Angry Birds dev "will not use Chillingo again"
Rovio confirms iPhone hit not part of EA buyout, and disputes need for publishers
Rovio Mobile, developer of Angry Birds, has clarified that new EA acquisition Chillingo holds no rights to the iPhone hit.
EA confirmed it was to buy Chillingo last night, with unconfirmed estimates putting the deal at $20 million.
Despite confusion amongst some media outlets, the takeover does not include any Rovio properties. Chillingo's role in Angry Birds was purely to provide publishing and distribution support for the catapult game's initial iPhone and iPad releases.
Rovio self-published the recent Android and Nokia ports of the 6.5 million-selling game, and claims it sees no need for third-party assistance in future.
"We will not use Chillingo again," Rovio boss Peter Vesterbacka told TechCrunch."You don't need publishers," he argued.
The company also spent last night correcting media reports that it was part of the EA deal via Twitter.
Rovio is self-publishing iOS follow-up Angry Birds Hallowe'en, which launched yesterday.
EA's interest in Chillingo appears to focus on its knack for spotting promising iOS games (such as Angry Birds and current App Store chart-topper Cut The Rope), and the Crystal mobile multiplayer and community tech featured in all its titles.
And lets not forget that some of Looking Glass Studio's closure can be attributed to poor sales on Terra Nova which hurt doubly when you factor in its self-published nature. Just as with all things self-publishing can work but its no sure fire bet.
There is room for both forms of publishing but I think carte blanche statements like "publishers aren't needed" is a little naive.
It seems a little disingenuous to say you "don't need publishers" when they were instrumental in getting you the kind of exposure that enabled you to gain a market presence.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Stephen Northcott on 22nd October 2010 9:28am
A distribution deal is usually just that, but may also include marketing.
It's easy to say "you don't need a publisher" when you're flush from a massive hit like Angry Birds, but if it wasn't for the wallets of publishers, many games would never see the light of day and many studios would be closed down as they run out of operating capital before they can ship. Publishers are effectively the venture capitalists of the games industry - it is they who provide the money (and take a big risk doing so sometimes) so both sides have a vested interest in a game succeeding.
Some folks argue they got gouged by their publisher, but quite frankly that's their fault for not negotiating a better deal, and again the point stands that without a publisher would their game ever have seen the light of day?