Interview RPG Codex Exclusive Interview: bitComposer's Take on the Chaos Chronicles Dispute

[Raynald Levesque]

First thank you for this good Interview !!!

This is good news to know that the publisher and FFF Bayern (a local state support program) want to game to see de "daylight" ... now let's see what CC have to say .

 

[Absinthe]

Can we lay off Cleve for a moment? He knows. We know. We don't need every thread turning into a Grimoire thread. Since he is burning ginormous amounts of free time on making a classic and proven to be mostly sane, I think we can cut him some respect. It's wait and see on Grimoire anyhow.

I agree the shitcomposer mention was a little unwarranted. Yes, the codex doesn't pull its punches, but we don't need to report on our inner fringes. Also, the point about the evil publisher thing was already being made without it, so it felt like it was adding unnecessary hot air to the discourse. Or maybe that was just the somewhat tactless way it was conveyed. Either way, you could do better, homes.

As for the Chaos Chronicles thing, can't say I've been following it too much. On the "playing for time" end, I think bitComposer does have a bit of an interest in doing that because as this mess drags on bitComposer stands to lose future profits and possibly a good game while Coreplay stands to risk financial meltdown as they cannot cover operating costs. The pressure squeezes harder on Coreplay, I reckon. On the other hand, if Coreplay was really trying to do "HERE'S A NEW CONTRACT WE WANT YOU GUYS SIGN IT NOW" then that's just fucking retarded. You could be my best friend and I would still want to read the shit out of that thing and get a second opinion because yo legalese does funny things. And if bitComposer was genuine on rescinding the order as a gesture of good faith then at the very least they're not completely devoted to skullfucking Coreplay.

So... shit's mixed, but with this weighing in I'd hold out for a piece from Coreplay explaining their view of the situation. They still didn't really mention shit about their lawyer/investor duo, who are seemingly playing a huge part in the current fuckup. My opinion is still neutral (mostly idgaf) on the matter. I like that bitComposer weighed in with their perspective on the situation though. Stuff like that tends to win a good bit of respect round these parts.

 

[Monty]

bitComposer stands to lose future profits and possibly a good game while Coreplay stands to risk financial meltdown as they cannot cover operating costs. The pressure squeezes harder on Coreplay, I reckon.

I don't entirely agree, given the funding %s mentioned in the interview. As Coreplay were only contributing 5% of the budget (and would have received payments from the project budget in the early stages of development to cover operating costs), the money invested so far is mostly from BC. So they have more to lose than just 'future profits'.

Of course, Coreplay would need to quickly move onto a new project to cover their operating costs or they may indeed face financial problems. And finding a new project would be harder with this on their record, and presumably no chance of BFFF funding in future.

But I do think BC have more on the line here than just potential future upside.

 

[Irenaeus]

Coreplay has already stated they moved onto a new project (post #213).

 

[Q]

He didn't answer about missed pay on Sempteber 2012. It may be the reason of new shareholder for Coreplay, slow developing pace and all that shit started.

 

[Monty]

Coreplay has already stated they moved to a new project.

Ah OK, so actually BC have spent most of the money on this while Coreplay have moved on already. Makes for an interesting negotiation anyway.

 

[Grunker]

He didn't answer about missed pay

He did, though.

Coreplay did not match the originally scheduled milestones, and because of this uncertainty, we were not able to continue from our side

Whether you believe him or not, his account is that they didn't stop payments until Coreplay failed match scheduled milestones and wouldn't provide new ones.

 

[Outlander]

I'm really not interested in all of this finger pointing, PR bullshit. Maybe bitcomposer is lying about how everything went down because they're a greedy, evil publisher. Perhaps Coreplay did pull something shady by having their lawyers present a new contract to appease a greedy shareholder. I don't give a shit! Coreplay "Wah, They wanted us to go to a meeting even though they said they wouldn't immediately sign anything our lawyer gave them! We're not playing for time!" Bitcomposer "Wah, Now everything thinks we're an evil publisher! It's all Coreplay's fault for not rushing to finish a game by our arbitrary deadlines!" Seriously, they need to grow the fuck up. I just want the game they invested a lot of time and money into to be completed. I want to give them money for it. Lots of people do. Both parties need to swallow their pride, stop trying to play the victim, and strike a deal to get the game released so they can make some money instead of throwing all the time and money sunk into the project down the toilet.

Dude, please. 'Grow the fuck up'? Really? You make it sound like a kindergarten dispute. Sure we all want the game released, but for fuck's sake, do you not realize there's a huge pile of money involved? Somebody wants to screw over somebody out of some significant green and that can't be ignored, as much as we want the game released. This is not about pride and victims, it's about business.

 

[made]

OFFICIAL!!!

Right, I see that this distinction is of great import to you.

What does it change though? People rant against publishers/devs on every forum, official or not. Other places moderate, we don't.

I'm sure they've evaluated the pros and cons of hosting their forum on the Codex, taking into account the harsh tone around here. So again I ask you: what purpose did it serve to point out the ShitComposer bit, when they are obviously aware of and comfortable with the fact that they are the likely scapegoat in this case?

 

[Onholyservicebound]

This thread: http://youtu.be/AFuKkM-tqN0?t=49s

 

[zornskin]

The responses from this guy leave me feeling like there's still some hope that the game will make it into my hands.

He said some stuff, they said some stuff... and maybe they'll manage to come to an agreement anyway.

I don't know enough about it to be angry at anyone. But even if I was, if it sees the light I'll still buy copies for myself and all my idiot friends, since the game sounds like it has been made to be moddable and folks were able to do so much with TOEE, and forgive them both for everything(even for BiA).

Thanks much for the interview. I'm in the same camp as the few who whined about "shitcomposter", but i think their response to that was a really strong one, and we wouldn't have seen that - if it hadn't been in there.

 

[Indranys]

Kodex Kool Konsensus so far about this issue:

I saw a Hobgoblin the other day.
No really.
Horrible, horrible creatures.


Do carry on guys.

 

[Azalin]

A good interview overall apart from the fact that the dodged the Citadels question,not sure about all the butthurt about the "shitcomposer" thing

 

[AbounI]

Assuming the project still got chances to be completed, I humbly suggest Coreplay & bitComposer to agree on the launch of a (closed) beta.People will have opportunity to express about what they consider is good or not, it will help Coreplay to finish the project in the right way, with a potential gain of time.
Enough of lost time

 

[Midair]

This is not about pride and victims, it's about business.

What part of this interview indicates that they know the difference?

 

[Kalin]

According to bitComposer, the main issue was a new shareholder

 

[Q]

He didn't answer about missed pay

He did, though.

Coreplay did not match the originally scheduled milestones, and because of this uncertainty, we were not able to continue from our side

Whether you believe him or not, his account is that they didn't stop payments until Coreplay failed match scheduled milestones and wouldn't provide new ones.

It's unclear for me, because he started answer with December 2012. Why would Coreplay then mention Semptember 2012? That's where the different points of view clash. I don't say someone lies. But what came first - milestone product delay or payment delay?

 

[Jashiin]

According to bitComposer, the main issue was a new shareholder

 

[Grunker]

He didn't answer about missed pay

He did, though.

Coreplay did not match the originally scheduled milestones, and because of this uncertainty, we were not able to continue from our side

Whether you believe him or not, his account is that they didn't stop payments until Coreplay failed match scheduled milestones and wouldn't provide new ones.

It's unclear for me, because he started answer with December 2012. Why would Coreplay then mention Semptember 2012? That's where the different points of view clash. I don't say someone lies. But what came first - milestone product delay or payment delay?

That's a point of dispute. According to bC, dispute doesn't start until December 2012. According to Coreplay, in September 2012.

 

[Branm]

Great interview, it does put bitComposer into a different light since the guy answers the questions without he usual vague bullshit.

The shitcomposer reference wasn't needed. Should give them credit for actually answering the questions pretty honestly. Most publishers wouldnt give the codex the time of the day....

 

[Jashiin]

Any ideas who this investor is ?

 

[Monty]

Any ideas who this investor is ?

 

[villain of the story]

Even without reading any of this and knowing anything else, I've found it most suspicious and shady how, according to @HobGoblin42, they (CorePlay) had not attended a scheduled meeting with bitComposer on July, 24th simply because they (bC) "had already announced not to sign anything in that meeting".

That tells me two things: bC possibly wanted to talk, suggest changes, try and reach an understanding and consensus on terms (on what turned out to be a new contract pushed forward by CP out of nowhere, according to bC), and that CP were being impatient whiny faggots, insisting signing (reportedly a new) contract HERE and NAU! hence the particular announcement of bC about "not signing anything in that meeting". That's not how business works (and -surprise!- how it really did not). If there is a meeting, you fucking attend it and not pull such primadonna bullshit.

In the big picture, I suspect this is about CP realising their terms would not be in their best interest and wanting better terms (nothing wrong with that) and this new shareholder lawyer pushing the guys about it and feeding them on ill advise, to the detriment of all.

 

[thesheeep]

So... bottom line is: Evil lawyers!

 

[Sitra Achara]

He didn't answer about missed pay

He did, though.

Coreplay did not match the originally scheduled milestones, and because of this uncertainty, we were not able to continue from our side

Whether you believe him or not, his account is that they didn't stop payments until Coreplay failed match scheduled milestones and wouldn't provide new ones.

It's unclear for me, because he started answer with December 2012. Why would Coreplay then mention Semptember 2012? That's where the different points of view clash. I don't say someone lies. But what came first - milestone product delay or payment delay?

That's a point of dispute. According to bC, dispute doesn't start until December 2012. According to Coreplay, in September 2012.

Where did Coreplay (HG?) say that? Is that from internal communications?