[citation][nom]thor220[/nom]Lol the blog is already gone. Anyways I have a hard time believing they funded multiple other AAA titles from one games seed money. It's likely that sega is just cheap and now they are having a hissy fit about the end product. If they can somehow prove that Gearbox did funnel money away from the project, only then will I believe sega. Another thing to mull over is: why would gearbox take the duke nukem project knowing they don't have the cash? They wouldn't and it's extremely malicious for sega to even suggest that gearbox is that kind of company. The day that gearbox knowingly accepts moneysinks just to find a reason to embezzle is the day that bill gates suggest an iphone to his wife.[/citation]
gearbox released 3 games, borderlands 1, 2 and dnf in the time between when they were suppose to do acm to when it was released.
i can assume that acm was a 30-50 million $ game, at least, and seeing borderlands 1 2 and hell even dnf (even though it was pieced to together just good enough to work) were better games than acm (dnf at least was on the pc, console port sucked) i wouldnt be surprised if some of that money went to their own gamens and not acm...
considering what gearbox has done in the past, i really hope they screwed up big on this and sink. most of the developers wont have to much trouble getting a job, they have borderlands 1 and 2 on their resumes after all, but i doubt Pickford would get another job after acm, hell haveing anyone high up from gearbox would be a pr problem.
[citation][nom]sublime2k[/nom]I used to hold Gearbox in high regard because of Borderlands, I but I don't know what to think any more after this.[/citation]
look at duke nukem reloaded and than make a judgement call.
[citation][nom]bluestar2k11[/nom]I laughed at that^^Excellent hun^^But to answer to other things you said, it's impossible to fund 3 games with the money of one title. Unless Sega just poured a few hundred million into the project, which I highly doubt. Plus one game would have required a significant buyout to obtain from 3Drealms and it's publisher.There's just no way.I think Sega is trying to play the blame game (No one ever blames themselves of course, esp companies), and Gearbox just happens to be an easy target atm.I'm not happy Aliens failed, I don't think anyone would be. But I can't believe it was entirely Gearbox's fault, they'd made several high quality titles, and helped release others that were also of good quality, to blame ACM on gearbox is just absurd imo. They may have a share of fault, but not all of it, sounds as if there was a lot of problems in the whole development time that were shared between several companies.[/citation]
they were contracted to make the game, and than they passed it to someone else. gearbox is almost entirely to blame, sega only a little because they didnt have it in their contract they cant farm it out.
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]You don't get it. They don't need to use the money for ACM to fuel all 3 other titles completely. Funds that were given to them by Sega should have been spent entirely on ACM, but the accusation is that those funds and resources were moved to the other projects. If Sega gave them $10m and got a project that was only worth $1m, then where did those resources go? They are entitled to get the project they funded. AAA titles are made on very thin profit margins these days, all the money that funds a game needs to go to increasing the quality of that game so the end product can make back the expenses.Of course this blog is not Sega's official stance. You can't speak about pending legal matters. Stiil, I can't imagine why anyone would play the apologist for Gearbox. If the game was poorly built, blame the people that built it. If they outsourced the project elsewhere, then clearly they were trying to produce the game for less.On the other hand, if this slipped under their radar then Sega needs to learn how to manage their dev teams better. This isn't the only poorly crafted game Sega has released, even their flagship Sonic series has had some titles lately that weren't up to code. They should have dropped Gearbox the moment Gearbox started working on other games. A development team should only have one project at a time and should at no point be working for a different publisher. That was a conflict of interest from the start.[/citation]
most bigger developers work on more than one project at once, and if they arent owned by a publisher, they work for whoever wants them to.
the art department and the coders finish at different times, haveing smaller projects or more than one major one isnt unheard of just because the size of these places and the fact that if you just have the people who are done sit on their hands its a waste of time.