The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Too Human might be done for, Epic Countersuit

124

Posts

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Silicon Knights DID NOT create a new engine, they just modified UE3 until it (supposedly) became unrecognisable. What they want to do is claim it as their own engine (since it's supposedly unrecognisable) and this would manage to bypass the license with Epic. Personally, I think it's bullshit. No matter how much they modify it, it's still heavily based on Unreal Engine 3 technology. It's not as if modifying engines is new or anything, every developer does it. Hell, it still looks like a UE3 game.

    If true (I have no clue, I don't have the engine to look at) then SK is very much in the wrong.

    And anyone who thinks otherwise should read this well thought out analogy.

    Lets say you decide to rent a house from someone. So what you do is brick by brick, pipe by pipe, board by board replace everything in the house with new bricks/pipes/boards/ext. Does that mean when it's time to move out you can get a house mover and take the whole damned thing with you? No, because it's still their house.

    But what SK is saying is if you are paying for a house, you shouldn't need to go in and replace every single brick and board and door and window to make the house livable, or if you do maybe the houseowners should front some of the bill since you did have to rebuild their house.

    Analogies are fun.

    Still doesn't mean it's SKs house though. And arguably there are plenty of other people that do just fine in Epic Megahomes.

    Isn't that saying that both are right and both should win their cases in court? SK is supposedly sueing to recoup expenses from a faulty engine/house. And Epic is sueing because SK wants to keep the engine/house.

    Burtletoy on
  • DroolDrool Science! AustinRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Epic is also saying that they never said the house would be perfect, and they gave them a discount because of the flaws in the house.

    But the truth is at least a large portion of one or both of these lawsuits is probably bullshit.

    Drool on
  • JeakJeak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    slacktron wrote: »
    So speaking to opinion, I think Jaek said it best regarding Too Human:
    Jeak wrote: »
    the E3 trailer looked more like a piece of coursework than a game worth giving a damn about.

    Game Development 501 final project:
    Make a machinima presentation of the first battle of Beowulf, with the following changes:
    --Grendel is a cybernetic ape
    --Hrothgar's Hall is a futuristic strip club
    --Beowulf uses guns and an electric sword
    Show all work.
    You missed " --Animation done by an Autistic Monkey". I think it's probably true that you can't judge a game by it's preview material, equally though it's probably true that you can judge a studio by what it chooses to put out as preview material.

    I hope the game turns out good but the trailer "smoulders with generic rage" and doesn't really instil with me the feeling that SK are very capable. I'll put money on what someone else said earlier - they're just whiners.

    Jeak on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Once again people are basing their opinions on this on their loving Epic and hating Dyack.

    For some reason I don't think that's going to happen when a judge gets to this.

    Personally, I hope Epic wins because I disagree with Silicon Knights' claims. Dennis Dyack and his lawyer may be dicks but that's not what I'm basing my opinion around.

    And that's an opinion I can respect and possibly agree with.

    It's the posts that don't talk about the case at all but just jab at Too Human's E3 trailer that are annoying me. Seriously, this thread isn't about Too Human. It's about Epic's countersuit towards SK and SK's suit towards Epic. Too Human should only be involved in the discussion in the lightest of terms.
    Just because the conversation is not going in the specific direction that you think it should go, doesn't mean we can't take it in that direction. Unless a mod says so.

    Azio on
  • BrueBrue Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    KiTA wrote: »
    epic may still be in the wrong, i mean a countersuit is pretty common practice now for situations like this no? The fact of the matter is right now the public only knows two things, jack and shit.

    Anyone who didn't expect Epic to think up SOME reason to countersue is crazy. They pretty much HAVE to in this day and age of Internet media. To not countersue is admitting fault.

    That having been said, the a major point of SK's suit is that the UE3 engine sucked so hard that they basically had to rewrite most of it, so they should be allowed to use their re-written engine without Epic's say in the matter.

    Which I agree with. If they licensed something that was unusable, and edited it to make it usable, to the point that almost nothing of the original engine is left, they shouldn't be forced to give Epic anything.

    So then if I just copy a little bit of their engine I shouldn't have to pay anything is what your saying?

    Its a pretty big mistake to say fuck you guys it was shit I am just going to use a little bit of your engine with this totally awesome NEW engine we built (which curiously relies on using portions of the UE3 engine). If that portion of the engine wasn't important, why wouldn't they have just removed it completely. We obviously don't have all the facts, my gut feeling is that the disclaimer sent along with the engine will protect Epic from the 1 billion that SK is seeking.

    If an engine is unusable its managements responsibility to figure that out in a reasonable time, I understand this doesn't happen instantaneously, yet at some point enough should be enough. Why didn't they scrap it earlier? Your telling me it takes over a year to figure out you cannot manipulate your engine?

    On another note. I understand that Too Human was going to gross 1 billion dollars in sales if it hadn't been torpeoed by Epic who purposefully didn't help, to boost their own sales. Why not sue for the amount of money wasted on development (80 mill to 100 mill), are they essentially saying we need the 1 billion because this game cannot be a success now?

    Brue on
  • slacktronslacktron Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Brue wrote: »
    On another note. I understand that Too Human was going to gross 1 billion dollars in sales if it hadn't been torpeoed by Epic who purposefully didn't help, to boost their own sales. Why not sue for the amount of money wasted on development (80 mill to 100 mill), are they essentially saying we need the 1 billion because this game cannot be a success now?

    I joked about this in the previous lawsuit thread, but when I read the claim, their logic comes down to this:

    1. They want Epic to disgorge (God, I love that word) all profits from Gears of War, because
    2. They built GoW on the profits of sales of the U3 game engine, which
    3. doesn't work, so all buyers of the U3 engine were really investors in Gears of War, and thus
    4. are entitled to share in GoW's profits.

    This argument is obviously weak and, as pointed out by other posters, is probably designed more as a scare tactic than anything else.

    slacktron on
    slacktron_zombie_fighter_sig.jpg
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Once again people are basing their opinions on this on their loving Epic and hating Dyack.

    For some reason I don't think that's going to happen when a judge gets to this.

    Personally, I hope Epic wins because I disagree with Silicon Knights' claims. Dennis Dyack and his lawyer may be dicks but that's not what I'm basing my opinion around.

    And that's an opinion I can respect and possibly agree with.

    It's the posts that don't talk about the case at all but just jab at Too Human's E3 trailer that are annoying me. Seriously, this thread isn't about Too Human. It's about Epic's countersuit towards SK and SK's suit towards Epic. Too Human should only be involved in the discussion in the lightest of terms.
    Just because the conversation is not going in the specific direction that you think it should go, doesn't mean we can't take it in that direction. Unless a mod says so.

    Oh, I agree. But beware that people are going to call you out on taking the conversation into a rather silly fanboyish direction. That's part of the flow of conversation too.

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • KiTAKiTA Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Silicon Knights DID NOT create a new engine, they just modified UE3 until it (supposedly) became unrecognisable. What they want to do is claim it as their own engine (since it's supposedly unrecognisable) and this would manage to bypass the license with Epic. Personally, I think it's bullshit. No matter how much they modify it, it's still heavily based on Unreal Engine 3 technology. It's not as if modifying engines is new or anything, every developer does it. Hell, it still looks like a UE3 game.

    If true (I have no clue, I don't have the engine to look at) then SK is very much in the wrong.

    And anyone who thinks otherwise should read this well thought out analogy.

    Lets say you decide to rent a house from someone. So what you do is brick by brick, pipe by pipe, board by board replace everything in the house with new bricks/pipes/boards/ext. Does that mean when it's time to move out you can get a house mover and take the whole damned thing with you? No, because it's still their house.

    No, it's more like, Someone gives me a recipe for a pie for a bake off. I try to make the pie, and my stove explodes. I ask them for the help they agreed to give me when I bought the recipe from them, and they tell me "Whatever fucker, maybe next month". So I drudge on, trying to make it work.

    Meanwhile, I notice them going to the big potluck at work, and showing off their delicious, yummy pies. Now, right before the potluck, the pie maker sent me an important update to the recipe -- "Make sure to add 3 pounds of chilli." Me, trusting the pie maker, along with several other people who bought the recipie, add the chilli, which makes the resulting pie even MORE disgusting than before.

    The potluck arrives, everyone loves the pie maker's pies, and the pie maker is given an award for best dessert. Meanwhile, I'm made a laughing stock for bringing in an chilli flavored charcoal brick.

    So I say fuckit, and me, not being an idiot, start to replace their instructions like "make sure to stir the cement properly" with "add eggs". After working on it for weeks, I have my own pie recipe that I'm quite proud of. Around that time I get sick and tired of them going "Oh, mmm, god our pie's good. Oh hey, you should try some. Oh, um, still figuring out that recipe eh? Well, let me get back to you next week", so I tell them to fuck off.

    Having realized I just spent a whole shitload of money on a worthless pie recipe, I take them to court for my money back, and more, just cause they're dicks who made money using the money I gave them when they scammed me.

    Then the original pie maker demands I give up my pie recipe because I stopped using their cement laden deathpie recipe, and cooked my own. "They're both pie recipes," the scam artist exclaims, "So obviously they used ours as a base, so we own it."

    Nevermind that the only thing I'm still using from the original recipe is "take pan out of cupboard."

    KiTA on
  • HoukHouk Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    while your metaphor is incredibly complex and involves food, which makes it better than most metaphors, it doesn't really apply to the basic copyright issue at hand. they're not simply using directions that epic gave them, they're (ostensibly) using actual concepts/lines of code they got directly from the UE3 engine. and if that's the case, they know epic money. end of story. the only case they have is that epic failed to provide the necessary support to make it function better, which led to a faulty product. but if SK plans on using their new engine, which has apparently been built on the back of the unreal engine, they would almost certainly owe epic payment for that.

    Houk on
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Except that Epic is claiming that SK bought one of their legendary patent pie tins and not a recipe for pie at all?

    Mr_Rose on
    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I dunno, I see the two suits as separate things. Epic can be right that SK can't use the current engine while getting out of the listening agreement. SK can be right that Epic didn't supply the support that they were contractually obliged to supply. It's not an either or situation. Both companies can be right, and depending on the details, both of them can be wrong on this.

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • KiTAKiTA Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Houk wrote: »
    while your metaphor is incredibly complex and involves food, which makes it better than most metaphors, it doesn't really apply to the basic copyright issue at hand. they're not simply using directions that epic gave them, they're (ostensibly) using actual concepts/lines of code they got directly from the UE3 engine. and if that's the case, they know epic money. end of story. the only case they have is that epic failed to provide the necessary support to make it function better, which led to a faulty product. but if SK plans on using their new engine, which has apparently been built on the back of the unreal engine, they would almost certainly owe epic payment for that.

    There's little difference between directions and code. At least, a shrewd lawyer could make the case for that. All code is, ultimately, is directions for a computer to do things after all.

    KiTA on
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    These are some of the worst analogies I have ever read.


    Pie tins? Epic Megahomes?

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • M0rphM0rph Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    From what I've gathered from everything SK has said on the matter, it seems as if the UE3 code is just a placeholder while they hammer out their own solution. As the more they implement their own code the more they cut down on the usage of UE3 code, to the point where they believe when they're done there will be no UE3 code left after completion. If at the end there truely is no Epic code, and the code itself is completely different as is the implementation then the SK engine should be considered completely different. This doesn't, however, let SK off the hook for potentially using the concepts and ideas of UE3 to guide them on the development of their own engine.

    M0rph on
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ok, here's a better less (more) mind numbing analogy.

    SK's suit against Epic is like Epic sold SK a book with the promise that it would show up on a certain date. But it showed up a month later, was missing chapters and was on fire.

    Epic's suit against SK is like SK decided to take the first chapter of that book and then write the rest of the book based off of that. Then they decided they wanted to get the book published.

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • MerovingiMerovingi regular
    edited August 2007
    What a mess.

    After the bullshit Dyack pulled on 1up Yours, and his general attitude of the whole E3 preview debacle, I hope he loses this lawsuit. I know that's harsh but that's how I really feel.. I don't know why though. Probably because he came off as this major, uber asshole and he's dug him, and his company, in a hole. Now he's trying to pull some bullshit to pull himself out.

    What a dick.

    Merovingi on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Bioshock started on the UE3 but, according to the developers, have rebuilt it to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Should Epic be able to sue them for that?

    I don't know, just wondering what others think.

    If not than they shouldn't be able to sue SK unless SK tries to sell their rebuilt UE3 engine to other parties.

    Accualt on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Didn't SK pay to use the UE3 anyway? So if their using a heavily rewritten engine, what's the problem?

    SK is basically suing for "damage", since they claim they had to waste money (time = money) making the thing work without help from Epic.

    A counter-suit, as has been said many times, is par for the course in these things. There's ALWAYS a counter-suit.

    shryke on
  • slacktronslacktron Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Accualt wrote: »
    Bioshock started on the UE3 but, according to the developers, have rebuilt it to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Should Epic be able to sue them for that?

    Irrational Games isn't selling their Bioshock engine to Sega. That's the issue Epic is taking with Silicon Knights.

    slacktron on
    slacktron_zombie_fighter_sig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Accualt wrote: »
    Bioshock started on the UE3 but, according to the developers, have rebuilt it to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Should Epic be able to sue them for that?

    I don't know, just wondering what others think.

    If not than they shouldn't be able to sue SK unless SK tries to sell their rebuilt UE3 engine to other parties.

    Irrational has paid Epic for the UE3 engine and are only using it in Irrational games.

    Couscous on
  • M0rphM0rph Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    slacktron wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    Bioshock started on the UE3 but, according to the developers, have rebuilt it to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Should Epic be able to sue them for that?

    Irrational Games isn't selling their Bioshock engine to Sega. That's the issue Epic is taking with Silicon Knights.

    I thought Silicon Knights was developing the new game along side Sega and weren't actually selling them the engine.

    M0rph on
  • DroolDrool Science! AustinRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    M0rph wrote: »
    slacktron wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    Bioshock started on the UE3 but, according to the developers, have rebuilt it to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Should Epic be able to sue them for that?

    Irrational Games isn't selling their Bioshock engine to Sega. That's the issue Epic is taking with Silicon Knights.

    I thought Silicon Knights was developing the new game along side Sega and weren't actually selling them the engine.

    But they are using their engine, basically Epic's engine in a way they didn't pay to use it. I guess that's the idea anyway. Out of curiosity I just went and watched the E307 trailer for Too Human. That's what this is about? The animation was terrible, and robo grendel wasn't particularly menacing. Did we really need anouther fight scene where a guy runs up a wall and flips over the bad guy slicing him with his sword? And the slowmo dualies shooting the red flying thingies looked pretty horrible.

    Drool on
  • AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drool wrote: »
    M0rph wrote: »
    slacktron wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    Bioshock started on the UE3 but, according to the developers, have rebuilt it to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Should Epic be able to sue them for that?

    Irrational Games isn't selling their Bioshock engine to Sega. That's the issue Epic is taking with Silicon Knights.

    I thought Silicon Knights was developing the new game along side Sega and weren't actually selling them the engine.

    But they are using their engine, basically Epic's engine in a way they didn't pay to use it. I guess that's the idea anyway. Out of curiosity I just went and watched the E307 trailer for Too Human. That's what this is about? The animation was terrible, and robo grendel wasn't particularly menacing. Did we really need anouther fight scene where a guy runs up a wall and flips over the bad guy slicing him with his sword? And the slowmo dualies shooting the red flying thingies looked pretty horrible.

    I wonder if they would be allowed to use it on the new game they are working on if they payed Epic a new license fee for UE3. I think they could.
    And that trailer was terrible. The stuff from the previous E3 actually looked pretty damn cool considering the game was suppose to be a year from release. The FPS was complete garbage and the demo repeatedly crashed on journalists, though.

    Accualt on
  • M0rphM0rph Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Accualt wrote: »
    Drool wrote: »
    M0rph wrote: »
    slacktron wrote: »
    Accualt wrote: »
    Bioshock started on the UE3 but, according to the developers, have rebuilt it to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Should Epic be able to sue them for that?

    Irrational Games isn't selling their Bioshock engine to Sega. That's the issue Epic is taking with Silicon Knights.

    I thought Silicon Knights was developing the new game along side Sega and weren't actually selling them the engine.

    But they are using their engine, basically Epic's engine in a way they didn't pay to use it. I guess that's the idea anyway. Out of curiosity I just went and watched the E307 trailer for Too Human. That's what this is about? The animation was terrible, and robo grendel wasn't particularly menacing. Did we really need anouther fight scene where a guy runs up a wall and flips over the bad guy slicing him with his sword? And the slowmo dualies shooting the red flying thingies looked pretty horrible.

    I wonder if they would be allowed to use it on the new game they are working on if they payed Epic a new license fee for UE3. I think they could.
    And that trailer was terrible. The stuff from the previous E3 actually looked pretty damn cool considering the game was suppose to be a year from release. The FPS was complete garbage and the demo repeatedly crashed on journalists, though.

    Doesn't the license agreement say that SK would use the UE3 for a number of their future games? Wouldn't that also include a game that they are developing with the help of Sega?

    M0rph on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Doesn't the license agreement say that SK would use the UE3 for a number of their future games? Wouldn't that also include a game that they are developing with the help of Sega?
    - Silicon Knights has used UT3 technology with a new Sega partnership without further license
    They were probably only licensed to produce games using the UE3 engine under a particular partnership. Right now, SK is claiming the engine is a new engine instead of a modified form of the UE3 engine.

    Couscous on
  • M0rphM0rph Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Doesn't the license agreement say that SK would use the UE3 for a number of their future games? Wouldn't that also include a game that they are developing with the help of Sega?
    - Silicon Knights has used UT3 technology with a new Sega partnership without further license
    They were probably only licensed to produce games using the UE3 engine under a particular partnership. Right now, SK is claiming the engine is a new engine instead of a modified form of the UE3 engine.

    Well now I can see why Epic would be a little pissed about that. But if SK follows through and takes out all Epic code and finishes the implementation of whatever is left, does that arguement still hold? Either way I find the whole thing mildly entertaining; kinda like two third graders getting into a spazzy slap fight.

    M0rph on
  • NovusNovus regular
    edited August 2007
    The two big questions here are whether or not Epic was in fact contractually obligated to provide more support than they did (which was apparently none) and whether or not SK's "new" engine contains any UE3 copyrighted tech.

    Epic may have been assholes about the whole thing (for the sake of argument; I don't know if they were) but if it wasn't in the contract it really doesn't matter. If SK has any UE3 material in their engine that they are sharing Epic could very well take them to the cleaners.

    It boils down to what’s in print; at the moment we simply don’t have the necessary facts.

    Novus on
    I'm not smart, but thanks to the internet I can pretend.
    wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
  • Dublo7Dublo7 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    So Silicon Knights wanted Epic to say, "Check out the Unreal 3 Engine, works especially well with games like TOO HUMAN!"?

    Dublo7 on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator, Administrator admin
    edited August 2007
    Silicon Knights DID NOT create a new engine, they just modified UE3 until it (supposedly) became unrecognisable. What they want to do is claim it as their own engine (since it's supposedly unrecognisable) and this would manage to bypass the license with Epic. Personally, I think it's bullshit. No matter how much they modify it, it's still heavily based on Unreal Engine 3 technology. It's not as if modifying engines is new or anything, every developer does it. Hell, it still looks like a UE3 game.

    I'm amazed SK's lawyers didn't bitchslap whoever thought that was a good idea. Their engine is derived from UE3. Unless their license agreement allows derivate works, they're fucked.

    Echo on
  • RichardTauberRichardTauber Kvlt Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Houk wrote: »
    Well, it's human to fail.

    A little too human, m i right?

    Huh?
    because this subject deals with a game called, ironically, Too Human, ya see?

    Come again?

    RichardTauber on
  • varlandvarland Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Houk wrote: »
    Well, it's human to fail.

    A little too human, m i right?

    Huh?
    because this subject deals with a game called, ironically, Too Human, ya see?

    Come again?
    It was funny, damn you!

    varland on
  • RichardTauberRichardTauber Kvlt Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    varland wrote: »
    Houk wrote: »
    Well, it's human to fail.

    A little too human, m i right?

    Huh?
    because this subject deals with a game called, ironically, Too Human, ya see?

    Come again?
    It was funny, damn you!

    ;-)

    RichardTauber on
  • ApplebeeApplebee Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Too human will be out this winter along with duke nukem forever on the Phantom Gaming System 2. (Which has recently acquired $12 million in funding from private investment groups).

    Applebee on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    tl;dr

    Is this someting that could put SK out of business, seeing as Too Human is like the only game they're working on?

    I guess what I'm really asking is, is there a chance for ED2?

    UnbreakableVow on
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    tl;dr

    Is this someting that could put SK out of business, seeing as Too Human is like the only game they're working on?

    I guess what I'm really asking is, is there a chance for ED2?

    I think Nintendo as the publisher probably own the IP to ED. Can't be sure though but you can probably look it up somewhere.

    Rook on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Just looked it up, and I guess the rights were originally held by Nintendo, but SK now owns the rights.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Dublo7Dublo7 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    What's ED2?

    edit - Oh, Eternal Darkness.

    Dublo7 on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    tl;dr

    Is this someting that could put SK out of business, seeing as Too Human is like the only game they're working on?

    I guess what I'm really asking is, is there a chance for ED2?

    No, they have their project with Sega, which nobody has even seen a tiniest bit of info other than they're making it with Sega.

    FyreWulff on
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Well, I'd be slightly more worried about the $80-100 million they've apparently stuck into Too Human wiping themselves out first, regardless of whether it's released or not.

    Rook on
  • slacktronslacktron Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    Well, I'd be slightly more worried about the $80-100 million they've apparently stuck into Too Human wiping themselves out first, regardless of whether it's released or not.

    I agree. So much so that I decided to crunch some numbers to see what kind of hole they are in:

    Gears of War is currently the best selling game on the 360, at 3.7 million copies. Assuming the developer gets 20% of the royalties (at least, that's what Wiki says), Too Human would have to sell 8.3 million copies just to break even.

    I understand they are planning on a trilogy, but needing three Gears of War-level hits just to stay afloat is not a tenable position. Given that Silicon Knights have moved development from Playstation to Gamecube to 360, if they fail I don't think you can put the blame solely at the feet of Epic's tech support.

    slacktron on
    slacktron_zombie_fighter_sig.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.