Chaos Chronicles Dispute Interview

RPG Codex talked with bitComposer’s board of directors member Wolfgang Duhr about the recent dispute between the publisher and Coreplay that apparently led to Chaos Chronicles being shelved. Here’s a couple of snippets chronicling the publisher’s side of the story:

Obviously, there is now a dispute between Coreplay and bitComposer. As a publisher, you no doubt would know many gamers often side with the developers and hate those “Evil Publishers”. At least, you seem to be aware of that given your statement to GamesInquirer. So, in your own words, what would you say is the main cause for this dispute?

WD: Of course I know publishers are normally seen as evil from the point of view of gamers. Since I have worked on both ‘˜sides’, I am not personally offended by negative comments against publishers. I do know of some that are very bad, on both sides, but this does not apply to Coreplay, as their situation is special. I am sure other publishers in our situation would have already shut down the studio a few months ago. But we still believe in the people and the vision/potential behind Chaos Chronicles. As stated before in GamesInquirer, I think the reason for the dispute is the new shareholders.’‹

Coreplay tells us that at some point during development, it was decided to increase the scope of Chaos Chronicles and expand the game. Were you involved in this decision, and if not, when did you become aware of it? As one of the game’s funders, were you happy with that decision? What impact do you think that had on the chances of the game getting completed?

WD: Actually, the scope was changed, not increased. In June 2012, we had a meeting to discuss the latest milestone. At that time, the team had some issues with the PSN and XBLA version. On the other hand, we discussed the possibility of changing the focus from Action RPG to a full-fledged cRPG, which was possible if we skipped the other platforms. Since Coreplay confirmed that such a change was still possible within the remaining budget and time frame, we skipped the PSN and XBLA versions, and both parties decided to change the focus of the game accordingly to PC only.’‹

Coreplay have stated that the dispute between yourself and them started in September 2012, when bitComposer failed to pay on an agreed milestone. Is this accurate? If so, then presumably you were upset or disappointed in how development had progressed – are you able to tell us anything about that particular milestone and the relationship between BitComposer and Coreplay at the time?

WD: The dispute started at the beginning of December 2012, when a Coreplay lawyer and investor presented a completely new contract, which was quite different from the original terms to which we had agreed. While Coreplay and their investors were ready to increase the budget from their side, they were not able to present a new milestone and budget plan showing the additional features they wanted to include. On the other hand, Coreplay did not match the originally scheduled milestones, and because of this uncertainty, we were not able to continue from our side never mind the fact that such a change would have to be approved by the FFF Bayern. At that time, the Goldmaster was planned for January 2013, but the complete project was already behind schedule.’‹

By not funding the game, you run the risk of Evil Publisher Syndromeâ„¢. You are already being called “ShitComposter” on our forums by some people. When disputes like this happen between developers and publishers, especially over games that have already begun development, why is it that you think the publisher often takes the blame from the public? As publishers yourselves, how does that make you feel?

WD: I know blaming the publisher is the easiest way in the industry. In the case of Jagged Alliance: Back in Action, we also got a lot of criticism from gamers. But as a matter of fact Coreplay and bitComposer decided to implement the new ‘˜Plan and Go’ system, as we both thought it would bring something new to the game. We would never blame one of our studios by saying: ‘˜Hey, that was their idea’. Another thing is that ‘˜Evil Publisher’ stories seem to be much more interesting to the press and gamers, and maybe it is also easier to blame publishers, since they do not normally make casual statements about a bad partnership, but rather try to solve conflicts in the best way possible. In the mean time, I am also getting used to getting all the blame as a publisher. If a game is successful, it was the developer. If a game fails, it was the publisher. Still I hope the majority of gamers do not think like this. Apart from this, you should not judge a game based on the publisher or developer behind it.’‹

Thanks, RPGWatch.