Take Two Sues 3D Realms - Page 28

wieder · 07-15-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imachavel

anyway hard to believe that's an april fools joke, it's 4 pages, but anyway could've fooled me

It was published on April 1st, 2006.

Quote:

Originally Posted by imachavel

i haven't been reading the lawsuits in complete detail like a lawyer, ive been keeping up with it on google news, last i heard was about that duke begins case or whatever

The comment about the lawsuit was not directed at you.

imachavel · 07-15-2009, 07:26 PM

I see, my bad I thought the comment was directed towards me

anyway that WAS a pretty good April fools joke, 4 pages with images and all types of crap

anyway somewhere on the net is a page directing you to a place where you can 'purchase' duke nukem forever so i guess joke's come in many forms

---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

lmao you have to admit it's pretty funny that these guys took such a long time to do this, it's quite ironic that this is happening to them at this point when they're about to release this game but wtf.........

2009? i mean you'd think at the least a year or so back they could have released this by now

I mean what takes 13 years jesus christ

but wtf i mean take two still seems like they live in the shadow of hitler or something to do this now the day after they go bankrupt, why didn't they sue back in 2003 or 2007 or whenever it was they were making their major complaints?

you got two monkeys here, the monkey throwing crap and not doing anything for 13 years and the gorilla messed up enough to let them make that deal to take as much time as they wanted and to come up with this 'sueing at the last minute' crap when they have no other options

i'm sure that by now 3d realms is using whatever resources it has to afford this lawsuit, take two should've said this was going to happen earlier

for all i know maybe 3d realms didn't have enough money on it's own from just duke 3d sales and duke advance sales to fund this project, if they had recieved the money they were owed maybe this game would've come out in 2002? Who knows but 13 years jesus christ wtf were they doing?

good luck 3d realms, you're going to need it roflmfao

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------

it would be cool if we could get some type of reply from one of the staff members about all this, i guess they're a little busy with the lawsuit lmao

anyway did they already say how much the game was finished? 60% or something? was that official?

randir14 · 07-15-2009, 07:43 PM

Busy with the lawsuit? Lol right. I'm sure every minute of their lives is devoted to the lawsuit...oh wait, wasn't George at a gambling competition not too long ago? The only excuse they have to not say anything is if they're under some kind of gag order for the duration of this whole thing.

wieder · 07-15-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imachavel

but wtf i mean take two still seems like they live in the shadow of hitler or something to do this now the day after they go bankrupt, why didn't they sue back in 2003 or 2007 or whenever it was they were making their major complaints?

Because they had no legal grounds to sue back then. There was nothing in the contract at those points that set a release date of any sort. The only reason they feel they have sufficient reason *now* is because 3DR let go all the developers. So Take 2 feels that is enough reason to suspect the game will never come out, which then reaches the breach of contract.

Prior to that, 3DR hadn't (in Take 2's view) breached the contract.

Mr Bear · 07-15-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wieder

Because they had no legal grounds to sue back then. There was nothing in the contract at those points that set a release date of any sort. The only reason they feel they have sufficient reason *now* is because 3DR let go all the developers. So Take 2 feels that is enough reason to suspect the game will never come out, which then reaches the breach of contract.

Prior to that, 3DR hadn't (in Take 2's view) breached the contract.

Wait, wait, wait..........I was under the impression that the developers were let go because of the Take 2 fiasco.....

imachavel · 07-15-2009, 09:09 PM

hmmm, who would've thought, i guess that explains it, still it's pretty cruel, imo

no, for the record, lol 3d realms didn't let go of the staff because of this take two fiasco they let go of the staff because of bankruptcy or something or another they couldn't afford them anymore so they posted they were closing and let go off the staff, later on we were notified that 3d realms was not technically apogee and that although 3d realms was closing, apogee is still in business

anyway it was AFTER that that take two decided to sue them

oh well I hope they get off their asses and tell how much of the game is completed and an estimate of how much longer it would've taken if they hadn't let go of their staff

yeah george is weird, gambling? in las vegas? while being sued? i'm guessing his attitude has a lot to do with the major delay of the game
alright peace

wieder · 07-15-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bear

Wait, wait, wait..........I was under the impression that the developers were let go because of the Take 2 fiasco.....

Eh, 3DR says they were forced to shut down because of Take 2 pulling out of a "good faith" agreement shortly before it was supposed to go into effect, so in that sense it's "because of Take 2".

The lawsuit happened after 3DR had let the developers go, which is why at that point Take 2 felt they had sufficient reason to sue, as opposed to before the devs were let go.

Inanimate Carbon Rod · 07-15-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wieder

Because they had no legal grounds to sue back then. There was nothing in the contract at those points that set a release date of any sort. The only reason they feel they have sufficient reason *now* is because 3DR let go all the developers. So Take 2 feels that is enough reason to suspect the game will never come out, which then reaches the breach of contract.

Prior to that, 3DR hadn't (in Take 2's view) breached the contract.

When the date for a fulfillment of a contract is not set, what is commercially reasonable in the given industry governs the date for completion.

Hypo:
ICR contracts with Wieder to paint the exterior of ICR's home.
The contract states:
"I Wieder promise to paint ICR's home for $5000."

Wieder paints ICR's home at a rate of one brush stroke per day. At this rate it will take 10 years to fully paint ICR's home. After 3 months of Wieder's snail pace of slow painting (it would take a normal painter a week to paint a house the size of ICR's), ICR sues.

Should ICR be able to sucessfully sue Wieder when there was no contractual fulfillment date set?
The answer is yes. It would be absurd to force ICR to wait 10 years for his house to be painted.

wieder · 07-15-2009, 09:47 PM

It's a dramatically more difficult case to argue though, especially without having significant money invested into it prior to 2007. Once 2007 hit and a new agreement was signed all those rules changed, but it would have been difficult to argue (in court) they could sue prior to 2012. It was the team being let go that flipped the switch earlier than 2012.

Inanimate Carbon Rod · 07-15-2009, 10:57 PM

$400,000 or 2.5mil, either of those amounts would suffice. All that federal law requires is that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 for a diversity suit. There is no minimum in state courts. The amount affects the outcome only in what take two is likely to receive.

Well in 2007 George started his promise machine again. It could be argued that he misled take two in regards to the actual state of the game in 2007.

Anyway, this is just another avenue for take two. 3DR laying of its developers precipitated the lawsuit.

ReadOnly · 07-16-2009, 12:09 AM

I wonder. If 3DR had a publishing agreement did that mean they should have released(and not cancelled) this game? Though, depends on the agreement.

wieder · 07-16-2009, 12:48 AM

There is a difference (which I know you are aware of), of between being *able* to raise a suit and have it be a legit suit vs. actually convincing someone you should win the suit.

imachavel · 07-16-2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inanimate Carbon Rod

When the date for a fulfillment of a contract is not set, what is commercially reasonable in the given industry governs the date for completion.

Hypo:
ICR contracts with Wieder to paint the exterior of ICR's home.
The contract states:
"I Wieder promise to paint ICR's home for $5000."

Wieder paints ICR's home at a rate of one brush stroke per day. At this rate it will take 10 years to fully paint ICR's home. After 3 months of Wieder's snail pace of slow painting (it would take a normal painter a week to paint a house the size of ICR's), ICR sues.

Should ICR be able to sucessfully sue Wieder when there was no contractual fulfillment date set?
The answer is yes. It would be absurd to force ICR to wait 10 years for his house to be painted.

if icr wanted the job to be faster, he should have seen how slow his house was being painted and fired the painter and told the painter to go to someone as a contractor, otherwise, if icr doesn't set a pace for how fast he wants his house to be painted, he can't sue the man painting his house unless a time was set, at best he can fire the painter, and as said before, the painter can find a DIFFERENT client to 'publish' his painting contract

---------- Post added at 01:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 AM ----------

also, in the future, if icr wants something more than his house to be painted, such as a building of large stature 10 stories or more, a contract should definately be laid out stating that this building needs to be painted by a certain time or the contract expires and the painter is no longer able to work for icr. Now as ridiculous as a man paying someone to paint his house and ending up taking 10 years, if the man was being paid by the hour, he definately could have been let go after a week and the man would have to find 'some other place' to let his contract of house painting be paid

now if this man had a stipulated contract for the man painting his house and it was said in fine print the details of how he wanted his house painted in an indefinite agreement, then he should say that only a certain amount is to be paid to this man painting his house and that his house needs to be finished painted by a certain time date, if there was a contract saying that his house WAS to be painted by this man and that he doesn't want to go find 'some other' person to paint his house, it would be unwise to say the painter has an indefinite amount of time to paint his house, in which case the man could paint his house in 20 years, and by contract he would have the time to do so, otherwise him being fired would breach the contract laid out, in which case such a contract would represent stupidity on the part of the person wanting his house to be painted

now...... if someone took 13 years to paint my overlargely sized house and the exuse was that i had a huge 10 room mansion and that it takes an adequate amount of time to paint such a house........... I'd find the guy and just beat his ass or some shit.. LOL

Monkey Butler · 07-16-2009, 07:12 AM

Everything about that post is wrong.

bazboyz · 07-16-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wieder

The link is an April Fools joke imachavel. You were duped.

Do you even know why Take 2 included that denial in their most recent counterclaim?

The way I read it is that....
Take Two Insist that jurstiction is New York not Delaware
Seem like Daddy protectecing their child who live in new york.Who was caught drink driving in dellaware. Now with big New York lawyers cos the Delliware ones are small time hicks want the trail there in new york .Imho
Mr Dan Ermerson recived a letter from 3D REALMS ok he not a CEO he infact is the Vice President and Associate General Counsel and the letter was not worth a reply (with a title like that he must be a lawyer)

Its a good job take two dont want to publish nasa going to the moon or mars .As the last time it took less than 10 Years .IT be 2020 to get man back to the moon and 2030 to get to mars that 51 years to reget man back on the moon and 61 years to get to mars that is a long delvopment time do ypu think they would sue

paulbullman · 07-16-2009, 08:48 AM

Nearly all, if not all, American courts determine a reasonable time for performance if the contract is silent on time. Good practice requires specific time deadlines of course. Otherwise you are at the whim of the court which is the last thing most contracting parties desire.

Not sure on jurisdiction because I haven't read the pleadings. However, usually contracts have a forum and choice of law clause. Diversity of citizenship among all parties + claims over $75,000.00 as stated above is required for jurisdiction in federal court unless subject matter jurisdiction is based on a federal question (federal law) or another very narrow exception (like class-action lawsuits).

90% + cases like this settle. I'm not expecting a trial.

As wieder said, lawsuits can be filed at anytime, but most companies wait until they feel they have a viable case or that they have no other choice. DNF is not Take Two's #1 priority.

A far more interesting idea suggested at some point earlier on this thread is whether Broussard fraudulently induced (intentionally or negligently) TT into entering the final contract. Keep in mind, 3drealms would be liable for breach of contract if 3drealms actually breached and if fraud occurred, for fraud as well (under Respondent Superior), but Broussard would also be personally liable for the fraud because he would have been the tortfeasor. Broussard would not be liable for breach of contract unless he was personally a party to the contract.

wieder · 07-16-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazboyz

The way I read it is that....
Take Two Insist that jurstiction is New York not Delaware
Seem like Daddy protectecing their child who live in new york.Who was caught drink driving in dellaware. Now with big New York lawyers cos the Delliware ones are small time hicks want the trail there in new york .Imho
Mr Dan Ermerson recived a letter from 3D REALMS ok he not a CEO he infact is the Vice President and Associate General Counsel and the letter was not worth a reply (with a title like that he must be a lawyer)

You are mistaken then. The reason it is in there is because of this singular line in the 3DR response:

"2kGames is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 622 Broadway, New York, NY.

That's simply not a factual statement, and as silly and petty as it may seem to you, they have to correct it. It would be like saying "Gathering of Developers is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located at 622 Broadway, New York, NY"... when GoD's priniciple place of business is located in Texas.

Their headquarters are near San Francisco California: http://www.2kgames.com/about.shtml

And the vast majority of their actual development is done in a variety of studios.

See?

Gornemant · 07-16-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inanimate Carbon Rod

When the date for a fulfillment of a contract is not set, what is commercially reasonable in the given industry governs the date for completion.

Hypo:
ICR contracts with Wieder to paint the exterior of ICR's home.
The contract states:
"I Wieder promise to paint ICR's home for $5000."

Wieder paints ICR's home at a rate of one brush stroke per day. At this rate it will take 10 years to fully paint ICR's home. After 3 months of Wieder's snail pace of slow painting (it would take a normal painter a week to paint a house the size of ICR's), ICR sues.

Should ICR be able to sucessfully sue Wieder when there was no contractual fulfillment date set?
The answer is yes. It would be absurd to force ICR to wait 10 years for his house to be painted.

I don't really think that this is a proper example, as Wieder was paid to provide a service (paint a building).
DNF is a product, TT doesn't own the product, they didn't ask for it to be made (service), and the product was not sold to them.
TT only "bought" a right related to a theoretical product, a right that cannot be applied unless this very product is finished.

A more fitting example would be: X buys the rights from Y to sell Y's future self made building paint to customers around the world, X does not own the paint or any rights related to said paint besides the right to sell it in a very specific way.
Y just can't seem to be able to create a proper paint and faces financial problems and let's go most of his employees, but doesn't close.
X sues Y for not providing said product.

imachavel · 07-16-2009, 05:01 PM

yeah lol that is much simpler

i would easily just fire a man taking too long to paint my house, lmao way different scenario you can't sue someone taking too long to paint your house if no contract is stipulated saying there's a due date, and who the hell would take that to court anyway? lmao

.........13 years is a long time though, but i'm taking 3d realms side since i've seen no evidence of previous date in contract for said game to be finished

Monkey Butler · 07-16-2009, 07:07 PM

Of course you can sue. You contract with someone for them to paint your house. They are then obligated BY LAW to paint your house within a reasonable time period. If they take an unreasonably wrong time to paint the house, you can sue for specific performance, that is for the painter to finish within a reasonable time. There are tons of cases where that exact thing was taken to court.

And hard as it is to imagine, being non-physical, T2 do "own" part of DNF - that part being the right to distribute. Property isn't just possession of a physical object, in legal textbooks they talk about a 'bundle of rights' and responsibilities. 3DR sold part of that bundle, and now T2 alleges that 3DR has blocked access to what is in essence their property.

imachavel · 07-16-2009, 07:25 PM

well, i didn't know that, that seems completely against what is in our constitution or whatnot that to sue for something like that you need a stated contract saying you were going to finish that by a certain time

but i guess the law is the law, liberty and justice, well, seems strange to me

if a member on here of 3dr staff was to come on here and tell us 80% of duke nukem forever is finished, and not make that public online as well, couldn't they go to jail for violating the public trade act? after all people on here could make stocks depending on whether duke nukem forever was going to be released or not, or am I wrong? i might be, that's in no way saying that for sure duke nukem forever would be released. Anyone seen wallstreet?

anyway oh well

SplatterHappy · 07-16-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imachavel

if a member on here of 3dr staff was to come on here and tell us 80% of duke nukem forever is finished, and not make that public online as well, couldn't they go to jail for violating the public trade act? after all people on here could make stocks depending on whether duke nukem forever was going to be released or not, or am I wrong? i might be, that's in no way saying that for sure duke nukem forever would be released. Anyone seen wallstreet?

anyway oh well

3dr is part of Apogee, a privately owned company. Since they never went public with their stock, this violates nothing (since no member of the public can purchase their stock).

imachavel · 07-16-2009, 11:11 PM

thanks, good to know

lol, nice avatar btw

Monkey Butler · 07-17-2009, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imachavel

well, i didn't know that, that seems completely against what is in our constitution or whatnot that to sue for something like that you need a stated contract saying you were going to finish that by a certain time

By that token, every contract would have to be as big as a phonebook. If contracts are silent on certain terms, you go by what's reasonable. Taking 10 years to finish painting a house that anybody else could finish in a week is not reasonable. Working on a game for over a decade and then expecting to finish it within the next few years with no staff is similarly unreasonable.

imachavel · 07-17-2009, 02:50 AM

true to some extent

but think about it, a person painting your house taking 10 years could just get fired unless you paid him before hand

now as that may or may not hold up in court, and as fair as it may not be to take 10 years to finish a game, is it fair to sue someone for a game that's almost done because the economy ruined them and they weren't properly funded?

I understand that 13 years is a long ass time to make a game, but how much do you think I support take two considering that their game is now almost done and that 3d realms is bankrupt

now if they were about to fully fund this game, and they just wanted to make sure it gets done, i would stipulate a due date

but this is ridiculous, they obviously wanted to sue them beforehand but couldn't, and now they're doing it because they have proper ability to, which brings me back to my original point:

if they had the ability to do so for withholding a product that needed to be supplied, why didn't they? so for that matter, it seems that it is somewhat within legal boundaries that it needs to be stipulated in a contract

and the reason I think that this shit should be like this is habeous corpeus and all that. Even though it's a complete manipulation and bullshit, some lady sued mcdonalds because she spilled coffee in her lap and burned herself badly because they make the coffee hot as hell, which i'm sure hurt, but cmon there were no 3rd degree burns, so instead of getting her medical bill which must have been like $80 to see a doctor and get prescribed some ointment she sued the company and got like $5 million. So you see the law is the law

now if it's the law that it doesn't need to be stated in a contract when something should be finished or not, then ok, but then why couldn't they sue until now? as for painting a persons house, why would you even need a contract? ok but for that matter, if a contract is needed then a person should know well enough that they need to stipulate a due date. If the person can't fire them because it wasn't in a contract that their house needed to be painted by a certain date, then ok sue sue sue if that's your choice. But what was take two thinking when they signed this contract and didn't put AT LEAST a 5 year completion date on this game? You know?

wtf, and to tell you the truth, take two was a piece of crap company back then when 3d realms came out with duke nukem 3d, it wasn't until grand theft auto and all that they became really famous, so in a way 3d realms helped them become a bigger company, 13 years or not that's the thanks they get? not even a few weeks? not even a maybe our lawyers should meet and talk this over? it was like 6 days later they notified them they were sueing

COLD

and as i've said before, on the other hand, 3d realms taking 13 years to make a game? NOT SMART MAN
but they said it a billion times, we want creative staff that enjoy their job and take their time making a game as we don't have deadlines, they obviously discussed this beforehand and although i'm sure take two wasn't knowing that them 'taking their time' meant 13 years, they agreed

so whatever the law is, I don't know, but if I was on the jury i'd find in favor of 3d realms

now let me ask you this, is that right? yes, it is, i'll tell you why

morally we could argue all day on which person was right or wrong
but habeous corpeous comes into play and says(btw i can't spell latin) that the person should be found guilty or not guilty on the grounds of whether they are guilty or not, not whether the punishment is deserved or not, if you had ever been given jury duty you'd know this. And for that matter the reason is that that's simply what is to be argued because in an opinion is filled with passion and emotion and makes it difficult to argue a case.

how can we argue a case? how can we say that one person is more right than the other? 3d realms took 13 years to make this for all we piece of crap game, take two is a complete ******* to sue someone going bankrupt, neither of them are entirely right

so if you were to say that by law a company that takes too long to make a game should be sued to not making one, then so be it. But if you ask me it should have been written IN the contract that they needed to have a due date stipulated

so that would be my final answer

to top it off it's messed up so sue someone when they're going bankrupt when they're almost done with that game, but that's a statement of passion

if only there were a way to make a new contract stating that a due date should be assigned, but I guess there isn't

anyway if you ask me take two should just tell 3d realms to find a new publisher, I'm sure that's allowable in the contract, since take two is the publisher they're allowed to let 3d realms go anytime they want, right? they just can't change the current contract they're in right now correct? now although you'd think 3d realms owes it to them, I don't know where to go from there........ I don't know anything about that in the court of law

anyway I feel like I'm repeating myself so I guess I'll leave this at that

---------- Post added at 02:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 AM ----------

sorry upon reading that last paragraph i suppose that was a little confusing

I guess the truth is I know hardly anything about all this to have so much of an opinion, I haven't even read the court documents, I don't even know what the contract is

so somewhere in the law and all this, the contract would say whether this was indefinite, whether one party could say I don't want to go through with this deal, and I'm guessing this is all a little tricky considering that it's a sueable offense, now is that contract based on what 3d realms needs to have this done if take two funds the project? isn't that the case? otherwise 3d realms wouldn't have said that was part of the deal correct?

otherwise wouldn't either party be able to just simply say they wanted to find someone else to help them publish/or make a game for them and just cancel on it? I'm guessing this contract was pretty much in concrete that obsolutely both parties had to go through with this deal huh since they're getting sued? in that case if take two needed to fund them for this contract to be legit then I rest my case in favor of 3d realms, case closed

otherwise I guess I need more information.......

guess we'll find out

also I was never clear on this

if 3d realms finishes this game before they go to court, then they have no case correct?

Monkey Butler · 07-17-2009, 03:30 AM

I don't have time to go through that entire post correcting things, so I'll just say this about your first sentence: in essence, "firing someone" from painting a house is nullifying a contract. Which is all well and good (unless the painter contests the 'firing'), unless money has already been paid for the house to be painted. That's the situation T2 claims that it's in - T2 paid money for 3DR to deliver them a product for publication in a timely manner, they didn't do it, so T2 are suing for either their money back, or for 3DR to actually cough up the game.

And honestly I have no absolutely no idea what you're talking about with habeas corpus.

Gornemant · 07-17-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Butler

T2 paid money for 3DR to deliver them a product for publication in a timely manner

And that's the problem, T2 never paid 3DR anything related to DNF, but that's been discussed enough already, just need to look back a little

Monkey Butler · 07-17-2009, 09:14 AM

Legally it amounts to the same thing. As I said before, property amounts to a bundle of rights and responsibilities, not just a physical object. It doesn't matter how many sets of hands it went through before it reached T2, the fact remains that 3DR legally sold some of the rights related to the product of DNF (right to publish, right to share in profits etc.) and those rights legally ended up in the hands of T2. T2 are therefore entitled to the value of those rights, and it is their argument that 3DR are blocking the exercise of those rights by not being able to deliver DNF to T2 in a timely manner.

As you said, this has been discussed enough already, but people with little to no knowledge of the law keep bringing it up.

Inanimate Carbon Rod · 07-17-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imachavel

rambling post

imachavel you really don't know how the legal system works.

Also I would like to point out that the lady who sued mcdonalds was hurt very badly by the hot coffee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...7s_Restaurants
Do not bring the Mcdonald's suit anymore, it will derail the thread.

peoplessi · 07-17-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wieder

Eh, 3DR says they were forced to shut down because of Take 2 pulling out of a "good faith" agreement shortly before it was supposed to go into effect, so in that sense it's "because of Take 2".

The lawsuit happened after 3DR had let the developers go, which is why at that point Take 2 felt they had sufficient reason to sue, as opposed to before the devs were let go.

This is the part that makes me wonder, I thought 3D Realms was business savvy bunch, but why on earth would they leave the future of the company hanging on 1 contract - not even in writing.

toadwarrior · 07-17-2009, 01:14 PM

If take 2 some how ruin DNF, they'll possibly be one of the most hated publishers around.

People have waited forever for DNF and it looks like it may be completed. So we don't need a publisher ruining it for everyone.

Tea Monster · 07-17-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toadwarrior

...and it looks like it may be completed.

Ang · 07-17-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gornemant

And that's the problem, T2 never paid 3DR anything related to DNF, but that's been discussed enough already, just need to look back a little

How do you know? Without the annual report so can't we say anything. But we can assume 3DR owes a hell lot of people money.

(I'm one those who don't believe 3DR could make enough money through helping with Max Payne or Prey.)

wieder · 07-17-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peoplessi

This is the part that makes me wonder, I thought 3D Realms was business savvy bunch, but why on earth would they leave the future of the company hanging on 1 contract - not even in writing.

It causes me to scratch my head as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ang

(I'm one those who don't believe 3DR could make enough money through helping with Max Payne or Prey.)

You would be mistaken then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by toadwarrior

If take 2 some how ruin DNF, they'll possibly be one of the most hated publishers around.

People have waited forever for DNF and it looks like it may be completed. So we don't need a publisher ruining it for everyone.

Look, I love Duke... but you dramatically overestimate the effect and weight the franchise actually carries.

The number of people who would even care enough to form an opinion about Take 2 in relation to DNF is a tiny fraction of the gaming community. Most people who play games aren't even aware of Duke Nukem Forever, and of those who are, most people are only curious about it in the same way they are any other game, and then of those who care about it more than a typical game, most consider 3DR to have been the problem.

The amount remaining that actually "hate" Take2 for anything related to DNF is probably significantly fewer than the number of people registered on this forum.

bazboyz · 07-17-2009, 04:21 PM

During the 1960's Pan Am took orders to fly to the moon and beyond this went on till the 1990's when the company went bust they had 92,000 wanting to go was they sued no and they didnt even get on to the testing phase and that was like 30 years in development without a spacecraft

peoplessi · 07-17-2009, 05:56 PM

I don't have Take 2, but of course this current situation is undesired. I bet it's the same for Take 2 - in their eyes, they were forced to this situation, and same for 3D Realms. I bet Take 2, 3D Realms & fans would have loved to see DNF - by now, or in the near future. Most likely that won't happen, not in the near future.

SpinX · 07-17-2009, 06:41 PM

I think the weight of the franchise is underestimated, It is even stronger as I tought, I was talking to new collegues of my new work and almost all of them knew duke nukem and would start gaming again if that game would come out...

Also the reaction to the newsposts on shacknews was immense, I think a new duke nukem fps is THE most anticipated game a side from half life 3, starcraft 2 and that COD milk factory....

peoplessi · 07-17-2009, 06:57 PM

It would be, but only after a finished game is produced. It would have to be good also. Currently, when it's basically in hiatus, the value is significantly less. It has potential, but in it's current form not as much value as it could have - let's say if we had seen DNF 7-8 years ago in stores. We'd be waiting for the sequel to DNF, or the sequel to the sequel.

fast-1 · 07-17-2009, 08:00 PM

Or 10 years of 10 sequels.

ReadOnly · 07-17-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toadwarrior

If take 2 some how ruin DNF, they'll possibly be one of the most hated publishers around.

3DR ruined DNF. Stop blaming others. Though, they might be responsible somehow, the most blame is 3DR's to take.

07-15-2009, 07:26 PM	#1082
imachavel	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms I see, my bad I thought the comment was directed towards me anyway that WAS a pretty good April fools joke, 4 pages with images and all types of crap anyway somewhere on the net is a page directing you to a place where you can 'purchase' duke nukem forever so i guess joke's come in many forms ---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ---------- lmao you have to admit it's pretty funny that these guys took such a long time to do this, it's quite ironic that this is happening to them at this point when they're about to release this game but wtf......... 2009? i mean you'd think at the least a year or so back they could have released this by now I mean what takes 13 years jesus christ but wtf i mean take two still seems like they live in the shadow of hitler or something to do this now the day after they go bankrupt, why didn't they sue back in 2003 or 2007 or whenever it was they were making their major complaints? you got two monkeys here, the monkey throwing crap and not doing anything for 13 years and the gorilla messed up enough to let them make that deal to take as much time as they wanted and to come up with this 'sueing at the last minute' crap when they have no other options i'm sure that by now 3d realms is using whatever resources it has to afford this lawsuit, take two should've said this was going to happen earlier for all i know maybe 3d realms didn't have enough money on it's own from just duke 3d sales and duke advance sales to fund this project, if they had recieved the money they were owed maybe this game would've come out in 2002? Who knows but 13 years jesus christ wtf were they doing? good luck 3d realms, you're going to need it roflmfao ---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ---------- it would be cool if we could get some type of reply from one of the staff members about all this, i guess they're a little busy with the lawsuit lmao anyway did they already say how much the game was finished? 60% or something? was that official?

07-15-2009, 07:43 PM	#1083
randir14	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms Busy with the lawsuit? Lol right. I'm sure every minute of their lives is devoted to the lawsuit...oh wait, wasn't George at a gambling competition not too long ago? The only excuse they have to not say anything is if they're under some kind of gag order for the duration of this whole thing.

07-15-2009, 09:09 PM	#1086
imachavel	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms hmmm, who would've thought, i guess that explains it, still it's pretty cruel, imo no, for the record, lol 3d realms didn't let go of the staff because of this take two fiasco they let go of the staff because of bankruptcy or something or another they couldn't afford them anymore so they posted they were closing and let go off the staff, later on we were notified that 3d realms was not technically apogee and that although 3d realms was closing, apogee is still in business anyway it was AFTER that that take two decided to sue them oh well I hope they get off their asses and tell how much of the game is completed and an estimate of how much longer it would've taken if they hadn't let go of their staff yeah george is weird, gambling? in las vegas? while being sued? i'm guessing his attitude has a lot to do with the major delay of the game alright peace

07-15-2009, 09:47 PM	#1089
wieder	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms It's a dramatically more difficult case to argue though, especially without having significant money invested into it prior to 2007. Once 2007 hit and a new agreement was signed all those rules changed, but it would have been difficult to argue (in court) they could sue prior to 2012. It was the team being let go that flipped the switch earlier than 2012.

07-15-2009, 10:57 PM	#1090
Inanimate Carbon Rod	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms $400,000 or 2.5mil, either of those amounts would suffice. All that federal law requires is that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 for a diversity suit. There is no minimum in state courts. The amount affects the outcome only in what take two is likely to receive. Well in 2007 George started his promise machine again. It could be argued that he misled take two in regards to the actual state of the game in 2007. Anyway, this is just another avenue for take two. 3DR laying of its developers precipitated the lawsuit. __________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein Last edited by Inanimate Carbon Rod; 07-15-2009 at 11:04 PM.

07-16-2009, 12:09 AM	#1091
ReadOnly	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms I wonder. If 3DR had a publishing agreement did that mean they should have released(and not cancelled) this game? Though, depends on the agreement. Last edited by ReadOnly; 07-16-2009 at 01:00 AM. Reason: spelling mistake

07-16-2009, 12:48 AM	#1092
wieder	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms There is a difference (which I know you are aware of), of between being able to raise a suit and have it be a legit suit vs. actually convincing someone you should win the suit.

07-16-2009, 07:12 AM	#1094
Monkey Butler	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms Everything about that post is wrong.

07-16-2009, 08:48 AM	#1096
paulbullman	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms Nearly all, if not all, American courts determine a reasonable time for performance if the contract is silent on time. Good practice requires specific time deadlines of course. Otherwise you are at the whim of the court which is the last thing most contracting parties desire. Not sure on jurisdiction because I haven't read the pleadings. However, usually contracts have a forum and choice of law clause. Diversity of citizenship among all parties + claims over $75,000.00 as stated above is required for jurisdiction in federal court unless subject matter jurisdiction is based on a federal question (federal law) or another very narrow exception (like class-action lawsuits). 90% + cases like this settle. I'm not expecting a trial. As wieder said, lawsuits can be filed at anytime, but most companies wait until they feel they have a viable case or that they have no other choice. DNF is not Take Two's #1 priority. A far more interesting idea suggested at some point earlier on this thread is whether Broussard fraudulently induced (intentionally or negligently) TT into entering the final contract. Keep in mind, 3drealms would be liable for breach of contract if 3drealms actually breached and if fraud occurred, for fraud as well (under Respondent Superior), but Broussard would also be personally liable for the fraud because he would have been the tortfeasor. Broussard would not be liable for breach of contract unless he was personally a party to the contract.

07-16-2009, 05:01 PM	#1099
imachavel	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms yeah lol that is much simpler i would easily just fire a man taking too long to paint my house, lmao way different scenario you can't sue someone taking too long to paint your house if no contract is stipulated saying there's a due date, and who the hell would take that to court anyway? lmao .........13 years is a long time though, but i'm taking 3d realms side since i've seen no evidence of previous date in contract for said game to be finished

07-16-2009, 07:07 PM	#1100
Monkey Butler	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms Of course you can sue. You contract with someone for them to paint your house. They are then obligated BY LAW to paint your house within a reasonable time period. If they take an unreasonably wrong time to paint the house, you can sue for specific performance, that is for the painter to finish within a reasonable time. There are tons of cases where that exact thing was taken to court. And hard as it is to imagine, being non-physical, T2 do "own" part of DNF - that part being the right to distribute. Property isn't just possession of a physical object, in legal textbooks they talk about a 'bundle of rights' and responsibilities. 3DR sold part of that bundle, and now T2 alleges that 3DR has blocked access to what is in essence their property.

07-16-2009, 07:25 PM	#1101
imachavel	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms well, i didn't know that, that seems completely against what is in our constitution or whatnot that to sue for something like that you need a stated contract saying you were going to finish that by a certain time but i guess the law is the law, liberty and justice, well, seems strange to me if a member on here of 3dr staff was to come on here and tell us 80% of duke nukem forever is finished, and not make that public online as well, couldn't they go to jail for violating the public trade act? after all people on here could make stocks depending on whether duke nukem forever was going to be released or not, or am I wrong? i might be, that's in no way saying that for sure duke nukem forever would be released. Anyone seen wallstreet? anyway oh well

07-16-2009, 11:11 PM	#1103
imachavel	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms thanks, good to know lol, nice avatar btw

07-17-2009, 02:50 AM	#1105
imachavel	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms true to some extent but think about it, a person painting your house taking 10 years could just get fired unless you paid him before hand now as that may or may not hold up in court, and as fair as it may not be to take 10 years to finish a game, is it fair to sue someone for a game that's almost done because the economy ruined them and they weren't properly funded? I understand that 13 years is a long ass time to make a game, but how much do you think I support take two considering that their game is now almost done and that 3d realms is bankrupt now if they were about to fully fund this game, and they just wanted to make sure it gets done, i would stipulate a due date but this is ridiculous, they obviously wanted to sue them beforehand but couldn't, and now they're doing it because they have proper ability to, which brings me back to my original point: if they had the ability to do so for withholding a product that needed to be supplied, why didn't they? so for that matter, it seems that it is somewhat within legal boundaries that it needs to be stipulated in a contract and the reason I think that this shit should be like this is habeous corpeus and all that. Even though it's a complete manipulation and bullshit, some lady sued mcdonalds because she spilled coffee in her lap and burned herself badly because they make the coffee hot as hell, which i'm sure hurt, but cmon there were no 3rd degree burns, so instead of getting her medical bill which must have been like $80 to see a doctor and get prescribed some ointment she sued the company and got like $5 million. So you see the law is the law now if it's the law that it doesn't need to be stated in a contract when something should be finished or not, then ok, but then why couldn't they sue until now? as for painting a persons house, why would you even need a contract? ok but for that matter, if a contract is needed then a person should know well enough that they need to stipulate a due date. If the person can't fire them because it wasn't in a contract that their house needed to be painted by a certain date, then ok sue sue sue if that's your choice. But what was take two thinking when they signed this contract and didn't put AT LEAST a 5 year completion date on this game? You know? wtf, and to tell you the truth, take two was a piece of crap company back then when 3d realms came out with duke nukem 3d, it wasn't until grand theft auto and all that they became really famous, so in a way 3d realms helped them become a bigger company, 13 years or not that's the thanks they get? not even a few weeks? not even a maybe our lawyers should meet and talk this over? it was like 6 days later they notified them they were sueing COLD and as i've said before, on the other hand, 3d realms taking 13 years to make a game? NOT SMART MAN but they said it a billion times, we want creative staff that enjoy their job and take their time making a game as we don't have deadlines, they obviously discussed this beforehand and although i'm sure take two wasn't knowing that them 'taking their time' meant 13 years, they agreed so whatever the law is, I don't know, but if I was on the jury i'd find in favor of 3d realms now let me ask you this, is that right? yes, it is, i'll tell you why morally we could argue all day on which person was right or wrong but habeous corpeous comes into play and says(btw i can't spell latin) that the person should be found guilty or not guilty on the grounds of whether they are guilty or not, not whether the punishment is deserved or not, if you had ever been given jury duty you'd know this. And for that matter the reason is that that's simply what is to be argued because in an opinion is filled with passion and emotion and makes it difficult to argue a case. how can we argue a case? how can we say that one person is more right than the other? 3d realms took 13 years to make this for all we piece of crap game, take two is a complete ******* to sue someone going bankrupt, neither of them are entirely right so if you were to say that by law a company that takes too long to make a game should be sued to not making one, then so be it. But if you ask me it should have been written IN the contract that they needed to have a due date stipulated so that would be my final answer to top it off it's messed up so sue someone when they're going bankrupt when they're almost done with that game, but that's a statement of passion if only there were a way to make a new contract stating that a due date should be assigned, but I guess there isn't anyway if you ask me take two should just tell 3d realms to find a new publisher, I'm sure that's allowable in the contract, since take two is the publisher they're allowed to let 3d realms go anytime they want, right? they just can't change the current contract they're in right now correct? now although you'd think 3d realms owes it to them, I don't know where to go from there........ I don't know anything about that in the court of law anyway I feel like I'm repeating myself so I guess I'll leave this at that ---------- Post added at 02:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 AM ---------- sorry upon reading that last paragraph i suppose that was a little confusing I guess the truth is I know hardly anything about all this to have so much of an opinion, I haven't even read the court documents, I don't even know what the contract is so somewhere in the law and all this, the contract would say whether this was indefinite, whether one party could say I don't want to go through with this deal, and I'm guessing this is all a little tricky considering that it's a sueable offense, now is that contract based on what 3d realms needs to have this done if take two funds the project? isn't that the case? otherwise 3d realms wouldn't have said that was part of the deal correct? otherwise wouldn't either party be able to just simply say they wanted to find someone else to help them publish/or make a game for them and just cancel on it? I'm guessing this contract was pretty much in concrete that obsolutely both parties had to go through with this deal huh since they're getting sued? in that case if take two needed to fund them for this contract to be legit then I rest my case in favor of 3d realms, case closed otherwise I guess I need more information....... guess we'll find out also I was never clear on this if 3d realms finishes this game before they go to court, then they have no case correct?

07-17-2009, 03:30 AM	#1106
Monkey Butler	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms I don't have time to go through that entire post correcting things, so I'll just say this about your first sentence: in essence, "firing someone" from painting a house is nullifying a contract. Which is all well and good (unless the painter contests the 'firing'), unless money has already been paid for the house to be painted. That's the situation T2 claims that it's in - T2 paid money for 3DR to deliver them a product for publication in a timely manner, they didn't do it, so T2 are suing for either their money back, or for 3DR to actually cough up the game. And honestly I have no absolutely no idea what you're talking about with habeas corpus.

07-17-2009, 09:14 AM	#1108
Monkey Butler	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms Legally it amounts to the same thing. As I said before, property amounts to a bundle of rights and responsibilities, not just a physical object. It doesn't matter how many sets of hands it went through before it reached T2, the fact remains that 3DR legally sold some of the rights related to the product of DNF (right to publish, right to share in profits etc.) and those rights legally ended up in the hands of T2. T2 are therefore entitled to the value of those rights, and it is their argument that 3DR are blocking the exercise of those rights by not being able to deliver DNF to T2 in a timely manner. As you said, this has been discussed enough already, but people with little to no knowledge of the law keep bringing it up.

07-17-2009, 01:14 PM	#1111
toadwarrior	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms If take 2 some how ruin DNF, they'll possibly be one of the most hated publishers around. People have waited forever for DNF and it looks like it may be completed. So we don't need a publisher ruining it for everyone.

07-17-2009, 04:21 PM	#1115
bazboyz	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms During the 1960's Pan Am took orders to fly to the moon and beyond this went on till the 1990's when the company went bust they had 92,000 wanting to go was they sued no and they didnt even get on to the testing phase and that was like 30 years in development without a spacecraft __________________ So long and thanks for all the fish .Dougles Adams

07-17-2009, 05:56 PM	#1116
peoplessi	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms I don't have Take 2, but of course this current situation is undesired. I bet it's the same for Take 2 - in their eyes, they were forced to this situation, and same for 3D Realms. I bet Take 2, 3D Realms & fans would have loved to see DNF - by now, or in the near future. Most likely that won't happen, not in the near future. __________________ Duke Nukem Forever Who am I to judge?

07-17-2009, 06:41 PM	#1117
SpinX	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms I think the weight of the franchise is underestimated, It is even stronger as I tought, I was talking to new collegues of my new work and almost all of them knew duke nukem and would start gaming again if that game would come out... Also the reaction to the newsposts on shacknews was immense, I think a new duke nukem fps is THE most anticipated game a side from half life 3, starcraft 2 and that COD milk factory.... __________________ waiting for: Elite sequel, Half life 3, Diablo3, DNF Enough is enough! I've had it with these motherxxxxxx delays on this motherxxxxxx game :) http://www.youtube.com/user/ftbfelix

07-17-2009, 06:57 PM	#1118
peoplessi	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms It would be, but only after a finished game is produced. It would have to be good also. Currently, when it's basically in hiatus, the value is significantly less. It has potential, but in it's current form not as much value as it could have - let's say if we had seen DNF 7-8 years ago in stores. We'd be waiting for the sequel to DNF, or the sequel to the sequel. __________________ Duke Nukem Forever Who am I to judge?

07-17-2009, 08:00 PM	#1119
fast-1	Re: Take Two Sues 3D Realms Or 10 years of 10 sequels. __________________ Ha what a day.:D