5 ms·

So that means the original devs were never really compensated and if I buy a KSP game nowadays I'm not supporting them either?

hadlock 7y ago
Well KSP launched several successful careers and also there's the goodwill of the owner of Squad who had the foresight to invest in his employee and his employee's skillset. But yes you are correct KSP is not owned by the original creative/creator, it's owned by their employer.
- BEEdwards 7y ago
  >there's the goodwill of the owner of Squad who had the foresight to invest in his employee and his employee's skillset Sure if you ignore the whole once Squad realized they had a cash cow they treated the developers like shit until they all left. Companies investing in skill sets generally try to keep their cash cow men around.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    It’s an interesting example to bring up next time one of those HN threads pop up about “Should I work on a side project while still working for my employer?”
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      I don't understand how the answer to that question can be anything other than "fuck yes, if you want to", though.
      - rl3 7y ago
        >I don't understand how the answer to that question can be anything other than "fuck yes, if you want to", though. Sure, but it probably makes sense to first have a reasonable, flexible, non-draconian invention assignment agreement in place—even if you don't think the side project will be worth anything.
        Rapzid 7y ago
        Depending on where you live it might not even be enforceable either implicitly or explicitly due to local laws if all resources are employee owned(time, equipment, etc etc).
        ChickeNES 7y ago
        Yup, that would be illegal in Illinois for sure
        cableshaft 7y ago
        Ideally, but even if not, just work on it and don't release anything about it until you quit the company (preferably with a bit of a buffer for deniability sake). I wouldn't normally advocate for this behavior, but these draconian rules shouldn't be so commonplace to begin with, and also companies shouldn't be able to control what you do in your free time.
      - LoSboccacc 7y ago
        > anything other than "fuck yes, if you want to" ownership transfer clauses. some are in the fine print, some are directly in the standard contracts i.e. Italy has these in the C.C.N.L., no way to avoid them, so you can't cash in a side project, you need first to severe your employment contract.
- mcv 7y ago
  So what are the original devs doing now? Particularly whoever originally envisioned KSP? I can't believe you can create KSP and then not go on to work on something interesting.
  - MzHN 7y ago
    https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9i9ovv/i_am_felipe_harvester_falanghe_creator_of_kerbal/ https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9i9ovv/i_am_felipe_ha...
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Isn't that how most games are? I can't imagine many devs get royalties for their code.
- t0astbread 7y ago
  Yes but it's apparently exceptionally bad with Squad/KSP. Aside from that I also think that this isn't good. Everyone involved should be compensated for the success of the product they created.
  - appleiigs 7y ago
    if you want a share of the success, then you should also share the failure. Would devs agree to a salary clawback or loss of an equity buy-in?
    - greycol 7y ago
      What was the loss for the company if KSP failed? They were sponsoring the cost of KSP dev time to keep their lead developer not to actually create KSP. Under your mercenary evaluation of this the company didn't actually have any chance of failure as the dev stays, so by your reasoning the company shouldn't get any of the profits.
      - appleiigs 7y ago
        I don’t know how you get from what I said, to what you said. The dev was paid for the dev time, which was advantageous to him, so he took it instead of leaving. He has no risk, therefore does participate in the upside beyond his salary. The company paid for the upside.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      Equity is sharing in both. If it fails, your equity is worth less.
      - fastball 7y ago
CydeWeys 7y ago
Absent widespread unionization in the gaming industry and standardization of royalty tables, this was never in the cards anyway.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
most money was syphoned by management pet projects, including a recording label and a film iirc. however I'm still pissed at how they treated modding and their community, killing a lot of promising endeavours by declaring then redundant with the project roadmap, including resources and base building and goddamn multiplayer, sapping a lot of the momentum under the modders but ultimately undelivered on their commitments. mods picked up steam after it was clear some of these things were going nowhere, but the damage at that point was done.
marvin 7y ago
There was a post about it; the lead dev was paid a thousand dollars a month or so during development, his regular salary, but no other compensation. He made an absolute shit deal, the kind that should probably be illegal or at the very least strongly discouraged through proper education. His employer’s actions were unethical.

hadlock 7y ago

Well KSP launched several successful careers and also there's the goodwill of the owner of Squad who had the foresight to invest in his employee and his employee's skillset. But yes you are correct KSP is not owned by the original creative/creator, it's owned by their employer.

BEEdwards 7y ago
>there's the goodwill of the owner of Squad who had the foresight to invest in his employee and his employee's skillset Sure if you ignore the whole once Squad realized they had a cash cow they treated the developers like shit until they all left. Companies investing in skill sets generally try to keep their cash cow men around.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  It’s an interesting example to bring up next time one of those HN threads pop up about “Should I work on a side project while still working for my employer?”
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    I don't understand how the answer to that question can be anything other than "fuck yes, if you want to", though.
    - rl3 7y ago
      >I don't understand how the answer to that question can be anything other than "fuck yes, if you want to", though. Sure, but it probably makes sense to first have a reasonable, flexible, non-draconian invention assignment agreement in place—even if you don't think the side project will be worth anything.
      - Rapzid 7y ago
        Depending on where you live it might not even be enforceable either implicitly or explicitly due to local laws if all resources are employee owned(time, equipment, etc etc).
        ChickeNES 7y ago
        Yup, that would be illegal in Illinois for sure
      - cableshaft 7y ago
        Ideally, but even if not, just work on it and don't release anything about it until you quit the company (preferably with a bit of a buffer for deniability sake). I wouldn't normally advocate for this behavior, but these draconian rules shouldn't be so commonplace to begin with, and also companies shouldn't be able to control what you do in your free time.
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      > anything other than "fuck yes, if you want to" ownership transfer clauses. some are in the fine print, some are directly in the standard contracts i.e. Italy has these in the C.C.N.L., no way to avoid them, so you can't cash in a side project, you need first to severe your employment contract.
mcv 7y ago
So what are the original devs doing now? Particularly whoever originally envisioned KSP? I can't believe you can create KSP and then not go on to work on something interesting.
- MzHN 7y ago
  https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9i9ovv/i_am_felipe_harvester_falanghe_creator_of_kerbal/ https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9i9ovv/i_am_felipe_ha...

Rebelgecko 7y ago

Isn't that how most games are? I can't imagine many devs get royalties for their code.

t0astbread 7y ago
Yes but it's apparently exceptionally bad with Squad/KSP. Aside from that I also think that this isn't good. Everyone involved should be compensated for the success of the product they created.
- appleiigs 7y ago
  if you want a share of the success, then you should also share the failure. Would devs agree to a salary clawback or loss of an equity buy-in?
  - greycol 7y ago
    What was the loss for the company if KSP failed? They were sponsoring the cost of KSP dev time to keep their lead developer not to actually create KSP. Under your mercenary evaluation of this the company didn't actually have any chance of failure as the dev stays, so by your reasoning the company shouldn't get any of the profits.
    - appleiigs 7y ago
      I don’t know how you get from what I said, to what you said. The dev was paid for the dev time, which was advantageous to him, so he took it instead of leaving. He has no risk, therefore does participate in the upside beyond his salary. The company paid for the upside.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Equity is sharing in both. If it fails, your equity is worth less.
    - fastball 7y ago

CydeWeys 7y ago

Absent widespread unionization in the gaming industry and standardization of royalty tables, this was never in the cards anyway.

LoSboccacc 7y ago

most money was syphoned by management pet projects, including a recording label and a film iirc. however I'm still pissed at how they treated modding and their community, killing a lot of promising endeavours by declaring then redundant with the project roadmap, including resources and base building and goddamn multiplayer, sapping a lot of the momentum under the modders but ultimately undelivered on their commitments. mods picked up steam after it was clear some of these things were going nowhere, but the damage at that point was done.

marvin 7y ago

There was a post about it; the lead dev was paid a thousand dollars a month or so during development, his regular salary, but no other compensation. He made an absolute shit deal, the kind that should probably be illegal or at the very least strongly discouraged through proper education. His employer’s actions were unethical.