Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Development Info Coreplay Issues Statement in Response to bitComposer Interview

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
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.

I wouldn't call Age of Decadence a Codex Favourite. It's hardly as praised here as my other example. AoD splits the Codex down the middle.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
How can a game that isn't out yet be a "Codex Classic"? For fuck's sake people
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,274
Location
Terra da Garoa
How can a game that isn't out yet be a "Codex Classic"? For fuck's sake people
Favorite, not classic. Many people here really like the demo and are anxiously waiting for the full game, same thing with Underrail. The few hours I had to play with them were already leaps and bounds ahead of most fully released AAA+ RPGs made by industry veterans and all that shit.

Grimoire also fits that description....
 

Kem0sabe

Arcane
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
13,076
Location
Azores Islands
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.

I wouldn't call Age of Decadence a Codex Favourite. It's hardly as praised here as my other example. AoD splits the Codex down the middle.

It's strange for a C&C heavy, isometric, turned based rpg to be so devise on the codex. It apparently ticks all the boxes and has done more to interact with the fans than many celebrated upcoming projects.

I'm sure there are enough detailed bullet point posts and discussions on why the game is not :obviously:, but i honestly don't have a clue.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
It's strange for a C&C heavy, isometric, turned based rpg to be so devise on the codex.

Not really. I don't have the inclination to discuss AoD here, but me and Marsal share somewhat aligning views on AoD (though I like it more than he does, and have pre-ordered). Go search the old threads for the discussions on the subject.

Basically, it doesn't matter that the game has all the right ideas if the execution is bad. And that's all the AoD discussion that should be here, I think ;)
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
7,428
Location
Villainville
MCA
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)

Oh right, it was Wolfgang Duhr. Speaking of bs answers; there was no "comparison" but only questioning the state of Citadels at release, which you also dodge. At the end of the day, bs is bs.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
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.
The first Ultima was a very simplistic game, the same for the first Goldbox game, Baldur's Gate was a pretty regressive game that has less features than an indie cRPG made a single bored economy student in his basement (though probably it required a lot of management skills), Torment had Guido Henkel (10 years of industry experience) as a producer, Knights of the Chalice had a very tight design, Bloodlines had a lot of people with lots of industry on the team and Tom Decker (16 years of industry experience) as a producer.
So, most of that stuff is either simplistic (something that for some weird reason most of current starting cRPG developers don't do unless in RPGMaker) or actually had industry veterans on board.

But how is it relevant to being able to make a full-featured cRPG in 6 months or being able to scjenmagistically predict when it will be ready with a precision of 1 month?
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
Kem0sabe: There's a discussion that starts around here that has most of the relevant information. It's a discussion mostly between me, Marsal, DU and Vault Dweller, but it goes on for a while, so you gotta have patience. There are some small nuggets in there, like me and DarkUnderlord insulting each other quite frequently... that was just before I was made staff, btw :M
 

janjetina

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
14,231
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Torment: Tides of Numenera
From my perspective, it seems that both parties have a lot to lose if they continue on their obstinate path of noncooperation. Bitcomposer will lose money - it is impossible (barring inside knowledge of their finances) to gauge the significance of the monetary loss of that size with respect to their total operation, but it is definitely not insignificant. They will lose some reputation, but it's not like they have much reputation to lose. Publishers are still in better position than developers on the game development market and they will easily find developers to work for them. Coreplay will lose all credibility with the possible investors. No publisher will work with them and if they think that going to Kickstarter is a good idea, they should think again. I consider myself a part of the target audience for a game like Chaos Chronicles, but I won't give a cent of my money to a party that has demonstrated inability to fulfill the contract it has agreed upon and unwilligness to negotiate.
 

kazgar

Arcane
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
2,164
Location
Upside Down
I assume we just need to wait until Oktoberfest when they aggrieved parties will get drunk and sort out all the issues and get on with making the game we all want..

Right? Easy!

Someone remember to take a bag of ice, just in case a punch gets thrown.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
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.

What design aspects have to do with it? We're talking project management. Goldbox series were made or overseen by SSI people who had half a decade of experience and dozens of shipped titles behind their belt already by 1988. Ditto with everything else, except for KOTC and the earliest Ultimas - which were made by enthusiasts in their garages in their free time who had no business plans, no deadlines and no responsibility to anybody, nor a need to have them. And it's funny you mention Bloodlines which met its scheduled release date as broken as they go. Didn't we have to use a fucking console command to proceed with the plot at some point years after the release?
 

Dhralei

Learned
Patron
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
80
Codex 2012 Codex 2013 Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera
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 :P

They don't. Most European countries follow the civil law method which differs quite a bit from the anglosaxon way of doing things. I'm no expert in German civil law, however I am a Swiss lawyer and Swiss civil law is very similar to German civil law. Therefore I have no qualms in saying that ikarinokami is speaking out of his ass regarding contract laws and how it play out in continental Europe.

Based on what CP and bc have written, I'd say the parties probably signed something along the lines of a "Werkvertrag" (loosley translated into contract for work and labour). One party gives the other a sum of money so that the other would create a "Werk" (creation, oeuvre: think of partronage where a person would hire an artist to paint him/her/the dog or you'd pay a contractor to build a house). Consequences for one party not holding up their end of the bargain regarding such a contract range from one or both parties stepping back from the contract and reverting the status to what it was before the contract was signed (this includes repaying any money that changed hands) as well as awarding damages for breaking the contract (such damages include lost profit from not being able to sell the finished work, damages for not being able to invest the money in another profitable way etc. etc.). Such contracts usually don't include buy out clauses (lots of continental contracts I've seen don't include those).

In Switzerland, if bc wanted to be ruthless about it, they could drag cp to court and ask for something called "Erfüllungsinteresse". This means they'd ask for monetary compensation from the hypothetical point of view that the contract was fullfilled (even though it wasn't). They'd sue for all the money and rights that they hypothetically would have been entitled to if the contract had been fulfilled as planned. This would include hypothetical profits from sale of the finished game. The presiding judge would then have to decide if bc's position is justified and he/she would award damages in accordance with the amount of fault he/she assigns to the parties (higher damages for intent of violation of a party or when there is a abuse of legal rights; reduced damages when there was only negligence etc.). The party found to be in violation of the contract and/or in delay carries burden of proof that the reason for violation and/or delay did not lie within their area of responsibility. The party suing for damages carries burden of proof for the damages they claim.

As for the injunction, in Switzerland those are awarded only if a a judge considers it plausible that:

- one party has a basis for a claim
- that this basis is endangered by the actions of the other party
- that there is a probability of harm
- and that this percieved harm will not be easily repaired/recompensed for.

With this in mind, bc actually managing to get an injunction tells me (from a Swiss legal point of view) that the judge found bc's claim to be more credible than cp's. Looking at it purely from a contractual and legal point of view (and leaving aside any claims of wrong doing or emotions) it appears to me as if cp isn't willing to fulfill the original contract they had. This to me means a contract violation and what's left is for me to wonder whether the dispute will be resolved amicably between the parties involved, whether this will go to court and if it does how much each of the investing parties will be able to claw back from each other.
 

ikarinokami

Augur
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
109
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 :P

They don't. Most European countries follow the civil law method which differs quite a bit from the anglosaxon way of doing things. I'm no expert in German civil law, however I am a Swiss lawyer and Swiss civil law is very similar to German civil law. Therefore I have no qualms in saying that ikarinokami is speaking out of his ass regarding contract laws and how it play out in continental Europe.

Based on what CP and bc have written, I'd say the parties probably signed something along the lines of a "Werkvertrag" (loosley translated into contract for work and labour). One party gives the other a sum of money so that the other would create a "Werk" (creation, oeuvre: think of partronage where a person would hire an artist to paint him/her/the dog or you'd pay a contractor to build a house). Consequences for one party not holding up their end of the bargain regarding such a contract range from one or both parties stepping back from the contract and reverting the status to what it was before the contract was signed (this includes repaying any money that changed hands) as well as awarding damages for breaking the contract (such damages include lost profit from not being able to sell the finished work, damages for not being able to invest the money in another profitable way etc. etc.). Such contracts usually don't include buy out clauses (lots of continental contracts I've seen don't include those).

In Switzerland, if bc wanted to be ruthless about it, they could drag cp to court and ask for something called "Erfüllungsinteresse". This means they'd ask for monetary compensation from the hypothetical point of view that the contract was fullfilled (even though it wasn't). They'd sue for all the money and rights that they hypothetically would have been entitled to if the contract had been fulfilled as planned. This would include hypothetical profits from sale of the finished game. The presiding judge would then have to decide if bc's position is justified and he/she would award damages in accordance with the amount of fault he/she assigns to the parties (higher damages for intent of violation of a party or when there is a abuse of legal rights; reduced damages when there was only negligence etc.). The party found to be in violation of the contract and/or in delay carries burden of proof that the reason for violation and/or delay did not lie within their area of responsibility. The party suing for damages carries burden of proof for the damages they claim.

As for the injunction, in Switzerland those are awarded only if a a judge considers it plausible that:

- one party has a basis for a claim
- that this basis is endangered by the actions of the other party
- that there is a probability of harm
- and that this percieved harm will not be easily repaired/recompensed for.

With this in mind, bc actually managing to get an injunction tells me (from a Swiss legal point of view) that the judge found bc's claim to be more credible than cp's. Looking at it purely from a contractual and legal point of view (and leaving aside any claims of wrong doing or emotions) it appears to me as if cp isn't willing to fulfill the original contract they had. This to me means a contract violation and what's left is for me to wonder whether the dispute will be resolved amicably between the parties involved, whether this will go to court and if it does how much each of the investing parties will be able to claw back from each other.

http://www.ghr.ch/media/archive1/International_Contract_Manual_Switzerland_2008.pdf

in short you are incorrect, please note the subsections on remedies. please note to get lost profits you have show "actual damages" and a "causal and material link", it is incredible hard to show "actual damages" in regards to future profits. one way for example would be if A contracted B to make C. and then A contracted with D to buy C. in this instance you have shown "actual damages" regarding future income and a casual link, and yes that is how tight it has to be, "actual damages" is the means by which the Courts europeans and americans courts limit damges with regards to breach of contract claim, lost profit claims in particular. You cannot merely speculate when you are trying to show actual damages. Aslo note that swiss law does not allow punitive damages.

Again the injuction is meanlingless, why, because of course coreplay is in breach of the contract, so what. the breach is largely irrelevant, what matters is the remedy, which is why bitcomposer dropped the injuction, it served no purpose, they have already rejected the best remedy they could get. Unless bitcomposer had already contracted to sell the game, they cannot show actual damages regarding future profits. at best they could get is based on swiss law, is the money they put in, plus 5% interest.

Also note as I stated and that coreplay does have a valid and excellent defense, that the contract as written is impossible.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Not having the game they paid for would be an "actual damage" the value of said game would be hard to determine, but I bet it would be higher than the price bC paid (so far).
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
it is incredible hard to show "actual damages" in regards to future profits...
Not sure how things are done in Europe, but in North America you can prove damages by showing a similar case. For example, bC can successfully claim that they expected similar profits, including DLCs, to Jagged Alliance - similar game, same developer and publisher. They can claim that they green-lighted CC because JA was a successful game and they had no reasons to expect less.

That would be a very valid, realistic, and not at all hypothetical example.

You cannot merely speculate when you are trying to show actual damages.
And they wouldn't have to.

Again the injuction is meanlingless, why, because of course coreplay is in breach of the contract, so what.
So what?

:hmmm:


Also note as I stated and that coreplay does have a valid and excellent defense, that the contract as written is impossible.
Have you seen their contract? If the development started in 2011 as bC claims, with the release date of Jan 2013, which gives them the standard year and a half, and if Coreplay signed the contract and then the addendum to change the scope of the game and drop the console versions, then there is nothing impossible about it. It's a very short contract for a proper RPG, of course, but they can't argue that it's impossible because many RPGs (IWD, ToEE, etc) were developed in 18-20 months.
 

ikarinokami

Augur
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
109
it is incredible hard to show "actual damages" in regards to future profits...
Not sure how things are done in Europe, but in North America you can prove damages by showing a similar case. For example, bC can successfully claim that they expected similar profits, including DLCs, to Jagged Alliance - similar game, same developer and publisher. They can claim that they green-lighted CC because JA was a successful game and they had no reasons to expect less.

That would be a very valid, realistic, and not at all hypothetical example.

You cannot merely speculate when you are trying to show actual damages.
And they wouldn't have to.

Again the injuction is meanlingless, why, because of course coreplay is in breach of the contract, so what.
So what?

:hmmm:


Also note as I stated and that coreplay does have a valid and excellent defense, that the contract as written is impossible.
Have you seen their contract? If the development started in 2011 as bC claims, with the release date of Jan 2013, which gives them the standard year and a half, and if Coreplay signed the contract and then the addendum to change the scope of the game and drop the console versions, then there is nothing impossible about it. It's a very short contract for a proper RPG, of course, but they can't argue that it's impossible because many RPGs (IWD, ToEE, etc) were developed in 18-20 months.

it is not a realistic example, consider, you are using two different types of games, you would have to use similair games, you would also need regression analysis, you would need to be in the right state, some states have higher standards than other, some states don't allow the remedy, some states impose a duty to mitigate, and might hold against bitcomposer that it stopped payment. Courts really try to disuade people from coming to court with breach of contract claims, and in general the policy is that it would be better if the parites solve thier issues without the court's intervention.

as for impossiblity, remember it's a term of art. in general it what the average developer could accomplish, not a great one, second it matters what state is considered complete. if coreplay convinces the court that complete means bug free, then they would probably win the arguement. they would also certainly get to use the citidels as evidence, would probably be able to use realms of arcadia HD.
 

ikarinokami

Augur
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
109
Not having the game they paid for would be an "actual damage" the value of said game would be hard to determine, but I bet it would be higher than the price bC paid (so far).

exactly but those damages would be limited to the money they put in plus 5% interest based on swiss law. it certainly not enough to show "actual damages" from loss profits. merely having the game, does not entitle you profits, just as not having the game doesnt entitle you to loss profits, you have show the "actual damages" ie the lost profits you suffered from not having the game, which could be a contract to you made to sell the game, or pre-orders that were done based on the games ETC
 

Dhralei

Learned
Patron
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
80
Codex 2012 Codex 2013 Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera
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 :P

They don't. Most European countries follow the civil law method which differs quite a bit from the anglosaxon way of doing things. I'm no expert in German civil law, however I am a Swiss lawyer and Swiss civil law is very similar to German civil law. Therefore I have no qualms in saying that ikarinokami is speaking out of his ass regarding contract laws and how it play out in continental Europe.

Based on what CP and bc have written, I'd say the parties probably signed something along the lines of a "Werkvertrag" (loosley translated into contract for work and labour). One party gives the other a sum of money so that the other would create a "Werk" (creation, oeuvre: think of partronage where a person would hire an artist to paint him/her/the dog or you'd pay a contractor to build a house). Consequences for one party not holding up their end of the bargain regarding such a contract range from one or both parties stepping back from the contract and reverting the status to what it was before the contract was signed (this includes repaying any money that changed hands) as well as awarding damages for breaking the contract (such damages include lost profit from not being able to sell the finished work, damages for not being able to invest the money in another profitable way etc. etc.). Such contracts usually don't include buy out clauses (lots of continental contracts I've seen don't include those).

In Switzerland, if bc wanted to be ruthless about it, they could drag cp to court and ask for something called "Erfüllungsinteresse". This means they'd ask for monetary compensation from the hypothetical point of view that the contract was fullfilled (even though it wasn't). They'd sue for all the money and rights that they hypothetically would have been entitled to if the contract had been fulfilled as planned. This would include hypothetical profits from sale of the finished game. The presiding judge would then have to decide if bc's position is justified and he/she would award damages in accordance with the amount of fault he/she assigns to the parties (higher damages for intent of violation of a party or when there is a abuse of legal rights; reduced damages when there was only negligence etc.). The party found to be in violation of the contract and/or in delay carries burden of proof that the reason for violation and/or delay did not lie within their area of responsibility. The party suing for damages carries burden of proof for the damages they claim.

As for the injunction, in Switzerland those are awarded only if a a judge considers it plausible that:

- one party has a basis for a claim
- that this basis is endangered by the actions of the other party
- that there is a probability of harm
- and that this percieved harm will not be easily repaired/recompensed for.

With this in mind, bc actually managing to get an injunction tells me (from a Swiss legal point of view) that the judge found bc's claim to be more credible than cp's. Looking at it purely from a contractual and legal point of view (and leaving aside any claims of wrong doing or emotions) it appears to me as if cp isn't willing to fulfill the original contract they had. This to me means a contract violation and what's left is for me to wonder whether the dispute will be resolved amicably between the parties involved, whether this will go to court and if it does how much each of the investing parties will be able to claw back from each other.

http://www.ghr.ch/media/archive1/International_Contract_Manual_Switzerland_2008.pdf

in short you are incorrect, please note the subsections on remedies. please note to get lost profits you have show "actual damages" and a "causal and material link", it is incredible hard to show "actual damages" in regards to future profits. one way for example would be if A contracted B to make C. and then A contracted with D to buy C. in this instance you have shown "actual damages" regarding future income and a casual link, and yes that is how tight it has to be, "actual damages" is the means by which the Courts europeans and americans courts limit damges with regards to breach of contract claim, lost profit claims in particular. You cannot merely speculate when you are trying to show actual damages. Aslo note that swiss law does not allow punitive damages.

Again the injuction is meanlingless, why, because of course coreplay is in breach of the contract, so what. the breach is largely irrelevant, what matters is the remedy, which is why bitcomposer dropped the injuction, it served no purpose, they have already rejected the best remedy they could get. Unless bitcomposer had already contracted to sell the game, they cannot show actual damages regarding future profits. at best they could get is based on swiss law, is the money they put in, plus 5% interest.

Also note as I stated and that coreplay does have a valid and excellent defense, that the contract as written is impossible.


Seriously? Do you even know how to read? Where did I mention punitive damages? Civil law damages are part and parcel of people making contracts and not holding up their end of the bargain. People sue and get paid damages for lost earnings all the time. All you have to do to show lost future profit is show the business plan, show projected income, compare the expected earnings to similar games of a similar nature.

With breach of contract you don't even have to prove the cause of the damages, since it's right there staring at you in the face. Contract not fullfilled/delayed = No game = lost investment + loss of projected profits. One of the more problematic things in civil law, namely proving the non fulfillment of the contract isn't even difficult in this case since cp outright says they're trying get out of the original contract. And if you're trying to say that a breach of contract isn't a big deal, then it's not even worth talking with you because such a statement shows how ignorant you are of the basic principles of contract law. Ever heard of "pacta sunt servanda"? First thing you learn in the first law lecture in civil law. Look it up.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
People sue and get paid damages for lost earnings all the time. All you have to do to show lost future profit is show the business plan, show projected income, compare the expected earnings to similar games of a similar nature.
This. As straightforward as it gets.
 

themadhatter114

Liturgist
Patron
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
309
Location
Morgantown, WV
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 :P

They don't. Most European countries follow the civil law method which differs quite a bit from the anglosaxon way of doing things. I'm no expert in German civil law, however I am a Swiss lawyer and Swiss civil law is very similar to German civil law. Therefore I have no qualms in saying that ikarinokami is speaking out of his ass regarding contract laws and how it play out in continental Europe.

Based on what CP and bc have written, I'd say the parties probably signed something along the lines of a "Werkvertrag" (loosley translated into contract for work and labour). One party gives the other a sum of money so that the other would create a "Werk" (creation, oeuvre: think of partronage where a person would hire an artist to paint him/her/the dog or you'd pay a contractor to build a house). Consequences for one party not holding up their end of the bargain regarding such a contract range from one or both parties stepping back from the contract and reverting the status to what it was before the contract was signed (this includes repaying any money that changed hands) as well as awarding damages for breaking the contract (such damages include lost profit from not being able to sell the finished work, damages for not being able to invest the money in another profitable way etc. etc.). Such contracts usually don't include buy out clauses (lots of continental contracts I've seen don't include those).

In Switzerland, if bc wanted to be ruthless about it, they could drag cp to court and ask for something called "Erfüllungsinteresse". This means they'd ask for monetary compensation from the hypothetical point of view that the contract was fullfilled (even though it wasn't). They'd sue for all the money and rights that they hypothetically would have been entitled to if the contract had been fulfilled as planned. This would include hypothetical profits from sale of the finished game. The presiding judge would then have to decide if bc's position is justified and he/she would award damages in accordance with the amount of fault he/she assigns to the parties (higher damages for intent of violation of a party or when there is a abuse of legal rights; reduced damages when there was only negligence etc.). The party found to be in violation of the contract and/or in delay carries burden of proof that the reason for violation and/or delay did not lie within their area of responsibility. The party suing for damages carries burden of proof for the damages they claim.

As for the injunction, in Switzerland those are awarded only if a a judge considers it plausible that:

- one party has a basis for a claim
- that this basis is endangered by the actions of the other party
- that there is a probability of harm
- and that this percieved harm will not be easily repaired/recompensed for.

With this in mind, bc actually managing to get an injunction tells me (from a Swiss legal point of view) that the judge found bc's claim to be more credible than cp's. Looking at it purely from a contractual and legal point of view (and leaving aside any claims of wrong doing or emotions) it appears to me as if cp isn't willing to fulfill the original contract they had. This to me means a contract violation and what's left is for me to wonder whether the dispute will be resolved amicably between the parties involved, whether this will go to court and if it does how much each of the investing parties will be able to claw back from each other.

http://www.ghr.ch/media/archive1/International_Contract_Manual_Switzerland_2008.pdf

in short you are incorrect, please note the subsections on remedies. please note to get lost profits you have show "actual damages" and a "causal and material link", it is incredible hard to show "actual damages" in regards to future profits. one way for example would be if A contracted B to make C. and then A contracted with D to buy C. in this instance you have shown "actual damages" regarding future income and a casual link, and yes that is how tight it has to be, "actual damages" is the means by which the Courts europeans and americans courts limit damges with regards to breach of contract claim, lost profit claims in particular. You cannot merely speculate when you are trying to show actual damages. Aslo note that swiss law does not allow punitive damages.

Again the injuction is meanlingless, why, because of course coreplay is in breach of the contract, so what. the breach is largely irrelevant, what matters is the remedy, which is why bitcomposer dropped the injuction, it served no purpose, they have already rejected the best remedy they could get. Unless bitcomposer had already contracted to sell the game, they cannot show actual damages regarding future profits. at best they could get is based on swiss law, is the money they put in, plus 5% interest.

Also note as I stated and that coreplay does have a valid and excellent defense, that the contract as written is impossible.

You think that lost profits are "extremely disfavored" but that impossibility is an "excellent" defense? You can't get an impossibility defense unless there are new circumstances that are unforeseeable to the breaching party. You can't just sign a contract, fail to perform, and then whine that it was just too hard after all when those circumstances should have been contemplated before the contract was signed. Impossibility, unlike lost profits, is indeed a strongly disfavored legal claim.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
@ikarinokami Google "Deutsches Vertragsrecht", German courts are known to make drastically different decisions than US courts. Besides, speculations are all moot as long as we don't know the type of contract they made.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
Based on what CP and bc have written, I'd say the parties probably signed something along the lines of a "Werkvertrag" (loosley translated into contract for work and labour). One party gives the other a sum of money so that the other would create a "Werk" (creation, oeuvre: think of partronage where a person would hire an artist to paint him/her/the dog or you'd pay a contractor to build a house). Consequences for one party not holding up their end of the bargain regarding such a contract range from one or both parties stepping back from the contract and reverting the status to what it was before the contract was signed (this includes repaying any money that changed hands) as well as awarding damages for breaking the contract (such damages include lost profit from not being able to sell the finished work, damages for not being able to invest the money in another profitable way etc. etc.). Such contracts usually don't include buy out clauses (lots of continental contracts I've seen don't include those).

I think publishers and developers would rather make an "Entwicklungsvertrag" in which exists also the question of "Entwicklungsrisiko".
 

:Flash:

Arcane
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,454
Based on what CP and bc have written, I'd say the parties probably signed something along the lines of a "Werkvertrag"
No. That was the cases for JA: BiA, but it was explicitly stated that it was not the case for CC. I don't know if that would even be possible for works partially financed by FFF Bayern.

Anyway, this whole speculation is (from all sides) rather silly.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom