Company News Troika Demise Confirmation

[Avé]

Yeah, like Sierra. Btw, where is Sierra? Haven't heard from them in awhile. :wink: I win this one, dojo.

So, comparing Sierra during the time when they were a healthy thriving company, and when they went under, is the same thing?

I wasn't comparing Sierra to anything. The point was that "a healthy thriving company" like Sierra or Interplay could very quickly turn into nothing, and that the status of the publisher doesn't guarantee anything. Wasn't MicroForte fucked and almost bankrupted by Interplay, btw?

Why make that point?
SFI or any of the others that had dealings with stardock were never healthy & thriving, and they never had the 20years+ in the business Sierra did.

When stardock went to SFI, SFI were thriving, and looked a good bet, but they were already rotten.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It is often the case that developers will ask for compensation for any extra work done on a product.

It is indeed, but is there a proof that Troika refused to support their games unless someone pays them? As I recall, neither Troika nor any of the publishers have claimed anything like that, but Troika has often stated that a patch is in the works or has been sent to a publisher, and it's up to a publisher to accept it and release it. I also recall Atari sitting on patches for weeks without doing anything with them. Go figure.

Wow, you must be living under a rock half mile below the surface of the Earth. Have you at least heard of Half-Life 2? Guess who's name is on the box?

Hey, have you heard? Atari is back in business again! I saw the name on the box!
Point made?

Wouldn't it stand to reason when they negotiated the contract they noted the date?

When it was announced, the date for both releases was early 2005. Must have come from somewhere.

Heck I do it all the time. And then I note the ridiculously high sales figures on these games that I think are shit and shut my mouth.

Not all of them though. For every good seller there are 5 that flopped.

Despite whatever you want to say, Interplay was smart enough to see that there is more money in the console arena than the pc arena. The problem is they tried to pawn off dumbed down PC franchises for console gamers, when console gamers don't care about FO or BG. They thought they could capatilze on the name, but the name wasn't a very well known to most console gamers.

No, that's not smart. Trading a hot PC title like BG3 for some console game was anything but smart. Same goes for FO3/FOBOS. I agree with your logic in general. Making console games is profitable these days, but not in the context of this specific situiation.

 

[The Goat]

People need to stop boo hooing for Troika *ahem* VD. That's what got them into this mess in the first place. If they would accept responsiblity for how shitty their games turned out, instead of blaming the publisher, maybe they could have got off their asses and did something about it.

Contracts don't just land in your lap, you have to go after them. Fallout is damn near a decade old, you can't run on past achievements forever.

Let Troika die and fade away. It's over.

 

[Kuato]

Atari, Activiision, and others have made mistakes; but they are their mistakes. Troika is responsible for their own mistakes.

True, but every game is a ... dig this!... combined product of both developer and publisher. Success/failure of a game depends on both developers and publishers, and it affects both developers and publishers. I'm surprised I have to explain that to you.

So when things go wrong its the Publishers fault and when things go right its to Troikas credit

wake up and realize these people are by no means perfect, they are human beings after all with faults and are very capable of making mistakes. It is for this very reason I feel sad for Troikas Demise for it will be one of a dying breed of companies to actually be run by decent human beings with creative and original thought whos interests and sacrifice were obviously focused more on making games than corporate greed

Because with all their faults I would still rather have a flawed game made by Troika than bugless game inspired by greed with no soul

 

[Volourn]

"The problem here is that you are ALL making excuses or acusions based on unfounded assumptions."

Huh? What exuses am I making. I'm stating matter of factly that it's Troika's fault that Troika seems to be going out of business or is at least severely hurting. And, that's the only 'assumption' I'm making.

 

[Vault Dweller]

sorry, luck is a myth. getting a good client is the result of hard work. the closest thing to luck is "who you know," but even that is not luck.

A true story. A sales person goes into a bar to make a presentation to the owner trying to sell him some advertising campaign. The sales person goes on and on, but nothing seems to work. One of the bar patrons listens to the presentation, and stops the sales guy when he's about to leave. Turns out he liked the ideas, and wants that for his business. The sales guy got a big client that had 120,000/year budget just by fucking dumb luck. He couldn't have got more than 10,000 a year out of the bar owner.

this falls under the "business decision" arena...

That I agree with.

PoR2, IWD2 and ToEE are all three examples of a failure to fully utilize that added potential (all three for the same reasons).

Or a proof that people aren't as interested in DnD as we are led to believe. The 3 DnD hits are BG - a great adventure game with point-n-click gameplay, NWN - who doesn't want to be a game designer, same gameplay, and KOTOR that relied in the SW license, still same award winning gameplay. I don't think that DnD crpgs do very well on their own, without anything else in the mix to distract attention.

 

[Sheriff05]

Sheriff05, once again, no disagreement. I just think that people like Vault Dweller seem to push the idea that the publishers are the main reason Troika went out of business when instead I think it has more to do with mismanagement and not correctly adapting to the changing market conditions.

Well VD's right publishers are a major reason for Troikas problems, specifically BUT those publishing problems are symptomatic of the problems with the industry. You can't have one without the other, it's a fucked up marriage of convenience that in reality rarely works out. Troikas publishers in each instance of their releases did some really stupid shit, in turn Troika either agreed to some really stupid shit in the first place that got them into a postion were they couldn't do what they needed to get past said stupid shit. Not exactly a recipe for success.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What I'd also like to add is that those who are in control are the ones to blame the most. No, not management, but publishers who, if you really think about it, are the true managers of any game projects.

Publishers decide what game to make; what feature it would have, shouldn't have, must have; wordcount; timeframe and money; content; whether or not to grant more time or rush a game, quality assurance, advertisement, release, copyright issues, and they even get the rights to the setting. Also, they are the ones who decide when, how, and whether or not a developer get paid.

Really, with all that level of power and control, how could anyone NOT blame them?

 

[Volourn]

*yawn* The Troika CEOs control Troika. Thye make all the decidisons for Troika. They decide what projects to take, who to hire, what publishers to work with, etc., etc. They are solely responsible for Troika's success or failure.

Period.

 

[Taoreich]

Workers of the world unite! It is time for proletariat developers to rise up and break the shackles of the bourgeoisie publishers!

VIVE LE REVOLUTION!

 

[dojoteef]

It's not a one way street. The developer can decide whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement. If they use the publisher's money in order to make the game, they are going to have less say in the matter and likely not end up owning the property; that's obvious since the publisher is taking most of the risk. The requirements of the contract are accepted by BOTH parties, so if the developer doesn't think they can handle the requirements and stipulations, or that the contract is unfair, they should not accept the deal.

You make it sound as if the publishers have something out against developers. They don't. Putting out buggy products that don't sell is not a way to make money and they are in a business of making money. The publishers have a vested interest that projects they fund turn out the best they possibly can. If the developer doesn't come through on their end of the deal, it isn't the publisher's fault, it's the developer's. Yes there are cases where the publisher screws up, but saying three different major publishers are the ones that totally screwed up Troika's prospects is naive; no wonder Volourn calls people who say that fanboys.

And your idea that publishers decide what game to make is bogus. Why else do development houses pitch ideas to the publishers? Yes there are cases where the publisher has a game in mind and asks a developer to make it, though that isn't the norm.

I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine. You can believe Troika was put out of business through the folly of publishers all you want, if that's what makes you feel better, but at the end of the day if Troika truly has closed it's doors, then it's all a moot point anyway. Debating it won't change that fact.

 

[Sheriff05]

*yawn* The Troika CEOs control Troika. Thye make all the decidisons for Troika. They decide what projects to take, who to hire, what publishers to work with, etc., etc. They are solely responsible for Troika's success or failure.

Period.

You know Volourn, If you weren't some old fat bitch that's never actually worked a day in your god damn life. you'd understand that's it's more complicated than that.
You don't simply decide "what publisher to work with" You decide what compromises you can live with in order to get your project to market. When you sign a publishing agreement you are now working for that publisher. When you work for someone else you are hardly 100% liable for the final results that have another companys name on it as well as yours. Its a team effort, period, YAWN. R00fles.
Got anything original or just some more spam? Rex's needs to start sending all your redundant posts to Retardo Land where they belong, it will really save some serious bandwidth around here.

 

[Sheriff05]

It's not a one way street. The developer can decide whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement. If they use the publisher's money in order to make the game, they are going to have less say in the matter and likely not end up owning the property; that's obvious since the publisher is taking most of the risk. The requirements of the contract are accepted by BOTH parties, so if the developer doesn't think they can handle the requirements and stipulations, or that the contract is unfair, they should not accept the deal.

That's true, keep that in mind for your statement below

Putting out buggy products that don't sell is not a way to make money

Are you fucking kidding me? it's been working like a champ for years now.

Yes there are cases where the publisher screws up, but saying three different major publishers are the ones that totally screwed up Troika's prospects is naive; no wonder Volourn calls people who say that fanboys.

Are you aware of the specifics of all three Troika situations?, Their publishers fucked them all 3 times BUT Yes they signed the deals that got them there, so sure they are just as guilty. Maybe better management or better lawyers could got them a better deal who knows but Like you said above it's a two-way street. There is flagrant hypocrisy in what you're saying. You seem to be agreeing, yet missing the point.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's not a one way street. The developer can decide whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement.

Yeah, the famous "put out or get out" choice. Still sounds like a one way street to me.

...if the developer doesn't think they can handle the requirements and stipulations, or that the contract is unfair, they should not accept the deal.

And do what? Die with dignity?

You make it sound as if the publishers have something out against developers.

No, they obviously don't. They treat them like cheap factory labor: you are lucky you get to work for me.

The publishers have a vested interest that projects they fund turn out the best they possibly can.

Then how come pre-split Blizzard was the ONLY company who actually did that? Released the games when they were ready? In a surprising turn of events, that's why their games sold in millions, but publishers ignored that. "That's like too much work, dude"

...saying three different major publishers are the ones that totally screwed up Troika's prospects is naive; no wonder Volourn calls people who say that fanboys.

Well, seeing how Volourn is an authority on fanboys (don't miss his latest book, it has his picture with Bio's dick in his mouth instead of a cigar), I must accept my defeat. Or not. There is no point in saying "OMG! 3 publishers can't be all bad and wrong. It must be teh Troika!" Look at each individual case.

And your idea that publishers decide what game to make is bogus.

I don't have time to dig up all those interviews that say that it's impossible to sell TB or sci-fi games to publishers. How many new RPGs have you played last year? I wonder why.

 

[dojoteef]

Are you aware of the specifics of all three Troika situations?

No one is. I have yet to hear Sierra, Atari, or Activision explain their role in why Troika was treated as they were. So if anything you have a one-sided story; in other words it is hardly the full truth.

Yes they signed the deals that got them there, so sure they are just as guilty.

Thank you.

Like you said above it's a two-way street. There is flagrant hypocrisy in what you're saying. You seem to be agreeing, yet missing the point.

There is no hypocrisy. The developers get shafted by having to acquiesce to the publisher's demands. Yet the publishers get screwed over when the developer's don't actually deliver what they claim they can with the allotted time and money. They are both still getting fucked in the ass.

 

[Volourn]

"Well, seeing how Volourn is an authority on fanboys (don't miss his latest book, it has his picture with Bio's dick in his mouth instead of a cigar),"

I'm not the one making exuses here. You are. If BIO falls; I'll be the first to blame them for their fall not some Big Bad Evil Publisher tm.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Can I have an autograph?

 

[Kuato]

What I'd also like to add is that those who are in control are the ones to blame the most. No, not management, but publishers who, if you really think about it, are the true managers of any game projects.

Publishers decide what game to make; what feature it would have, shouldn't have, must have; wordcount; timeframe and money; content; whether or not to grant more time or rush a game, quality assurance, advertisement, release, copyright issues, and they even get the rights to the setting. Also, they are the ones who decide when, how, and whether or not a developer get paid.

Really, with all that level of power and control, how could anyone NOT blame them?

I have more respect for the people who run Troika than to say they had no control over their own projects and that they were just doing whatever publishers told them to do.

I can see situations where publishers would want to take certain steps when projects are showing signs of mismanagement by missing multiple milestones and being severly behind schedule

 

[DarkSign]

Ok. Now that Im back...lets see what VD wrote.

The point of a company is to produce something, my easily confused friend. Not everyone is a salesman.

Wow. You are confused. If you just produce crap and dont sell it...you go out of business. Every business has to have a salesforce. You are a crack addict if you think people make products for their health.

That's the universal truth, sorta like "it's good to be healthy". No shit. However, many people don't have any start up capital and can't get one, but they have something to offer, and thus, it's worth to take the risk to get fucked one day than to do nothing.

Yes but most people dont whine like you are when it wasnt enough to sustain them. Sure you should try your luck, but our discussion has turned into "whose fault is it." Again, one of the main reasons is lack of capital. Dont whine because that might have been what happened.

Yes, I do believe they've got fucked by publishers. Do you expect me to change my position just because you posted some thoughts on this matter?

No. However I would expect anyone with any semblance of objective logic capabilities to admit that there might be other reasons behind it. Which as of the time of my last post you werent.

Good management is not a cure for cancer, you know. Good management is effective when a manager is in control of everything. In this industry, it's always a partnership between developers and publishers.

Of course its not a cure for anything...but it separates the also-rans from the Trumps. Again, partnerships are one thing, but a good manager in any field is supposed to help the company weather the storm.

I've been running my own business (8 employees) for 4 years. Before that I was a senior manager (VP) at a large and evil marketing company. Thanks for wishing me luck.

LMAFO. oops...sorry you were serious. Ahh. Perhaps thats why youre making this so personal.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The point of a company is to produce something, my easily confused friend. Not everyone is a salesman.

Wow. You are confused. If you just produce crap and dont sell it...you go out of business. Every business has to have a salesforce. You are a crack addict if you think people make products for their health.

"Every business has to have a salesforce". You've gotta be kidding. There are tons of businesses that don't have one and don't need one. Open your eyes. Anyway, like I said businesses produce, not sell. A game developer or an artist is a prime example of that.

Yes but most people dont whine like you are when it wasnt enough to sustain them. Sure you should try your luck, but our discussion has turned into "whose fault is it." Again, one of the main reasons is lack of capital. Dont whine because that might have been what happened.

I don't suppose you expect me to comment on that bullshit.

Yes, I do believe they've got fucked by publishers. Do you expect me to change my position just because you posted some thoughts on this matter?

No. However I would expect anyone with any semblance of objective logic capabilities to admit that there might be other reasons behind it. Which as of the time of my last post you werent.

Yes, sure, there could be other reasons behind it. There could always be other reasons. Unfortunataly, there are no facts that support those other reasons, while there are facts that you have managed to ignore because were too busy making shit up.

Of course its not a cure for anything...but it separates the also-rans from the Trumps. Again, partnerships are one thing, but a good manager in any field is supposed to help the company weather the storm.

There are storms that can't be weathered, no matter how good a manager is. Unlike many other start ups, Troika has lasted 7 years and made 3 games that stand out and that are much better than many other games that were released during that time. Even if that's the end of the road for them, they have left their mark which is more than you can say about yourself at this point.

LMAFO. oops...sorry you were serious. Ahh. Perhaps thats why youre making this so personal.

DarkSign, are you on fucking crack? I am making it personal? I simply stated my position on that matter. Unlike you, I haven't relied on insults to make a point until this post, so if you've said everything you had to say, and all that's left is a flame war, let's drop it now.

 

[bryce777]

However, neither do you, and it is ludicrous to make blanket statements that all business failure is due to bad management.

uh, he did not say that all business failure is due to bad management, he merely pointed out that three relative failures in a row point to bad management. with that statment, he is quite in the right.

taks

Well, the problem with failures is they tend to snowball. If troika had done arcanum so that it got a sequel, then they would have had more resources for toee, etc. etc.

If I am misunderstanding him though, then of course what I said should be disregarded.

 

[RGE]

Anyway, like I said businesses produce, not sell. A game developer or an artist is a prime example of that.

I'm going to agree with DarkSign here. A business has to sell stuff. Usually that means that it also has to produce something to sell, but judging from the 'buy your significant other a star' commercials I have seen on TV, there are businesses that don't produce anything at all (unless they produced those commercials - but that's not what they're selling). Just producing things isn't necessarily a business. I have produced lots of stuff that I never sold, and no one ever called it a business. Even a business that doesn't sell its stuff directly to consumers still needs to sell the stuff to someone in order to get paid, right?

EDIT: In the case of a developer and a publisher it seems as if the developer is selling its work effort and intellectual property to the publisher who then sells the finished product to the consumers.

 

[DarkSign]

I think what he's trying to say is that there's a difference between a good and a service. And that not all businesses have to produce goods.

HELLLLLOOOO!!!!!! Thats not the fucking point. The point is that a service (like game design) IS THE FUCKING GOOD.

Ultimately you show me one business that doesnt sell their good or service.

Ooops!!! Thats Troika because they are out of business and this supposed crack business you have.

Anyone that cant at least agree that you have to sell SOMETHING to have a business isnt worth the kilocalories Im spending to type this.

Im flabbergasted that anyone can say a business isnt in business to do business...which is to get money for doing something or producing something.

You have really gone off the deep end.

 

[MarFish]

The point of a company is to produce something, my easily confused friend. Not everyone is a salesman.

Wow. You are confused. If you just produce crap and dont sell it...you go out of business. Every business has to have a salesforce. You are a crack addict if you think people make products for their health.

"Every business has to have a salesforce". You've gotta be kidding. There are tons of businesses that don't have one and don't need one. Open your eyes. Anyway, like I said businesses produce, not sell. A game developer or an artist is a prime example of that.

Good one - a dose of reality?
Game development is serious business, not simple a creative art anymore. Budgets are in the millions and people who have cash usually don't give it to some "art guy" who'll magically make something for them. People want business plans, schedules and working management. It's not enough to stick your lead programmer in a suit and make him talk nice anymore.

Ahh, right, some guys touched the sleeve of a fallout goldmaster a couple of years ago, they could not possibly fail with

"Open your eyes"

Troika is dead. Other companies are not. Other companies have marketing departments who might not be loved on the codex, but they sure sell. Troika has "Developer of uber cool games" as their website title and no marketing department (and no QA, and it showed).

I suggest you open your eyes and get a healthy dose of reality. If you make the best buns in town you'll still crash hard and fast if you can't figure out how to sell them.

There are storms that can't be weathered, no matter how good a manager is. Unlike many other start ups, Troika has lasted 7 years and made 3 games that stand out and that are much better than many other games that were released during that time. Even if that's the end of the road for them, they have left their mark which is more than you can say about yourself at this point.

If that teaches anything then it is that you can apparently survive 7 years without learning from past mistakes. Yes, their games stand out as ambitious and they all had at least one well executed aspect - and they all stand out with other aspects - they were all buggy as hell with close to non post release support.

So they were supposedly screwed over by Sierra ... why did they let this happen again with Atari (presumably) ... and Activision (presumably)? Why didn't they get a fucking lawyer to look over their contracts and instead kept sending their programmers out to meet with the suits? No - I don't buy that excuse.

Ahh, right, some guys touched the sleeves of a magical fallout goldmaster a couple of years ago, they could not possibly fail, except through an evil storm that could not be weathered.

 

[EEVIAC]

I'd like to know what makes people so convinced that Troika's games didn't sell and the reason why they're closing down is a lack of capital. While I don't know how well Arcanum or Bloodlines sold, ToEE was the highest selling PC RPG of 2003 for Atari (it outsold HotU.)

Every cock-rocker and his dog has their needle stuck in the groove on the "Troika mismanaged and now they're broke" and the "Troika has a bad relationship with publishers" ideas for some reason.