-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Mark Rein: Silicon Knights are Thieves
- Thread starter jamesb23
- Start date
robertsan21
Member
jamesb23 said:
hmmm damn!
but that cant hold up in court now can it?
CrushDance
Banned
Nobody even seems to care now hah. I guess that week with all the Microsoft news and then Too Human+1.1Bil was just an overload.
This does nothing, only 3 pages and no popcorn
Maybe it's just the "impact" has lessened with time *yawn*
This does nothing, only 3 pages and no popcorn
Maybe it's just the "impact" has lessened with time *yawn*
plagiarize
Banned
it all depends on what was signed and whether or not what subsequently happened matches up to that agreement.robertsan21 said:
gljvd said:
You sure about this?
"we've moved to Unreal Engine 3.0, we've done a lot of modifications on top of it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioshock
and about the amount of delays, compared to Too Human, it's nothing.
I'll throw my two cents onto a subject I know nothing about: MS should just cancel Too Human and try and sweep the entire thing under the rug. I'm sure the lawsuit will continue, but it might diffuse things a little. And Too Human seems destined for it's fourth generation of systems anyways.
Just think of the *yawns* when the proceedings finally take place.CrushDance said:Nobody even seems to care now hah. I guess that week with all the Microsoft news and then Too Human+1.1Bil was just an overload.
This does nothing, only 3 pages and no popcorn
Maybe it's just the "impact" has lessened with time *yawn*
McDragon said:
Yea I'm sure. Its been talked to death about on beyond3d.com and other places. Its on the unreal 2.5 engine. They are simply using unreal 3 tool set which is causing the confusion.
As for Too Human delays they aren't as long as you'd think they are considering the project was scraped and started up again after other projects a few times. The xbox 360 too human is only 2 or so years old .
Its not like Duke nukem which has been in production for 10 years.
cgcg said:
You really have no clue what your talking about. its very likely that their publisher (microsoft) contracted them to provide a playable demo of the game for that e3 . Based on targets and milestones both companys agreed on this seemed do able. However the engine being late and a mess from Epic would have thrown back development time while still being binded by the publisher contract to show the game basicly screwing the company over.
You rerally don't know how it went down and to insult anyone is really sad on your part
gljvd said:
Actually it kinda is, Too Human started development on playstation in like 1996 apparently, and its been coming out every year since then, it seems dyack isnt capable of completing a game. 11 years and counting..... LOL.
EDIT: hmm maybe its 7, either way thats far too long if your name isnt valve.
Teknopathetic
Member
"and its very late. So is mass effect ."
Neither had official dates until recently, so they're not late at all.
Neither had official dates until recently, so they're not late at all.
plagiarize
Banned
they've already paid epic.jett said:
you pay upfront to license a game engine.
epic aren't a charity.
Visualante
Member
It was, people are trying to create a causal link between the E3 showing, and the lawsuit.levious said:
It may be that the E3 showing was indirectly related to Epic's lack of support. However it's wrong to confuse to two events.
Ultimately Silicon Knights are seeking compensation for the UE3 license they have paid to Epic which in their opinion has not delivered. As a result of this they also feel conpensation is due to the delay and extra costs incurred to the Too Human project. (delays, in-house engine modifications)
Anything else is just an attempt to get a cheap laugh on Dyack really- the game doesn't suck, it's just had troubled development.
Depends if other UE3 licensees speak up. If they do then Epic could have a problem.robertsan21 said:
InterMoniker
Member
Isn't it true that Epic is releasing updates to people that are using the older less complete UE3?Teknopathetic said:
I hope SK don't win this. Epic really needs to focus on UT3 for ps3! Not this donkey show.
gcfan2k5 said:
actually no . the project was scraped and started again with many years worth is space betwen bot hprojects.
Between Too human 1996 and Too Human 2008 ? we have
Eternal Darkness 2002
Metal Gear Solid Twin snakes 2004
They are also presently working with sega on a game.
Too Human ps2 was moved over to the gamecube in 2000 when they signed an exclusive contract with nintendo. Then that contract ended since then they made 2 other games before bringing too human back in 2005
Also the concept of Too Human has changed drasticly since the first too human.
oh please. One look at the demo and you can see it's crap. Who's fault is that that it received bad press? Certainly not Epic's fault as they were implying in the suit. Please if you have no control over your project then it's your own damn fault. If it's not ready then don't show it and if you can't say no to your publisher then maybe SK should sue MS instead for all the public *humiliation.*
gcfan2k5 said:
No, it hasn't been coming out every year since. No, it isn't 7.
The project has been worked at and shelved on a couple of platforms, but the development process has always been interrupted. This version has probably been in development for the normal amount of game development time.
Teknopathetic
Member
"Isn't it true that Epic is releasing updates to people that are using the older less complete UE3?"
Yup. It's also supposedly true that early adopters were given discounts on the licensing with knowledge of the engine not being complete.
Yup. It's also supposedly true that early adopters were given discounts on the licensing with knowledge of the engine not being complete.
jett said:
So you think that epic is that dumb that they never recieved any cash up front ? Or in any sort of payment plan before the game shiped ?
I highly doubt that. Epic was most likely paid and with the contract Silicon knights is legaly obligated to ship the game using unreal engine 3 and thus owing epic money.
SK is sueing because the engine was unusable and cause them to loose money.
bishopcruz
Member
Teknopathetic said:
The positive or negative has nothing to o with the rationality. But the bulk of the hate thus far has been 'Dyack is a whiner, he shouldn't have sued, game so delayed, can't develop,' etc.
There are good ways to argue that Dyack is in the wrong. Few of them have been used in this thread.
As to the Mark Rein suit, this is now getting extremely interesting. This case has now turned into an incredible 'he said', 'she said' clusterfuck. Basically Rein says that the promises that SK claimed he made were never made, and that SK had no ability to change the engine to meet its needs.
From that Game Daily story:
That seems really, really weird to me. Why on God's green earth would any sane developer "exclusively" license an engine that might not meet its needs and also have no ability to modify the engine? Someone must be reading something wrong because it would make the UE3 engine basically useless.
This also seems irreconcilable with SKs claims that it DID have the ability via its contract to do engine modifications. They claimed as much in their suit.
Seriously WTF is going on?
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
Would be a shame to see Silicon Knights go down over this. They've provided us with so much laughter over the last 24 months.
It says that Epic might not modify UE3 to meet its requirements. The developers who license it are obviously free to make their own modifications as long as they don't use UE3 code to create their own/competing engine.
bishopcruz said:
It says that Epic might not modify UE3 to meet its requirements. The developers who license it are obviously free to make their own modifications as long as they don't use UE3 code to create their own/competing engine.
plagiarize said:
I believe they want Epic to pay back all those monies along with the GeoW monies, and still release TH with UE3 tech.
Then they also state something about making their own in-house engine with UE3 tech in it, which will eventually be dropped off over time. Lulz.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Tenacious-V said:
This sums things up right here. If there was contract that stated that Epic would deliver code elements of their engine to Silicon Knights by a certain date and that date was missed there would be grounds for some sort of suit. There is more to this story than, "our game sucked at e3 06 and we want to sue you cause Gears of War was a great game". I look forward to seeing how this plays out.
the Dark One
plagiarize
Banned
it's also supposedly true that the updates were promised within a time frame that they were not received within.Teknopathetic said:
since we're trying to be balanced here.
NovemberMike
Member
gcfan2k5 said:
Dyack came out with three games in that time period...
Anyway, it wasn't actually in production. It was something where they basically made demos for a couple games and hten decided on which one to turn into a full game. Too Human got partially made a few times, and then they decided to go with a different idea. No different than a director looking at a script for 10+ films before actually deciding which one to make.
Meta-Knight
Member
Warm Machine said:
More like 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Human#Development_history
But I suppose the game was on the backburner while Eternal Darkness and MGS: Twin Snakes were in development.
InterMoniker
Member
And now this whole legal battle. What The Fuck is going to become of this game now?gljvd said:
I really don't see how SK have the nerve to sue Epic. Was they're version of the UE3 really uncompleted or what?
cgcg said:
That isn't what the lawsuit is about . Its about epic failing to deliver on their contracted terms. If epic failed to deliver a working engine when they said they would its hardly suprising that Sk failed to deliever a working demo when they said they would .
Its a very simple concept but it seems you can't grasp it
Visualante
Member
Well they would. Doesn't mean that it will strengthen their argument.levious said:
Besides reputation cannot be conpensated.
plagiarize
Banned
claiming damages wouldn't make it stealing. DD is charging that they did not get the service they paid for, and that Epic spent their licensing fees towards other projects while neglecting the work they had promised to do.jett said:
they said that they have already rewritten vast parts of the UE3 engine and that any Epic written parts would be removed. the subsequent projects would use this engine free of any code Epic have written. that was what they said.
whether or not their code is essentially just rewritten Epic code is for the lawsuits to decide, but they did not as you suggest claim they would be using UE3 tech in future titles.
Philthy
Member
Too Human was only a part of the whole fiasco. The original complaint seems to show that what really pushed them over the edge is when the PS3 port of the engine was again delayed while Epic was showing off UT on the PS3 instead of working on the engine, much like they did with GoW on the 360. The PS3 game was unannounced by SK, so it had nothing to do with Too Human.