The truth about Duke Reloaded
#1 Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:45 PM
http://meny-graphics.dk/?p=1218
Apparently several people have tried to post this on the Gearbox forums, and the banhammer there is flying fast and furious, with people like Altered Reality and fuegerstef being banned for mentioning it, and their posts immediately deleted. WTF Gearbox?
EDIT: The link appears to be down. In the fight against censorship, I saved the info in this post: http://forums.duke4....post__p__120048
This post has been edited by EliasCamber: 12 February 2012 - 10:02 PM
#2 Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:52 PM
EliasCamber, on 12 February 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:
I was being banned for finally mentioning in public that AdamF of Gearbox called me a liar while I was only stating that GEarbox might not have decided to put Reloaded on hold, but that they were responsible for Interceptor's decision. The deleted thread was started by someone else not related to DN3DR at all, and that person didn't get banned.
I knew it was coming and even hit the "reload" button on the browser to finally see the ban page.
This post has been edited by fuegerstef: 12 February 2012 - 04:54 PM
#4 Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:54 PM
#5 Posted 12 February 2012 - 04:57 PM
#6 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:03 PM
But in all honesty, if you read these parts:
Interceptor: "Answer me honestly – Were you ever going to plan on letting us release or share media from Reloaded?"
Gearbox: "We can’t give you an answer to that." !!!!!!!!!
and then
Gearbox: "Ofcourse you can keep working on it, if you want to. But we can’t tell you if we will allow the game to be released."
this is a slap in the face of the artists who spent a whole lot of work on it.
This post has been edited by fuegerstef: 12 February 2012 - 05:03 PM
#7 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:07 PM
Wolfe, on 12 February 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:
I'm with Wolfe on this one.
Unless I hear from Gearbox I take the flamboyant web page (like he needs a lot) from fresh as malice against Gearbox. All Gearbox wanted is for fresh to stop with his hype. But he can't stop.
#8 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:08 PM
#9 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:13 PM
Sure, fresch has his faults, but I think DNR would still have been a great game. If you read the next-to-last blog post, Allen Blum really loved the build he was shown, and he knows Duke better than anyone.
This decision by GBX doesn't even make much business sense: DNR, if released after the last DNF DLC, would be a great way of sustaining interest in Duke Nukem, especially since GBX has apparently made the decision never to release mod tools. So I can completely understand GBX requiring Interceptor to postpone DNR's release until they had finished making content for DNF. But to basically say it can never be released? That's just messed up.
#10 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:14 PM
Wolfe, on 12 February 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:
Yes. I think a lot people learned a lot lessons.
#11 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:16 PM
Oh, and Gearbox is full of shit.
This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 12 February 2012 - 05:20 PM
#12 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:42 PM
Maybe this is just my vengeful nature, but since you guys got so much press from the game community for DNR maybe you should submit this piece of news the the press and get it out there, that way you can have the last laugh.
This post has been edited by ReaperMan: 12 February 2012 - 05:45 PM
#13 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:46 PM
#14 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:49 PM
#15 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:50 PM
Wolfe, on 12 February 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:
Just kidding a bit ... but shouldn't have Gearbox hoped that DNF was canned too ?
#16 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:55 PM
Wolfe, on 12 February 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:
Yeah, that could be a possibility, but we don't really know for sure. Both sides are going to be biased.
#18 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:56 PM
Wolfe, on 12 February 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:
BugsBunny, on 12 February 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:
I can tell you why gearbox sure as hell deserves part of the blame. The don't care about the Duke IP, period.
#19 Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:58 PM
I mean, the assets were really good for free work.
Just my opinion, because the modellers and texturers only hoped to create stuff for an IP they liked and to get their work out there ... some for their portfolios, others for the love for Duke and most for both reasons.
This post has been edited by fuegerstef: 12 February 2012 - 06:00 PM
#20 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:00 PM
Micky C, on 12 February 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:
Yeah, you can blame the for not giving a shit about the Duke IP, I'd agree on that. However, you can't blame them for the whole Reloaded Debacle, because them not giving a shit is pretty much a given. I mean just look at the official DNF delay they did. Holy shit, what a way to totally squeeze another case of blue balls into your consumers... In that vein, Interceptor should have been very much aware that GBX probably wouldn't give a shit about them, or their project.
#21 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:07 PM
This post has been edited by ReaperMan: 12 February 2012 - 06:07 PM
#22 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:08 PM
Wolfe, on 12 February 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:
To be fair again: Most of the people involved didn't know too much about Gearbox' behaviour. The "license" (or whatever you would call that) was given a few months before DNF was released. So most of the people didn't have anything to do with Gearbox before. And nobody knew what DNF would become in the end and how GBX/2K handel DNF.
#23 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:21 PM
fuegerstef, on 12 February 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:
I mean, the assets were really good for free work.
Just my opinion, because the modellers and texturers only hoped to create stuff for an IP they liked and to get their work out there ... some for their portfolios, others for the love for Duke and most for both reasons.
Unlike you I didn't have access to the material. All I gathered was stuff produced by Interceptor for ehmm, shall we say hype purposes. Should this guy ever produce something playable I'll shut up. Until then, we have yet one more web page making sweeping statements, most likely taken out of context, to shed light on the truth? It makes fresh shine! Too simple.
IMO fresh got a license to make a game with the trademark Duke Nukem. He himself wrote somewhere that this license is still in effect. Now considering the shit fresh produced so far ( as per TX) do you blame Gearbox having second thoughts about letting them release anything without it being tested first? Or making a one hundred percent commitment to an unknown developer? They would be asinine to do so. Meanwhile fresh refused to tone down his hype, but never stated anywhere that he is actually in preach of contract by doing so. Nah, not pretty boy fresh, he is so cool. Fuck him.
Just in case: I am in no way a fan of Gearbox. I did not wait to get banned, I simply left.
#24 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:28 PM
#25 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:31 PM
Hank, on 12 February 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:
As far as I understand the article (I might be wrong, English is not my first language) it was basically Gearbox who made him write it:
"The following day we wanted to post the news on our website. Gearbox Software wanted to read proof the message, to make sure it didn’t send a bad signal.
I got a message by email, which I was going to post on our website:"
And then the "official statement" follows.
To me it sounds like Gearbox wrote that statement or at least parts of it. Or am I misunderstaning it?
PS: Of course I don't know the original, unedited message that was planned to be posted before GBX proofread it. Just saying. I am trying to get a neutral view on matters here.
PPS: I might add that the first thread on the GBX forums about this article was only locked before it was deleted. And in the last message ChrisF of Gearbox again wrote the official "The license is still in effect" quote we all read so many times. That makes me guess (and nothing more) that this is GBX' statement.
This post has been edited by fuegerstef: 12 February 2012 - 06:36 PM
#26 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:43 PM
This post has been edited by Wolfe: 12 February 2012 - 06:43 PM
#27 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:43 PM
#28 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:49 PM
fuegerstef, on 12 February 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:
"The following day we wanted to post the news on our website. Gearbox Software wanted to read proof the message, to make sure it didn't send a bad signal.
I got a message by email, which I was going to post on our website:"
And then the "official statement" follows.
To me it sounds like Gearbox wrote that statement or at least parts of it. Or am I misunderstaning it?
PS: Of course I don't know the original, unedited message that was planned to be posted before GBX proofread it. Just saying. I am trying to get a neutral view on matters here.
PPS: I might add that the first thread on the GBX forums about this article was only locked before it was deleted. And in the last message ChrisF of Gearbox again wrote the official "The license is still in effect" quote we all read so many times. That makes me guess (and nothing more) that this is GBX' statement.
English is also not my first language. To be frank, I don't know either. Here I'm between a stone and a rock. I trust neither (Gearbox nor Frederic). All I know is, make your own stuff and have fun with it.
#29 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:49 PM
Arwu, on 12 February 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:
Basically everything created for that project is owned by Gearbox.
This post has been edited by fuegerstef: 12 February 2012 - 06:49 PM
#30 Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:51 PM
fuegerstef, on 12 February 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:
Are you serious?