Diogo Ribeiro Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Why was it that Troika went down really? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They screwed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Brown Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 they had no money Winterwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromnir Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Why was it that Troika went down really? I only remeber hearing that their publisher, activision I think, withdrew all funding and all money from the sales of Bloodlines. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> if you listen to the troika folks (or the codex folks,) the REAL story is that the Suits at activision got a look at bloodlines and were utterly taken aback by it's fantabulousness... the activision folks were so daunted by such a complex and well-crafted crpg that they were moved to destroy it. after all, such perfection could not be allowed to exist in the universe... and in any event, the average gamer would be so overwhelmed by playing a complete and finished bloodlines that only two results were possible: 1) the tiny brains of us average lowly fans would overload after playing some few hours of the game, and we would experience grand mal seizures by the hundreds of thousands. 2) the dozen or so educated and enlightened fans who managed to "get" bloodlines (all the regular codex posters,) would find that their lives were now complete... or at least their gaming lives would be complete, and they would never have a need or desire to play another computer game ever again. in the case of possibility (1) activision were looking at a billion dollar lawsuit... and with (2) activision would be losing a source of important future revenue (the dozen or so regular codex posters.) as such, the Suits at activision decided that they would have to kill bloodlines before it reached the gaming public, so they used every means at their infernal disposal to delay and handicap bloodlines w/o overtly violating their contract with troika. and if the Suits did have to abandon subtlety to wreck bloodlines, then so be it, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) "Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 It was the freemasons...No wait, better yet it was the vampires! Bloodlines violated the camarilla! Yeah, that's it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 It was the freemasons...No wait, better yet it was the vampires! Bloodlines violated the camarilla! Yeah, that's it... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> YAY! Freemason Vampires VS New Templar developer team :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 There is truth in both. Bllodlines was finished way before it was released, and was on hold until HL2 came out. Troika also asked for extra funds so they could polish up the games bugs, which Activision refused to do. There was plenty of time to do this, but Activision already felt it put enough money into Bloodlines and didn't want to throw more money in. Which is fair for a publisher to do. As noted by Tim, Troika basically closed down 5 months (or something like that) before Bloodlines was released, as there was no funding. Troika made it official after Bloodlines was released, but there really wasn't a company for a while before release. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok. Although the alternative story that I heard makes little sense with that version. I haven't seen confirmation on either and as such they're both just speculation. So the alternate story goes something like this: When WW decided to end the WoD completely, Activision kinda panicked. After all, who was going to want to buy a game in a setting that no longer exists. They were about to pull the plug completely, but Troika managed to change their mind. The only way to do that was by promising to get the game out quicker than what was originally planned. I'm not sure on the time frame here, but 3-6 months I suppose. This was told in an attempt to explain why the last part of the game isn't as fleshed out as the rest of it. And in that context it makes sense. I've also heard the Source rumor and it's given support by the fact that Bloodlines was released very shortly after HL2 (a matter of days iirc). The problem is that the first rumor (in this post) makes more sense given the shape the game shipped in. The two aren't exactly[/b] mutually exclusive, but it kinda doesn't make sense to sit on a game for 3-6 months if the devs were supposed to have that time in the first place. Unless it all comes down to dollars of course. So I guess it makes sense after all. How depressing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Why was it that Troika went down really? I only remeber hearing that their publisher, activision I think, withdrew all funding and all money from the sales of Bloodlines. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If here is truth to that, a major reason for us loyal Troika fans to dislike activision now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 No. jefferson is NWN 2! Neverwinter Nights 2: The Black Hound! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Just no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Why was it that Troika went down really? I only remeber hearing that their publisher, activision I think, withdrew all funding and all money from the sales of Bloodlines. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If here is truth to that, a major reason for us loyal Troika fans to dislike activision now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think Bloodlines sold enough copies to generate money from sales for Obsidian. Afaik industry standard is that developers only see those money once the initial investment for the publishers has been covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellester Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 So the alternate story goes something like this: When WW decided to end the WoD completely, Activision kinda panicked. After all, who was going to want to buy a game in a setting that no longer exists. They were about to pull the plug completely, but Troika managed to change their mind. The only way to do that was by promising to get the game out quicker than what was originally planned. I'm not sure on the time frame here, but 3-6 months I suppose. This was told in an attempt to explain why the last part of the game isn't as fleshed out as the rest of it. And in that context it makes sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats possible, I haven't heard that one, but it could be truee. I just know Activision refused to put any more money into Bloodlines, and basically forced Troika to stop working on Bloodlines months before it was released. Although, remember Bloodlines came out way after projection. My guess would be Activision paid what it said it would pay, but it wasn Life is like a clam. Years of filtering crap then some bastard cracks you open and scrapes you into its damned mouth, end of story. - Steven Erikson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Bloodlines and Half-Life 2 were released on the exact same day (November 16). The funny thing is, if Activision refused to put more money into Bloodlines, then why did they keep Troika active until the patch for Bloodlines came out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 I suppose. Though there'd be good PR in releasing a stable product as well. Unless there was a cost thing, and they basically used us as the beta testers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 I suppose. Though there'd be good PR in releasing a stable product as well. Unless there was a cost thing, and they basically used us as the beta testers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Well, it'd be the first time that I can think of where it was quite explicit that that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 I suppose. Though there'd be good PR in releasing a stable product as well. Unless there was a cost thing, and they basically used us as the beta testers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would seem that way. If I was a rep from White Wolf I would be very disappointed at Activision for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 An Activision rep could fire back saying that White Wolf sabaotaged the game's release for no longer supporting the setting when the game was released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Bah the publisher is always to blame. Like K2 with LA and IWD2 collector edition delay is blamed on Interplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) Unless there was a cost thing, and they basically used us as the beta testers. That's blowing things a bit out of proportion, I think. Now when somebody finds a few bugs here and there, everyone is like "OMFG BETA!!1" or "FFS SUPORT UR PRODUCT!!1", or some other catchphrase equally popular on dev message boards these days. Battlecruiser 3000 was a beta. Starfleet Command 2 was buggy as hell, but still playable. People who have played them can tell you how smoothly K2 and BL actually run. Bah the publisher is always to blame. Like K2 with LA and IWD2 collector edition delay is blamed on Interplay. Sarcasm? Edited January 21, 2006 by 213374U - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The buggiest game I have ever owned was Ultima 9. Man, that game had some bugs. It makes ToEE the best put together game this side of slahether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 People really should try the original Daggerfall (or even Arena!) before talking about buggy games. If you haven't experienced a Bethesda product, you can't say anything about bugs! Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Kitty Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Unless there was a cost thing, and they basically used us as the beta testers. That's blowing things a bit out of proportion, I think. Now when somebody finds a few bugs here and there, everyone is like "OMFG BETA!!1" or "FFS SUPORT UR PRODUCT!!1", or some other catchphrase equally popular on dev message boards these days. Battlecruiser 3000 was a beta. Starfleet Command 2 was buggy as hell, but still playable. People who have played them can tell you how smoothly K2 and BL actually run. It is impossible to complete the released version of Bloodlines. Based on that, I don't think alanschu's comment is too harsh at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) Unless there was a cost thing, and they basically used us as the beta testers. That's blowing things a bit out of proportion, I think. Now when somebody finds a few bugs here and there, everyone is like "OMFG BETA!!1" or "FFS SUPORT UR PRODUCT!!1", or some other catchphrase equally popular on dev message boards these days. Battlecruiser 3000 was a beta. Starfleet Command 2 was buggy as hell, but still playable. People who have played them can tell you how smoothly K2 and BL actually run. I didn't really mean it as a derogatory statement though. It seems wierd though, to not finance a company at all during the last stages of development and have them sit on their hands (for whatever reason), and then once release has come, keep the company around to make a patch. However, it would be cheaper for Activision to do this, as it would mean that they would not have to pay for the final bug tests and fixes, but would let us find the problems then fix them in a patch. I wasn't saying that Bloodlines was a beta when released. Though I did get stuck in the Kuei-Jin final part. As for Ultima 9, it was nice though that they shipped out a free CD with the fully patched game to everyone that registered their game. Edited January 21, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 It is impossible to complete the released version of Bloodlines. Based on that, I don't think alanschu's comment is too harsh at all. For you maybe. I'm quite sure I didn't experience the Leopold Society crash my first time around. And that's the only constant show stopper the game really had. The game had bugs? Sure. Was it a beta? You don't understand the concept of "beta", if you think it was. I didn't really mean it as a derogatory statement though. It seems wierd though, to not finance a company at all during the last stages of development and have them sit on their hands (for whatever reason), and then once release has come, keep the company around to make a patch. However, it would be cheaper for Activision to do this, as it would mean that they would not have to pay for the final bug tests and fixes, but would let us find the problems then fix them in a patch. I wasn't saying that Bloodlines was a beta when released. Though I did get stuck in the Kuei-Jin final part. Yeah, well. I wasn't ripping into you specifically. It just amuses me a great deal to see people pulling their hair at the state in which BL or K2 were released. Most of those people just don't know what they're talking about, and what's worse, a lot of them speak from second-hand experiences. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Kitty Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 It is impossible to complete the released version of Bloodlines. Based on that, I don't think alanschu's comment is too harsh at all. For you maybe. I'm quite sure I didn't experience the Leopold Society crash my first time around. And that's the only constant show stopper the game really had. As far as I remember it was a problem everyone would eventually encounter with a unpatched game, but it's been too long to recall. The fact that there is only one showstopper is bad enough. It's like saying "But officer, I only killed one person." The game had bugs? Sure. Was it a beta? You don't understand the concept of "beta", if you think it was. I never took alanschu's comment as meaning Bloodlines was released as beta, and I was right considering his "I wasn't saying that Bloodlines was a beta when released." comment in the last post. That is, I took is more as a comment on the apparent attitude of publishers/developers that they can release a game and fix major problems after release, as opposed to alanschu thinking that Atari and/or Troika ever said "We need to beta test this game, but we'll let the consumer do that." And thanks for the condescending "you don't understand" comment. Here I was thinking mkreku had a monopoly on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now