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.

Game News Bad News: Chaos Chronicles development on hold due to legal trouble with bitComposer

Bitcher1

Cipher
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
263
The path of a codexer once again proves to be paved with misery. No wonder Torment is held in such high regard here.
 

Stabwound

Arcane
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,240
I just noticed that Citadels - a recently released game - was also published by bitcomposer and released in a completely broken and incomplete state with missing features out the ass. I mean, that kind of tells you something here.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,376
Location
Copenhagen
Bitcomposer didn't "publish" Conquistador in the vidya game sense of "publish." They didn't fund the game at all. They got some distribution deals, among these Steam.

I just noticed that Citadels - a recently released game - was also published by bitcomposer and released in a completely broken and incomplete state with missing features out the ass. I mean, that kind of tells you something here.

It tells you one (or more) of these things:

1) bitComposer is willing to push unfinished product out the door, when that product meets the deadline. This is bad, and they proved it with Citadels and their March attempt with Chaos Chronicles.

2) bitComposer does not want to inject more money into project which do not reach the deadline. This is reasonable.

3) bitComposer are either too nice for their own good (not pushing devs harder when they struggle to meet deadlines) or incapable of publisher oversight. Either way, the result is the same.

It does not tell you anything about whether Coreplay held their end of the bargain or not.
 

Jashiin

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
1,440
Bitcomposer published that too. No sale.
You talking about Conquistador? That's not really fair. No point in punishing the developer for their publisher's wrongdoings. Every purcahse money still mostly goes to Logicartists at the end of the day

Sure there is. CC would have been the exception. Now they're on the blacklist forever.
 

Monty

Arcane
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
1,582
Location
Grognardia
This is one of the risks of having multiple funding sources for these projects, given the likelihood of games going over budget.

If there's a single source of funding, whether it's one publisher paying a developer or indie devs investing their own/borrowed money, then it's up to one group to make a call if more money is needed or the scope expands. Either put in more money, cut down on features, or cancel.

In this case there seems to be a complex arrangement with different types of investors. So maybe Bitcomposer originally agreed to pay, say, 500k for 25% of a game. When it became clear that more cash was needed and it would be a 3m game, either each investor had to put in more money or stakes would have to be renegotiated, ie 500k would now only get you 1/6 of a game.

Renegotiating existing arrangements is a recipe for this sort of legal clusterfuck. Bitcomposer didn't want to increase the budget and just wanted something out the door, the devs wanted the opposite and started looking for other investors, cue Bitcomposer stopping all payments and getting that injunction.

Sadly most of the staff are probably already working on new projects so it's got less chance of coming out than Grimoire HD.
 

Volrath

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
4,295
At least fucking leak your last build or something. Don't let all that work go to waste

:x
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,376
Location
Copenhagen
This is one of the risks of having multiple funding sources for these projects, given the likelihood of games going over budget.

If there's a single source of funding, whether it's one publisher paying a developer or indie devs investing their own/borrowed money, then it's up to one group to make a call if more money is needed or the scope expands. Either put in more money, cut down on features, or cancel.

In this case there seems to be a complex arrangement with different types of investors. So maybe Bitcomposer originally agreed to pay, say, 500k for 25% of a game. When it became clear that more cash was needed and it would be a 3m game, either each investor had to put in more money or stakes would have to be renegotiated, ie 500k would now only get you 1/6 of a game.

Renegotiating existing arrangements is a recipe for this sort of legal clusterfuck. Bitcomposer didn't want to increase the budget and just wanted something out the door, the devs wanted the opposite and started looking for other investors, cue Bitcomposer stopping all payments and getting that injunction.

Sadly most of the staff are probably already working on new projects so it's got less chance of coming out than Grimoire HD.

Errrr, no. In any event, only two negotiating parties have existed: bitComposer and Coreplay. There are no other parties with negotiating powers here.
 

Volrath

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
4,295
Also, this is probably karma for raping jagged alliance. When you make a deal with the devil, don't come crying back when it bites you in the ass.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
At least shitcomposer lost money on it.
Evil Shitcomposer lost money
while dev got paid for a product they failed to finish (esp. considering their track record)

evil EVIL shitcomposter!

If they didn't have shitComposter ruining their game they would produce a great turn-based cRPG like Realms of Arkania remake
 

Monty

Arcane
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
1,582
Location
Grognardia
Errrr, no. In any event, only two negotiating parties have existed: bitComposer and Coreplay. There are no other parties with negotiating powers here.
OK, well maybe I'm not remembering correctly but I thought HG mentioned that Bitcomposer had funded less than 50% of the game, the Bavarian State had funded some of it, the devs the rest, and to me that seemed a more volatile situation than a regular development arrangement with one party calling the shots.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,107
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
Errrr, no. In any event, only two negotiating parties have existed: bitComposer and Coreplay. There are no other parties with negotiating powers here.
OK, well maybe I'm not remembering correctly but I thought HG mentioned that Bitcomposer had funded less than 50% of the game, the Bavarian State had funded some of it, the devs the rest, and to me that seemed a more volatile situation than a regular development arrangement with one party calling the shots.


Yes, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Like Hobgoblin said, things are complex.
 

Jashiin

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
1,440
At least shitcomposer lost money on it.
Evil Shitcomposer lost money
while dev got paid for a product they failed to finish (esp. considering their track record)

evil EVIL shitcomposter!

If they didn't have shitComposter ruining their game they would produce a great turn-based cRPG like Realms of Arkania remake

I'd happily see shitcomposter go broke so the game gets funded. It's the least they ought to do after funding JA:BIA.
 

Stabwound

Arcane
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,240
It makes you wonder how often situations like this happen without anyone ever knowing about it. The only reason this one has come to light is because the CC team was heavily promoting the game from its inception, and the devs were taking part in discussion on it the whole way through. Then one day, uh oh, all hell breaks loose.

But yeah, shitcomposer probably owns the rights to the game in its current state, so that about sums it up. I still don't believe Coreplay is a completely innocent party in this situation, though. I'm sure they had their hand in fucking it up, too.
 

Hamster

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
5,934
Location
Moscow
Codex 2012 Grab the Codex by the pussy Codex USB, 2014
Depression_article-by-Lee-Kotsalis.jpg
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,376
Location
Copenhagen
Errrr, no. In any event, only two negotiating parties have existed: bitComposer and Coreplay. There are no other parties with negotiating powers here.
OK, well maybe I'm not remembering correctly but I thought HG mentioned that Bitcomposer had funded less than 50% of the game, the Bavarian State had funded some of it, the devs the rest, and to me that seemed a more volatile situation than a regular development arrangement with one party calling the shots.
Yes, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Like Hobgoblin said, things are complex.


Is it an American/Israeli thing not to know what a fond does? I severely doubt that any interaction has gone on from the fond's side of things after the funding, since all they care about is the submission for approval. Indeed, this is mirrored in BOTH HobGob's and bC's statements, which both hold that the meeting was between the new Coreplay partners, Coreplay and bC. This is what makes the case complex - internal disagreement in Coreplay. Not that the Germna state is suddenly going "lulz we own you." That's not how a fond works.

I might be wrong, but all conventional wisdom on the subject says I'm not.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,107
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
I'm not necessarily talking about the fond. ("Fond?" Do you mean fund? Foundation?)
 

imweasel

Guest
Coreplay wants more money becuase they couldn't finish the game on time - and Bitcomposer doesn't want to pay anymore.

This really sounds like a job for Kickstarter.

:smug:
 

AbounI

Colonist
Patron
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
1,050
Errrr, no. In any event, only two negotiating parties have existed: bitComposer and Coreplay. There are no other parties with negotiating powers here.
OK, well maybe I'm not remembering correctly but I thought HG mentioned that Bitcomposer had funded less than 50% of the game, the Bavarian State had funded some of it, the devs the rest, and to me that seemed a more volatile situation than a regular development arrangement with one party calling the shots.


Yes, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Like Hobgoblin said, things are complex.
Sure it is, especially when there is some points concerning Jagged Alliance calling back the last contract they had together.it goes back much further than what we can think

At least, we now know it's not because of the place of the official forum
 

Hegel

Arcane
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
3,274
Is it an American/Israeli thing not to know what a fond does? I severely doubt that any interaction has gone on from the fond's side of things after the funding, since all they care about is the submission for approval. Indeed, this is mirrored in BOTH HobGob's and bC's statements, which both hold that the meeting was between the new Coreplay partners, Coreplay and bC. This is what makes the case complex - internal disagreement in Coreplay. Not that the Germna state is suddenly going "lulz we own you." That's not how a fond works.

I might be wrong, but all conventional wisdom on the subject says I'm not.
I work in the private, generally speaking Coreplay and bC would have someone constantly breathing on their neck. Since a chunk of the round was from a public entity I assume things were a bit more lax (which is the point I brought up with you on the other thread).
 

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