Pages: 1

 

2008-03-29 05:22:16
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7198|PNW

Bringing up an old bit of news...

Gamespot wrote:

[...]

According to the suit, Epic "has caused Silicon Knights to experience considerable losses and ultimately has forced Silicon Knights to spend its limited time and resources on building its own game engine rather than in developing its video game." It goes on to say that instead of supporting its licensing partners, Epic has used its fees to develop its own competing products "while simultaneously sabotaging efforts by Silicon Knights and others to develop their own video games."

[...]

Article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175386.html
Full Lawsuit: http://www.shacknews.com/extras/silicon … s_epic.pdf
Skimmed through it again, and as far as I can remember, I haven't heard of an end to it yet.

So...much more interesting drama than reality television, eh? I've always thought SK had a reasonable case (aside from a couple insane demands tossed in for bartering purposes). Who do you side with?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-03-29 05:22:42)

2008-03-29 08:19:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina
Epic sounds like a bunch of douchebags.  I'm not sure if what they did was illegal, but it was certainly unethical.

I guess if I were a developer, I'd avoid working with Epic at all costs.  Besides, the Crytek engine is better anyway.
2008-03-29 08:27:09
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7116|Tampa Bay Florida
I agree with Turq.

Plus, I thought Gears of War was kinda overrated.. so its easier for me to hate them.
2008-03-29 08:37:54
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6800|Kyiv, Ukraine
Basically, Silicon Knights made a business decision that no sane person who's worked in games industry more than 5 minutes knows:  Never buy a product before its developed.  AKA the "Good luck finding a publisher to hand you money before your beta build" rule.

Furthermore, they counted on "continued updates and support".  They should have known better on this also.  Ideally, you want everything possible done "in-house", outsourcing (engine, writing, graphics, voice assets, etc) is always asking for delays or trouble or both.

They also didn't factor this as a risk factor in the product development cycle.  Too bad for them.

Epic, on the other hand, did exactly what was said in the suit:  shafted its corporate customer (why not?  the fools already paid for it), and put a better share of their HR towards development of in-house projects.

Common sense fault = SK, bunch of noobs.
Legal fault = Epic, epic failure at making their delivery dates.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-03-29 08:40:54)

2008-03-29 10:41:33
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7193|UK

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Basically, Silicon Knights made a business decision that no sane person who's worked in games industry more than 5 minutes knows:  Never buy a product before its developed.  AKA the "Good luck finding a publisher to hand you money before your beta build" rule.

Furthermore, they counted on "continued updates and support".  They should have known better on this also.  Ideally, you want everything possible done "in-house", outsourcing (engine, writing, graphics, voice assets, etc) is always asking for delays or trouble or both.

They also didn't factor this as a risk factor in the product development cycle.  Too bad for them.

Epic, on the other hand, did exactly what was said in the suit:  shafted its corporate customer (why not?  the fools already paid for it), and put a better share of their HR towards development of in-house projects.

Common sense fault = SK, bunch of noobs.
Legal fault = Epic, epic failure at making their delivery dates.
Engines are rarely ever developed inhouse. A good engine takes YEARS to make, adding hundreds of man years to development time for a game.
2008-03-29 11:02:36
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6800|Kyiv, Ukraine
They purchased it before they had seen the product.  If you buy a 3rd-party engine, you should buy one that's done and polished and be ready to run with it, or be prepared to have some technogeeks tinker with it some more.  Ubisoft learned its lesson with Far Cry
2008-03-29 11:07:25
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7193|UK
Ah i see. Yeah bad choice by them.
2008-03-30 11:00:49
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7198|PNW

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

They purchased it before they had seen the product.  If you buy a 3rd-party engine, you should buy one that's done and polished and be ready to run with it, or be prepared to have some technogeeks tinker with it some more.  Ubisoft learned its lesson with Far Cry
At the same time, SK accuses Epic of withholding information about the engine (I find that "game-side" argument of Epic's to be a bit suspicious, even if I don't know all the details). Unless that contract was a dozen kinds of shady, Epic's obligated to provide support, even if they're still working on it themselves.

If I was at SK, I would've suggested releasing Too Human for PC's as well, but then they'd probably have to lower their price from its inflated $60 to accommodate for the more picky gamer market.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-03-30 11:05:17)

2008-03-30 11:11:16
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7008|SE London

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Basically, Silicon Knights made a business decision that no sane person who's worked in games industry more than 5 minutes knows:  Never buy a product before its developed.  AKA the "Good luck finding a publisher to hand you money before your beta build" rule.

Furthermore, they counted on "continued updates and support".  They should have known better on this also.  Ideally, you want everything possible done "in-house", outsourcing (engine, writing, graphics, voice assets, etc) is always asking for delays or trouble or both.

They also didn't factor this as a risk factor in the product development cycle.  Too bad for them.

Epic, on the other hand, did exactly what was said in the suit:  shafted its corporate customer (why not?  the fools already paid for it), and put a better share of their HR towards development of in-house projects.

Common sense fault = SK, bunch of noobs.
Legal fault = Epic, epic failure at making their delivery dates.
So true....
2008-03-30 11:28:15
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6800|Kyiv, Ukraine

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If I was at SK, I would've suggested releasing Too Human for PC's as well, but then they'd probably have to lower their price from its inflated $60 to accommodate for the more picky gamer market.
There's a few reasons why they don't.

First off, Sony and Microsft pay big bucks and kick in a lot of freebie marketing for "exclusive" titles.  That part depends on the publishing deal.  Second, if they were already floating the dev cost for the Xbox/PS3 versions, sparing another team for simultaneous release of the PC version would have killed them.  The benefit of sales in a crowded market for PC often makes the cost simply not worth it.

Afterwards though (like now), PC conversion from Xbox platform is relatively trivial, we did Blazing Angels 2 PC port with 4 programmers.  However, it also incurs a new cost for the marketing campaign, as the release window for PS3 and Xbox already passed, the PC version would require its own product launch.  The ROI may not factor well.

Its unfortunate that console games are such major cash cows, it means that PC projects are often second-class citizens in resource allocations.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard