But How about a hobbyist that is just looking for a way to get their work out there and recognized?
It's a fair point, but I think the downsides of a publishing model like this far outweigh that benefit of getting your work out there. And if the work is good enough to be published, then the chances are good that another publisher would see the merit of it. I think the danger with something like this is that new authors who perhaps haven't researched the industry and how it works are more likely to see this and not realise it isn't standard - that a flat payment and losing your rights isn't typical for authors.
On their list of authors I did see two well-known names who've published with them*: Adrian Tchaikovsky and Chuck Wendig. Wendig knows about the open window for Abaddon and posted his own thoughts about work for hire:
On Work-for-Hire As A Humble Novelist
Personally I'd never go for something like this, but I can see how for some people it could be a good fit - I think the key is to go into it with your eyes open. It's a case of reading the fine print:
Work For Hire is a publishing model in which we buy out your work – publication, adaptation and licensing rights, for characters, setting and story – for a single upfront payment. You get a professional paycheque without waiting to earn out, and all rights in the work reside solely with Rebellion, sequels and all.
So you could write a book, have it become massively successful and never see a penny beyond the initial payment. Or see it made into a film (again, never receiving any payment. Perhaps you decide to write a sequel later - only you can't because they own it now. A year later you have an idea for a series of adventures involving one of the minor characters - only they own that character now, so you can't. Perhaps you want to write other adventures on the same world/in the same universe...they own that too, so you can't.
Or perhaps it's perfect as a standalone story, maybe one of those with an unresolved ending that works perfectly... which is later ruined when they hire another author to continue the story.
Honestly, it sounds like the way the recording industry used to work. You get money up front to produce an album, from which the record company takes the majority of the profit.
Hmm, not quite, I think. Let's say Led Zeppelin did their first album this way:
They lose songwriting royalties because it's in the contract (one-off payment initially and copyright and other rights not their own)
They don't get a penny for each album sold - all they get is that initial payment. This means Jimmy Page can't buy lots of Gibson guitars and Robert Plant's hair will fall into disarray
They can't release Led Zeppelin II because technically it's a sequel
They can't use the songs on a live album or BBC sessions album because they don't own them anymore
I take your point though,
@Cory Swanson, that there may be scenarios where publishing this way may be a good fit but I think there are many better, less restrictive options out there.
*which does rather lend weight to your argument that it can help get your name out there or be used as a springboard to bigger and better things