Current Events > Any CEmen wanna offer their opinion on this video game lawsuit I'm litigating?

(+) Yeah! (+)

*for confidentiality purposes, cannot reveal the particulars*

My Client signed an Agreement with a Developer in 2016 where he received 2% of revenues from sales of the Game because he worked on the coding. The Agreement only mentioned the Game by its name - there was no mentioning of the platform. At the time, this was done on purpose in order to capture any potential ports of the Game.

At the time of negotiating the Agreement, the Game was in beta. After they signed the Agreement, the Game was released for the PC and became relatively successful. Client received the 2% and everyone was happy.

A year or two later, the Game was ported to consoles. However, the Developer's position now is that the console version is not part of the Agreement because the Agreement was restricted to the PC version only, as my Client only worked on coding for the beta. This is despite the fact that the PC version is identical to the console version. Moreover, the Developer contemplated ports to consoles at the time the Agreement was being negotiated, but did not try to phrase the Agreement so that it is restricted to PC version only.

So now the sole issue is should the Agreement, as it is written, be interpreted to include the console version as well?

Of course my position is that the Agreement does include console versions because it is the same Game.
---

this happened
btw so did Ronda Rousey accepting my marriage proposal
---

Geiki Ganger posted...

2% of revenues from sales of the Game

If it doesnt specify that it would not include future ports of the game then, yeah, pay the man. You could have specified very easily.
---

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

btw so did Ronda Rousey accepting my marriage proposal

When's the wedding?

---

i think an arguable case could be made that you only meant the PC version if that was the only version envisaged as being released at the time. could they also argue that a port is an entirely differently 'coded' game given a port team will be involved?

if you had it in writing that the intention of the wording was to capture future games (even internally) I think that would make for a strong case

If the port uses any of his code then be deserves the 2%

If they remade the whole thing in a different language because of platform reasons or otherwise stripped out all his code then no.

---

Geiki Ganger posted...

o now the sole issue is should the Agreement, as it is written, be interpreted to include the console version as well?

yes. if it didn't specify, why wouldn't it include all ports?

TheDreadedWave posted...

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

btw so did Ronda Rousey accepting my marriage proposal

When's the wedding?

She has to do her makeup first.
So far she's picked "the same look I had after I lost a fight"

SerperiorThanU posted...

Why wouldnt it have?

Because it's Ronda Rousey
---

If no particular port was specified then the contract can be assumed to include all applicable vanues of distribution, meaning your client is entitled to his agreed upon cut in regards to console sales as well
---

why was your client remunerated as a % of sales? were they independent or were they an employee?

---

gloBal enemy posted...

why was your client remunerated as a % of sales? were they independent or were they an employee?

Contracted coder.
---

Malfunction posted...

i think an arguable case could be made that you only meant the PC version if that was the only version envisaged as being released at the time.

There were emails (which our Client saved) as early as 2015 regarding ports to console versions. So no, PC version was definitively not the only version envisaged.

Malfunction posted...

could they also argue that a port is an entirely differently 'coded' game given a port team will be involved?

That is something they might try to advance, but we had an expert compare the PC version and console version and they are pretty much identical (which is what you would expect from a port). Now I'm not a software coder, so I don't know if it is possible for a port to utilize entire different coding, but I doubt that would be the case.

Malfunction posted...

if you had it in writing that the intention of the wording was to capture future games (even internally) I think that would make for a strong case

We didn't want to limit the Agreement to any specific ports, which is why we left it as just the Game.
---

Playing devils advocate but your client was engaged to code for the PC game and was to be remunerated a percentage of sales. I cant articulate myself quite well here as Im not too familiar with how the industry works from a legal perspective but wouldnt it stand to reason that your client is getting a share of revenue of the product he built (ie the PC game) rather than a share of revenues in the brand or broader IP?

---

gloBal enemy posted...

Playing devils advocate but your client was engaged to code for the PC game and was to be remunerated a percentage of sales. I cant articulate myself quite well here as Im not too familiar with how the industry works from a legal perspective but wouldnt it stand to reason that your client is getting a share of revenue of the product he built (ie the PC game) rather than a share of revenues in the brand or broader IP?

He was paid for his code not for the game.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

He was paid for his code not for the game.

That's my sentiment. It feels like the 2% of sales is in lieu of a larger payment/wage/etc for the contribution to the product rather than a residual right to a share of sales of other products.

---