RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Chaos Chronicles - CorePlay's Response (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21399)

Gorath August 5th, 2013 00:42

Chaos Chronicles - CorePlay's Response
 
A couple of days ago we've posted bitComposer's statement on the Chaos Chronicles situation. We still owe you Coreplay's answer, which was posted a few hours later in the RPGCodex forum:

Quote:

"The first casualty of War is Truth"

During a 5 hours meeting, we've discussed and negotiated every detail of a final agreement between bitComposer and Coreplay for realizing a completion of Chaos Chronicles.
We wrote all those terms and conditions into a contract and at the end of this meeting day, both parties agreed to those terms.
Unfortunately (and surprisingly) bitComposer rejected to sign this agreement on this day because they still wanted to clarify an open issue regarding the tax. But before leaving our office, they've promised us to check this issue as soon as possible to make a final signment possible in the next days.

This was two month ago and we haven't heard back from them since then.

In their recent statement to the petition, they mentioned a meeting last week (24th July). But they did not mention the fact that they already announced not to sign anything in that meeting. That's why we haven't attend it, because we don't have time for this 'play for time' bullshit anymore. […]

Sounds like Chaos Chronicles is dead at this point.

More information.

Couchpotato August 5th, 2013 00:42

Quote:

Sounds like Chaos Chronicles is dead at this point.
I agree it seems to be in what I like to call "Legal Hell." That's a shame as the game looked at least interesting.

Roq August 5th, 2013 02:08

Something doesn't add up about all this. Coreplay stated that Bitcomposer stopped making payments, at some stage, but presumably they must have made *some* payments. So it can't be in BC's interests to delay the game (especially considering that according to Coreplay they were trying to release in March). Maybe the issue is that BC think they deserve the share of the pie that was agreed before Coreplay got additional outside funding. That's the only interpretation I can put on this that makes any sense. Of course, it looks like noone is going to get any pie as things stand right now.

guenthar August 5th, 2013 03:38

Actually a publisher deciding to cancel an almost finished game has happened many times before so you can't tell what a publisher is going to do and why they are doing it. Sometimes it seems like these publishers are trying to destroy the game industry on purpose.

greywolf00 August 5th, 2013 03:46

At the end of the day, a business is always about money. I just don't understand how bitComposer, or any publisher, decides that no money is better than some money. Is being "right" and/or preserving the balance of power really that important? You already paid them to make the product, why not have something to show for it?

GhanBuriGhan August 5th, 2013 06:48

I can only assume that going forward with the game would involve further investments by bitcomposer: additional development time, advertising, support? And they don't feel that investment would pay off under the current conditions (e.g. A reduced share due to the investments of the mentioned third party). Or its about avoiding some legal precedent they feel is unacceptable to them.

rjshae August 5th, 2013 18:12

This type of behavior makes both parties look bad, thereby impacting their future business dealings. Playing it up in the press may help them get it resolved.

rikus August 6th, 2013 07:41

why not go kickstart? if the game is already almost baked?
they can release it on desura or some other platform.

GhanBuriGhan August 6th, 2013 07:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by rikus (Post 1061211791)
why not go kickstart? if the game is already almost baked?
they can release it on desura or some other platform.

I doubt they have the rights to do that. It would still require an agreement with their investor and bitcomposer.

ManWhoJaped August 6th, 2013 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roq (Post 1061211553)
Something doesn't add up about all this. Coreplay stated that Bitcomposer stopped making payments, at some stage, but presumably they must have made *some* payments. So it can't be in BC's interests to delay the game (especially considering that according to Coreplay they were trying to release in March). Maybe the issue is that BC think they deserve the share of the pie that was agreed before Coreplay got additional outside funding. That's the only interpretation I can put on this that makes any sense. Of course, it looks like noone is going to get any pie as things stand right now.

They dropped funding. Then they tried to secure third party funding. However bitcomposer would rather the project die than to let someone else take any portion of the pie.

So who is to blame? Well BC can stop funding whatever game they like, I don't see how that's an issue to blame them for. But at the same time they (like publishers in general) always want to fund crap games and to make the dev cycle 18 months or less. That being the case all you will ever get is crap results.

rikus August 7th, 2013 07:31

I know why this is happening. its the same as with gothic 3. the publishers wanted to have producers authority over the games content. that way, they somehow "guarantee" some of their investment getting back.
which is plain stupid because the hype was because of the original developers.

so now it goes to some other mercenary team who does what its told. and the game will be ruined-or at most, not like they planned it at all.
also most of the hype will be gone until they find the new devs.

cowardly act, but apparently common.

ManWhoJaped September 30th, 2014 01:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by rikus (Post 1061211973)
I know why this is happening. its the same as with gothic 3. the publishers wanted to have producers authority over the games content. that way, they somehow "guarantee" some of their investment getting back.
which is plain stupid because the hype was because of the original developers.

so now it goes to some other mercenary team who does what its told. and the game will be ruined-or at most, not like they planned it at all.
also most of the hype will be gone until they find the new devs.

cowardly act, but apparently common.

What did they want to change?

Couchpotato September 30th, 2014 01:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped (Post 1061276792)
What did they want to change?

So I have to ask why resurrect a thread from last year?o_O

Humanity has risen! September 30th, 2014 01:53

I put the blame primarily on the developers for this one. They are the ones who pitched Bitcomposer that they could turn an incomplete action RPG console PSN title into a full-fledged Temple of Elemental Evil remake with more content within like 8-9 months, according to what I read over there last year. They also acted like children and tried to move the goalposts in the middle of development when they got a new producer.

ManWhoJaped September 30th, 2014 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Couchpotato (Post 1061276796)
So I have to ask why resurrect a thread from last year?o_O

Because I missed his response to me and wanted more information.

ManWhoJaped September 30th, 2014 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humanity has risen! (Post 1061276797)
I put the blame primarily on the developers for this one. They are the ones who pitched Bitcomposer that they could turn an incomplete action RPG console PSN title into a full-fledged Temple of Elemental Evil remake with more content within like 8-9 months, according to what I read over there last year. They also acted like children and tried to move the goalposts in the middle of development when they got a new producer.

Seems that way but at the same time the publisher could have tried to salavage something instead of getting nothing out of it.

wolfing September 30th, 2014 04:21

Feels to me that this was like those 'chicken' games where two cars run at each other to see who turns away first, and they crashed in the middle.

ManWhoJaped September 30th, 2014 04:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfing (Post 1061276812)
Feels to me that this was like those 'chicken' games where two cars run at each other to see who turns away first, and they crashed in the middle.

I would hate to think it was more about ego conflict than anything else, but it's very common in the workplace of course.

Humanity has risen! September 30th, 2014 04:35

I'm not sure if the Watch ever posted the version of the story of Bitcomposer's interview.

Anyway I don't see the purpose in depicting Bitcomposer as the villains. It's obvious that they'll only have very little money to dedicate to this due to the small size of the market. If Coreplay chose to ignore this in spite of them knowing there was only so much they could give them, then they dug their own grave. When I pointed out how unrealistic it was of them to complete such a project within that timeframe they conveniently skipped over it.

Also to me I'm sorry to say it but he developer who posted on their forum sounded like an entitled child when talking about the ordeal. I have to give it to Bitcomposer in this case. This would only ever be a pipedream, and they were wise to stonewall them and stop the bleeding when they discovered it was futile.

Couchpotato September 30th, 2014 05:13

Yes the site did cover this topic last year, and we posted both sides of the conflict.

Link to News Archive - http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/news?ref=0&id=507

This is old news now and all this does is reopen old wounds.:bigcry:


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:47.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch