Jason Moyer on 17/2/2013 at 20:36
I don't see why any of that matters as long as they fulfilled their contract. Sure, Sega will never want to work with them again and it's going to give them a massively bad reputation with other publishers but I don't see the part that they could be sued for.
Angel Dust on 17/2/2013 at 21:09
Uh, surely part of that contract was using SEGA's money to pay for the development of the game requested?
Jason Moyer on 17/2/2013 at 21:33
If Sega gave Gearbox $1 million to make a game why couldn't Gearbox just pay one programmer $1 million per hour for one hour to make the game? Obviously they should be motivated not to do that, but unless Sega specifically outlined exactly how the money was to be spent I don't see what basis they'd have for a lawsuit. I don't mean to pretend that I understand contract law here, I just don't see any logical basis for it. You pay someone money for a game and in return that party delivers a game. I would assume that's the core of most publisher/independent studio relationships.
june gloom on 17/2/2013 at 21:39
If it's written in the contract you have to follow the contract. If the contract says the money was specifically meant to go into the development of ACM, then that money has to be used in the development of ACM. I don't even know where you're getting that "1 programmer, 1 hour, $1 million" thing. That's not a reasonable expectation of reality. Sure, Gearbox might have done it, but that's insane and nobody would actually do that. Using the money instead to fund development of Borderlands 2 is far more likely because that's less "insane" and more "dick move."
Muzman on 17/2/2013 at 22:07
I can see how Sega might have a claim. I don't however see how they'd ever be able to prove it. Assuming Gearbox did these things, they could lose that shit in accounting so easily.
Money from Sega goes to Borderlands? OK here's some of Gearbox's own funds to the same value going to ACM we just found behind the sofa, don't know how it got there.
etc etc
faetal on 18/2/2013 at 11:27
Quote Posted by Muzman
I can see how Sega might have a claim. I don't however see how they'd ever be able to prove it. Assuming Gearbox did these things, they could lose that shit in accounting so easily.
Money from Sega goes to Borderlands? OK here's some of Gearbox's own funds to the same value going to ACM we just found behind the sofa, don't know how it got there.
etc etc
With forensic account auditing, you'd need a valid paper trail. Gone are the days where you could just produce a print-out saying "yeah, that was OTHER money". If ACM dev didn't have a cash injection commensurate with Sega's money, backed up by transactions within a period considered to be reasonably within the development cycle, then I can well imagine Sega having a good pop at legal action.
N'Al - fuuuuuck. Does
caveat emptor mean nothing any more?
june gloom on 18/2/2013 at 11:56
Let's be real, though, this is Gearbox. They don't have a reputation for flops. And Aliens games are, traditionally, at least passingly okay games.
Vivian on 18/2/2013 at 12:02
and don't forget 'the press' and everyone else are haters and therefore you can totally ignore their opinions and waste £40 of your money on bullshit. Man, I am actually quite happy this turned out so crappy, in a way, because I have what I previously thought was an irrational hatred of randy pitchford but now it's turning out to be quite justified.
faetal on 18/2/2013 at 12:13
I wonder how much of it was pre-orders.
