Development Info Coreplay Issues Statement in Response to bitComposer Interview

[themadhatter114]

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.

Expected profit is certainly not a disfavored contract remedy.

 

[ikarinokami]

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.

nope, a court can't award the IP, that would be an improper reassignment of a party's property right/interest, unless that party agreed to sell the IP or the party used the IP as collateral or consideration, the court does not have the power to just give away the ip. second problem is that you have to split the program, which parts are more valuable than other parts, how would decide, no court would do that, and if the parts are already assigned in the contract, a court won't disturb that, the court would just require coreplay to pay what ever money it got from bitcomposer. the problem with this is that copreplay can argue that the contract was impossible to fulfill, and if they do that and win then bitcomposer is sol. which from the recitation of the facts sounds like a strong defense. In other words it's just not in the best interest of bitcomposer to fight this in court because they don't really have a lot to gain. the most rational and risk averse path is to modify the contract and base the royalty payments based upon the % of money invested by the parties.

There are only two options in contracts disputes, specific performance or damages. damages are always to make the party whole, and not more, because more is considered a "windfall" which modern courts frown on, specific performance is super rare, because the court is forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, ie slavery or perhaps more accurately indentured servitude.

 

[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.

Expected profit is certainly not a disfavored contract remedy.

it is extremely disfavored, it is considered a "windfall". the modern convention for courts regarding contract remedies, is to make the parties whole. I would love for you to cite me recent case where a party got future profits from a breach of contract dispute.

 

[mindx2]

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.

nope, a court can't award the IP, that would be an improper reassignment of a party's property right/interest, unless that party agreed to sell the IP or the party used the IP as collateral or consideration, the court does not have the power to just give away the ip. second problem is that you have to split the program, which parts are more valuable than other parts, how would decide, no court would do that, and if the parts are already assigned in the contract, a court won't disturb that, the court would just require coreplay to pay what ever money it got from bitcomposer. the problem with this is that copreplay can argue that the contract was impossible to fulfill, and if they do that and win then bitcomposer is sol. which from the recitation of the facts sounds like a strong defense. In other words it's just not in the best interest of bitcomposer to fight this in court because they don't really have a lot to gain. the most rational and risk averse path is to modify the contract and base the royalty payments based upon the % of money invested by the parties.

There are only two options in contracts disputes, specific performance or damages. damages are always to make the party whole, and not more, because more is considered a "windfall" which modern courts frown on, specific performance is super rare, because the court is forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, ie slavery or perhaps more accurately indentured servitude.

I think we've just met the "mysterious investor/ lawyer"...

 

[mondblut]

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?

Few people do. It takes years and dozens of shipped titles to become a good project manager, and more often than not, even years and shipped titles are not enough.

Nothing to be ashamed of really. 99 out of 100 developers can't avoid overwhelming feature creep up until 1 minute before sending the master to the plant, and you expect them to correctly judge the deadlines a year in advance?

 

[Grunker]

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?

Many Codex favourites came from studios who had done virtually nothing before.

 

[mondblut]

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?

Many Codex favourites came from studios who had done virtually nothing before.

But they had Herve Caen to keep them down to earth

 

[Vault Dweller]

You are not correct, the injunction is what would prevent coreplay from taking it to kickstarter...

They can't take it to KS for the same reason I can't take Chaos Chronicles to Kickstarter - it doesn't belong to me. You understand the concept of ownership, don't you? Yes, they worked on the game and you'd think that it's their game, but that's not how it works. Similarly, Fallout: New Vegas doesn't belong to Obsidian because they made this game for Bethesda because Bethesda paid them to do that.

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.

Since you understand that Coreplay must honor at least some parts of the contract, I hope you realize that a contract has more shit in it than how to split profit.

 

[Overboard]

It's funny how taking one contract law module for a business course makes a student champ at the bit to spread all that no-ledge around.

 

[themadhatter114]

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.

Expected profit is certainly not a disfavored contract remedy.

it is extremely disfavored, it is considered a "windfall". the modern convention for courts regarding contract remedies, is to make the parties whole. I would love for you to cite me recent case where a party got future profits from a breach of contract dispute.

Gladly -- google is your friend:

"We turn next to the question of actual damages. Here, where the only actual damages that the trial court awarded were lost profit damages, the issue is whether ERI provided legally sufficient evidence of those lost profits.
The rule concerning adequate evidence of lost profit damages is well established:
Recovery for lost profits does not require that the loss be susceptible of exact calculation. However, the injured party must do more than show that they suffered some lost profits. The amount of the loss must be shown by competent evidence with reasonable certainty. What constitutes reasonably certain evidence of lost profits is a fact intensive determination. As a minimum, opinions or estimates of lost profits must be based on objective facts, figures, or data from which the amount of lost profits can be ascertained. Although supporting documentation may affect the weight of the evidence, it is not necessary to produce in court the documents supporting the opinions or estimates.
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992) (citations omitted)."

ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 SW 3d 867, 876 (Tex. 2010) (emphasis added)

Sure, you could pretend that by "extremely disfavored" that something merely has to be shown by competent evidence, but anything has to be proven in a contract case. Any expected profits that are not merely speculative can be recovered and are the preferred remedy.

So, no, the case will not end with a mere claim to make someone whole that does not agree to meet the complained of amount. If Coreplay does not accept bitComposer's model for expected profits, the case will not end until bitComposer fails to present competent evidence of expected profits.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Many Codex favourites came from studios who had done virtually nothing before.

Err... most of the important guys in production of Fallout had at least several games from various genres behind their belts and one of the producers was in Interplay since Wasteland.

 

[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.

nope, a court can't award the IP, that would be an improper reassignment of a party's property right/interest, unless that party agreed to sell the IP or the party used the IP as collateral or consideration, the court does not have the power to just give away the ip. second problem is that you have to split the program, which parts are more valuable than other parts, how would decide, no court would do that, and if the parts are already assigned in the contract, a court won't disturb that, the court would just require coreplay to pay what ever money it got from bitcomposer. the problem with this is that copreplay can argue that the contract was impossible to fulfill, and if they do that and win then bitcomposer is sol. which from the recitation of the facts sounds like a strong defense. In other words it's just not in the best interest of bitcomposer to fight this in court because they don't really have a lot to gain. the most rational and risk averse path is to modify the contract and base the royalty payments based upon the % of money invested by the parties.

There are only two options in contracts disputes, specific performance or damages. damages are always to make the party whole, and not more, because more is considered a "windfall" which modern courts frown on, specific performance is super rare, because the court is forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, ie slavery or perhaps more accurately indentured servitude.

No. And I certainly hope you aren't a lawyer. Although you sound more like a student who just took/studied for the bar.

 

[Gurkog]

Gladly -- google is your friend:

"We turn next to the question of actual damages. Here, where the only actual damages that the trial court awarded were lost profit damages, the issue is whether ERI provided legally sufficient evidence of those lost profits.
The rule concerning adequate evidence of lost profit damages is well established:
Recovery for lost profits does not require that the loss be susceptible of exact calculation. However, the injured party must do more than show that they suffered some lost profits. The amount of the loss must be shown by competent evidence with reasonable certainty. What constitutes reasonably certain evidence of lost profits is a fact intensive determination. As a minimum, opinions or estimates of lost profits must be based on objective facts, figures, or data from which the amount of lost profits can be ascertained. Although supporting documentation may affect the weight of the evidence, it is not necessary to produce in court the documents supporting the opinions or estimates.
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992) (citations omitted)."

ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 SW 3d 867, 876 (Tex. 2010) (emphasis added)

Sure, you could pretend that by "extremely disfavored" that something merely has to be shown by competent evidence, but anything has to be proven in a contract case. Any expected profits that are not merely speculative can be recovered and are the preferred remedy.

So, no, the case will not end with a mere claim to make someone whole that does not agree to meet the complained of amount. If Coreplay does not accept bitComposer's model for expected profits, the case will not end until bitComposer fails to present competent evidence of expected profits.

Do the Germans have the same contract laws as the US? because stating US cases means dick to me for a German court. I know nothing about law though, so whatever. I will stay out of this

 

[themadhatter114]

Gladly -- google is your friend:

"We turn next to the question of actual damages. Here, where the only actual damages that the trial court awarded were lost profit damages, the issue is whether ERI provided legally sufficient evidence of those lost profits.
The rule concerning adequate evidence of lost profit damages is well established:
Recovery for lost profits does not require that the loss be susceptible of exact calculation. However, the injured party must do more than show that they suffered some lost profits. The amount of the loss must be shown by competent evidence with reasonable certainty. What constitutes reasonably certain evidence of lost profits is a fact intensive determination. As a minimum, opinions or estimates of lost profits must be based on objective facts, figures, or data from which the amount of lost profits can be ascertained. Although supporting documentation may affect the weight of the evidence, it is not necessary to produce in court the documents supporting the opinions or estimates.
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex.1992) (citations omitted)."

ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 SW 3d 867, 876 (Tex. 2010) (emphasis added)

Sure, you could pretend that by "extremely disfavored" that something merely has to be shown by competent evidence, but anything has to be proven in a contract case. Any expected profits that are not merely speculative can be recovered and are the preferred remedy.

So, no, the case will not end with a mere claim to make someone whole that does not agree to meet the complained of amount. If Coreplay does not accept bitComposer's model for expected profits, the case will not end until bitComposer fails to present competent evidence of expected profits.

Do the Germans have the same contract laws as the US? because stating US cases means dick to me for a German court. I know nothing about law though, so whatever. I will stay out of this

I couldn't say exactly, but contract laws are pretty standard internationally. Regardless, to call compensation for ascertainable lost profits a "windfall" is absurd.

 

[Metro]

At the very least the contract law ikoraanmaniaacrappyanimename was spouting is definitely U.S. based or at least heavily influenced by the Uniform Commercial Code so it's a relevant counter to the discussion.

 

[fanta]

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.

If a developer could just repay the publisher late in the development process the sum that was invested, it would turn a publisher into a non-profit provider of extremely high risk loans. One doesn't need that business 101 college course to see this can't work.

 

[D13_Michael]

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

Get your facts right. There are some similarities between the person who has answered the interview and me. For example, we're both male. And we both still have hairs on our heads. And... well, that's it probably. Besides that, I can assure you that we are two completely different human beings. So no, I did not dodge any question. What I would have said if I had answered the questions? Hard to say. Different projects, different backgrounds. That's pretty much like comparing apples to pears. Or saying THQ was crap cause they published Destroy All Humans! 2 or Rugrats: Castle Capers. (please note that I wouldn't compare us to THQ. Wrong size in comparison. But the example is still valid I think)

 

[Severian Silk]

I don't want to see any more news posts about this either. It would be lulzy if it was EA vs Activision or something, but it is instead very demoralizing.

 

[Grunker]

Many Codex favourites came from studios who had done virtually nothing before.

Err... most of the important guys in production of Fallout had at least several games from various genres behind their belts and one of the producers was in Interplay since Wasteland.

Fallout is the only Codex favourite now? :O

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fallout is the only Codex favourite now? :O

AFAIK the other favourites were made by the people who made Fallout, so Fallout not being the only favourite doesn't change anything .

 

[Infinitron]

In before Baldur's Gate vs Fallout

But yes, it's true that BioWare did an almost unbelievably good job for a developer making their first RPG.

 

[felipepepe]

Knights of the Chalice, Age of Decadence, Underrail, Divine Divinity...

 

[Grunker]

Fallout is the only Codex favourite now? :O

AFAIK the other favourites were made by the people who made Fallout, so Fallout not being the only favourite doesn't change anything .

Codex favourites developed by relatively inexperienced teams (or where som design aspects where lead by very inexperienced people) include many of the GoldBox Games, Wing Commander, Bloodlines, Knights of the Chalice, Baldur's Gate, Torment, fucking ULTIMA and many more.

According to Sick Boy's Unifying Theory of Life, inexperience is actually a positive:



And based on the oceans of shit produced by industry top guns I tend to agree with that.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Knights of the Chalice, Age of Decadence, Underrail, Divine Divinity...

Age of Decadence when it comes out will set the bar for first time developer rpg's, apart from some UI issues, it's one of the few games that i would change little to nothing in it.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I wanted to quote felipepepe mentioning Age of Decadence and post a emoticon below, but Kem0sabe made me reconsider