• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ex-LucasArts employee explains why SW: Battlefront III failed [Free Radical Responds]

This is the type of sh!t, i want from game's "journalism".

And excuse my slight OT, why in the f*ck can we get a source saying what's up with Wii U launch ports or the hardware specs for the thing? It could be done or at least it has to be! :)
 
You know what he DIDN'T explain though?

Is why if Battlefront was such a big title, why haven't they released a new one since? It's been years and not so much as a word... Just because one company F'ed up is no reason to kill such a beloved franchise...
 

Kunan

Member
At the time, it really was the only multiplayer console game with a breadth of options competitive to Halo. He likely played Halo, as an xbox owner (in retrospect, the superior game IMO). As a PS2/GC owner though, this was THE game to play with friends. The singleplayer was standard fare, but the multiplayer was excellent fun. Nothing was more fun than virus mode with friends and a bunch of ridiculous bots like the ducks.
 
this reminds me of retro before nintendo stepped in and cleaned house - they were spending nintendo's money on strippers, etc - think a bunch of photos were posted

http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=267&page=8

In the summer of 2001, photos and reports began to surface around the Net which spotlighted Spangenberg's after hours lifestyle. Images of him in hot tubs with half-naked women appeared on a website registered to a Retro Studios mailing address. The site, along with the photographs, disappeared quickly once word of its existence was publicized on game industry forums.

He continues, "And there were indeed issues with the higher-ups, including people who used company computer hardware to run porn websites out of their home and others who embezzled hundreds of thousands from the company and fled the country. It's no wonder that Nintendo was able to purchase Retro for the ridiculous price of one million - I'm amazed they wanted it at all. I guess at that point they were in so far they needed to get something out of it."
 

adixon

Member
this reminds me of retro before nintendo stepped in and cleaned house - they were spending nintendo's money on strippers, etc - think a bunch of photos were posted

http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=267&page=8

It's really not the same, especially in an era when the majority good game companies are constantly delaying their games, often for years, because they need more time to make a solid game. Seems like a double standard to take a 7 month (and I suppose additional time they wanted after that, according to the article) delay as evidence for complete corruption in the company. I think people should accept that sometimes publisher/developer relationships break down without one of them being "evil." (And the anonymous source basically says that several times in the article, despite supplying probably the most damning details they can come up with that FR was being mismanaged.)

I do love that story about Retro though :)
 
It defined the PS2 generation for my friends and I :)

Yeah, definitely.

What I don't buy is why, if Battlefront III was going to be such a boon for Lucasarts, haven't they made it again? It's not like it lived or died with Free Radical. I can name at least 3 devs who would do a decent job.

this reminds me of retro before nintendo stepped in and cleaned house - they were spending nintendo's money on strippers, etc -

Pretty funny considering how Nintendo started off as a business... ;)
 

CamHostage

Member
You know what he DIDN'T explain though?

Is why if Battlefront was such a big title, why haven't they released a new one since? It's been years and not so much as a word... Just because one company F'ed up is no reason to kill such a beloved franchise...

Two companies f'ed up, actually. Rebellion also tried to make this same game (and they got the PSP games out to market) but that didn't work out either. LucasArts put a ton into trying to make this series transition generations and it just kept not working out. Meanwhile, Star Wars: Force Unleashed supplanted Battlefront as the best-selling Star Wars game line, and the tastes of FPS fans became more and more specific following the COD revolution (too bad they left behind SW:Republic Commando,) and this WOW-killer The Old Republic was sucking up huge resources in production management and funds ... it was just never the time for a new Battlefront.

I imagine the response would have gone something like that.

While a HD version of Battlefront does sound tricky (anything less than ground-to-space combat would be a lesser thing, yet making that scope of space fun looked like the trickiest part of the prototype, the PSP's cheat actually worked better I think because you were never out of the thick of battle,) I do think LucasArts is missing out on a massive opportunity to release a HD downloadable remake of the first two games as multiplayer-only shooters. Hell, release it as a F2P or web game even, just get it back out there to get groups of people enjoying Star Wars battles together.
 
Yeah, definitely.

What I don't buy is why, if Battlefront III was going to be such a boon for Lucasarts, haven't they made it again? It's not like it lived or died with Free Radical. I can name at least 3 devs who would do a decent job.

Pretty funny considering how Nintendo started off as a business... ;)


They've definitely tried to make it again... but there's been development issues. Pandemic was supposed to be developing it after it fizzled out at Free Radical...and you know what happened to them.

Then it was moved to Rebellion, but it hasn't surfaced at all. Just spinoffs.

I hope the game isn't cursed. My feeling is that Lucasarts WANTS to release Battlefront 3, but a variety of factors we'll never know about is preventing them from doing so.
 
They've definitely tried to make it again... but there's been development issues. Pandemic was supposed to be developing it after it fizzled out at Free Radical...and you know what happened to them.

Then it was moved to Rebellion Developments, but it hasn't surfaced at all. Just spinoffs.

I hope the game isn't cursed. My feeling is that Lucasarts WANTS to release Battlefront 3, but a variety of factors we'll never know about are preventing them from doing so.

Maybe they're waiting for next gen. Just imagine Battlefront on a realistic scale. So hundreds of player controlled soldiers either side, all fighting for supremacy. Would be pretty epic.
 
I was really psyched for Haze, then it became a PS3-exclusive, and then I tried the demo, and even me as a 17-year old idiot, thought it was designed by idiots.

Like really, you're trying to emulate the feeling of drugs and psychosis by making all enemies into shadows and then forcing your character to shoot them with auto-aim like he's coming after a year of celibacy.

To emulate the feeling of drugs, they shouldn't have made it too obvious as a sober gamer that you were being affected. Making all characters in the game into enemies when high would force you to shoot them to survive, and then afterwards realizing you killed your teammates because you were too high to know who the enemy was.
 
Maybe they're waiting for next gen. Just imagine Battlefront on a realistic scale. So hundreds of player controlled soldiers either side, all fighting for supremacy. Would be pretty epic.

Oh most definitely. That could very well be one of the factors. I just wish they had a reliable, efficient, and industry-leading developer to really take it by the reins and make it the best Battlefront ever.

I'm very skeptical that Rebellion (if it's still in development with them) has the muscle to turn out an epic Battlefront 3. It would be a tragedy if the game finally released and was anything less than incredible.
 
Rebellion could make it but they would need an outsider to direct it.

Rebellion are competent developers but lack that last 10% polish that makes ok games great games.
 
I'll go ahead and be the token thread idiot here and ask why it's an issue to spend money you have received from working on a project to pay the people working on all of your projects? What am I missing here? Is it typical in this industry to be contractually obligated to spend the money you receive for completing some % of your work exclusively on bringing that project to it's next deliverable?
 

CamHostage

Member
Then it was moved to Rebellion Developments, but it hasn't surfaced at all. Just spinoffs.

I'm not sure if those (well, the Elite Squadron game anyway) were spin-offs or salvaged product. The HD versions were in a heap of hell, but the PSP game got done and went out on its own (kind of how the GBA version of Aliens: Colonial Marines was done long before the console version and so they just retitled it and shipped it after the regular game went through its delays.) The timeline in news reports is a little skewed without solid info, but it sounds like Rebellion took the job from Free Radical in 2008 based on shipment of Rebel Squadron game, a few teams were assigned (probably two at Rebellion for the PSP game and the HD game, plus N-Space for the DS,) everybody went forward, but all that came out of the process worth shipping were the portable games so they got shipped. (The DS game actually was listed as "Battlefront III" in Australian rating board submissions, so not only does the timeline and content line up, there actually was a use of that name at some point.)

Speaking of which, we've seen Free Radical's aborted product but have heard or seen very little from Rebellion. I'm curious to see what happened there and how close they got to a game, even though I'd bet LucasArts saved some face by pulling out of that contract too.
 

fenners

Member
I'll go ahead and be the token thread idiot here and ask why it's an issue to spend money you have received from working on a project to pay the people working on all of your projects? What am I missing here? Is it typical in this industry to be contractually obligated to spend the money you receive for completing some % of your work exclusively on bringing that project to it's next deliverable?

The publisher is effectively paying for 'x' number of employees on the project - the bid from the developer is them saying "I need x employees for y months to make this game & that will cost me z money (x*y)". Roughly of course.

When a developer then starts putting those employees on another project, or actually tries to develop it with less than x to make more money, that's when publishers start getting irritated.

Lots of stories from the 90s of developers re-arranging desks & moving people from office to office depending on which publishers were visiting that week so they could make a particular team's room look busy...
 

Oemenia

Banned
This is what happens when you try way too hard for people's sympathy, throwing out 99% done statement was an utterly shit move.

We get it guys, the demo is fairly impressive.
 
While it seems we hear new sides of BFIII development every couple of months the fact is that this guy's perspective seems the most truthful. While I am not saying Lucas Arts is completely innocent, maybe they had unrealistic deadlines, it does shed some light as to why they would ultimately end development. I think that all we can do now is say, "well, that was a clusterfuck" and move on. Free Radical died a number of years ago and you would think that the project would have been continued by someone else by now.
 
It's really not the same, especially in an era when the majority good game companies are constantly delaying their games, often for years, because they need more time to make a solid game. Seems like a double standard to take a 7 month (and I suppose additional time they wanted after that, according to the article) delay as evidence for complete corruption in the company. I think people should accept that sometimes publisher/developer relationships break down without one of them being "evil." (And the anonymous source basically says that several times in the article, despite supplying probably the most damning details they can come up with that FR was being mismanaged.)

I do love that story about Retro though :)

actually i completely agree - i wasn't saying it was bad that retro was screwed up - in all the creative chaos you can get some genius output - what i meant but poorly worded was that these small studios with smart folks tend to get over committed/understaffed - and there are often some seedy things going on that burn money - free radical may not have been as screwed up as retro with regards to using company hardware to run porn servers - but i think they needed a nintendo-like company to step in and bail them out and keep investing in the team
 

Dibbz

Member
Sounds like FR had trouble on the technical side but now that Crytek own them that shouldn't be a problem with Cryengine at their disposal. Will be interesting to see what comes out of there other than the MP for Crysis that is.
 
Wasn't this "99%" story refuted by FR insiders already?

Am I misinterpreting things, or are lots
(99%?)
of the posts in this thread, "Yeah, I knew it, was obvious, dunno why some of you fell for it! I've always hated FR, they never made anything good anyway!"

The publisher is effectively paying for 'x' number of employees on the project - the bid from the developer is them saying "I need x employees for y months to make this game & that will cost me z money (x*y)". Roughly of course.

When a developer then starts putting those employees on another project, or actually tries to develop it with less than x to make more money, that's when publishers start getting irritated.

Lots of stories from the 90s of developers re-arranging desks & moving people from office to office depending on which publishers were visiting that week so they could make a particular team's room look busy...

Thanks. This sounds like it must happen an awful lot.
 

Tookay

Member
You know what he DIDN'T explain though?

Is why if Battlefront was such a big title, why haven't they released a new one since? It's been years and not so much as a word... Just because one company F'ed up is no reason to kill such a beloved franchise...

Force Unleashed became their biggest IP and then the company's focus turned to Clone Wars tie-ins.

The moment of opportunity was pretty much lost.

Wasn't this "99%" story refuted by FR insiders already?

Am I misinterpreting things, or are lots
(99%?)
of the posts in this thread, "Yeah, I knew it, was obvious, dunno why some of you fell for it! I've always hated FR, they never made anything good anyway!"

It's mostly people saying "yeah it's plausible." It's clear that FR didn't transition smoothly into this gen; this story lines up with the narrative.
 

Oemenia

Banned
timesplitters wasn't a great shooter, it was a fun splitscreen game, why do you guys have such love for that game?
Like Rare, they released games at just the right time. Looking back, Rares games have held up terribly, they were only really creative during the 360 days.
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
Turns out Free Radical were a shit dev. Who knew! (everybody)

But Second Sight is an awesome game man.

Rebellion could make it but they would need an outsider to direct it.

Rebellion are competent developers but lack that last 10% polish that makes ok games great games.

Agreed. Alien VS Predator was just that, an OK game. A bit short and a bit too little of what made the original creepy (Being all alone all the time). But everything else was top notch, sounds, graphics.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
I usually like to side with developers over publishers but it sounds like Free Radical really messed up on this one.
 
This sounds pretty believable tbh. Sucks that its what happened though, I really wanted this game to come out.

I suppose they are done with the SW BF series then? =(
 
Shit just got real.

I'm just going to post it all. Free Radical has fired back:


"I want to set the record straight because a lot of people worked very hard on BFIII (and BFIV) and they don't deserve their efforts to be distorted in this way."

"From the personal tone of the comments it is clear that the source is someone whom I personally dealt with. It's unfortunate that they are making this kind of criticism while choosing to remain anonymous."

"What annoys me about the article is that I personally am accused of a whitewash, which is nonsense. While I don't know everything that my ex-colleagues and staff might have said on the subject, personally I have tried to explain what happened as completely and accurately as possible. I have nothing to gain from a whitewash. I've gone on record saying that we had had difficult times at Free Radical Design. I've admitted that the transition to the latest generation of consoles was more difficult than we anticipated, that we may have made some poor tech choices, and that growing the company to the necessary size for 'next-gen' development wasn't easy. I've said that these things had an impact on the development of Haze and that for this reason - and a number of other reasons - Haze didn't reach the level of quality that we always aimed for at FRD. None of this is new information, so it's a little strange to see it presented as 'here's what these guys aren't telling you, and since I'm telling you this you'll also believe me when I tell you all of this other stuff.'"

"The allegation that we used the LucasArts money to fund the completion of Haze is false. Aside from anything else, we didn't need to. When Haze slipped, Ubisoft supported us by increasing the dev budget to cover the extra time. The ironic thing about this allegation though, is that just about every publisher we worked with would simultaneously worry that we might spend their money elsewhere, but they would invariably ask us to move resources from another project onto theirs. Our answer was always the same: 'If we do that for you now, how do you know we won't do it for someone else later?.' They never liked it, but it seemed like the only way to treat everyone fairly."

"The suggestion that we kept our difficulties to ourselves is also false. We may have been guilty of this in our earlier publisher relationships, believing that we could quietly deal with our problems by ourselves and not have to risk instigating a situation where the publishers response added further risk to the project or our company. However, with LucasArts this was absolutely not the case; it was the best publisher relationship we had ever had, so when it became clear that the design changes that we had mutually agreed to make meant that there was a risk to the end date, the first thing we did was to bring it to the attention of LucasArts senior management, almost a full year before the scheduled release. There was a lot of discussion and it was agreed to push back the release date. There were no secrets."

"I don't know who he might be referring to when he says that 'key staff' left in September 2008. During that month we lost a couple of mid-level programmers, a couple of artists, and a member of our admin staff."

"I don't know what problems he's referring to in August or December 2007. In December 2007 they signed us to develop the sequel concurrently, asking us to grow our company further to do so. I'd say that that was a pretty strong vote of confidence in us, not the actions of a company that was concerned about our abilities to deliver on such an important project."

"It was 75% of a mediocre game.' Again, false. Until very recently there was a gameplay video on YouTube that showed exactly where the game was. It was leaked by people who were very proud of the game that they had spent over 2 years developing and wanted the world to at least have an opportunity to see it before it was consigned to history. Unfortunately, four years on, LucasArts have chosen to have the video removed. Objectively though, the game was 'content complete' and we were fixing bugs. At that stage in development, the way that completion is measured is by looking at the number of open bugs in the database. These are tracked and people spend a lot of time analyzing the fix rate and the rate of discovering new bugs and projecting a completion date when the game will be ready for release. At the time that the development on BFIII was stopped, the figures showed that we would close our 'must-fix' bugs with 3-4 weeks. So yes, maybe on reflection 99 percent was a little of an exaggeration. I probably should have said 97 percent or 98 percent."

"In 2008, LucasArts was a company with problems. Of course I don't know the full details of or explanation for what happened internally, but some of the facts are clear: the entire management team who were there when we started working together were replaced in the first half of 2008. They made mass redundancies on their internal teams. They cancelled a number of projects. Then our milestones started being rejected. We were told (and it seemed wholly believable given the aforementioned facts) that they could not afford to continue development of both BFIII and its sequel, so they negotiated the termination of BFIV, then later BFIII. There was no 'termination for breach.'"

"If the problem really was that we had failed to meet their desperate need for a new Battlefront game, you might ask why after all this time they still haven't released a new Battlefront game using a different developer. I can only speculate."

"As the 'anonymous source' says, there are two sides to every argument. However, it's easy to make anonymous allegations and not have to back them up. I stand by everything I've said. All I've ever tried to do is explain the series of events that led to the failure of Free Radical. We were not perfect. We made mistakes, but third-parties had a hand in our failure. Personally I am very proud of the efforts made by the former staff of Free Radical through 2008. They are an incredibly talented group of people who through no fault of their own found themselves in a no-win situation. I'm happy that most of them have had the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities subsequently on games such as Crysis 2."

Source
.
 

Tookay

Member
Shit just got real.

I'm just going to post it all. Free Radical has fired back:


.

So how do you have a game that is 97 or 98% complete, with no announcement or release date?

Were they planning on just springing this into stores completely unannounced?

I'm really baffled by that aspect, on both FR and Lucasarts' parts.
 

mclem

Member
This seems a good point to repost my earlier writing on the subject:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=36583026&postcount=79

mclem said:
VisualAnte2 said:
Guess that rumour about Rebellion doing it was bullshit then...
Not *exactly*...

Shiggy did actually gently prompt me about this in PMs a little while back, so I've been putting it together and waiting for a convenient time to post it without taking a thread all for myself, and this looks about as good as any.

First, a little background: I was a Rebellion employee up until a couple of years ago. I worked on Battlefront: Elite Squadron, and so had first-hand experience of the events behind the scenes - at least, from one angle. I was laid off after the following project I was put on failed to get traction with its publisher. There's still a lot of great people working there, I wish them well!

It's *very* important, before we start, to specify that this is only *how I understood matters*. This is the information that was presented to me as a rank-and-file Rebellion employee. I'd be very curious to hear if this meshes up with the viewpoint of someone on the Free Radical side, or if someone along the chain of information was embellishing the actual truth. I wasn't all that important, I'm not privy to the major meetings and decisions. My recollection may be imperfect, too; it's been a couple of years, now.

In short: Please don't regard this as incontrovertible fact.

With those disclaimers out of the way:

Rebellion was signed up to produce PS2 and PSP versions of Battlefront 3; Free Radical, as you all know, was working on the next-gen (as it was then) versions. We'd work on hand-me-downs of assets from Free Radical (who, I believe, had had a while's head start?) to downgrade them to PS2/PSP quality and get them running on our builds. We were expected to mimic FR's game as best as we could given the weaknesses of the platforms we were developing on.

For whatever reason, Free Radical appeared to be having development problems. We weren't actually *receiving* the assets we needed to work with in a timely fashion, and what I heard about their builds was that they were looking mediocre, particularly for the development time which was being spent on them. That was in turn affecting our schedule; eventually we reached a point where we started to have to diverge from their design simply by virtue of the fact that we needed to keep working on *something*.

Increasingly, too, I got the impression that Lucasarts were unimpressed with FR's lack of progress. Rebellion were indeed planning to pitch to take over the project - those stories are true - but I got a very strong impression that FR's version was *already* dead in the water prior to that; given the timing of the cancellation announcement, I believe that Rebellion's pitch was more an attempt to save the game rather than to steal it. I'm biased, I admit, but it was so rapid a changeover that I have to surmise that Lucasarts' mind was already made up about the next-gen project.

Ultimately, Rebellion's Battlefront 3 became the PSP-only Elite Squadron. For a time we thought they were still going to go through with the PS2 version as well but at some point along the line that got canned in favour of presenting it as a side-game and a natural followon from Renegade Squadron.

My theory - and I must stress that this is entirely my own supposition - is that the vertical battlefield that was meant to be the lynchpin of the new Battlefront on next-gen was proving too ambitious to implement. I'm curious whether it was something that Lucasarts considered non-negotiable.

The ex-LA employee's version of events does completely coincide with my perception of what was going on at the time. To play devil's advocate for a moment, I feel obliged to point out that I don't know if there was any direct communication between Rebellion and FRD, or if everything went via Lucasarts; if it's the latter, it's not impossible that they were making it seem that Free Radical weren't delivering on time for *some* nefarious purpose or another... but it seems rather more likely that what I understood to be going on at the time was in fact the truth.


Edit:
I'm not sure if those (well, the Elite Squadron game anyway) were spin-offs or salvaged product. The HD versions were in a heap of hell, but the PSP game got done and went out on its own (kind of how the GBA version of Aliens: Colonial Marines was done long before the console version and so they just retitled it and shipped it after the regular game went through its delays.) The timeline in news reports is a little skewed without solid info, but it sounds like Rebellion took the job from Free Radical in 2008 based on shipment of Rebel Squadron game, a few teams were assigned (probably two at Rebellion for the PSP game and the HD game, plus N-Space for the DS,) everybody went forward, but all that came out of the process worth shipping were the portable games so they got shipped. (The DS game actually was listed as "Battlefront III" in Australian rating board submissions, so not only does the timeline and content line up, there actually was a use of that name at some point.)

Speaking of which, we've seen Free Radical's aborted product but have heard or seen very little from Rebellion. I'm curious to see what happened there and how close they got to a game, even though I'd bet LucasArts saved some face by pulling out of that contract too.

Elite Squadron *was* Battlefront III during development up until the point where the FRD title was canned and the scope was reduced in the interests of putting *something* out there. Rebellion never had the rights to produce the HD versions, although they did pitch to salvage it.
 

MormaPope

Banned
Ouch, what a comeback.

What I like from this article is that it basically confirms the other source (whoever it may be), is legitimate. That holds a lot of weight.

The guy from Free Radical that responded basically confirmed everything that the anonymous source said except in this Free Radical guy's story Free Radical management was completely innocent and the world around them tried to put them down.

"3rd parties were worried we would spend their money on other projects, but we didn't." Sounds like they did indeed do that and were caught, once they were caught no more money came in.
 

The Crimson Kid

what are you waiting for
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two extreme perspectives presented, as is usually the case.

However, I'm inclined to side with Free Radical a bit more here. Both accounts note the existence of poor relations between upper management and the developer, whether it is distrust and accusations of using publisher funds to work on a competitor's game from the publisher side, or accusations of incompetence or negligence in management from the developer side.

At the end of the day, even if both parties are acting up, the fault of poor relations between management and developer largely falls on management. A large part of the role of management, in any field, is to make sure that there is honest and open communication between both parties so that any issues can be effectively resolved in the process of delivering a shippable product that benefits all parties. Everyone here has agreed in one way or another that honest communication broke down pretty severely between Lucas and Free Radical. The responsibility to make sure that never happens, and if it does, to fix the communication issues, lies primarily on management.
 

Zarx

Member
Sounds like FR had trouble on the technical side but now that Crytek own them that shouldn't be a problem with Cryengine at their disposal. Will be interesting to see what comes out of there other than the MP for Crysis that is.

Depends if THQ lasts until 2014 so they can release Homefront 2. That is a big if...
 

scitek

Member
Also,
LLShC.gif
@ Arthur Gies


So like Polygon?
 

scitek

Member
They were working on spectacular titles like Mercenaries 2: World in Flames and The Saboteur.

The Saboteur is a fine game.

I wasn't ever a fan of the Battlefront games, but to not have a third one is baffling given how popular they seemed to be. This is all interesting, though.

It seems like being in charge of themselves was bad for FRD, as they've been pretty productive as Crytek UK. They got Crysis to run on consoles, FFS.

EDIT: Fuck, I meant to edit the other post.
 
Top Bottom