Jump to content

Bloomberg insight article into studio transition from Star Theory to Intercept Games


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, afafsa said:

My buy/no-buy decision still comes down to whether there's micro-transactions or not. If it has that slimy feel of mobile games, I'm out. I've never enjoyed a game that felt like a casino.

Depends on where and what they are. If it's new kerbal hairdo's go ahead and monetize, if its parts and they restrict devs so they monopolize part modding or something similar then KSP 1 is good enough

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I agree; there's usually two sides to a story. By no means makes that less of a **** move and motivations were probably less than pure, but at the same time decisions are hardly ever made just for the sake of being evil.

My suspicion is that deadlines were missed and a conversation along these lines was held:
"Why don't you put more people on it?" (nvm the fact that throwing in more bodies rarely speeds up a software development project)
"We don't have that many people"
"Well you have x on the project but y in your company"
"Yes, but we need to develop other problems as well; we can't have KSP as our only project"
"No! We tell you... put more people on it" *stamps feet*
"Don't tell us how to run OUR business - we're working on delivering what we promised"
"ORLY?"

Management is always about control and you'd not be manager for long if things go bad, you're not in control and you're fine with that. If things were going just fine nothing would have changed. Remember; T2 invested a ton of money in KSP and has no reason to jeopardize that investment by a major disruption and that's just what happened. What we don't know is the reason. Timelines? Artistic vision (unlikely given they hired Nate Simpson)? Micropayments? Even if things truly went south and in reality T2 bailed out KSP by doing this, hanging out the dirty laundry would reflect bad on them so they won't do that. Truth is, we don't really know what happened. It makes T2 look bad but without knowing the underlying issue it's really hard to judge.

As i understand, Star Theory was in negotiations to sell the company to Take-Two, but they decided not to, because they were unhappy with the terms.. After they declined to sell, Take-Two pulled this childish crap.

As if i didn't need yet another reason to never buy another Take-two product.. KSP's future died the second Squad sold the IP to Take-Two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't jump to conclusions, but at the same time, I'm struggling to pull away from the fact that these people had the rug pulled out from under them the second they disagreed with T2's offer. Unless there's a serious shift or revelation proving otherwise, I'll be sticking to KSP1... I'm not keen on getting my money dirty, you see...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Numberyellow said:

After they declined to sell, Take-Two pulled this childish crap.

You'll have to refresh my memory, but in what world do kids routinely perform hostile take overs of each others companies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Numberyellow said:

As i understand, Star Theory was in negotiations to sell the company to Take-Two, but they decided not to, because they were unhappy with the terms.. After they declined to sell, Take-Two pulled this childish crap.

As if i didn't need yet another reason to never buy another Take-two product.. KSP's future died the second Squad sold the IP to Take-Two.

As chairman Mao once said, "negotiating is done best with the barrel of a gun"

The article made it to Slashdot and most of the comments were pretty savage — in the direction of Star Theory, that is:

- "It's just business"
- "If you only have one client you're already vertically integrated"
- "This is news?"

The way I see it, it can be explained both ways:

  • Take Two saw an opportunity to save money and acted on it. We all know how we call this - the second word is move.
  • Take Two didn't like the way Star Theory was handling things, decides to buy them out and take control. Obviously not willing to pay top dollar for a vendor who failed to deliver.

I wouldn't exclude one or the other, and maybe we'll find out in due time what went on. I wouldn't be too quick assuming one or the other; while "evil Take Two, bean counter, suits" is indeed a pretty good argument for the first scenario, "we had zero updates lately" is a pretty compelling case for the second. Well maybe not that compelling but of equal strength.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I like how everyone compains yet does nada about this. When will we see protests at T2 for this unethical behaviour instead of just complaining on forums?

The protest will come when the game is released, and next to nobody buys it. not purchasing the game is really the only way to protest.

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah thats shady af sounding. Interesting that most of the creative team took the offer so quickly?

is it really that interesting? KSP was their only project.. their only income source. With the pandemic, they were unable to shop project ideas to publishers. It's a matter of having a job, and not having a job. Which option would you take?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Numberyellow said:

is it really that interesting? KSP was their only project.. their only income source. With the pandemic, they were unable to shop project ideas to publishers. It's a matter of having a job, and not having a job. Which option would you take?

The switch to Intercept happened in December according to the article. The pandemic was a non factor in the US at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Numberyellow said:

is it really that interesting? KSP was their only project.. their only income source. With the pandemic, they were unable to shop project ideas to publishers. It's a matter of having a job, and not having a job. Which option would you take?

I didn't mean interesting bad, just interesting in a corporate intrigue kind of way. But there's obviously no real way for us to guess from reading one article. Shadowzone's insights are persuasive though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Who now remembers the Bethesda and Interplay battle.

Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

You'll have to refresh my memory, but in what world do kids routinely perform hostile take overs of each others companies?

Cute.

You know what i mean. Please stop being argumentative.

42 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

As chairman Mao once said, "negotiating is done best with the barrel of a gun"

The article made it to Slashdot and most of the comments were pretty savage — in the direction of Star Theory, that is:

- "It's just business"
- "If you only have one client you're already vertically integrated"
- "This is news?"

The way I see it, it can be explained both ways:

  • Take Two saw an opportunity to save money and acted on it. We all know how we call this - the second word is move.
  • Take Two didn't like the way Star Theory was handling things, decides to buy them out and take control. Obviously not willing to pay top dollar for a vendor who failed to deliver.

I wouldn't exclude one or the other, and maybe we'll find out in due time what went on. I wouldn't be too quick assuming one or the other; while "evil Take Two, bean counter, suits" is indeed a pretty good argument for the first scenario, "we had zero updates lately" is a pretty compelling case for the second. Well maybe not that compelling but of equal strength.

I've got plenty of other reasons to despise Take-Two, and not want to give them my money. This is just the latest in a long list. And in case you're wondering, no, i'm not one of those "corporations are evil" types. If i dislike a company, it's because they've done something genuinely lousy.

33 minutes ago, ShadowZone said:

The switch to Intercept happened in December according to the article. The pandemic was a non factor in the US at that point.

i'm talking about the subsequent ship-jumpers. the ones who didn't initially go

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Sterling released a video on this today, based primarily on the article, so this is going to be gaining popularity. Given Schreier's past journalistic work exposing bad studio/publisher practices, I'm inclined to trust it. Curious to see how T2 will respond.

Warning for harsh language.

Spoiler

[~snip~]

 

Edited by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, afafsa said:

Without knowing the whole story I think it's premature to jump to conclusions about bullying corporate practices or whatever.

We will never be able to know the whole story until long after this game has been released and everyone now working for Take-Two has left the company long enough for their (presumed) non-disclosure agreements to have run out.

1 hour ago, Numberyellow said:

The protest will come when the game is released, and next to nobody buys it. not purchasing the game is really the only way to protest.

And then Take-Two is just as likely to interpret the lack of sales as lack of interest in a space-sim game and then declare there's no market for it. At that point, if we are lucky they might just decide to sell the property to another studio that wants to develop Kerbal games.

Edited by HvP
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HvP said:

And then Take-Two is just as likely to interpret the lack of sales as lack of interest in a space-sim game and then declare there's no market for it. At that point, if we are lucky they might just decide to sell the property to another studio that wants to develop Kerbal games.

They'll either interpret it as "there's no market for space games", or they'll see the protest for what it is, and target original KSP, in an attempt to force KSP2 sales.

if we're really lucky, and this'll never happen, but if we were really lucky they'd either make KSP open source, and let the community make it better, OR sell the IP back to it's original owners..

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the KSP2 Rlease date thread, which I have encouraged people to shuffle this discussion to this thread:

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

In light of the news that just hit, chances of ever seeing a KSP2 have just dropped to zero.

Speaking as  regular community member, I think this is just the opposite. Uber/ST has a track record of under performing and failed deliveries IIRC.  Take Two specifically went for the KSP2 IP, which included some key personnel from within ST program.  I think this is more of a sign that TT is hell bent on publishing KSP2, on time (well, the new time), and up to standard.   I'm actually quite encouraged by this.  Time will tell though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Numberyellow said:

As i understand, Star Theory was in negotiations to sell the company to Take-Two, but they decided not to, because they were unhappy with the terms.. After they declined to sell, Take-Two pulled this childish crap.

Careful...your bias is showing. Hypothetically, what if the reason was that Star Theory "pulled some childish crap" and Take 2 had enough? I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying that conclusions have been jumped to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Careful...your bias is showing. Hypothetically, what if the reason was that Star Theory "pulled some childish crap" and Take 2 had enough? I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying that conclusions have been jumped to.

My statements are based on available information. Given Take-Two's track record of scummy behavior, this move is not out of character for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Numberyellow said:

My statements are based on available information.

Which is that two companies couldn't come to an agreement.  Beyond that, it's pure speculation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, razark said:

Which is that two companies couldn't come to an agreement.  Beyond that, it's pure speculation.

no, which is that, as per the article, they were in negotiations, star theory opted not to sell, and so Take Two decided to take what they wanted. unless you're saying the article is bunk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @ShadowZone with how we should approach this trasition of management, we dont know all the full details yet. 

But what i will say is this: I had the lovely chance of meeting Nate Simpson, creative director, at PAX east this past March. For the time we talked, we shared our love of the original game, and it was amazing to see his undisputed dedication to KSP2 and making it right for the community. Based on my interaction with him, he clearly cares about the game alot. Which is why i believe, like others have said, that if Nate made that jump to Intercept "immediately" as the article says, it must have been for a very good reason and it must have been for the good of KSP2, not to hinder it or sell it out for a large salary. its clea that this is an amazing passion project for many of the developers, and i actually concier it comforting that T2 wentht through the effort to hire the people that ACTUALLY care about the game. after all, they could have just hired an entirely new team without all the trouble.

I understand why this situation is upseting, but I believe, even if we dont know specifically, that this action may have been necessary for the salvation and continuing development of the KSP2 that the community wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comments are based on available information plus your personal bias. I'm not trying to say it as a bad thing. Everyone has biases. You are probably correct as well! I'm just saying that all we have is someone's summarization of part of one side of the story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, justspace103 said:

I agree with @ShadowZone with how we should approach this trasition of management, we dont know all the full details yet. 

But what i will say is this: I had the lovely chance of meeting Nate Simpson, creative director, at PAX east this past March. For the time we talked, we shared our love of the original game, and it was amazing to see his undisputed dedication to KSP2 and making it right for the community. Based on my interaction with him, he clearly cares about the game alot. Which is why i believe, like others have said, that if Nate made that jump to Intercept "immediately" as the article says, it must have been for a very good reason and it must have been for the good of KSP2, not to hinder it or sell it out for a large salary. its clea that this is an amazing passion project for many of the developers, and i actually concier it comforting that T2 wentht through the effort to hire the people that ACTUALLY care about the game. after all, they could have just hired an entirely new team without all the trouble.

I understand why this situation is upseting, but I believe, even if we dont know specifically, that this action may have been necessary for the salvation and continuing development of the KSP2 that the community wants.

don't get it twisted... hiring a new team would have been disastrously costly for Take-Two. poaching Star Theory's staff saved them the money of having to lose development time while a new team gets up to speed. i don't think they actually give a damn about getting the game right, they just want to see some return on their investment as soon as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Your comments are based on available information plus your personal bias. I'm not trying to say it as a bad thing. Everyone has biases. You are probably correct as well! I'm just saying that all we have is someone's summarization of part of one side of the story.

Could be. But here's the thing: my wife's brother has a small child that goes to kindergarten, and one of the kids in his classroom is the niece of the brother-in-law of Nate Simpson's landscaper. And you know what I heard from him?

Make sure to water your lawn often when it's dry

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Meecrob said:

Your comments are based on available information plus your personal bias. I'm not trying to say it as a bad thing. Everyone has biases. You are probably correct as well! I'm just saying that all we have is someone's summarization of part of one side of the story.

i don't believe i'm biased here. Yes, i do very much dislike Take-Two....but it's for legit reasons. I was also VERY skeptical of Star Theory.....as the company they USED to be, didn't really have all that many accomplishments.. While i really did like Monday Night Combat, i never really thought the company that spawned that fun little diversion, was the right choice to build the successor to KSP. So i guess you could say i'm not really a fan of either party, which would mean i'm not really biased..

That, aside, We have the information in the article on one side, and we have our knowledge of how Take-Two operates, and the kind of scummy stuff they do.. The math is pretty simple here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Numberyellow said:

The math is pretty simple here.

The math is so very simple, because you don't know everything that's actually going in to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...