This sucks bad, Eric put his life savings into this.
Eric "Wingman" and Rob Irving's game studio looks to be in trouble
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
Radegast74
Space Marshal
Oh man, this is awful...I feel bad for these guys. This is 100% the publisher's doing, these guys had test builds up and working for years...and now this?
Looks like I'm out $110...I guess I'll drown my sorrows in a couple of new LTI tokens, I mean, Tumbril motorcycles :(
Again, this behavior by a publisher shows why CR is doing things the right way.
Looks like I'm out $110...I guess I'll drown my sorrows in a couple of new LTI tokens, I mean, Tumbril motorcycles :(
Again, this behavior by a publisher shows why CR is doing things the right way.
I don't want to get my post deleted and a warning, so I'll just say, it sounds like Little Orbit is not playing ethically.
Wow, talk about a load of bullshit. I feel bad for all parties who invested.
I would rather find a venture capitalist than a publisher in most software projects, including games. That's why I didn't flinch when CIG brought in a VC. They need the focus that a VC can bring, his money is on the line, and he has skills that can help you through problems.
Han Burgundy
Space Marshal
If I had 10 mill I'd be on my way down to Austin to track him down and hand him a check. This was a game that deserved to come out and be a success. It was a passion project.
thanatos73
Space Marshal
That really sucks. LO just falls in line with all the other publishers out there.
Any chance of them finding their way back to CIG as a possible upside?
There's always the possibility of a chance, but it's not typically something you count on or expect, or even want. It's best to just take your lumps, move on. And FFS they need to stop saying public things about the situation. It was a company. The owners of a company always, ALWAYS are totally responsible for the outcome of the decisions they made.
The really sad thing is that the game Descent-Underground is finished and ready for release.
It is a game that many of us loved (the original Descent I mean) and looked forward to.
I am a Kickstarter for this project - and Proud to say so...
Oh well, Publishers are NOT our friends.
It is a game that many of us loved (the original Descent I mean) and looked forward to.
I am a Kickstarter for this project - and Proud to say so...
Oh well, Publishers are NOT our friends.
There are always so many agendas in a workplace from the passion to create a product to the commitment to ensure a happy customer to the drive for a maximum profitability, but it always seems to be the money people who raise to the top positions and the companies which end up being run by accountants, because money is what makes a company run. Without it, all is lost so the money people must be the best ones to ensure the place keeps running, right...?
But when money in the sole consideration for making things a reality, innovation stagnates and the product line grows stale, even shrinking as lines become unpopular and discontinued and new ones don't arrive to take their place.
When money is the sole metric when gauging whether you are a success or not, a place becomes Risk Averse and falls back on the tried-and-trusted even when no one wants that product anymore.
When money is the sole indicator of customer satisfaction, spenders start to feel squeezed and look for cheaper or friendlier alternatives.
When money is the only thing a company is concerned about, all other considerations can go screw themselves. Including the customers - a complaint isn't a chance to address and fix issues, it's a cost. Feedback isn't free customer research, it's additional paid staff hours to go through so gets ignored, observations from the staff are their opinion, not an opportunity to learn from the experienced people on the front line, because what do they know about annual budgets?
I'm not saying the money people don't have their place, they definitely do as they can be the fence on the cliff edge stopping the company from throwing itself off in a blaze of crazy... but when the sole consideration is money, the fence is across the front door and you can't even leave your house.
But when money in the sole consideration for making things a reality, innovation stagnates and the product line grows stale, even shrinking as lines become unpopular and discontinued and new ones don't arrive to take their place.
When money is the sole metric when gauging whether you are a success or not, a place becomes Risk Averse and falls back on the tried-and-trusted even when no one wants that product anymore.
When money is the sole indicator of customer satisfaction, spenders start to feel squeezed and look for cheaper or friendlier alternatives.
When money is the only thing a company is concerned about, all other considerations can go screw themselves. Including the customers - a complaint isn't a chance to address and fix issues, it's a cost. Feedback isn't free customer research, it's additional paid staff hours to go through so gets ignored, observations from the staff are their opinion, not an opportunity to learn from the experienced people on the front line, because what do they know about annual budgets?
I'm not saying the money people don't have their place, they definitely do as they can be the fence on the cliff edge stopping the company from throwing itself off in a blaze of crazy... but when the sole consideration is money, the fence is across the front door and you can't even leave your house.
Im really curious to hear LO's side of it.
It's always sad if a small company put in a lot a work an money and then get in a squeeze for what ever reason but this is a part of the risk you take.
So let's hope this get solved in a beneficial way for both parts.
BUT!
There is another side of this, looking at it from another angle.
What does drama conflict do in a situation like this...
It create free commercial and a emotional response toward the product in this case a game.
So when enough media/rumors and spread been done they change their attitude and say, oh! heck let's do this.
What the outcome of that will be you can theories about all you want but it ain't gonna be bad.
So the question is, is this deliberate done to create more awareness of the product or is the story as told.. you pick.
But don't forget..! There is always two side of a story between two parts in a disagreement.
I for one never judge either side until I heard both sides of a conflict/disagreement.
CHEERS!
So let's hope this get solved in a beneficial way for both parts.
BUT!
There is another side of this, looking at it from another angle.
What does drama conflict do in a situation like this...
It create free commercial and a emotional response toward the product in this case a game.
So when enough media/rumors and spread been done they change their attitude and say, oh! heck let's do this.
What the outcome of that will be you can theories about all you want but it ain't gonna be bad.
So the question is, is this deliberate done to create more awareness of the product or is the story as told.. you pick.
But don't forget..! There is always two side of a story between two parts in a disagreement.
I for one never judge either side until I heard both sides of a conflict/disagreement.
CHEERS!
While in the current marketplace publishers are a necessary evil for many developers, when I see things like this it makes me wonder how many of the people asserting that SC needs a Publisher with a 'good finisher' to reign in CR it makes me wonder how many of those stating as such have a vested interest in the status quo.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
Heck, I'd rather find out what was in the contract! I'm sure both sides have their stories, the only thing that matters is what is in the contract...well, the only thing that matters right now is having enough $$,$$$ to afford a lawyer to say "X, Y, or Z" is in the contract.
EDIT: went through my email, found their blog where they announced their partnering with Little Orbit...in happier times...their servers are completely absent, so had to go to the Internet Archive for this:
Our Big Announcement!
Hey Descenters, For awhile now, we’ve been hinting at some exciting news that we couldn’t yet share with you. Well, now we’re going to tell you...
Yeah, money is a crappy way to make judgments about things...but it is a really easy way of keeping "score!"
My concern is all this "lawyer-izing" everything that is really stifling innovation. When the group with the most lawyers wins, no matter how "right" or correct the other side may be, then what is the incentive to create new IP?
lol, VC aren't exactly known for being warm, human beings, BUT, they usually do know new things take time, and they usually are patient enough to allow the extra time, so they can get the max profits.
Well, I didn't say that VC was my choice, I said I would rather have a VC than a publisher. The advantages of a VC are mostly in the way they manage the relationship. There are a lot of similarities too, one of which is you are ultimately being evaluated by the output of a calculator. The difference is in who owns your company and what that means.
At this level of investment too, it would have been an angel investor, so that would have required a lot of leg work to land a deal outside of family and friends, and probably a lot more ownership of the company. Probably over 50%. But if that sounds like a lot, it was explained to me once by a simple question. Would you rather have 100% of a company worth $1 million, or 10% of a company worth $10 million? (... it was a long time ago, those numbers are a drop in the bucket nowadays...) The answer that can land you an investor is the diluted ownership.