[Frederik Schreiber]

Edited

[Mikko]

I had zero interest/faith in the project to begin with but I fully understand your reason to cancel ("put on hold") the project, assuming your version of events is correct.

Apparently some people's entire lives dependend on this project which is why they're reacting like crybabies.

[zwieback]

hehe i wish they would be naive enough to grant another license

[Jimmy]

fresch, on 25 October 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

The license doesn't allow us to release the game. That's why we decided to put it on hold. It has nothing to do with screenshots or media.
An IP license often doesn't state whether you can release a product or no - Its obvious that a license is granted with a release in mind.
But that was apparently not the case with Reloaded. The license allowed us to "Create" Reloaded. But not release it. Ever.

Either you guys are really stupid, or really nefarious. You got the license WAY back there. You didn't know back then you didn't have the rights to release it? Please, either stop lying or stop hiring lawyers off of TV commercials.

[Frederik Schreiber]

Captain Awesome, on 25 October 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

Either you guys are really stupid, or really nefarious. You got the license WAY back there. You didn't know back then you didn't have the rights to release it? Please, either stop lying or stop hiring lawyers off of TV commercials.

A license often doesn't state that you can or can't release a product. Its pretty self-explanatory that a license is given, because a release is wanted.
It doesn't say "You can release the game". And thats the keyword. What the license doesn't say. Thats the entire problem.

A car analogy: Father gives his car keys to his son and tells him that he can borrow his new Ferrari.
The son takes the car for a ride, and when he gets back home his father punishes him for driving the Ferrari.
He told his son he could borrow it - But never said he could drive it.

See the similarity? Usually its self-explanatory that by lending out a car, you allow someone to drive it.
But you didn't actually say the words "You can borrow it, AND drive it". Those things usually go hand in hand.
The same thing goes with licensing and releases.

[Jimmy]

Your lawyer(s) should have caught that. So, stop hiring lawyers off of TV commercials.

[Frederik Schreiber]

Captain Awesome, on 25 October 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

Your lawyer(s) should have caught that. So, stop hiring lawyers off of TV commercials.

Captain Awesome.
Its pretty simple. Gearbox owns the IP.
They have the power to terminate a project, as long as its based on their IP.

[Mr.Deviance]

fresch, on 25 October 2011 - 01:38 PM, said:

Captain Awesome.
Its pretty simple. Gearbox owns the IP.
They have the power to terminate a project, as long as its based on their IP.

Ok, now that you've made it clear as day, why are we still debating this subject?
I don't care if gearbox terminated your project because they didn't like it or if they simply didn't grant you a release license to begin with.
I think this subject should only be talked about once you have new info about releasing or canceling it.
If you will end up canceling it, I expect you to leak the latest build you have.
If you need somebody to take the guilt of leaking upon him, contact me and I will gladly leak it myself!
I don't fear lawyers or internet laws in general.

[Jimmy]

fresch, on 25 October 2011 - 01:38 PM, said:

Captain Awesome.
Its pretty simple. Gearbox owns the IP.
They have the power to terminate a project, as long as its based on their IP.

No shit, that's what I'm telling you you should have realised months ago.

[Mad Max RW]

fresch, did you ever even have your own lawyer or someone educated in this sort of thing look at the license before agreeing to be Gearbox's bitch? If you didn't, lesson learned. If you did, fire then sue your lawyer.

[Tetsuo]

That car analogy was pretty silly.. I mean what is the son supposed to do? Just assume he borrowed the keys? Just sit in the car and go vroom vroom and pretend to drive? Just jump around the house jingling the keys "making music"? I guess the father in that scenario was a lawyer... but still what a crappy thing to do.

[The Commander]

Thought I would just quote TX's posts about his thoughts on this so called project so they are not lost pages back.

TX, on 13 October 2011 - 06:19 AM, said:

Too bad nobody bothered to code any gameplay to go along with those models and textures!

TX, on 13 October 2011 - 06:57 AM, said:

I should re-post that whole disclosure of the state of this project.

That fresch guy actually had the nerve to try and tell me through PM that the build I had was months old based on the things I reported being broken... funny thing is, all the DN3DR-specific files in it were modified a few days beforehand. I essentially told him I thought he was full of it and was willing to disclose who I got it from in return for the newer build with all these problems fixed (since if he knew it was old by the problems I'd reported, that directly tells me that there's a newer one without such problems). You know, just to make sure the Duke community wasn't getting dicked around by someone yet again.

I never got a reply!

TX, on 13 October 2011 - 08:54 AM, said:

I "played" DNR last night and I think the "90% finished with a multiplayer beta" statement must have been a miscommunication. I won't be too harsh ... but the thing is more like 90% unfinished. They have a poster with fresch's face doctored onto a picture of a homoerotic looking male model lifting his shirt (or maybe he's really just too busy lifting weights all day to manage the project, which would explain the things I'm about to bring up in the rest of my post...) but they don't even have stuff like properly working weapons at this point.

There are quite a few Duke3D weapons and items implemented but they're all (barring maybe the pistol, shotgun, RPG and steroids) horribly bugged. I'm talking about bugged to the point of holding fire on the chaingun and having the sound just stop playing after a second or two, throwing a pipebomb, picking it back up, pressing the detonator and having the empty space where your pipebomb once was explode, etc. These are 5 minute implementations of basic weapon concepts and not much else. There's also a complete lack of any interactivity with anything yet, even simple stuff like shooting glass and having it break... pretty much the only possible interaction with the single unfinished map they have is leaving decals on walls from bullets, and those seemed not to work sometimes as well.

If they really flew to Gearbox to present this and Gearbox was somehow impressed, well, heh, I don't know what to tell you about Gearbox's standards. Maybe they were impressed by the models, sounds and textures--which are actually pretty decent, a lot of potential there--but not much else is up to snuff. The unfinished map has potential as well but whoever was in charge of actually programming this thing has clearly been doing absolutely nothing since it was announced.

I really wouldn't believe much of what fresch says.

[Ronin]

fresch, on 25 October 2011 - 01:38 PM, said:

Captain Awesome.
Its pretty simple. Gearbox owns the IP.
They have the power to terminate a project, as long as its based on their IP.

Shut up.... that is all.

[Person of Color]

I think Derek Smart bleached his skin and got his name changed.

[TerminX]

Descent, on 25 October 2011 - 11:07 PM, said:

I think Derek Smart bleached his skin and got his name changed.

Derek Smart, Derek Smart, DEREK SMART!

[Micky C]

Tetsuo, on 25 October 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

That car analogy was pretty silly.. I mean what is the son supposed to do? Just assume he borrowed the keys? Just sit in the car and go vroom vroom and pretend to drive? Just jump around the house jingling the keys "making music"? I guess the father in that scenario was a lawyer... but still what a crappy thing to do.

How about this analogy: A father tells his son that he can watch the TV, then he leaves the room. When he comes back, he finds his son watching the news, and punishes him. Why? He said he could watch the TV, he didn't say he could switch it on

[Person of Color]

TX, on 25 October 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:

Derek Smart, Derek Smart, DEREK SMART!

I had to rewatch that again after writing that post .

[Fox]

The Commander, on 25 October 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:

I really wouldn't believe much of what fresch says.

Absolutely.

[thelegend4ever]

The Commander, on 25 October 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:

I really wouldn't believe much of what fresch says.

But come on, he promised that the game was 90% complete as far as MP goes, and he promised it wouldn't follow the footsteps of DNF as far as not living up to the hype. Fuck it, I can't do this. Yeah, don't believe anything that guy/fraud says.

[Mr.Deviance]

fresch, on 25 October 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

Edited

It's exactly this type of behavior, that makes you constantly look like snake oil salesmen !
And you wonder why everybody around here trusts you as much as dirty toilet paper...

At this point, I would pretty much ban these assholes and forbid any debates about this subject on the forum and be done with them...
I for one am feeling that this shit is reaching the fucking epitome of retardness right about now...
The bullshit edits and censorship and never a straight answer from these guys is really starting to get old.
I swear to fucking God, this shit has gotten as low as the fucking love letters written by little boys and sent to girls in primary school...

[Fox]

thelegend4ever, on 26 October 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

he promised that the game was 90% complete as far as MP goes

As ridiculous as it may sound, I think he meant the project as a whole, not just the multiplayer.

Or am I wrong? Well, it makes no difference, based on what TX said the multiplayer BETA was nowhere close to 90% of completion.

[Graywolf]

Captain Awesome, on 25 October 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

No shit, that's what I'm telling you you should have realised months ago.

i'm with capitain awesome, I'm trying, but it just can't get in my head that a whole project of this magnitude started wihout everyone being sure that, someday at least, the game would be permited to be released. I mean, what's the point of a license to create something (gaming speaking) if you can't release? Its easier to just develop a game yourselves for yourselves to play, without everybody knowing. Lately I've read the D3DNR forums and apparentyl the lead guy travelled to the us and talked to GBX in person. I mean, how in the hell the most important thing of the so called "granted license", the RELEASE date/permission, go unmentioned on the meeting? After a whole year of development, suddenly the team found out that the project will never be permited to released. Really?

Unless the whole team knowed all that, never intended to actually release the game and just used the whole Dn3DR thing to get attention on the gaming media (it worked, the project start and cancelation was published on almost every gaming site) , so when they release their next project, everybody will say "they were the guys from the DN3DR team, I saw leaked shots and looked awsom bro, can't wait for pathfinder"..

Everything on this smeels bad, TBH.

[K100]

Small footages from DN3D Reloaded:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MUI5IIQH

[zwieback]

K100, on 30 October 2011 - 05:32 AM, said:

Small footages from DN3D Reloaded:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MUI5IIQH

thanks
looks like some early prototype work though

[Danukem]

Captain Awesome, on 25 October 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

No shit, that's what I'm telling you you should have realised months ago.

So what is your point, then? Are you saying that they never should have attempted the project because GBX owned the IP and had the power to stop them from releasing it?

I still don't think we are getting the full story. If they didn't have the right to release anything without permission from GBX, why would that be a deal breaker? GBX could have said to them, "Hey, we retain the right to stop you from releasing anything, but we like your progress and assuming that you finish it, we plan to let you release it." So what I'm wondering about now is whether GBX did not like what they saw, and if that was the real issue here.

[DI-MeisterM]

zwieback, on 30 October 2011 - 06:24 AM, said:

thanks
looks like some early prototype work though

Looks better than the final version of DNF for me, nice amount of detail!

[Mad Max RW]

DeeperThought, on 30 October 2011 - 08:08 AM, said:

I still don't think we are getting the full story. If they didn't have the right to release anything without permission from GBX, why would that be a deal breaker? GBX could have said to them, "Hey, we retain the right to stop you from releasing anything, but we like your progress and assuming that you finish it, we plan to let you release it." So what I'm wondering about now is whether GBX did not like what they saw, and if that was the real issue here.

There was no indication of that being the case at all. They simply didn't understand the license agreed upon. When fresch finally realized what he signed he had no choice but to give up. More than likely it was a language/stupidity barrier. Gearbox, knowing they weren't going to release mod tools with DNF, didn't want to look like complete assholes. And fresch, being an overly excited Danish fuck, signed away all his rights without reading the fine print. The real victims are all the amateurs on the dev team who can never include their work in a portfolio when trying to find real jobs.

[The Commander]

K100, on 30 October 2011 - 05:32 AM, said:

Small footages from DN3D Reloaded:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MUI5IIQH

Quote

The file you are trying to access is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later.

Link doesn't work, people should stop using megaSHIToad and use something better like mediafire.

[Jimmy]

DeeperThought, on 30 October 2011 - 08:08 AM, said:

So what is your point, then? Are you saying that they never should have attempted the project because GBX owned the IP and had the power to stop them from releasing it?

I still don't think we are getting the full story. If they didn't have the right to release anything without permission from GBX, why would that be a deal breaker? GBX could have said to them, "Hey, we retain the right to stop you from releasing anything, but we like your progress and assuming that you finish it, we plan to let you release it." So what I'm wondering about now is whether GBX did not like what they saw, and if that was the real issue here.

It's pretty simple. They quit the project because the license (that they have had from the time they announced the project and according to their given-version of events has always been the same) did not say they could release it. My point was that they never should have signed onto the contract if there was an issue with it. My point is that they hired shitty lawyers and/or are really stupid.

[Stabs]

It was probably turning into some crap user mod without a director or lack therof someone with the balls to lay down the law in terms of quality (the deus ex nameless mod comes to mind here), and GBX saw a mish mash of crap without any direction,

i could be wrong seeing as randy can't see much further than his head which has assimilated with his anal passage.