If it is true that bC haven't paid what they were contractually bound to pay, that gives a new perspective on this, along with the dodgy bs answer crashOberbreit gave about Citadels.
It still strikes me as poor business handling to skip a meeting, though. Maybe @
Vault Dweller can give his own perspective, given his background as a VP of marketing.
Not sure what marketing has to do with it, but skipping meetings isn't very productive and never leads to a positive outcome.
As for this mess, like in any conflict, both parties tell somewhat different versions of the events and each party is fully convinced that they are the wronged party and that they didn't do anything wrong. Based on the interview and the statements, I don't think that anyone's lying. They just perceive the situation differently.
Comments on the statement:
1)
Coreplay puts all the blame on bC, as if the contract they all negotiated and signed just appeared out of the blue one day, thus dodging their responsibility for the commitment they made. I don't doubt that bC is interested in nothing but making money on CC, but Coreplay knew the publisher well, had a history with them, and signed a contract. Claiming now that they are an evil and shitty publisher is kinda ... not cool, for the lack of stronger words. Now, maybe there is more to the story, which explains the comment, but without knowing what this 'more' might be, it's hard to say for sure.
So, when people talk about 'unrealistic schedules', they should keep in mind that the schedule was mutually agreed on previously.
2)
Coreplay:
'Because of the grave differences as to the further development of the game ‘Chaos Chronicles’ and because of bitComposer’s non-payment of their contractual obligations, we had no other choice but to give notice on the contract with bitComposer in February 2013. In response bitComposer also gave notice on the contract. Therefore the contractual relationship between Coreplay and bitComposer ended in February 2013.
As we were convinced that ‘Chaos Chronicles’ would be a successful game when completed, we borrowed money from third parties and started the further development of ‘Chaos Chronicles’. However, on April 2 2013, bitComposer forced us to stop the further development of ‘Chaos Chronicles’ through a legal injunction. Later bitComposer evidently realized that this injunction was a grave mistake and withdrew it on May 21 2013, but still maintained its opinion that Coreplay was not entitled to continue developing and completing the game.'
This is childish. 'They didn't agree to pay more, so we said fine and they said fine and then we borrowed money to continue on our own.' You can't just ditch a publisher with whom you have a signed contract and who owns a chunk of your game and just go seek money elsewhere. They asked for an injunction and got it.
bC's version makes more sense here (again, the way *both* stories are told)
'After another attempt to solve the problem in March 2013, together with FFF Bayern, it was impossible to find a way to continue the project. The legal injunction was necessary, as their new lawyer and shareholder had a very unusual view of the contracts we had previously entered, and
Coreplay planned to finalize and release the product without our involvement. On top of that, all other attempts to solve the situation from our side had been ignored in the meantime. The court decision was quite clear, and finally Coreplay was ready to come back to the table to find a solution. To ensure this meeting would not be influenced by the court decision, we recalled the injunction as a gesture of good will from our side.'
I'm not sure how good the German legal system is, but we can assume that the injunction was granted by a judge who looked at the documents and decided that the publisher had a proper and legal claim on the game.
3)
Coreplay does come off as a bit clueless when it comes to contracts and legal shit, so it's possible that that's where it all started. Coreplay thinks that what they are doing makes total sense, but in reality it does nothing but provokes bC.
Coreplay:
The dispute between the publisher bitComposer Entertainment AG and the developer Coreplay GmbH started in Autumn 2012 with the controversy about an early release of the game 'Chaos Chronicles' in February/March 2013. As we (Coreplay) stated then, a release at this time would lead to terrible consequences for the game regarding its quality, content, and stability. Since bitComposer refused to invest more money in ‘Chaos Chronicles”, but wanted to publish this incomplete game by February/ March 2013, we offered to develop and complete the game by June 2013 at our own cost, which of course would necessarily lead to it receiving a corresponding share of the sales revenues. bitComposer refused this proposal without putting forward any alternatives.
bC:
'The dispute started at the beginning of December 2012, when a Coreplay lawyer and investor presented a completely new contract, which was quite different from the original terms to which we had agreed. While Coreplay and their investors were ready to increase the budget from their side, they were not able to present a new milestone and budget plan showing the additional features they wanted to include. On the other hand, Coreplay did not match the originally scheduled milestones, and because of this uncertainty, we were not able to continue from our side – never mind the fact that such a change would have to be approved by the FFF Bayern. At that time, the Goldmaster was planned for January 2013, but the complete project was already behind schedule.'
I find it interesting that Coreplay's statement doesn't mention that one of their founding partners left the company (which is what bC claims), which is how the third party got involved. Now, leaving a company you founded is a very big decision, one not taken lightly. On the forums, Hobgoblin said that "he left because of the sad truth that you can't realize good games under those circumstances (small budget, little time, but many features)," which is a good reason to be pissed off but not to leave your own company.
It certainly played a role in the events (his departure, shares being sold to an aggressive third party, etc), yet Coreplay is silent on it.
Now, maybe bC's statement went through better lawyers, but it reads better and tells a believable story of a developer falling behind schedule, needing more time, but being fucked by an aggressive negotiator on the developer's end. Doesn't mean that it's true, but just that it's easy to believe.
Coreplay's statement is an emotional one (hard to blame them) and it tells a familiar story of a greedy publisher who appeared out of nowhere and pushed for an early release. Not a word about what the contract actually says, but pure emotions and general statements like 'this is what evil publishers do' and 'look at the shit they release!' Like I said, such emotions are understandable, but they don't make a strong case.
