for royalties because of black widow being released on streaming. I'm guessing devs are now going to start negotiating to get a slice of any subscription money. Even Sony launched like three new games on ps+ this year. I bet the devs missed any kind of bonus from sales targets there too.
 
S-E may still be trying to formulate an answer as to what the developer is owed since the publisher elected to send it to GP.

Devs: Um, guys? We've not been paid yet.

SE: Yes, you have. We gave you an advance against royalties.

Devs: But the game's sold loads. Surely we've earned out?

SE: Ha, not quite. You see, we're only paying you for boxed copies sold.

Devs: W .. what?

SE: On the PS5.

Devs: ...

SE: In the UK.

(heh - meta NeoGAF joke there)
 
The answers are there in the article.

I've worked on massive franchises and I remember this one game that was predicted to be an even bigger hit than the prequel title. Once the post launch blitz and accolades and actually bigger sales number came in I casually asked the right guy "Did that title even make money?". The response was (Paraphrased) "No, because sales and marketing treated the whole thing as if it was a fucking license to print money and burned through any profit the title was predicted to make. It's (Franchise) value now is only as reported revenue".

They then greenlit a few more sequels...
 
Devs: Um, guys? We've not been paid yet.

SE: Yes, you have. We gave you an advance against royalties.

Devs: But the game's sold loads. Surely we've earned out?

SE: Ha, not quite. You see, we're only paying you for boxed copies sold.

Devs: W .. what?

SE: On the PS5.

Devs: ...

SE: In the UK.

(heh - meta NeoGAF joke there)
Funny enough this is pretty much the exact situation happening with movies now, and is why Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney.
 
We need them numbers now. You know what it's time for
receipt-whitney-houston.gif


SE looking like they done took that GP check for themselves and kept the bar what it was on sales.
 
There was an issue recently with Disney needing to redo a contract with an actress because they put a movie on Disney+ instead of theaters.
I wonder if the Gamepass deal is similar. They were supposed to get paid based on disk/digital sales but not gamepass.
 
Doesn't 2-3 million seem a bit unrealistic? I don't know what the GP deal was and how that stopped people from buying it on xbox for the most part but I have a hard time believing that many people bought the game on PC and PlayStation.
 
That would be quite shitty thing to do, especially when MS paid them upfront, so they surely made a deal which worked for them.
How do you know how Microsoft pays for games on GP? Is there some leaked documents or something?
 
Last edited:
Doesn't 2-3 million seem a bit unrealistic? I don't know what the GP deal was and how that stopped people from buying it on xbox for the most part but I have a hard time believing that many people bought the game on PC and PlayStation.
Enough didnt buy it on PC and PS for it to be profitable putting it on Gamepass for Xbox only didnt doom this game.

Look at review scores it gets around a 5/10 on PS it was a buggy bad game thats what did it in even if it did have promise
 
I think it's cute that they think the game sold 3 million copies. Anyway, gamepass clauses are going to make this type of dynamic between publisher and royalties very messy if they are stuck in "per unit".
 
Last edited:
Without knowing a ton of unknown data, it is Impossible to say how badly gamepass hurt its profitability, or how much it helped it. But knowing it has little (if any at all) microtransactions and could be played for almost free by anyone with a PC or Xbox, and having heard positive things about how it was doing previously, makes it easy to wonder if this will be a recurring theme for non-live service 3rd party games on gamepass. Regardless, it will be interesting to see if we get any in depth investigating on this possible correlation.
 
A straight up contract dispute is the kind of thing you can go to a lawyer to resolve with a lawsuit. Getting the press involved is almost completely pointless unless your goal is to damage the reputation of one of the parties without having to provide evidence.

Could be true, could be false. Pretty much up to a judge to decide. But in the meantime, someone wanted us to think SQEX was bad .... soooo, I guess someone's pissed. That's all I can really gather from this.
 
I wouldn't know, that's why I was asking the poster, I assumed he'd seen something.
It varies case by case:
How do you pay out developers? I'm a developer, I make a game, I say I'm going to put it in Game Pass, a customer pays [you] $14.99 a month. How do you decide how much to pay me, the developer?

Our deals are, I'll say, all over the place. That sounds unmanaged, but it's really based on the developer's need. One of the things that's been cool to see is a developer, usually a smaller to mid-sized developer, might be starting a game and say, "hey, we're willing to put this in Game Pass on our launch day if you guys will give us X dollars now." What we can go do is, we'll create a floor for them in terms of the success of their game. They know they're going to get this return.

[In] certain cases, we'll pay for the full production cost of the game. Then they get all the retail opportunity on top of Game Pass. They can go sell it on PlayStation, on Steam, and on Xbox, and on Switch. For them, they've protected themselves from any downside risk. The game is going to get made. Then they have all the retail upside, we have the opportunity for day and date. That would be a flat fee payment to a developer. Sometimes the developer's more done with the game and it's more just a transaction of, "Hey, we'll put it in Game Pass if you'll pay us this amount of money."

Others want [agreements] more based on usage and monetization in whether it's a store monetization that gets created through transactions, or usage. We're open [to] experimenting with many different partners, because we don't think we have it figured out. When we started, we had a model that was all based on usage. Most of the partners said, "Yeah, yeah, we understand that, but we don't believe it, so just give us the money upfront."
Source (The Verge)

On topic: I think there is something shady in the deal between the SE and devs - I hope they'll get their fair share eventually.
 
I wonder if the royalty agreement between Square and People Can Fly factored in Gamepass or if it only relied on sales. That would be a pretty dick move on Square's part to intentionally have the game underperform from a sales perspective by including it on Gamepass.

Square's contract people:

giphy.gif
 
Overlooking sex abuse by industry friends.
I'll let you know Jason knew first. He also knew about this (first obviously) and decided against writing a piece. It would have eaten into his time harassing people on Twitter about start up companies. These start ups have more power and control than the larger established companies.
 
Dont know about on console but the game was pretty big on PC.
Steam Spy has it at 1-2mil just on Steam alone, and the near 49k user reviews marries up with that figure well (only 1-2 users out of 100 usually post a user review on Steam.
Also 125k launch user numbers are really big for Steam. There are much higher profile AAA games that dont come close to 100k on launch day.
 
You can only play so many GaaS games. There's a point where people will try out a new GaaS game for a quick change of pace, and then drop it for the established 2-3 that they have in their rotation.
 
I mean. It's Square Enix we are talking about. This is company that is notorious for making expensive CG trailer and throwing money on stupid shit and making 3,6 million sellers that failed to meet expectations.

If you want to tell me, that new IP that had 125k concurrent players on Steam, and Microsoft gave you huge chunk of money so it can be on Game Pass is not "in green" then you are the problem. Your planning, your marketing budgets and everything about you...

Might be relevant if SE actually developed the game instead of just. . .publishing it.
 
is it because the game sucks?

(that's right i said it!)
I think it's a well designed game with respect to the fact that you can tell a lot of time and care was put into it, and apparently it was a team of over 200 people. Personally I can't really play t though.
 
Top Bottom