• ryedaft@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    When two parties sign a contract then they have to act in good faith. Preventing the other party from fulfilling their obligations to avoid a payout or invoke a penalty is not good faith. And that’s why the sea witch Ursula’s contract with the mermaid Ariel would not have held up in court.

    Maybe the game would make more money during it’s life span if released later but that’s irrelevant when there’s a contract about how much money the game should make before a certain cut off date.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      We currently don’t know which party is acting in bad faith. The publishers could be delaying to avoid the payout or the 3 founders could be rushing to get the payout. It’s true that a shit half baked game would ruin the series and cause damages, if there is an actual lack of content, there is justification in delaying it.

      I guess we will get a clearer picture as the lawsuits draw to a close and the game is released.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I’m certain there are clauses that demand a certain level of content and quality.

          • ryedaft@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            No, that’s what the income requirement is for. Are you telling me you would buy it even if they shipped a half-baked piece of shit product and all the reviewers told you so?

            Edit: I think you are confusing your desire for a good game with the legal dispute