They deserve it for working on an awful dance game.

"posted by Kurt Today at 1:35 pm

They deserve it for working on an awful dance game."

So your saying that 70 people deserved to be laid off because they were working on a game that the hardcore community would hate?

In future, please do think before posting.

"So your saying that 70 people deserved to be laid off because they were working on a game that the hardcore community would hate?"

No. I'm saying they deserve to be laid off because they were making a game for no other reason than to make money, and the game itself would have been a rip-off of similar games.

In future, please assume that I already thought before posting.

"they were making a game for no other reason than to make money"

Do you have examples of developers that don't make games in order to make money and have not, as a consequence, gone bust?

@Kurt
"No. I'm saying they deserve to be laid off because they were making a game for no other reason than to make money, and the game itself would have been a rip-off of similar games."

Shall we play a quick round of count the assumptions? So personally know all 70 of the people laid off, their intentions and outlook on making games. Also, you have played the game itself - and are something of an expert on dance games (including those highly original dance games that were made for reasons other than making money).

I assume that you've thought about these things, and yet posted anyways. So, you're either remarkably well-informed, or [less-than-completely-positive comment omited].

Kurt you are troll please jog on unless you got something sensible to say.

I Hope the get their money but I am unsure if it will be of any use for the people who lost their jobs.

I'd like to see these "extortionate" demands. Given the title costs a few million to make and they were looking to make £100m, I'm really curious to know what the demand was.

Who said, "that's it, I don't want to hear from you guys"? I'm assuming that's the investor; if so, how can they be suing Beyonce?

And why can't they find another investor, given the high ROI? Why were their 70 employees dependant on an unsecured investment? Why was the investor aware of the intricate details of the communication between Beyonce Inc. and Game Five (Ltd. I guess)?

When you're in a business where you go big or go home, there is no way to "secure an investor", you take chances and risks in everything you do (be real, you really do). Also, they had a famous celebrity on their side - the game was DESTINED to be popular, at least among celebrity fans (groupies will do anything).

If I were them, I'd be just as eager to get the project going. Without the celebrity - their marketing falls apart, they lose sponsors, and shit goes pear shaped.

I think Beyonce is nothing but a dumb bitch, in it more for gold than for "right reasons" (you decide).

I don't like her songs to begin with, so oooh big loss to me, NOT. But I do feel for devs on that team.

Tim: why would any commercial entity make a commercial ENDORSEMENT for reasons other than financial?

Why should artist A endorse project D?

You say the project was DESTINED to be a popular because it had a celebrity; so are you saying that the skill and experience of the team, project management, game design and various production elements have nothing to do with the overall quality of the game and user adoption???

Seriously? Are you trying to tell me a CRAP Beyonce game would be popular? No, I'm not saying their game was CRAP, but your statement implies it will still be popular - or do you know something about the game that was not in the article?

@ MR_K

"Seriously? Are you trying to tell me a CRAP Beyonce game would be popular? No, I'm not saying their game was CRAP, but your statement implies it will still be popular"

Unfortunately, the realities of the world are that a crap game (*disclaimer: I've no idea what the quality of the title would have been but for the sake of this argument I'm supposing it's crap) with a big marketing push and a 'Star' attached to it sell insanely well - particularly on the Wii.

I'll refer you to the Michael Jackson games (Wii has 56 metacritic) which is not fun IMO but has sold well.

We live in a world where the marketing dollar is king in terms of getting huge sales figures - and marketing loves celebrity. Whether a game is actually good or not is, sadly, much less of an issue

Would I prefer good games to sell better than bad ones? Absolutely!
Do I think that's actually the case? Not on your Nelly!

but they thought they'd pull in 100M off a singer that's hardly popular with the gamer main demographic? The M.J. game sold because it was M.J., Beyonce is no M.J.

If she did cause problems with the production of the game she should be held accountable, but that accountability should have been in the contract and I doubt they'll be able to prove it to the tune of 100M, unless the judge doesn't have a clue about the industry. Wait... that's pretty much a given isn't it, based on past cases. :

Ofcourse Devs are in it to make money, doesnt mean they dont care about the industry. Developers have families that they need to support and sometimes they have to make uninteresting commercial games like DS or Wii titles so they can earn enough to finance their own projects.
People like Beyonce can be quite intelligent, they have to market themselves as a brand in order to secure money to fund their lifestyles and families.

Its easy to laugh about selling out when you're living off of your parents, but when you have a family to support, projects like DJ hero and dancing games are very tempting.