Hi Everybody

[Jimbodiah]

The proof is in the pudding.

This is just PR doing damage control. We'll see if/when the product comes out. With this much turmoil it never ends well for the consumer.

[AntINFINAIt]

I was very worried that the game would be dumbed-down for a wider audience, microtransactions, AKA any alteration from Star Theory's vision.

I won't be able to play the game anyway. I just enjoy watching others.

[Lisias]

On 6/12/2020 at 7:12 PM, Jimbodiah said:

The proof is in the pudding.

This is just PR doing damage control. We'll see if/when the product comes out. With this much turmoil it never ends well for the consumer.

Being the reason I think there's way more things happened/happening behind doors than the Bloomberg article says.

[Guest]

On 6/9/2020 at 8:08 PM, KerikBalm said:

[...]

Nate was and still is the creative director or whatever his title is. If T2 wasn't making him put in microtransactions before, why would they now?

[...]

Besides, KSP isn't a game that lends itself to that, other than stupid cosmetic skins, which I would find annoying but irrelevant.

And his statement doesn't rule out a bunch of small overpriced DLCs like one finds on the sims or City skylines

Apparently this very obvious things are not so obvious for most people, not here on the forum and certainly not outside the forum were the knowledge about KSP (even among KSP fans) is so bad that people thinks Star.Theory is the original creator of KSP and that the game is now going to be some sort of space battle royale full of lootboxes.

It's sad that this post was necessary in the first place.

 

On 6/12/2020 at 6:05 AM, swankidelic said:

And in the end, what strategy/sim gamers want is very divergent from what large publishers like Take Two want.

Paradox Interactive may not agree with this.

[SOXBLOX]

10 hours ago, Master39 said:

Paradox Interactive may not agree with this.

Ahhh, my beloved Stellaris... 

[Starhelperdude]

I personally don't like that people say:''Because of the stuff that happened, we will get a bad game, and even If they say no microtransactions and such, they will probably do it, look at bethesda or other companies, they lie all the time, so you can't thrust any big game studio to make a great game like TTI''

[RobertaME]

Having been away from the game for the last 9 months, I'm just getting up to speed on all this. Given the available information, (which isn't much) the YouTube article and other sources are making a LOT of assumptions they can't possibly know for a fact, making me highly skeptical of their overall accuracy.

Given that, all this hate on for Take Two, who owns the game rights and has for years, is not only unfair, it's displaying willful ignorance. The truth of the matter is that the only people that know everything that really went on between Take Two and Star Theory are the people involved. Speculating on reasons why Take Two pulled the contract, which they have every right to do if there was a breach of terms, (and given the fact that Take Two wasn't sued for canceling the contract without breach makes me believe they had very valid reasons for doing so) is just playing guessing games. Just because someone says something in an internet article doesn't make it true. There are YouTube videos "proving" that the Earth is flat. That doesn't make them true. Why is everyone so eager to believe the worst of Take Two just based on outside opinions? One of the actual people involved in all this says that everything is cool, but people still believe the outsiders? Sorry... that's willful ignorance.

To those saying "No mater what, I won't buy KSP2 because it rewards Take Two for scummy corporate behavior!" I would ask, "How do you even know what they did was scummy?" There are a thousand legitimate reasons to cancel a contract. Contracts actually list what terms allow either party to pull out of it without fault. Doing so when the other party isn't in breach of terms gets companies sued. Was I "scummy' when I paid off my mortgage early and exercised my rights to terminate my contract with the mortgage company? Those people were counting on me to pay interest on my loan for another twenty years! How many people did I put out of work when I did that? Oh sure, my mortgage contract says I can pay off at any time without penalty, but that was really scummy of me to take away over two hundred thousand dollars of income from them, huh? Just because the contract said I could! What a scumbag I am!

...or maybe the mortgage company wasn't managed very well if my exercising my contractual rights and the loss of my interest payments caused them to close shop...

Is Take Two scummy because they exercised their legal rights? Would half the Dev team jump ship to join Take Two if they were being scummy? What was going on with Star Theory that made so many people willing to leave for the 'scummy' company that is just full of nothing but corporate greed and dark-vile-evilness and "ruined our beloved and innocent Star Theory!"?

Answer: The only people that know are the ones involved. All else is just guessing. Maybe Star Theory was to blame for their own downfall... Maybe Take Two was being greedy... Unless you were there or have proof to the contrary... YOU DON'T KNOW.

TL/DR: Stop speculating. None of us know what really happened between Take Two and Star Theory and probably never will. Contracts have terms. Getting out of them without getting sued requires you to be in the right.

[James M]

On 7/24/2020 at 4:47 PM, RobertaME said:

To those saying "No mater what, I won't buy KSP2 because it rewards Take Two for scummy corporate behavior!" I would ask, "How do you even know what they did was scummy?" There are a thousand legitimate reasons to cancel a contract. Contracts actually list what terms allow either party to pull out of it without fault.

If they didn't do anything wrong, then they shouldn't have any reason not to tell the community what happened. To give out a formal announcement about the situation outlining why they pulled the contract. They don't have to of course. But they should have if they didn't want to look bad. Yet they didn't. Now they look bad. Not our fault for thinking they have something to hide when they act like it. 

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, James M said:

If they didn't do anything wrong, then they shouldn't have any reason not to tell the community what happened. To give out a formal announcement about the situation outlining why they pulled the contract. They don't have to of course. But they should have if they didn't want to look bad. Yet they didn't. Now they look bad. Not our fault for thinking they have something to hide when they act like it. 

That is downright inaccurate. There are dozens of reasons to keep something PRIVATE (not SECRET) that have nothing to do with those involved being horrible people who only want to scam you out of your money so they can be horrible to others more often.

[RobertaME]

1 hour ago, James M said:

::snip:: Not our fault for thinking they have something to hide when they act like it. 

Ahhh... the age-old cry of the bully and the tyrant... "They wouldn't have run if they were innocent!"... and "Of course they're guilty! They wouldn't testify, so they must be hiding something!"

Companies have a right to privacy just the same as you or I do. They are, after all, made up of people. Claiming they must be up to something just because they won't discuss the issue doesn't mean they're guilty of anything any more than I'm guilty of something because I'm 'hiding' behind a username instead of my full legal name. Same as you... and I'd say just about everyone here, with a few exceptions. (such as the OP)

I get it. You've been told Take Two did something nefarious and you've publicly condemned them for it. Now you're committed. If you reverse course now, you run the risk of looking like a hypocrite... or worse... someone easily misled.

Face facts. You, and a whole host of others, jumped to a hasty conclusion based on speculation and almost no actual proof and ran with it. Now your faulty accusations have been called out and, lacking a real counter-argument, you fall back on claims of "incriminating silence"... which is a pretty weak excuse for all the pitchforks and torches I see running around these days. Especially for a company that didn't HAVE to make KSP2 to begin with, let alone leave the development team so much freedom that they're passing up a chance to make a dump-truck full of money with micro-transactions and such.

Reality Check: An absence of information is no excuse for slander and false accusations; it's just a lack of information.

Maybe Take Two figures that no mater what they say it'll be turned against them, so better to say nothing and let people think you're a sneaky bas!@&# than make a statement that makes you look like a total jerk. Maybe Star Theory royally messed something up (like missing the deadline by over a year and lying about it?) and they don't want to embarrass anyone over it because if they say what really happened everyone will just say, "Well, that was a kinda rude thing to say about Star Theory now that they've gone bankrupt! What jerks!"

You don't know. I don't know. Nobody really knows, except the people that were there. You heard from one of them as the OP of this thread, and he says everything is cool, KSP2 will be total awesome-sauce, and Take Two are giving them a free hand to be total geeks. Why listen to people that a) weren't involved b) don't have access to information about what did happen and c) apparently have an axe to grind against Take Two for past grievances instead of the guy who was there?

Just chill and let it go. It's not worth getting your panties in a twist. :^Þ

[Vanamonde]

1 hour ago, James M said:

If they didn't do anything wrong, then they shouldn't have any reason not to tell the community what happened. 

You have not confessed to any crimes. Should we therefore conclude that you have committed crimes? After all, why wouldn't you say so if you hadn't? 

Personal sentiment. Not speaking as a moderator. 

[Kerbart]

2 hours ago, James M said:

If they didn't do anything wrong, then they shouldn't have any reason not to tell the community what happened. To give out a formal announcement about the situation outlining why they pulled the contract. They don't have to of course. But they should have if they didn't want to look bad. Yet they didn't. Now they look bad. Not our fault for thinking they have something to hide when they act like it. 

Because in American culture, no matter how harmless it may seem, volunteering information is like an open invitation for litigation. And that's without any NDA's in place which I'm sure there are.

1 hour ago, Vanamonde said:

You have not confessed to any crimes. Should we therefore conclude that you have committed crimes? After all, why wouldn't you say so if you hadn't? 

Personal sentiment. Not speaking as a moderator. 

That reminds me of this little gem. Which is on point actually; anything you say will be taken out of context and will be used against you:

 

[James M]

2 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Because in American culture, no matter how harmless it may seem, volunteering information is like an open invitation for litigation. And that's without any NDA's in place which I'm sure there are.

Finally someone who doesn't just throw what I said out the window without thinking first. If T2's hands are tied on the matter as far as speaking the truth, well.. Maybe we'll never know the "truth". Which sucks. I'm not saying they or anyone else is "In the wrong" and never have. I just would like to know what happened from their point of view. Of course that might effect my purchasing the game so.. Yeah. Guess them saying nothing at least raises those chances to "After I see it streamed first".

1 hour ago, Vanamonde said:

You have not confessed to any crimes. Should we therefore conclude that you have committed crimes? After all, why wouldn't you say so if you hadn't? 

Personal sentiment. Not speaking as a moderator. 

I know it's a logical fallacy. I'm not stupid. They're just a big publishing company with an agenda. But thanks for that anyway I guess.

[James M]

22 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

 

 

HA my uncle told me that when I was in middle school.

[KerikBalm]

6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

You have not confessed to any crimes. Should we therefore conclude that you have committed crimes? After all, why wouldn't you say so if you hadn't? 

Personal sentiment. Not speaking as a moderator. 

Well, I don't think thats a very good analogy. Here the options are confess and be considered guilty, or stay quiete and be considered guilty.

I think the case is actually: you have been accused of a crime, your choices are to present a defense, or remain quiet (take the 5th in the US). Taking the 5th is largely seen as suspicious.

6 hours ago, RobertaME said:

Ahhh... the age-old cry of the bully and the tyrant... "They wouldn't have run if they were innocent!"... and "Of course they're guilty! They wouldn't testify, so they must be hiding something!"

Tyrant? these are customers. When a cop wants to search your property, and then says if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, that is wrong. However, when the cop has probable cause (in the US and most jurisdictions), the cop can conduct the search without consent.

There are a number of factors that seem suspicious, and accusations have been made. I'd say that gives the customers probable cause to demand an explanation, or refuse to buy the game.

6 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

That is downright inaccurate. There are dozens of reasons to keep something PRIVATE (not SECRET) that have nothing to do with those involved being horrible people who only want to scam you out of your money so they can be horrible to others more often.

There are a lot of reasons to keep something private/secret withhold information. However, they did issue a public statement, before the story broke. So can you really blame us when we look at the available evidence, and consider which scenario seems more plausible?

This isn't a court of law requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all that is required is a preponderance of hte evidence (ie, for the customer to think one scenario is more likely than another).

I think their PR is making a mistake here.

[Superfluous J]

40 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

However, they did issue a public statement, before the story broke. So can you really blame us when we look at the available evidence, and consider which scenario seems more plausible?

Can you blame them for not throwing chum in the water when surrounded by sharks?

Among the reasons they might not be able to tell you anything are that they are legally bound by a contract to not say anything. Another perfectly valid reason is it's none of our business.

[KerikBalm]

11 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Can you blame them for not throwing chum in the water when surrounded by sharks?

Well, that implies that they think there is nothing they can say that will make them look good.

It could be they are just cynical of the way public debate goes in the era of "cancel culture" and such...

Its plausible, but as I said, in the relevant setting, I think the standard is which explanation is judged as more plausible, not proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do have doubts that they've done anything wrong. However, I am not convinced that its more likely that they've done nothing wrong, and I'm seeing many signs that they may have.

11 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Among the reasons they might not be able to tell you anything are that they are legally bound by a contract to not say anything. Another perfectly valid reason is it's none of our business.

Except they have already said something, and something has been said about them, which would normally release them from the NDA. Now we don't know the specifics of their NDA, so again, its just trying to judge what is most likely.

[RobertaME]

5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Tyrant? these are customers. When a cop wants to search your property, and then says if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, that is wrong. However, when the cop has probable cause (in the US and most jurisdictions), the cop can conduct the search without consent.

There are a number of factors that seem suspicious, and accusations have been made. I'd say that gives the customers probable cause to demand an explanation, or refuse to buy the game.

There are a lot of reasons to keep something private/secret withhold information. However, they did issue a public statement, before the story broke. So can you really blame us when we look at the available evidence, and consider which scenario seems more plausible?

This isn't a court of law requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all that is required is a preponderance of hte evidence (ie, for the customer to think one scenario is more likely than another).

I think their PR is making a mistake here.

The statement I made was comparative. When you're doing something bullies and tyrants do, you might want to question your methods and motives. Taking silence as incriminating is being a bully. Yes, you have the right to believe anything you want about Take Two's silence on the issue, but when you try to use their silence as proof of nefarious intent, you're just as guilty as the jury that sends an innocent man to jail simply on the grounds that he refused to testify... which he has every right to do and would be an idiot if he testified.

You also have the freedom to try and convince others that you're right, but I and others have the freedom to counter your arguments with our own, that your "proof" of wrongdoing... i.e. Take Two's silence... is not proof of anything at all.

As far as I can tell, Take Two did nothing wrong. If they had, the former management of Star Theory would have taken Take Two to court for violations of their contract terms (canceling a contract without cause is almost universally a violation of contract terms, and neither party would have been stupid enough to agree to a contract without those protections) and half the development team wouldn't have jumped ship to work for a company that breaks contracts without cause. Would you? Would anyone? If they knew Take Two violated their contract terms with Star Theory, why would they ever believe Take Two would honor the terms of any employment contract? Even one of them, let alone over half of them.

You say "we look at the available evidence, and consider which scenario seems more plausible", but you have no evidence short of silence (which isn't evidence of anything other than silence) and offer no other facts; just conjecture. Let's look tat the actual facts:

1. Take Two owns and has full rights and control over the KSP IP.

2. Take Two contracted Star Theory to develop KSP 2 with a spring 2020 scheduled release date.

3. Star Theory was going to miss the release date they contracted to meet.

4. Star Theory tried to renegotiate the contract, including an extension on the release date.

5. Take Two refused the revised terms and canceled the existing contract.

6. Star Theory did not threaten to sue or file suit against Take Two for canceling the contract without cause.

7. Take Two offered all of Star Theory's development team jobs at the newly minted Intercept Games.

8. Almost half of Star Theory's team quit and moved to Intercept Games.

9. Star Theory closes its doors and lays off their entire staff.

10. Several more Star Theory former employees move to Take Two.

Bonus - The head of the development team comes HERE to say that Take Two aren't making them change anything about the game to maximize profits as alleged.

Given all that, it's hard to find where Take Two is the villain here.

I see a product I think is good... so good I pay the developer of the idea a mint to own it. It's now MINE and I can do what I like with it. That's called Intellectual Property Rights. I want to do something great with this property I bought, so I hire a contractor to make me a salable product that people will enjoy. (and thus spend a lot of money to get, recouping my investment in the property and making even more) I have every right to do this and it's neither scummy nor shady to expect to realize a profit for my good judgement in buying the property and contracting to make something out of it. My contractor agrees to certain terms, including WHEN the product will be ready for sale. A few months before its supposed to be ready, they tell me it's not going to be ready for sale on time and in fact they need another YEAR of being paid to make it... at MY expense. My first thought is These guys are just trying to soak as much money out of me as they can get... maybe they can't even do the job! They have now violated the terms of our contract, so I fire them. (as is my right to do so... says so right in the contract) I still want my product though, and I don't want to have to start over from scratch, (loosing all the money I spent on my now defunct contractor) so I offer the employees of my former contractor a job, doing exactly the same thing they were doing before, but now answerable to ME so I can make sure my product gets done. Again, I have every reason to be suspicious of their ability to get it done because they already missed one deadline, but I give them the benefit of the doubt and really blame their old bosses for mismanaging the whole thing. Of course I don't want to SAY that to anyone, because a) I can't prove any of it and b) it makes me look like an idiot for hiring them in the first place, so I keep my mouth shut and just trust in the product to be worth all this hassle in the end.

Is that what happened here? Maybe... maybe not. It's at least as probable as your opposing theory, but without the plot-holes. (i.e., if Take Two yanked the contract just to ruin Star Theory and poach their dev team, why didn't Star Theory sue them for breach of contract? Why did Star Theory just take it, roll over, and lay off their entire workforce if they did nothing wrong?)

Yes, this isn't a court of law. People are free to interpret the events how they see fit and use their own judgement in deciding what to do about it... but so far I've only seen one narrative, and the known facts just don't fit it. So I offered a counter-argument that does fit the facts and point out the inconsistencies in the existing narrative. People are also free to listen to me and others like me and make their own decisions... but I just couldn't let the prevailing faulty narrative stand unchallenged.

YMMV.

[KerikBalm]

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

Yes, you have the right to believe anything you want about Take Two's silence on the issue, but when you try to use their silence as proof of nefarious intent,

I explicitly said it wasn't proof.

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

You say "we look at the available evidence, and consider which scenario seems more plausible", but you have no evidence short of silence (which isn't evidence of anything other than silence)

In other posts I have mentioned the factors that make me suspecious

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

Let's look tat the actual facts:

1. Take Two owns and has full rights and control over the KSP IP.

2. Take Two contracted Star Theory to develop KSP 2 with a spring 2020 scheduled release date.

Correct

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

3. Star Theory was going to miss the release date they contracted to meet.

We don't know this one way or the other. Covid-19 makes this likely, but there have also been suggestions of feature creep/expanding the scope.

Did T2 say this? where is the evidence for the assertion?

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

4. Star Theory tried to renegotiate the contract, including an extension on the release date.

There are reports of negiotiations, not sure about renegotiation. The reports are that the dispute was over the sale of ST, not release date extensions or other contract terms. I don't accept this statement as a fact

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

5. Take Two refused the revised terms and canceled the existing contract.

Its not clear if the existing contract was cancelled, or simply not renewed.

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

6. Star Theory did not threaten to sue or file suit against Take Two for canceling the contract without cause.

See above. Also such lawsuits cost a lot of money, and that's something ST didn't have. We also don't know the clauses of the contract. ST2 may simply have paid a fee to cancel a contract, if they did cancel. We don't know, this is not a fact.

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

7. Take Two offered all of Star Theory's development team jobs at the newly minted Intercept Games.

This seems to be true, based on the report that was fairly anti T2. The issue here is not about legality, but ethics. The report we have is that the offers were made before the contract was cancelled, andwhile negotiations were ongoing. Thus it seems like trying to poach a team/neuter a company to ensure that they can't deliver, rather than some benevolent act.

Furthermore, offering the dev team jobs to me implies that they were happy with the job that the dev team was doing. If they were happy with the work, but not the management of the work, the high level ST employees would be suspect, but they wanted Nate Simpson (director is righ tthere in his job title), which seems to imply that they were happy with the work ST was doing (seems relevant to points 3-5)

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

8. Almost half of Star Theory's team quit and moved to Intercept Games.

No, or at least this is highly misleading. All of STs team was informed that the IP was being pulled by T2, that ST would have no source of revenue, and that T2 was offering them jobs. Over half of ST's team was apparently so negative about working for T2, that they turned down the job and stayed with a company that was clearly sinking. This suggests that ST's team held a lot of animosity towards T2. We have no way of knowing what proportion of htose that went to T2 did so enthusiastically, or grudgingly because they had bills to pay/families to support/etc, and they couldn't afford to take a risk.

That over half took that risk implies T2 did something that really liquided them off.

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

9. Star Theory closes its doors and lays off their entire staff.

yep

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

10. Several more Star Theory former employees move to Take Two.

Is the timing well known? was it almost half jumped ship before ST was closing its doors, or by the time ST had closed its doors, almost half had left=

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

Bonus - The head of the development team comes HERE to say that Take Two aren't making them change anything about the game to maximize profits as alleged.

I don't even know where that allegation came from, and seems unrelated to the dealings with ST. It seems more like an attempt at making a strawman argument and deflecting attention, which I consider to be a dishonest debate tactic.

1 minute ago, RobertaME said:

Given all that, it's hard to find where Take Two is the villain here.

Well, now you can see some of my thoughts, and its not just: T2 is silent, they must be guilty.

 

Now, on the subject of silence... while it doesn't mean that they are guilty, I think it would be very smart for them to have something said in their defense. Even if a defendent testifying on the stand is uncommon in a court of law,  it is nearly unheard of for an attorney representing the defendent not to present a defense of his/her own, and to cross examine witnesses. One could just let the prosecution try to make its case, and be completely silent, and hope the jury sees the flaws in the arguments... but this is a dumb tactic.

T2 has never even said, as you said, that "Star Theory was going to miss the release date they contracted to meet."

I think it would be a smart move for them to at least say something. Even if it was simply: "It became clear that negotiations had broken down, and we were concerned for the well being of the dev team, so we reached out to them and offered them jobs" - It at least frames the job offer as a compasionate offer, instead of a matter of poaching a team when you couldn't get what you wanted in negotiations... 

Again, I'm not saying that I think this means that they are guilty, I just think it means that their PR is not being very smart

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Now, on the subject of silence... while it doesn't mean that they are guilty, I think it would be very smart for them to have something said in their defense.

There's some reasoning behind not talking: there's no way the gaming community would accept any defense from T2, "Big publishers are scummy" it's a dogma in the gaming community.

Making a statement before the Bloomberg article would just have called unwanted attention on the story, making it after would have doubled the media coverage with no benefit on T2 image.

Let's remember that the general public doesn't know Kerbal is a T2 Ip since 2017, most of them are convinced that T2 has somehow stolen the Ip from Star.Theory now.

 

15 hours ago, RobertaME said:

Just chill and let it go.

Life isn't some cartoon musical

[RobertaME]

7 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I explicitly said it wasn't proof.

Admitting it's not proof doesn't excuse using their silence as being incriminatory. There are a million possible reasons for not saying anything, including, but not limited to: NDAs, (which are NOT invalidated by one party or another making statements that don't violate them) contractual agreements, (the agreement with the moved dev team might include terms that Take Two may not say anything negative about their former employers) legal limitations, (many jurisdictions consider any company's negative public statements about another company, even a defunct one, to be slander if it harms their reputation... even if the statement is provably true) corporate policy, (it may just be against established company policy to make negative statements about contractors or former contractors as it paints the company in a bad light for hiring them) or even simply a choice they made in this instance. Drawing conclusions from a company's silence is simply conjecture.

Quote

In other posts I have mentioned the factors that make me suspecious

Not having read them, I can only go off of what I've seen here... which isn't much as far as I can see, other than conjecture regarding Take Two's silence on the matter. If you have other pertinent facts, please state them.

Quote

Correct

Glad we can agree on these points!

Quote

We don't know this one way or the other. Covid-19 makes this likely, but there have also been suggestions of feature creep/expanding the scope.

Did T2 say this? where is the evidence for the assertion?

Several sources, including the Bloomberg article, cite that Star Theory began trying to re-negotiate for a deadline extension as early as December of last year, well in advance of the Wutan virus outbreak. Trying to conflate Star Theory's inability to meet the deadline with the outbreak doesn't fit the timeline; Star Theory was already running behind schedule and Take Two had agreed to a six month extension (going from a spring 2020 release to a release by the end of Take Two's fiscal year in October) four months before lock-downs began. Add to that the fact that once the dev team switched to Intercept Games that they were granted another year extension, I think that firmly establishes that it is a fact that Star Theory was not going to meet their deadline... either the original one in spring or the revised one in fall.

Quote

There are reports of negiotiations, not sure about renegotiation. The reports are that the dispute was over the sale of ST, not release date extensions or other contract terms. I don't accept this statement as a fact

Its not clear if the existing contract was cancelled, or simply not renewed.

Again, multiple sources cite that Star Theory asked for, and was granted an extension in November, before any of this fell out. That would have had to be done through re-negotiation of the existing contract as the original contract was still in force at that time. Take Two canceled the contract in February, well in advance of the due date of the product. (pushed out to no sooner than April 1st or as late as March of 2021) and way in advance of the re-negotiated fall release. These are established facts. (ref: videogameschronicle.com Feb 20, 2020)

Quote

See above. Also such lawsuits cost a lot of money, and that's something ST didn't have. We also don't know the clauses of the contract. ST2 may simply have paid a fee to cancel a contract, if they did cancel. We don't know, this is not a fact.

They had enough money to pay all their employees two months severance and several more months of company-paid health insurance. If Take Two violated their contract, which I have established above was still in effect through the fall, for the cost of two months severance for ONE employee they could have retained a litigation attorney, who might very well have offered to sue for nothing but a percentage of the judgement and no up-front fee. Lawyers do this all the time and any lawyers offered to take this kind of case would jump at the chance; it's a cake-walk. If Star Theory had proof of contract violation, he'd be a fool not to take it... it's easy money and a guaranteed win! (juries LOVE 'sticking it' to corporations that break their contracts) As for Take Two getting out of the contract by some other means within the terms of the contract, exercising those terms typically requires a notice period and more often than not, have triggering full payment clauses that would have kept Star Theory in business for YEARS, not months.

Before becoming a stay-at-home mom, I was a professional statistical data analyst, so I saw a LOT of data on a huge variety of topics, from nuclear physics, to legal proceedings, to contract litigation. I learned enough about each study to speak on it intelligently because that was my job; to summarize enormous data sets into easily understandable analyses, so I know the topic well.

Quote

This seems to be true, based on the report that was fairly anti T2. The issue here is not about legality, but ethics. The report we have is that the offers were made before the contract was cancelled, andwhile negotiations were ongoing. Thus it seems like trying to poach a team/neuter a company to ensure that they can't deliver, rather than some benevolent act.

Furthermore, offering the dev team jobs to me implies that they were happy with the job that the dev team was doing. If they were happy with the work, but not the management of the work, the high level ST employees would be suspect, but they wanted Nate Simpson (director is righ tthere in his job title), which seems to imply that they were happy with the work ST was doing (seems relevant to points 3-5)

The contract was canceled and the team were offered new jobs at the same time, per the article I cited above. The new company didn't even have a name at that point in time and existed only as an offer. (companies that don't even have names yet can't "poach" anyone as they can't hire employees until they have a name to put on their paychecks; failing to file for the formation of a company before starting to pay employees will get you five years for tax fraud) Ethically, that is in keeping with established standards and practices within the industry and above reproach. Negotiations were no longer ongoing (terminated sometime in late January or early February) and Star Theory rejected the counter-proposal of acquiring them to resolve the contract dispute out of hand. (by acquiring Star Theory, the contract could be nullified as it would be Take Two contracting with itself, resolving the conflict)

Yes, Take Two was very happy with the work the dev team had done... so much so they happily extended the contract last November. That isn't in question. Nate Simpson was/is director of the development team... not the director of the company. That would be Bob Berry and Jonathan Mavor, founders and studio president (Berry) and chief technology officer. (Mavor)

The funny thing is, when Take Two announced last year that Star Theory was going to be the ones to develop KSP 2, I remember a lot of people moaning about Star Theory and all the claims that Star Theory was "stealing" the game from Squad, who "should" have been the ones contracted to make it, according to them at the time. Time changes everything, I guess...

Quote

No, or at least this is highly misleading. All of STs team was informed that the IP was being pulled by T2, that ST would have no source of revenue, and that T2 was offering them jobs. Over half of ST's team was apparently so negative about working for T2, that they turned down the job and stayed with a company that was clearly sinking. This suggests that ST's team held a lot of animosity towards T2. We have no way of knowing what proportion of htose that went to T2 did so enthusiastically, or grudgingly because they had bills to pay/families to support/etc, and they couldn't afford to take a risk.

That over half took that risk implies T2 did something that really liquided them off.

Talk about misleading...

Star Theory had a total of 30 staff at the time of all this happening. When negotiations fell through and Take Two pulled the contract, which they really had no choice in as Star Theory claimed they couldn't complete the contract without more time (and money, of course) and refused to accept the counter-offer that would have resolved the dispute. (i.e. Take Two acquiring Star Theory) They knew their actions would impact the employees and offered an olive branch to the dev team to move in-house to an as-yet-unnamed subsidiary to continue work. Twelve members of the dev team, including Nate Simpson, the head of the project, accepted the offer. That accounts for 40% of the entire company of Star Theory.

Their reasons are irrelevant. It was a gracious and magnanimous offer on Take Two's part.

When Star Theory shuttered its doors on March 4th, (a mere thirteen days after the others left) several more (number undisclosed, but no less than four) additional members of Star Theory accepted the offer and moved to Intercept Games. Their reasons for staying those two weeks are unknown. You attributing their actions as "animosity towards T2" is not only pure conjecture, it's taking on yourself the right to state their reasons for waiting to move. You have no more idea why they stayed those two extra week than I do. It's equally possible they were under contract to give two weeks notice and were forced to stay the extra time... but note I'm not saying that's the fact of the case... just a possible (and highly probable) reason.

Quote

yep

Is the timing well known? was it almost half jumped ship before ST was closing its doors, or by the time ST had closed its doors, almost half had left=

The timing is well known and published. Twelve left when Take Two pulled the contract and the rest two weeks later when Star Theory closed its doors. All this is public information.

Quote

I don't even know where that allegation came from, and seems unrelated to the dealings with ST. It seems more like an attempt at making a strawman argument and deflecting attention, which I consider to be a dishonest debate tactic.

That is the narrative; that Take Two did all this so they could move development in-house and load it up with micro-transactions. Every thread discussing it tries to make this claim, including posters in this one. It's not a straw-man as it is a part of the supposed reasoning of the detractors against Take Two; trying to demonize the company and provide a motive for their "nefarious tactics" where none exists. Calling my pointing out the flaws in that theory "a dishonest debate tactic" is straw-manning, though. Please don't.

Quote

Now, on the subject of silence... while it doesn't mean that they are guilty, I think it would be very smart for them to have something said in their defense. Even if a defendent testifying on the stand is uncommon in a court of law,  it is nearly unheard of for an attorney representing the defendent not to present a defense of his/her own, and to cross examine witnesses. One could just let the prosecution try to make its case, and be completely silent, and hope the jury sees the flaws in the arguments... but this is a dumb tactic.

T2 has never even said, as you said, that "Star Theory was going to miss the release date they contracted to meet."

As said above, there are a number of reasons they are not speaking on the subject. PR may be screaming for a statement to be made, but management, for whatever reason, has decided not to do so. Maybe they can't due to some law, contract, or policy. Drawing conclusions from that silence is conjecture and not helpful, productive, or even wise.

Quote

I think it would be a smart move for them to at least say something. Even if it was simply: "It became clear that negotiations had broken down, and we were concerned for the well being of the dev team, so we reached out to them and offered them jobs" - It at least frames the job offer as a compasionate offer, instead of a matter of poaching a team when you couldn't get what you wanted in negotiations... 

Again, I'm not saying that I think this means that they are guilty, I just think it means that their PR is not being very smart

Again, the PR department may be begging to respond, but are being told "No" for other reasons. You also may believe it would be a smart move for them to say something, but they disagree and think nothing good would come of it and quite a lot of bad might. If I know saying something wouldn't do me or someone else any good and potentially be used to make me look bad by people that already hate me for something I did three years ago, why would I say anything?

 

[Entropian]

Well, the KSP franchise is a drop in the bucket for T2 when it comes to revenue.  Perhaps PR is devoting its time to more important (revenue-wise) projects.

[James M]

8 hours ago, RobertaME said:

Take Two contracted Star Theory to develop KSP 2

 

8 hours ago, RobertaME said:

Take Two refused the revised terms and canceled the existing contract

 

8 hours ago, RobertaME said:

Take Two offered all of Star Theory's development team jobs at the newly minted Intercept Games

Do you see why this is weird? Why bother going through the trouble of firing the guys you're planning to hire? If they're so incapable of completing the project, why hire them again? This is the part of what happened I don't really think makes sense unless you think of it like this... Clearly the problem happened with the negotiations in the contract and the only reason T2 would have to fire them from that is if Star Theory demanded "too much" in the eyes of T2. So we can say all day that Star Theory may have been the bad guys for demanding more from T2 for this project, but who's to say T2 weren't undercutting them from the beginning? Both parties KNEW this game would be of high demand. The only difference here is that T2 also knew that this game was Star Theory's dream project. That'd be a perfect reason to cut them loose and then turn around and offer them jobs again under their own demands full well knowing they couldn't really refuse. Regardless of who was doing what or why, we don't actually know the details of the contract and we probably never will. At the end of the day, as a customer, my only job is to look at the details and determine if the product is worth buying based on the little information that leaks through the cracks. God forbid I be skeptical about the situation. 

Also don't bother calling me a bully again. You don't know me. So quit assuming you do. I take offense to that. 

[razark]

2 hours ago, James M said:

So we can say all day that Star Theory may have been the bad guys for demanding more from T2 for this project, but who's to say T2 weren't undercutting them from the beginning?

Or, we could say "We don't know enough to say either of these things, and correctly ascribing blame to either party is beyond our ability."

 

2 hours ago, James M said:

Why bother going through the trouble of firing the guys you're planning to hire? If they're so incapable of completing the project, why hire them again?

Well, you get the workers, but without the overhead of the management/owners.  Obviously, then, we can say "ST's management was the problem, and good riddance to the lot of 'em!", right?

[James M]

4 minutes ago, razark said:

Or, we could say "We don't know enough to say either of these things, and correctly ascribing blame to either party is beyond our ability."

 

Well, you get the workers, but without the overhead of the management/owners.  Obviously, then, we can say "ST's management was the problem, and good riddance to the lot of 'em!", right?

Well you could. But then you too would be making assumptions? Regardless interpretations are going to vary from person to person so in the end none of it really matters. We'll just have to wait and see what comes of KSP 2 in due time. 

2 hours ago, James M said:

Regardless of who was doing what or why, we don't actually know the details of the contract and we probably never will.

Also you should read the whole statement before you quote me.