Development Info Coreplay Issues Statement in Response to bitComposer Interview

[Zed]

As we did not want to experience a repetition of the lengthy and fruitless negotiations of May 31 2013 without any outcome, we did not attend the meeting.

r00fles. What fucking bullshit. Giving up on the first try. Scrub-level entrepreneurship.

 

[Branm]

Can't you agree on something like, uh, miscommunication and try a new meeting..? Say, this Thursday. This Thursday, hold a meeting to discuss the future of CC with the intent of making it happen. The one party that bails on Thursday's meeting is responsible for the decline.

That happened.

In bitComposer’s recent statements they mentioned a meeting on July 24 2013. Before this meeting took place, bitComposer had already declined to sign any agreement in this meeting. But what is the point of negotiations if one party has no intention of reaching an agreement? As we did not want to experience a repetition of the lengthy and fruitless negotiations of May 31 2013 without any outcome, we did not attend the meeting.

Well duh...as far as I'm concerned Foreplay is totally in the wrong here. You attend a meeting to fucking talk and iron things out, and not too instantly sign a contract on the spot. In which kind of world do you sign multi-page contracts blindly? Especially one that regards a multi-million dollar project.

Jesus....if the NHLPA and NHL would of gone about the lockout dispute in such a way we would of never seen another NHL season.

Seriously.... get a fucking mediator in or something...Pouting like a little 5 year old isnt going to get shit done and both parties will be out of money and time.

 

[Yaar Podshipnik]

I can't believe it, Codex actually giving a sensible advice!

 

[Burning Bridges]

At this point only legally trained persons could reassess the situation. Personally I am at a loss. Party A sinks a lot of money into a project which of course they want to see completed. Party B say they simply cannot continue working on the project because Party A made it impossible for them. Normally a contract should foresee such a situation, and it may be that if someone fucked up, it's the lawyers who elaborated the contract. If the situation were normal, it's surprising any such projects get finished at all. It's true though such cancellations happen all the time, and it may be simply that the project got too complex, overambitious and risky, and could not be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[ikarinokami]

At this point only legally trained persons could reassess the situation. Personally I am at a loss. Party A sinks a lot of money into a project which of course they want to see completed. Party B say they simply cannot continue working on the project because Party A made it impossible for them. Normally a contract should foresee such a situation, and it may be that if someone fucked up, it's the lawyers who elaborated the contract. If the situation were normal, it's surprising any such projects get finished at all. It's true though such cancellations happen all the time, and it may be simply that the project got too complex, overambitious and risky, and could not be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

you cut your factual recitatation too short. party b then get's an investor to fund the rest of the project, then offers to buy out party a or alter the contract as to reflect the new budget divisions, party A refuses. in the normal world with rational actors, party would have agreed and the game would have been released. but party A is driven by avarice, and much like other avarice driven industries, ie, bankers, they are prone to making head scratching decisions.

 

[Metro]

A company is driven by avarice? What a shocker. Pretty sure if you had invested a 70% share into a project and thought you could reap more return by retaining the rights to it and trying to get it sold on Steam and elsewhere versus accepting a settlement payout you'd do it, too.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

...DerpCumPosterior...Foreplay

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" or "I always secretly wanted to..."?

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Look I'm no fan of BitComposer, but when I read this little bit of cattiness:

But of course, everyone can form their own opinion about how strong bitComposer’s aim is to publish quality games and how fair and cooperative they are.

I can't do anything but roll my eyes.

Yeah BC's publishing track record is shit, but so is Coreplay's development track record. One could just as easily say "Everyone can form their own opinion about how strong Coreplay's aim is to develop quality games and how fair and cooperative they are." In fact, given the fact that BC has actually managed to publish one or two decent games, while Coreplay has developed none (whether that's their fault or not), it might actually make MORE sense.

That part of the statement really bugged me as well. Makes them look childish and unprofessional.*



*Which makes sense why they wanted their forums here at the Codex. :D

Coreplay are giant fakkits.

 

[mondblut]

Making games is more of art than science and release dates shifting a few to several months aren't exactly uncommon. You can't scjenmagistically divine when exactly they will be finished at the start of the project.

You can make a very good estimation, however. In game production business, this is called "experience" and "professionalism".

 

[Metro]

...DerpCumPosterior...Foreplay

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" or "I always secretly wanted to..."?

TinkleGorilla.

 

[tuluse]

A company is driven by avarice? What a shocker. Pretty sure if you had invested a 70% share into a project and thought you could reap more return by retaining the rights to it and trying to get it sold on Steam and elsewhere versus accepting a settlement payout you'd do it, too.

Right, so that means CC is going to be on sale on Steam any day now right? Oh wait, that whole line of reasoning falls apart if nothing exists to sell.

 

[Dhralei]

How old are you ikarinokami and what world do you live in going on about avarice and such as if it's the devil's own word? In the real world if you make contracts you stick to it or pay the consequences (and the court's and lawyers' fees). This isn't utopia where people in business act out of the goodness of their hearts. When money and contracts are involved you can bet your ass that all parties will fight tooth and nail to get what they think they are owed.

Regarding the dispute, if German contract law is anything like the Swiss version bc managing to get an injunction against Coreplay means that the presiding judge probably acknowledged bc's position regarding the dispute being more credible than that of CPs. Whether this truly is the case would be decided by the courts in regular proceedings, assuming this goes to court. If there is as much money involved as I suspect, well I'd say a court battle might be inevitable seeing as both parties will end up losing time, invested money and future profit if the game doesn't get released.

 

[mondblut]

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.

Srsly? We fucked up deadlines, therefore we want more royalties? Really?

Le fuck. That's some respectable chutzpah right there.

 

[Metro]

A company is driven by avarice? What a shocker. Pretty sure if you had invested a 70% share into a project and thought you could reap more return by retaining the rights to it and trying to get it sold on Steam and elsewhere versus accepting a settlement payout you'd do it, too.

Right, so that means CC is going to be on sale on Steam any day now right? Oh wait, that whole line of reasoning falls apart if nothing exists to sell.

It doesn't 'fall apart.' These are still fairly recent developments. Not as if this is a two or three year old postmortem. The situation is ongoing so BC's posture is perfectly reasonable.

 

[tuluse]

How old are you ikarinokami and what world do you live in going on about avarice and such as if it's the devil's own word? In the real world if you make contracts you stick to it or pay the consequences (and the court's and lawyers' fees). This isn't utopia where people in business act out of the goodness of their hearts. When money and contracts are involved you can bet your ass that all parties will fight tooth and nail to get what they think they are owed.

Regarding the dispute, if German contract law is anything like the Swiss version bc managing to get an injunction against Coreplay means that the presiding judge probably acknowledged bc's position regarding the dispute being more credible than that of CPs. Whether this truly is the case would be decided by the courts in regular proceedings, assuming this goes to court. If there is as much money involved as I suspect, well I'd say a court battle might be inevitable seeing as both parties will end up losing time, invested money and future profit if the game doesn't get released.

Most contracts have a buy out, where if one party doesn't think the contract is acceptable anymore, they can pay the other party an agreed upon sum of money to be free of it.

 

[ikarinokami]

How old are you ikarinokami and what world do you live in going on about avarice and such as if it's the devil's own word? In the real world if you make contracts you stick to it or pay the consequences (and the court's and lawyers' fees). This isn't utopia where people in business act out of the goodness of their hearts. When money and contracts are involved you can bet your ass that all parties will fight tooth and nail to get what they think they are owed.

Regarding the dispute, if German contract law is anything like the Swiss version bc managing to get an injunction against Coreplay means that the presiding judge probably acknowledged bc's position regarding the dispute being more credible than that of CPs. Whether this truly is the case would be decided by the courts in regular proceedings, assuming this goes to court. If there is as much money involved as I suspect, well I'd say a court battle might be inevitable seeing as both parties will end up losing time, invested money and future profit if the game doesn't get released.

do you understand what an injuction means? the injunction had nothing to do with the dispute. the injuction said coreplay could not continue to put money into game why because it violated the original contract. why did the bitcomposer have the injuction lifted, because it was stupid, stopping coreplay from further developing gets bitcomposer nothing. From the way parties are talking, it would appear coreplay retain the rights to the game, but bitcomposer retained the right to gain the majority of the profits, which is why I assume bitcomposer can't release the game on it's own or give it to another studio to finish. It's also why coreplay doesn't want to go foward and do a kickstarter, since they wouldnt profit from funding the development of the game to completion.

there won't be a court battle, you cannot enforce specific performance for a contract, it's slavery, what you can ask for, is to be made whole, however Bitcomposer has already rejected that, no court can force coreplay to finish or release the game, all they could do is force, coreplay to pay back what bitcomposer gave them, which I believe coreplay offered but was refused by bitcomposer, so any court case would end the moment coreplay said, we will make bitcomposer whole, since that all the court could do for them.

I suppose the lesson in this case, is that the reputution of "evil publishers" is generally well earned

 

[Rake]

The lesson is that games are being released only if one fucking party has all the rights. Either the evil publiser owns the game and the devs are his underlings, or the dev has all the rights and the publiser is disrtibution only.
If a game is shared between 2-3 parties and all have the power to stop the product at any given time, chances are they will fuck it up.

 

[Infinitron]

I suppose the lesson in this case, is that the reputution of "evil publishers" is generally well earned

Let me repeat something that Grunker wrote earlier:

At this point, anyone who claims to know the truth and is not directly involved is probably talking out of his or her ass.

 

[Vault Dweller]

How old are you ikarinokami and what world do you live in going on about avarice and such as if it's the devil's own word? In the real world if you make contracts you stick to it or pay the consequences (and the court's and lawyers' fees). This isn't utopia where people in business act out of the goodness of their hearts. When money and contracts are involved you can bet your ass that all parties will fight tooth and nail to get what they think they are owed.

Regarding the dispute, if German contract law is anything like the Swiss version bc managing to get an injunction against Coreplay means that the presiding judge probably acknowledged bc's position regarding the dispute being more credible than that of CPs. Whether this truly is the case would be decided by the courts in regular proceedings, assuming this goes to court. If there is as much money involved as I suspect, well I'd say a court battle might be inevitable seeing as both parties will end up losing time, invested money and future profit if the game doesn't get released.

Most contracts have a buy out, where if one party doesn't think the contract is acceptable anymore, they can pay the other party and agreed upon sum of money to be free of it.

Most contracts don't, at least not development contracts. When you invest money as a publisher, you want what you paid for (so that you can make a nice profit), not your money back.

 

[Vault Dweller]

do you understand what an injuction means? the injunction had nothing to do with the dispute. the injuction said coreplay could not continue to put money into game why because it violated the original contract.

Read it again. bC slapped an injunction because Coreplay tried to continue developing CC without the publisher who already invested money into the game and thus is a legal owner of a sizable chunk of the game.

why did the bitcomposer have the injuction lifted, because it was stupid, stopping coreplay from further developing gets bitcomposer nothing.

Unless a deal is made, bC gets nothing regardless. I do believe them when they say that they lifted it in good faith to get back to negotiations.

From the way parties are talking, it would appear coreplay retain the rights to the game, but bitcomposer retained the right to gain the majority of the profits, which is why I assume bitcomposer can't release the game on it's own or give it to another studio to finish. It's also why coreplay doesn't want to go foward and do a kickstarter, since they wouldnt profit from funding the development of the game to completion.

bC owns what they paid Coreplay to develop. Coreplay owns the engine and some assets. Thus, Coreplay can start working on a similar game, like PB did with Risen, but CC and everything related to it belong to bC, which is why Coreplay can't take it to KS.

there won't be a court battle, you cannot enforce specific performance for a contract, it's slavery, what you can ask for, is to be made whole, however Bitcomposer has already rejected that, no court can force coreplay to finish or release the game, all they could do is force, coreplay to pay back what bitcomposer gave them, which I believe coreplay offered but was refused by bitcomposer, so any court case would end the moment coreplay said, we will make bitcomposer whole, since that all the court could do for them.

There won't be a court battle because Coreplay can't win it. That's why they already moved to another project (or so they said).

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

You can make a very good estimation, however. In game production business, this is called "experience" and "professionalism".

So, basically their only experience was making a cheap Commandos clone and they had no idea what it takes to make a real cRPG?

 

[villain of the story]

You are a flour producer. A pizza joint decides to buy flour from you to make their dough for their pizzas. You sign a contract, agreeing that you will supply the pizza joint with X amount of flour per month for 12 months in exchange of N% of their income at the end of a year. You supply them with X amount of flour per month for 12 months straight. At the end of the year, the pizza joint decides that they don't want to give you N% of their income and instead offers to cover your expenses for producing and providing 12 months of flour. If you accept, you will not be in a NET loss but you will merely be compensated for your expenses. You having invested time and supplies into pizza joint, hoping to gain profit while enabling them to also survive, is completely discarded.

Not a perfect analogy but the intention of the pizza joint to maximize their profits by discarding the time, effort and resources the flour producer invested is similar to CorePlay attempting to buy their way out of a contract they signed, discarding the role bitComposer played in enabling them to come this far in the first place. Plus @HobGoblin42 not mentioning much about the new shareholder lawyer + what VD said.

However, the point stands about the Citadels question that @CrashOberbreit dodged with a bs answer.

 

[Metro]

so any court case would end the moment coreplay said, we will make bitcomposer whole, since that all the court could do for them.

Incorrect.

 

[ikarinokami]

do you understand what an injuction means? the injunction had nothing to do with the dispute. the injuction said coreplay could not continue to put money into game why because it violated the original contract.

Read it again. bC slapped an injunction because Coreplay tried to continue developing CC without the publisher who already invested money into the game and thus is a legal owner of a sizable chunk of the game.

why did the bitcomposer have the injuction lifted, because it was stupid, stopping coreplay from further developing gets bitcomposer nothing.

Unless a deal is made, bC gets nothing regardless. I do believe them when they say that they lifted it in good faith to get back to negotiations.

From the way parties are talking, it would appear coreplay retain the rights to the game, but bitcomposer retained the right to gain the majority of the profits, which is why I assume bitcomposer can't release the game on it's own or give it to another studio to finish. It's also why coreplay doesn't want to go foward and do a kickstarter, since they wouldnt profit from funding the development of the game to completion.

bC owns what they paid Coreplay to develop. Coreplay owns the engine and some assets. Thus, Coreplay can start working on a similar game, like PB did with Risen, but CC and everything related to it belong to bC, which is why Coreplay can't take it to KS.

there won't be a court battle, you cannot enforce specific performance for a contract, it's slavery, what you can ask for, is to be made whole, however Bitcomposer has already rejected that, no court can force coreplay to finish or release the game, all they could do is force, coreplay to pay back what bitcomposer gave them, which I believe coreplay offered but was refused by bitcomposer, so any court case would end the moment coreplay said, we will make bitcomposer whole, since that all the court could do for them.

There won't be a court battle because Coreplay can't win it. That's why they already moved to another project (or so they said).

You are not correct, the injunction is what would prevent coreplay from taking it to kickstarter, however both parties have stated the injunction is no longer in effect. The reason why coreplay won't take it to kickstarter is that the original contract terms would govern, so if coreplay went to kickstarter got a ton of money made a great game, they would only get a royalty share based on the original terms of the contract and not what they actually put in. So it's not worth it to do a kickstarter for coreplay. However I do agree that given the obstinacy of bitcomposer the best course of action for coreplay is just to start over, and to avoid any future litigation, they should use something like the pathfinder OGL rules.

 

[ikarinokami]

so any court case would end the moment coreplay said, we will make bitcomposer whole, since that all the court could do for them.

Incorrect.

please enlighten as to what other remedy they could receive? courts have historically frowned upon future or lost earning potential remedies for damages in contract disputes.

 

[Metro]

Award the IP to bitComposer and force CP to take a settlement. In fact that is far more likely than the reverse which you suggest is the only remedy. Then BC would just find a third party to complete the work.