Development Info Coreplay Issues Statement in Response to bitComposer Interview

[Grunker]

Tags: bitComposer; Chaos Chronicles; Coreplay; Peter Ohlmann; Wolfgang Duhr

The Codex recently published an exclusive interview with bitComposer's Wolfgang Duhr, in which he responded to the current dispute between Coreplay and bitComposer concerning Codex pet project Chaos Chronicles.

Today (August 11, 2013), Coreplay responded to the claims bitComposer made in the interview via a statement sent to us and to GamesInquirer.

Here's a snippet from the statement:

After that, we made several proposals for a final solution with no success. Finally, a meeting between bitComposer and us took place on Friday, May 31 2013. In negotiations lasting more than five hours, to which bitComposer’s lawyer was connected by telephone, the parties discussed and negotiated every detail of a final agreement between bitComposer and Coreplay to realize the completion of 'Chaos Chronicles.' A contract was written clarifying all the terms and conditions, by which bitComposer would transfer all their alleged rights to the game to Coreplay and would in return be paid immediate compensation. By the end of the negotiations, both parties agreed to sign this contract and bitComposer firmly declared that they would send a signed copy of the contract on the following Monday, June 3 2013. But to our great disappointment bitComposer has up to the present day neither sent the signed contract back nor have they contacted us.

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.​

Read the full statement here or at GamesInquirer.

 

[Metro]

From reading that DerpCumPosterior seems a bit more 'in character' for being an 'evil publisher.' That said, it should hardly be surprising to Foreplay that when you enter into an agreement whereby a publisher funds 70% of your game that they do, in fact, own a significant portion of the rights to it and you simply can't walk away without handing them a big wad of cash. Looks like they'd rather have the IP/game over the big wad of cash.

 

[Jack Dandy]

What possible outcome can this thing have? Did Coreplay already ditch Shitcomposer and are working on another thing?

 

[Infinitron]

It's a common practice of some publishers to withhold payments to put pressure on developers who usually don't have the financial stability to withstand this. This is the way bitComposer also acted. In December 2012 they asked for a further ‘Chaos Chronicles’ milestone, and announced the payment of EUR 45,000.- for it. But after the milestone had been delivered, payment was refused for no reason. Furthermore, bitComposer did not pay the remaining fee for additional work and an Add-On for the game ‘Jagged Alliance: Crossfire‘, which Coreplay had been developing for bitComposer. As bitComposer well knew, we needed these payments urgently to pay our staff and continue the development of ‘Chaos Chronicles’. This resulted in serious liquidity problems for us.

After that, we made several proposals for a final solution with no success. Finally, a meeting between bitComposer and us took place on Friday, May 31 2013. In negotiations lasting more than five hours, to which bitComposer’s lawyer was connected by telephone, the parties discussed and negotiated every detail of a final agreement between bitComposer and Coreplay to realize the completion of 'Chaos Chronicles.' A contract was written clarifying all the terms and conditions, by which bitComposer would transfer all their alleged rights to the game to Coreplay and would in return be paid immediate compensation. By the end of the negotiations, both parties agreed to sign this contract and bitComposer firmly declared that they would send a signed copy of the contract on the following Monday, June 3 2013. But to our great disappointment bitComposer has up to the present day neither sent the signed contract back nor have they contacted us.

Cool, this is new information.

What this statement doesn't address, however, is what @HobGoblin42 posted in the bC interview thread - that development on the game started in July 2012, and not in 2011 like bC are saying.

The question is, as I said, when did bC actually start paying them to make the game? Did bC believe that the game was in development for that entire time, since 2011? Are they pretending to have believed that?

 

[The Vanished One]

What a clusterfuck.

In December 2012 they asked for a further ‘Chaos Chronicles’ milestone, and announced the payment of EUR 45,000.- for it. But after the milestone had been delivered, payment was refused for no reason. Furthermore, bitComposer did not pay the remaining fee for additional work and an Add-On for the game ‘Jagged Alliance: Crossfire‘, which Coreplay had been developing for bitComposer.

A contract was written clarifying all the terms and conditions, by which bitComposer would transfer all their alleged rights to the game to Coreplay and would in return be paid immediate compensation. By the end of the negotiations, both parties agreed to sign this contract and bitComposer firmly declared that they would send a signed copy of the contract on the following Monday, June 3 2013. But to our great disappointment bitComposer has up to the present day neither sent the signed contract back nor have they contacted us.

Would like it if bC clarified these two points in particular.

 

[Metro]

What possible outcome can this thing have? Did Coreplay already ditch Shitcomposer and are working on another thing?

Three outcomes:

1) CP sells off the rights to BC and a third party finishes the game.

2) BC sells off the rights to CP and they finish the game.

3) They come to an agreement and BC keeps funding BC to finish the game.

 

[Jashiin]

4. no one finishes the game.

 

[Grunker]

I should probably mention that for my part, I think the Codex news feed should be empty about this for now until an actual evolution in events occur. Until then, now we have statements from both bC and Coreplay, it's gotta be up to them internally to find a solution. I do believe that the whole affair has shown there's plenty of community interest in this game.

I think that if bitComposer and Coreplay do not meet to discuss this game again, both are failing their own community and customer base.

That is my two cents.

 

[Cosmo]

You could also ask clarifications from both sides until you think everything's been laid on the table...

 

[Metro]

Eh, that would be largely pointless. It's pretty obvious someone is going to have to give in -- knowing more details isn't going to settle the matter.

 

[Grunker]

You could also ask clarifications from both sides until you think everything's been laid on the table...

That will only lead to the exact kind of "he-said, she-said" discussion we wanted to avoid. We now have to statements. People can make of them what they will, and we have both @CrashOberbreit (Michael from bitComposer) and @HobGoblin42 (Peter from Coreplay) right here - they can add stuff and answer questions here as well as anywhere else.

There is also no reason to think that clarification will bring, well, clarity. It is very clear that both sides have directly contradictory views of these things. Also, as far as volunteer work goes, this isn't exactly a great place on the easy-to-rewarding scale

I think we've always had to accept that we won't understand the entire issue. And unless I really could go to Germany and visit both parties like @kaizoku suggests here, I don't think full clarity can achieved here.

I just hope that the clear message from the community gets across: fucking stop the bickering, and work this out guys.

 

[Cosmo]

Eh, that would be largely pointless. It's pretty obvious someone is going to have to give in -- knowing more details isn't going to settle the matter.

Yes and no : bitcomposer may have driven itself into a corner with their openness policy...
After all, if they have nothing to hide, why would they stop communicating ?

 

[Excidium]

Game is p. much doomed at this point anyway.

 

[Bubbles]

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.

I'm sympathetic to BitchComposter's argument that you shouldn't sign an agreement in the same meeting that you draft it. I don't think Coreplay acted very professionally here.

 

[Grunker]

Eh, that would be largely pointless. It's pretty obvious someone is going to have to give in -- knowing more details isn't going to settle the matter.

Yes and no : bitcomposer may have driven itself into a corner with their openness policy...
After all, if they have nothing to hide, why would they stop communicating ?

Just to be clear: Wolfgang Duhr contacted me today both before and after the statement was released asking me if I had any further questions for him. So bitComposer hasn't "stopped communicating" like you suggest. If nothing else, both parties have been forthcoming in my exchanges with them.

It is my personal belief that now that we have two clear statements, it is fruitless to continue a back-and-forth using the Codex news channel as a base.

 

[Excidium]

Read the full statement here

Wrong url.

Scroll to the bottom

 

[Cosmo]

Just to be clear: Wolfgang Duhr contacted me today both before and after the statement was released asking me if I had any further questions for him. So bitComposer hasn't "stopped communicating" like you suggest.

You misunderstood : it was a rhetorical question.

 

[Grotesque]

"But of course, everyone can form their own opinion about how strong bitComposer’s aim is to publish quality games"
Slam dunk!

Is there a reason to attend more meetings with shitCompost after they tell you they'll send the next Monday the agreed contract and they fail to do so?
No. Because their tactic is clear. Slowly bleed the enemy away.
So never negotiate with cunts (& terrorists).

 

[Capitalism]

That's strange. I feel like they both are right in their demands, probably because both of them underestimated the scope of their game.
But here is the bad thing: it seems like poor Capitalism will not play Chaos Chronicles. Coreplay will not work with bitComposer until the rights will slip to them, and bitComposer has no reasons to do that, because they certainly won't be a publisher of CC2.

 

[felipepepe]

Is there a reason to attend more meetings with shitCompost after they tell you they'll send the next Monday the agreed contract and they fail to do so?
No. Because their tactic is clear. Slowly bleed the enemy away.
So never negotiate with cunts (& terrorists).

Except that they own 67% of your game and you can't do shit without reaching an agreement first...

 

[Bubbles]

Coreplay should just go ahead and declare bankruptcy, both financially and creatively. Then they can found a new studio and get the rights to make Fallout:EE and everybody will be happy.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Ok, refusing payment for delivered milestones without stating any reason is pretty subhuman. Trying to sell us an unfinished game is subhuman too.
So, it sounds like shitComposers deserve to be impaled on stakes.

 

[Capitalism]

So, it sounds like shitComposers deserve to be impaled on stakes.

Yeah, like it's only bitComposer's fault that Coreplay cannot finish the game till February/March 2013 (initial release date). bitComposer is not a bEAg publisher and probably they weren't sure that additional funding for turn based fantasy RPG from the developers of critically acclaimed Jagged Alliance: Back in Action would be a good idea.

Ok, refusing payment for delivered milestones without stating any reason is pretty subhuman. Trying to sell us an unfinished game is subhuman too.
So, it sounds like shitComposers deserve to be impaled on stakes.

Agreed. But that's how they do things. Coreplay asked them some cash for the game that will be released in February/March 2013, bitComposer gave it to them.
I gave my moneyz for Linux Version of SRR and THOSE FUCKING GREEDY JEWS HAVEN'T RELEASED IT YET I HATE THEM I WISH THEY WILL GO BANKRUPT. That's how I feel. Probably, evilPublisher felt that Coreplay needs to finish their game any means necessary without additional funding.

Tl;dr: I think that they both fucked up and should be hated for ruining our chances to play CC.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Yeah, like it's only bitComposer's fault that Coreplay cannot finish the game till February/March 2013 (initial release date). bitComposer is not a bEAg publisher and probably they weren't sure that additional funding for turn based fantasy RPG from the developers of critically acclaimed Jagged Alliance: Back in Action would be a good idea.

If they delivered the milestone as agreed, they should be paid. If ShitComposers had their doubts, they should have cancelled the project on the previous milestone or after paying for this milestone, not after the team has worked for them for months.

Agreed. But that's how they do things. Coreplay asked them some cash for the game that will be released in February/March 2013, bitComposer gave it to them.

Well, we could also torrent all games and say that that's how we do things. Releasing an unfinished game without informing customers that it's unfinished is a fraud.

 

[Bubbles]

Well, we could also torrent all games and say that that's how we do things. Releasing an unfinished game without informing customers that it's unfinished is a fraud.

Do you think Coreplay would have warned the public that the game was unfinished if bC had forced them to release it in early 2013?