6 ms·

> Maybe French law is much weirder than ours, but this phrasing would be highly suspect in the US. You would get a really affirmative ruling that you are still

> Maybe French law is much weirder than ours, but this phrasing would be highly suspect in the US. You would get a really affirmative ruling that you are still bound by contract or not. French law is not that strange :). But the decision was appealed and it seems Nacon won in appeal (in october 2020), which allowed them to pursue the contract and to publish the game another time. The decision: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DwqXp6UGNU8J:https://www.doctrine.fr/d/CA/Paris/2020/CB9E50FD5D01D28E6DFA2+ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DwqXp6...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
legitster 6y ago
This seems like exactly what is missing from their story. Unless something more recent was issued, they were flagrantly ignoring a direct court order.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  Summary of the timeline, based on a previous post by Frogwares[0]: In 2019: — Publisher paid for game development, though usually not on time. Per contract, IP remained with the game dev, and there was no obligation to hand over the source. — Publisher hired another studio to work on a similar game, and started demanding source code from game dev. — Game dev delivered the game (not the source). (Not clear whether on time or not.) — Publisher released the game, and immediately withheld profits from sales (with some mechanism referred to as retroactive milestone cancellation). — Publisher was also found to remove game dev’s logo, buying domain names reflecting game dev’s brand, mislead the public as to who had the rights to the game, and do other shady things. — Game dev sued, with unknown outcome. In 2020: — Attempt to pirate the game by the publisher was discovered (February). (Note: this is alleged to have happened long before publisher won on appeal, so it’s not as if the publisher decided to pirate the game after the court determined they are owed the source.) — Game dev terminated the now-breached contract and notified the publisher. Publisher claimed French COVID regulations precluding contract termination (?!). — Publisher sued and lost (July). — Publisher appealed and won (October). (This happened after the publication of the post I referenced.) This obviously presents game dev’s perspective only. It seems exhaustive enough though, and so far I’m inclined to think they aren’t distorting facts and may have been taken advantage of by a larger business (the publisher). Violating a court order is bad, and if game dev was ordered to hand over the source they should probably have complied. That aside, it’s unclear whether the courts ultimately sided with the good guy here. Sadly, if game dev’s the victim here, appealing cross-border may be infeasible for them. [0] https://frogwares.com/the-sinking-city-is-being-delisted-heres-why/ https://frogwares.com/the-sinking-city-is-being-delisted-her...
  - bluesign 6y ago
    If you read the court ruling (in some comment around here, but in french) it makes things a little bit more clear. - publisher not asking for the source code, they want GM copies - publisher didn’t demand source code according to contract ( they state publisher asked for code, but there is no indication they demanded ) - they didn’t deliver the game, at least drm free and for steam - publisher usually has non exclusive usage right to IP But most important, they contacted steam etc and delisted game still appeal process was going, citing IP reasons. Also they are even defensing that delaying steam release didnt cause any harm to the publisher. They are acting in bad faith clearly.
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t it reasonable to pull the plug as soon as the publisher had lost the contract termination lawsuit? Otherwise it seems like a loophole if the publisher can keep appealing indefinitely while getting (and withholding from game dev) all profits from the sales. > they didn’t deliver the game I don’t think either of us knows what exactly the delivery entailed (if you do, you could share a source), but as far as I understand the game was delivered as it was sold by the publisher (who kept and/or didn’t completely disclose profits—against the terms, it appears) and played by the users. > they state publisher asked for code, but there is no indication they demanded According to their post, publisher hired another studio to work on a similar game, and apparently wanted to have the code for that purpose. “Ask for” is different from “demand”, I agree, though it does sound like they were pressured. That aside, are you basically saying the game dev is lying and their contract with the publisher was different from what they claim in their posts? I guess we can’t say for sure, absent evidence, but I don‘t see why they’d lie here.
      - legitster 6y ago
        > I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t it reasonable to pull the plug as soon as the publisher had lost the contract termination lawsuit? Otherwise it seems like a loophole if the publisher can keep appealing indefinitely while getting (and withholding from game dev) all profits from the sales. On the contrary, it sounds like the publisher had already given the develop several millions of dollars to develop the game. You can't just declare a contract void, keep the money, and tank the deal. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DwqXp6UGNU8J:https://www.doctrine.fr/d/CA/Paris/2020/CB9E50FD5D01D28E6DFA2+ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DwqXp6... Frogwares was under a court order to fulfill their obligation. IANAL, but it's worth pointing out that none of the court orders precluded a lawsuit for Frogwares to collect their fair share. But them violating their obligations in the mean time is probably bad faith and will land them in hot water.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

legitster 6y ago

This seems like exactly what is missing from their story. Unless something more recent was issued, they were flagrantly ignoring a direct court order.

strogonoff 6y ago
Summary of the timeline, based on a previous post by Frogwares[0]: In 2019: — Publisher paid for game development, though usually not on time. Per contract, IP remained with the game dev, and there was no obligation to hand over the source. — Publisher hired another studio to work on a similar game, and started demanding source code from game dev. — Game dev delivered the game (not the source). (Not clear whether on time or not.) — Publisher released the game, and immediately withheld profits from sales (with some mechanism referred to as retroactive milestone cancellation). — Publisher was also found to remove game dev’s logo, buying domain names reflecting game dev’s brand, mislead the public as to who had the rights to the game, and do other shady things. — Game dev sued, with unknown outcome. In 2020: — Attempt to pirate the game by the publisher was discovered (February). (Note: this is alleged to have happened long before publisher won on appeal, so it’s not as if the publisher decided to pirate the game after the court determined they are owed the source.) — Game dev terminated the now-breached contract and notified the publisher. Publisher claimed French COVID regulations precluding contract termination (?!). — Publisher sued and lost (July). — Publisher appealed and won (October). (This happened after the publication of the post I referenced.) This obviously presents game dev’s perspective only. It seems exhaustive enough though, and so far I’m inclined to think they aren’t distorting facts and may have been taken advantage of by a larger business (the publisher). Violating a court order is bad, and if game dev was ordered to hand over the source they should probably have complied. That aside, it’s unclear whether the courts ultimately sided with the good guy here. Sadly, if game dev’s the victim here, appealing cross-border may be infeasible for them. [0] https://frogwares.com/the-sinking-city-is-being-delisted-heres-why/ https://frogwares.com/the-sinking-city-is-being-delisted-her...
- bluesign 6y ago
  If you read the court ruling (in some comment around here, but in french) it makes things a little bit more clear. - publisher not asking for the source code, they want GM copies - publisher didn’t demand source code according to contract ( they state publisher asked for code, but there is no indication they demanded ) - they didn’t deliver the game, at least drm free and for steam - publisher usually has non exclusive usage right to IP But most important, they contacted steam etc and delisted game still appeal process was going, citing IP reasons. Also they are even defensing that delaying steam release didnt cause any harm to the publisher. They are acting in bad faith clearly.
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t it reasonable to pull the plug as soon as the publisher had lost the contract termination lawsuit? Otherwise it seems like a loophole if the publisher can keep appealing indefinitely while getting (and withholding from game dev) all profits from the sales. > they didn’t deliver the game I don’t think either of us knows what exactly the delivery entailed (if you do, you could share a source), but as far as I understand the game was delivered as it was sold by the publisher (who kept and/or didn’t completely disclose profits—against the terms, it appears) and played by the users. > they state publisher asked for code, but there is no indication they demanded According to their post, publisher hired another studio to work on a similar game, and apparently wanted to have the code for that purpose. “Ask for” is different from “demand”, I agree, though it does sound like they were pressured. That aside, are you basically saying the game dev is lying and their contract with the publisher was different from what they claim in their posts? I guess we can’t say for sure, absent evidence, but I don‘t see why they’d lie here.
    - legitster 6y ago
      > I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t it reasonable to pull the plug as soon as the publisher had lost the contract termination lawsuit? Otherwise it seems like a loophole if the publisher can keep appealing indefinitely while getting (and withholding from game dev) all profits from the sales. On the contrary, it sounds like the publisher had already given the develop several millions of dollars to develop the game. You can't just declare a contract void, keep the money, and tank the deal. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DwqXp6UGNU8J:https://www.doctrine.fr/d/CA/Paris/2020/CB9E50FD5D01D28E6DFA2+ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DwqXp6... Frogwares was under a court order to fulfill their obligation. IANAL, but it's worth pointing out that none of the court orders precluded a lawsuit for Frogwares to collect their fair share. But them violating their obligations in the mean time is probably bad faith and will land them in hot water.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]