Guide
Most rev-share disputes trace back to a clause nobody wrote. This is what to decide before the money exists — when it's still an easy conversation.
This is a checklist, not a contract, and not legal advice. Revenue-sharing arrangements have tax, employment and company-law consequences that differ by country and by how your team is structured. Use this to work out what your agreement needs to say, then have someone qualified in your jurisdiction review what you plan to sign.
We've deliberately not published a fill-in-the-blanks document. A generic contract signed without review is how people end up bound to terms that don't do what they assumed — and money agreements are the worst place for that to happen.
Roughly in the order disputes arise from them.
Gross or net? Net of what? Platform cuts (Steam's 30%, console fees), payment processing, refunds and chargebacks, taxes, publisher shares — each of these needs to be explicitly in or out. "We split the revenue" is the single most expensive ambiguity in these agreements.
Recoupable expenses: engine licences, asset purchases, marketing spend, contractor fees, festival submissions. Say which categories can be deducted, who can authorise them, and whether there's a cap. Unlimited deductible expenses at one party's discretion makes every other percentage meaningless.
Fixed percentages, or contribution-weighted? If weighted, state the method, the weights and who can change them. If fixed, state what happens when someone's actual contribution diverges from the assumption the percentage was based on.
Distribution frequency, minimum payout thresholds, who runs the calculation, what reporting everyone receives, and how long after a sales period the payment arrives. People tolerate waiting far better than they tolerate not knowing.
Guaranteed on a multi-year project. Does a departing contributor keep earning on what they built, does their share taper, or does it stop? Is there a vesting period before any share is earned at all? Decide this while nobody is leaving.
New contributors dilute existing shares — say how. A contribution-weighted model handles this naturally; a fixed-percentage model needs an explicit rule, or every new hire becomes a renegotiation.
Separate from revenue share and frequently conflated with it. State who owns the game, the engine code, and each contributor's assets, and what licence the project has to use them. Get this wrong and a departing artist may be able to withdraw work that's shipped.
Who decides release timing, pricing, platform deals, whether to accept a publisher? Revenue share doesn't automatically grant a vote, and people often assume it does.
How long does the agreement run, what ends it, and which obligations continue afterwards? Payment obligations for already-earned revenue should survive termination — otherwise ending the agreement erases the debt.
Which jurisdiction's law applies, how disputes are resolved, and whether contributors can inspect the figures their payments are based on. An audit right is what makes every other clause enforceable in practice.
Silence on departures. The agreement covers a happy team and says nothing about an unhappy one, so the first resignation becomes a negotiation with no rules.
"Revenue" left undefined. One party assumes gross, another assumes after Steam's cut and expenses. Both are reading the same sentence.
No version history. Terms change informally over two years and nobody can produce what was actually agreed, or when. Versioned agreements exist for this reason.
Uncapped expense deduction. Technically everyone has a percentage; practically one party controls how much is left to take a percentage of.
No record of contribution. Where the split is contribution-based but contribution was never tracked, the clause is unenforceable in any meaningful sense.
An agreement based on contribution needs the contribution actually tracked. Both live on the same project.