3D Realms Won't Rush Duke Nukem Forever 310
WeAz writes "GameSpot has news that 3D Realms has no plans on rushing Duke Nukem Forever. Despite the $500,000 bounty that Take-Two Interactive was found to be offering for the game after a filing with the SEC last week, George Broussard, President of 3D Realms, has given his official response: 'We're certainly not motivated by that amount of money, after all this time, and getting the game right is what matters. I would never ship a game early (even a couple of months), for 500k.'"
Re:What is wrong with these people? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WTF? Talk about uninformed (Score:5, Informative)
As they say on their website: In business since 1991. Never had a loan. Never had layoffs. Extremely stable and successful environment.
Re:WTF? Talk about uninformed (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.gameproducer.net/2006/06/13/interview-
GameProducer.net: 3DRealms got praise from Remedy when they were doing their first cinematic action title Max Payne. Remedy said that it has been great to work with a publisher that gave no or little pressure about the deadlines. I heard the famous slogan "When it's done" first time said by Remedy & 3D Realms. How do you approach this attitude nowadays? Do you have no deadlines at all? What it really means to you to publish a game "when it's done"?
Scott Miller: Well, we have a simply philosophy that if you're going to make a game, do it right. Another words, the game comes first. Most publishers do not see the value of this philosophy, and therefore the majority of their games are not hits. Also, since we retain ownership of our game brands, it is in our best interest to insure that our games are big hits, because not only do we like those fat royalty checks, we also like to see the valuation of our brands exceed 10's of millions of dollars. In 2002 we (us and Remedy) sold the Max Payne brand for nearly $50 million, and that was after earning some $25 million in royalties. So, was it worth the 4.5 years to make Max Payne right?
Re:Title asked for mockery (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What DNF Can Teach NASA (Score:4, Informative)
The previous poster wasn't talking about the Mars Polar Lander, they were referring to the $125 Million Mars Climate Orbiter.
"nothing as dramatic as confusing the two measures of distance - that would be unthinkable - and not even NASA is dumb enough to make such a mistake."
Someone should inform NASA of this. They admitted that this is precisely what happened. Actually, though, Lockheed Martin built the spacecraft, and it was their engineers who used English units. NASA, like everyone else in the (scientific) world, uses metric.
"No, the problem was that the conversion variables were not of sufficient accuracy, and over a period of 18 months where the computers used the conversion many thousands of times, the eventual height that the motors cut out was too high to allow the craft to survive."
If you're referring to the Mars Polar Lander, then that's also inaccurate. NASA's internal report states that the most likely cause of the loss of the Polar Lander is that its engines cut off upon deployment of its three 'legs'. Onboard sensors believed the craft had landed due to incorrect sensor readings, so the engines cut off and the craft plumeted to its doom.
However, the previous poster did make one mistake. The Mars Climate Orbiter likely did not crash into "the body it was orbiting". Due to the units conversion problem, the navigation system did not begin its burn to slow the spacecraft into a proper Mars orbit until it was far too close to the planet already. The result was that the Orbiter was travelling far too fast, its thrusters overheated during their burn and shut down, the craft plowed through the atmosphere, and continued on its way. Speculation is that it currently holds an orbit around the sun.
Re:What??? (Score:1, Informative)