He he...don't get me to lying. :-)

Yes, "system" was perhaps the wrong word to use here. Rather, I meant that the sale and transfer of intellectual property rights is not inherently the issue, rather it's the unequal bargaining positions of the parties that is the problem.

For better or worse, we have intellectual property. For the purposes of this conversation, we're primarily speaking about copyright. It's a highly imperfect vehicle, but it works and provides a method by which the creation of information can be monetized.

I don't think changing that system (even ignoring the political or social inertia that would make such a change impossible) would be able to solve this problem. Those who have more leverage will always be able to extract a better deal for themselves under any arrangement. Whether we're talking about game developers and publishers or anything else, that's just a reality: when you bargain from a strong position, you get a better deal.

The current publishers or rights holders would get money for the game. In fact this reminds me of a very much wanted old popular game I know of that is wanted here, but the rights/ownership is possessed by a law firm. I'm not privy to what they told certain parties who inquired about what it would take to be allowed to sell the game, but I imagine they probably ask for monetary fee per unit sold. You can kind of see why this game hasn't been re released yet (no distributor in their right mind would agree to such shenanigans.)

(Probably mentioned several times already...) Probably so (in case they are not the current publisher or IP rights holder, like usually is probably the case with old games).

And I think that is perfectly fine. You should think of the developers as employees, and the publisher as their employer. Let's say I developed a piece of code to some company 10 years ago (for which I am not even working anymore), and that company is still making some money from that piece of code. Should I get a cut from that profit, along with hundreds of other people who worked on that product 10 years ago? I feel not, I was paid for my work already back then, and that's it. I accepted a deal where my employer keeps the rights to that piece of code I made, and they can continue make profit with it. Fine by me, I'm being paid by someone else now for my current work.

Or think of movies. An old movie like Robocop is still making some money from various sources, I presume. Should everyone, who ever worked for that movie in the 80s even a tiny bit, still get a cut from every source of income? Like the people who did the lighting, or audio editing, or casting for the movie?

You must also remember that even if the original development studio was still around and was indeed getting a cut from all their previously developed games, how about the fact that the staff of that studio has certainly changed over years? New people have joined the team that had nothing to do with those old games, while many of the people who were working on those games have retired, or moved to other jobs. If the point is to give a cut to the developers (not the development company only, whoever owns it nowadays), how do you arrange it, and make it sure it goes specifically to those people who worked on the game?

I personally feel it is much more straightforward and sane that the current IP rights holder gets the profit. If the original developer(s) still own the IP rights, fine. If they agreed to give or sell the rights to some other people/company, their loss and their decision.

This. In one line what I was trying to say. :)

It isn't wrong or evil. The game developer knows full well that after the game is published, full rights go over to the publisher. The game developer does this because without the publisher, they would never get out into the public and get nearly as much money otherwise.

However, with the advent of the internet, I don't see it lasting much longer. The main reason for publishers before was to send out physical copies and do some advertising work. Now that physical copies are slowly being weaned out, and advertising is more lying in the hands of social media and forums, I don't see the publisher system lasting.

That is true. It's not like they were paid $6 an hour.

That's just what I meant.

To be fair, physical distribution is just one of the responsibilities of publishers and even in the age of digital distribution big publishers most definitely have an easier time getting their game on the (virtual) shelves than indies (as far as I can tell even the worst games by big publishers are basically automatically approved for digital distribution while even some of the best indie games sometimes get refused). And sure, back in the 90's, when a handful of guys sitting in a garage could create a game that was basically AAA at the time, a publisher's role was (probably) often mainly distribution and advertizing. However, projects have grown and there is a huge demand for these huge blockbuster games that swallow millions and it's those games that generate most revenue in the industry. And to this day new publishers are emerging - studios that delivered one ridiculously popular title can become one of the big players that can easily acquire some of the more valuable studios and/or franchises (such as Wargaming and Riot Games). And some indies still have better odds if they decide to just sell their game to a publisher rather than trying to handle distribution and marketing themselves.

Additionally, publishers still have that huge advantage that they can even out a bunch of commercial failures with one highly successful title plus they can more easily redirect players from one of their successful products to their other ones. Smaller studios that work on only one or two games at a time have a far less secure position so I think it's just natural that studios will come and go while publishers will have far more stable positions and remain the more powerful organizations.

I won't argue that it isn't a method. It obviously is. But it's imperfections (which you rightfully mentioned) stem from theoretical basics, or probably from lack thereof. To elaborate, imagine a toy manufacturer, which has workers (who, for the sake of this argument, are adequately compensated for their labor) and administration (who profit from selling toys at a price higher than production costs). As long as there is demand for said toys, everybody in this system lives happily. But if one specific toy (not a model, but just one toy) could be sold to infinite number of customers over an indefinite period of time, then everything would crumble. It would be possible to mitigate the situation by fiddling with emoluments and prices, but at it's core the problem would never go away.

Well, I would say that the current model of trading information is on it's way out. The contradictions are too blatant to ignore. Maybe not in the next decade or two, but soon enough new forms of business will take over in this field. If you look close enough, you can see their rudiments right now even.