GP32 Commercial Game Development


overmind

Still Fresh
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
7
How can a company or developer group to produce and sell commercial games? I've heard about 3rd party contract with Gamepark. How can a programmer to sign one?
 
The same way any other developer/programmer or team does it.

Either:
1) Make the game yourself, market the game and produce hype yourself (through demo releases, media parties etc) and then find a thirdparty who can box it all and produce the manuals etc, and then try to approach the shops to see if they will sell it.

Or:
2) Make a working (impressive) demo of the game, and send it to the publishing houses. If they like it, they may take up your project (basically fund it) and do all the marketing and distribution for you.

Because the GP32 commercial market is so small, I doubt there are any large publishing houses willing to take the risk, especially if they need to pay you/your team for the development phase. Perhaps there are smaller publishers who deals with this sort of market?

The best bet would be to search gamasutra - the best place I know for info on the games industry and its ins and outs. www.gamasutra.com
 
No contract with Gamepark is necessary, the GP32 is not locked, Gamepark don't care, and the tools you need are free. So its basically like it works on a PC. But Gamepark does have some things that would help potential commercial developers. They have SDKs you can buy (in addition to the free ones) and probably some other stuff.
 
Are you sure about it? GP32 amateur development could be free. But for commercial game development to sign a 3rd party contract is needed. There is a warning about it when you download amateur development kit:

"3. You should not produce or sell commercial games through the open SDK.
If you want to commercialize, you should sign the 3rd party contract with the Game Park Holdings."

A publisher could not be necessary, because Gamepark can sell full games electronically by 10 USD or less. But for physical distribution, some security issues must be included. Security issues that just legal 3rd party developers have. However, the market is small, an independent developer can cost production with a little help of venture capital.

By technical side, for amateur development a free SDK could be ok, but for real commercial programming is not enough. Some technical data are restricted to 3rd party developers only. Could be possible to purchase a $2000 - $10000 professional development kit? Is it really needed? could developers to program their own tools? Is it authorized?

I have asked Gamepark about 3rd party contract(bhlee@gamepark.com), but they don't ansewer me.

Gamepark!, Are you there? I'm relly serious about commercial game development!
 
Well, the simple solution would be to use Mr.Mirkos SDK replacement to get by these restrictions. I don't think that Mr.Mirkos SDK has any distribution or commercial restrictions except for GPL. What this basically means is that if someone asks you, you have to give them a link to Mr.Mirkos page to download the SDK :)
 
I think if you alter the GPL'd software you have to make the source available, but if you use it (and build your proggy on top of it) then you are ok keeping your source for yourself, and providing a link (or the source itself) to the SDK.

Don't quote me on that though. My knowledge is limited in this respect :p

EDIT: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

So basically, I'm wrong :) Even though identifiable sections of the work are not derived from the "program", they are definately distributed as a package, therefore GPL applies to the whole lot. I concur to Blah...
 
Blah posted on Apr 12 2005 at 11:12 PM said:
I thought you had to make your code available to all...
Correct. But thats not just commercial stuff. Anything written with Mirko's sdk should have full source released, but I don't think many people realise this. I sure Mirko wouldn't care about that (for homebrew releases at least), but it does just go to show that libraries should never be released under the GPL and should be LGPL instead (which does allow for closed source applications to be developed from an open source sdk).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Technology isn't the question, but legal and commercial issues. I don't want to speak too much about technology here ( I was involved in a flame war some time ago because my programming beliefs).

Copyright and trademark use are serious things. Third party licensed developers have special rights and responsabilities. For example, japanese licensed developers(Capcom, Konami, etc) share their profits with the console companies (Nintendo, SCE, etc) and receive bussines and technical support in return. However, to sign a third party contract with japanese companies can be virtually impossible for a small company or freelance developer group. Gamepark seems to be more friendly with new developers. If it is true, both Gamepark and new developers can win a lot.

For technical side, I'm surprised from some programmers that have created libraries and tools without official technical information from Gamepark. They're excellent programmers! But a licensed developer with the right documentation could to create even more professional and reliable applications. ( remember BLU+ screen bug)

IMHO, friendly 3rd party policy could be benefical both for Gamepark and new developers companies. What do you think about it?
 
overmind posted on Apr 14 2005 at 08:34 AM said:
IMHO, friendly 3rd party policy could be benefical both for Gamepark and new developers companies. What do you think about it?
yeah :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top