Game News South Park: The Stick of Truth delayed AGAIN, release date is now March 4th, 2014

[Duraframe300]

How are you all missing the self-effacing tone of "up to the crappy standards of the show". Trey and Matt aren't assholes, and they wouldn't risk the game's success by putting that out there even if they were.

Chances are the game was mediocre or not as good as it could be, and because Ubisoft got it for next to nothing they're willing to throw in a bit more money to improve it to the point where it's actually enjoyable.

Or Ubisoft thinks it'll do better in March than it will during the holidays, so they're just delaying it and not actually putting any more work into it.

Or a combination of the two.

Depends what part of the game. Remember, you're talking here about people who mentioned Oblivion as their favourite rpg of all time, so I'm not sure I would consider their ability for game design to be bigger than Obsidians.

Seriously why is nobody considering that this is on Matt and Trey's obsessivnes with changing things. Which might turn out good, but still

 

[oljebox]

Seriously why is nobody considering that this is on Matt and Trey's obsessivnes with changing things. Which might turn out good, but still

Are they the ones funding the game? I don't remember.

 

[Alex]

Looks like ass.

no bro its shit

Ever heard of the story of the blind men and the elephant?

 

[Duraframe300]

Seriously why is nobody considering that this is on Matt and Trey's obsessivnes with changing things. Which might turn out good, but still

Are they the ones funding the game? I don't remember.

Nope. But, naturally they hold a lot of power.

 

[oljebox]

Seriously why is nobody considering that this is on Matt and Trey's obsessivnes with changing things. Which might turn out good, but still

Are they the ones funding the game? I don't remember.

Nope. But, naturally they hold a lot of power.

If they're not funding it, they don't have the power to decide when development's done or when the game's released. This isn't on them.

 

[Infinitron]

Seriously why is nobody considering that this is on Matt and Trey's obsessivnes with changing things. Which might turn out good, but still

Are they the ones funding the game? I don't remember.

Nope. But, naturally they hold a lot of power.

If they're not funding it, they don't have the power to decide when development's done or when the game's released. This isn't on them.

Uh they're the license holders. Their contract likely has significant veto powers.

But I'm more inclined to believe that Ubisoft just didn't like something about THQ's original vision or scope for the game.

 

[oljebox]

Uh they're the license holders. Their contract likely has significant veto powers.

If they're not funding it, there's no way in hell they got control over the development or release schedule. They've got creative control, if anything.

 

[Duraframe300]

Uh they're the license holders. Their contract likely has significant veto powers.

If they're not funding it, there's no way in hell they got control over the development or release schedule. They've got creative control, if anything.

They are the license holders. Yes, they can demand that. Not to mention Matt and Trey are big celebrities and not someone you want to piss off. Especially when you're Making a game based on their franchise.

Veto-Power is a hell of a scary thing to have. And that counts everywhere. Not just politics.

 

[Infinitron]

Uh they're the license holders. Their contract likely has significant veto powers.

If they're not funding it, there's no way in hell they got control over the development or release schedule. They've got creative control, if anything.

Well, how do you define "control over the release schedule"? If they can claim that the game doesn't meet their quality expectations and block its release, in practice that means they can extend its schedule to their liking.

BTW, I'm also not at all sure that they haven't put their own money into this.

 

[Roguey]

Maybe it all looked well on the spreadsheets, but I doubt that any of them thinks that releasing mediocre and forgettable games is a viable strategy.

~Josh Sawyer~ considers it one of the only fun games Obsidian has made and his is the only opinion that matters (to me).

Also Patrick K Mills had this to say about it:

Having worked at Obsidian, I have to hand it to them, this game is a very clearly well scoped and managed production, which has been the bane of Obsidian games. On top of that (which is no small achievement, most games only get by having bad production by being utterly unambitious) it's actually a hell of a lot of fun, too. It's not without flaws, the itemization is kind of weak, there are some pretty OP character builds, and the trim production shows in a few areas (static dialogue cameras perhaps being the most obvious). All that said, I'm having wicked fun and if Obs can maintain this level of production without losing their ambition, they might be in a position to become a major independent studio with the ability to put out a real blockbuster*.

 

[Duraframe300]

BTW, I'm also not at all sure that they haven't put their own money into this.

Yup, they have (indirectly). At least Viacom did who funded the first months of development and likely pays for the expenses South Park Digital Studios has.

 

[oljebox]

Uh they're the license holders. Their contract likely has significant veto powers.

If they're not funding it, there's no way in hell they got control over the development or release schedule. They've got creative control, if anything.

Well, how do you define "control over the release schedule"? If they can claim that the game doesn't meet their quality expectations and block its release, in practice that means they can extend its schedule to their liking.

Creative control involves deciding how the game is designed- does Kenny's princess costume include a tiara or not, what form will combat take, what kind of actions do the characters have available to them, etc.- not on what schedule it happens. If you have creative control and you hamper development by your indecision or jeopardise its budget through unrealistic demands- in other words, if you don't operate on good faith with the people who are funding the project- you open yourself to legal action.

Edit: chances are they don't even have creative control over anything but the cutscenes, sound effects, etc.- things they are knowledgeable about. They can outline gameplay and such, but they're ultimately at the mercy of the developer when it comes to game-specific aspects of the project. If the developer says it can't do it, it's not happening.

BTW, I'm also not at all sure that they haven't put their own money into this.

Yup, they have (indirectly). At least Viacom did who funded the first months of development and likely pays for the expenses South Park Digital Studios has.

Trey and Matt indirectly funded the project ... through Viacom? What?

 

[Infinitron]

Trey and Matt indirectly funded the project ... through Viacom? What?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/

Look at the bottom right.

 

[Rake]

Uh they're the license holders. Their contract likely has significant veto powers.

If they're not funding it, there's no way in hell they got control over the development or release schedule. They've got creative control, if anything.

Well, how do you define "control over the release schedule"? If they can claim that the game doesn't meet their quality expectations and block its release, in practice that means they can extend its schedule to their liking.

Creative control involves deciding how the game is designed- does Kenny's princess costume include a tiara or not, what form will combat take, what kind of actions do the characters have available to them, etc.- not on what schedule it happens. If you have creative control and you hamper development by your indecision or jeopardise its budget through unrealistic demands- in other words, if you don't operate on good faith with the people who are funding the project- you open yourself to legal action.

BTW, I'm also not at all sure that they haven't put their own money into this.

Yup, they have (indirectly). At least Viacom did who funded the first months of development and likely pays for the expenses South Park Digital Studios has.

Trey and Matt indirectly funded the project ... through Viacom? What?

The point is they don't have just creative control. Veto power means they can block the release of the game any time they want. So if the game isn't up to their standards, it won't get released no matter what Ubisoft wants. Ubisoft of course can stop the funding, but in this case will have a Chaos Chronicles situation.

 

[Black]

Except that it does matter for them, because they're getting paid for polishing that turd. That's four more months for Feargus to line up more projects for Obsidian without having to worry about layoffs.

The interests of gamers and game developers don't always align. For a developer, it's the best thing ever to be paid more and more without having to finish your project. For an extreme example of this, see Duke Nukem Forever.

Yes, but in this case it's Obsidian. They already have a bad reputation amongst gamers for shipping buggy games, this delay doesn't bring much confidence that development is going very well, and only further lowers people's opinion of them as a studio.

For a developer, it's the best thing ever to be paid more and more without having to finish your project.

That's a terrible mindset for a dev studio to have, as it sometimes leads to stuff like Aliens Colonial Marines or like what happened with Silicon Knights and 3D Realms. It benefits no one but lazy incompetents.

Gamers are dumb shits with memory of a goldfish x bird. They can't even remember what was the name of the company that fucked them hard lubelessly last night.

 

[Duraframe300]

I'm not sure if oljebox realizes how powerful a veto right can be. As Rake says, they can block EVERYTHING.

Literary, just look at politics for an easy example. There's a reason lots of instituions get nothing done at all.

 

[oljebox]

Trey and Matt indirectly funded the project ... through Viacom? What?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/

Look at the bottom right.

I know Viacom is the owner. Even if Viacom has contributed some money to the project, that doesn't mean Matt and Trey have any more power than they would otherwise. How much power do Matt and Trey have on their show? A decent amount, and even there they don't decide when the material comes out, even there they don't have full creative control of their own show.

The point is they don't have just creative control. Veto power means they can block the release of the game any time they want. So if the game isn't up to their standards, it won't get released no matter what Ubisoft wants. Ubisoft of course can stop the funding, but in this case will have a Chaos Chronicles situation.

And I'm telling you no company would ever agree to give them the ability to veto a project that risks tens of millions of dollars. The idea's absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Roguey]

Weren't most of the delays because SEGA realized the game sucked and kept asking Obsidian to fix it?

Not the last one.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Will..._writer_and_former_unlucky_schlep__Part_2.php

Lastly, in terms of what we would have done differently, one thing that definitely impacted the reception was out of our control (release date) - first off, people expected more from the delay when there was never any plans to do anything more with the title during the delay. In addition, being released after Mass Effect 2 with clearly superior cinematic sequences nor after Splinter Cell which specializes in some of the best stealth mechanics to date didn't help, either. To explain the publisher reasoning, however, I do know that there was a drive to push the "buzz" of the project so players were aware of it, and it was felt that eight months would give that lead time enough for people to be aware that Alpha Protocol existed. That said, even with this lead time, the PR efforts still came on late, so I don't know how much that helped in the end, except pushing the game at least eight months out from a more favorable release time, at least in terms of features. If it had been released much earlier (and it's rare to say this), I think the reviews would have come from a different perspective... as it stood, it defeated expectations on a number of levels in the marketplace.

Avellone praising Splinter Cell Conviction is another reason why he should be kept as far away from gameplay decisions as possible.

 

[Semper]

Except that it does matter for them, because they're getting paid for polishing that turd. That's four more months for Feargus to line up more projects for Obsidian without having to worry about layoffs.

did you have insight into the contract? it could also be that obsidian is doing the work for free because they missed an important milestone. another possibility could be that ubisoft delays the game for whatever reason without polishing/changing anything and it's only a fake story to calm down potential buyers. in the end polishing always sounds good and everybody understands the analogy of more time equals better quality, at least in their hopes.

 

[Duraframe300]

Trey and Matt indirectly funded the project ... through Viacom? What?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/

Look at the bottom right.

I know Viacom is the owner. Even if Viacom has contributed some money to the project, that doesn't mean Matt and Trey have any more power than they would otherwise. How much power do Matt and Trey have on their show? A decent amount, and even there they don't decide when the material comes out. Even there they don't even have full creative control of their own show.

And I'm telling you no company would ever agree to give them the ability to veto a project that risks tens of millions of dollars. The idea's absolutely ludicrous.

Just a week ago they got them to set an episode back a week because they didn't get to finish on time. They can have their 7 days production period because they allow them too. They can do nearly everything they want on their show. The only thing that has EVER held Matt and Trey back was massive politics.

Yes, Matt and Trey are THAT powerful by name alone.

And yes they would. After all they started the project, not the publisher.

 

[oljebox]

Jesus Christ, apparently some people don't know anything about business. Go sit in a corner.

I keep forgetting that while the Codex has intelligent people, it also attracts the likes of Duraframe.

 

[Duraframe300]

Jesus Christ, apparently some people don't know anything about business. Go sit in a corner.

I keep forgetting that while the Codex has intelligent people, it also attracts the likes of Duraframe.

Man, yeah. I'm totally sure fame/public opinion holds no power and veto rights never fucked with anything and are no leverage in themselves.

Gosh, thanks for letting me see the light.

 

[Rake]

That post discribes YOU actualy. South Park Studios funded the start of the game, and then pitched it to publisers on THEIR terms.
When Ubisoft bought the rights recently, they bought the existing agreement, not a thing more. They don't have power over the product as they have on AC for example. There is a reason that publisers are moving away from licensing and create their own IPs. The majority of the profits will go to Ubisoft, but the game belongs to South Park Studios more than to them.

 

[oljebox]

It all depends on how much money they've put in. If they've put in a lot of money, they'd have that sort of power, but apparently they haven't, so they don't have that kind of power. It's very simple: no one's going to give Trey and Matt the ability to fuck them over so easily. If you think otherwise, you're an idiot.

 

[Jasede]

I'm a big fan of Oblivion and MCA but really, at this point I feel like it might be better if they went out of business and split into smaller firms. :<