Steve Ellis issues statement on development of Star Wars game detailing his side of the story, saying “We were not perfect. We made mistakes, but third-parties had a hand in our failure.”

Free Radical Design cofounder Steve Ellis wants to set the record straight. The developer has responded to claims made by an anonymous former LucasArts employee, who told GameSpot that the failure of Star Wars: Battlefront III was due in large part to mismanagement at Free Radical.

Ellis took issue with many of the source’s claims. He said it is “nonsense” that he tried to whitewash the part that he played in Battlefront III’s failure. He also denied the source’s assertion that Free Radical was, at a time, akin to a Ponzi scheme.

Ellis said when Haze was delayed, publisher Ubisoft increased its budget for the extra development time, so it was not necessary to use LucasArts funds to develop Haze or any subsequent title.

Lastly, Ellis admitted Free Radical was “not perfect” and made mistakes, but made clear that “third-parties had a hand in our failure.” Ellis’ entire statement in posted below.

“I want to set the record straight because a lot of people worked very hard on BFIII (and BFIV) and they don’t deserve their efforts to be distorted in this way.”

“From the personal tone of the comments it is clear that the source is someone whom I personally dealt with. It’s unfortunate that they are making this kind of criticism while choosing to remain anonymous.”

“What annoys me about the article is that I personally am accused of a whitewash, which is nonsense. While I don’t know everything that my ex-colleagues and staff might have said on the subject, personally I have tried to explain what happened as completely and accurately as possible. I have nothing to gain from a whitewash. I’ve gone on record saying that we had had difficult times at Free Radical Design. I’ve admitted that the transition to the latest generation of consoles was more difficult than we anticipated, that we may have made some poor tech choices, and that growing the company to the necessary size for ‘next-gen’ development wasn’t easy. I’ve said that these things had an impact on the development of Haze and that for this reason – and a number of other reasons – Haze didn’t reach the level of quality that we always aimed for at FRD. None of this is new information, so it’s a little strange to see it presented as ‘here’s what these guys aren’t telling you, and since I’m telling you this you’ll also believe me when I tell you all of this other stuff.’”

“The allegation that we used the LucasArts money to fund the completion of Haze is false. Aside from anything else, we didn’t need to. When Haze slipped, Ubisoft supported us by increasing the dev budget to cover the extra time. The ironic thing about this allegation though, is that just about every publisher we worked with would simultaneously worry that we might spend their money elsewhere, but they would invariably ask us to move resources from another project onto theirs. Our answer was always the same: ‘If we do that for you now, how do you know we won’t do it for someone else later?.’ They never liked it, but it seemed like the only way to treat everyone fairly.”

“The suggestion that we kept our difficulties to ourselves is also false. We may have been guilty of this in our earlier publisher relationships, believing that we could quietly deal with our problems by ourselves and not have to risk instigating a situation where the publishers response added further risk to the project or our company. However, with LucasArts this was absolutely not the case; it was the best publisher relationship we had ever had, so when it became clear that the design changes that we had mutually agreed to make meant that there was a risk to the end date, the first thing we did was to bring it to the attention of LucasArts senior management, almost a full year before the scheduled release. There was a lot of discussion and it was agreed to push back the release date. There were no secrets.”

“I don’t know who he might be referring to when he says that ‘key staff’ left in September 2008. During that month we lost a couple of mid-level programmers, a couple of artists, and a member of our admin staff.”

“I don’t know what problems he’s referring to in August or December 2007. In December 2007 they signed us to develop the sequel concurrently, asking us to grow our company further to do so. I’d say that that was a pretty strong vote of confidence in us, not the actions of a company that was concerned about our abilities to deliver on such an important project.”

“It was 75% of a mediocre game.’ Again, false. Until very recently there was a gameplay video on YouTube that showed exactly where the game was. It was leaked by people who were very proud of the game that they had spent over 2 years developing and wanted the world to at least have an opportunity to see it before it was consigned to history. Unfortunately, four years on, LucasArts have chosen to have the video removed. Objectively though, the game was ‘content complete’ and we were fixing bugs. At that stage in development, the way that completion is measured is by looking at the number of open bugs in the database. These are tracked and people spend a lot of time analyzing the fix rate and the rate of discovering new bugs and projecting a completion date when the game will be ready for release. At the time that the development on BFIII was stopped, the figures showed that we would close our ‘must-fix’ bugs with 3-4 weeks. So yes, maybe on reflection 99 percent was a little of an exaggeration. I probably should have said 97 percent or 98 percent.”

“In 2008, LucasArts was a company with problems. Of course I don’t know the full details of or explanation for what happened internally, but some of the facts are clear: the entire management team who were there when we started working together were replaced in the first half of 2008. They made mass redundancies on their internal teams. They cancelled a number of projects. Then our milestones started being rejected. We were told (and it seemed wholly believable given the aforementioned facts) that they could not afford to continue development of both BFIII and its sequel, so they negotiated the termination of BFIV, then later BFIII. There was no ‘termination for breach.’”

“If the problem really was that we had failed to meet their desperate need for a new Battlefront game, you might ask why after all this time they still haven’t released a new Battlefront game using a different developer. I can only speculate.”

“As the ‘anonymous source’ says, there are two sides to every argument. However, it’s easy to make anonymous allegations and not have to back them up. I stand by everything I’ve said. All I’ve ever tried to do is explain the series of events that led to the failure of Free Radical. We were not perfect. We made mistakes, but third-parties had a hand in our failure. Personally I am very proud of the efforts made by the former staff of Free Radical through 2008. They are an incredibly talented group of people who through no fault of their own found themselves in a no-win situation. I’m happy that most of them have had the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities subsequently on games such as Crysis 2.”

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Source says Steve Ellis’ claim that project was sabotaged for financial reasons is “ludicrous,” likens Free Radical to Ponzi scheme.

Star Wars: Battlefront III has long been the subject of great rumor and speculation. Despite numerous and detailed attestments to its existence and development, LucasArts never confirmed the game was in fact in production. The most recent claim about the project came from Free Radical Design cofounder Steve Ellis, who said last week that Battlefront III was 99 percent complete at the time of its cancellation. But this claim has been contested.

“This 99 percent complete stuff is just bullsh*t,” a former LucasArts employee who wished to remain nameless told GameSpot. “A generous estimate would be 75 percent of a mediocre game.”

The source also took issue with Free Radical cofounder David Doak and audio director Graeme Norgate’s claims this summer that LucasArts effectively sabotaged development of Battlefront III. “There are two sides to every story,” the source said.

“I was at LucasArts during this time, working on Battlefront III, and remember it well. Everybody from producers to marketing was 100 percent invested in making the relationship work,” the source said. “We were desperate for a next-gen followup to Battlefront (the claim that the project was sabotaged for financial reasons is ludicrous. The [Battlefront] franchise was a huge money maker at the time). When Free Radical continually missed dates and deliveries, [former LucasArts presidents Jim Ward and Darrell Rodriguez] made many ‘good will’ whole or partial milestone payments to keep the project going.”

The situation surrounding Battlefront III may seem complex or convoluted, but according to the source, the game was a failure for three simple reasons. The first, he said, was that Free Radical’s sci-fi shooter Haze was late by more than a year, and this took resources away from the first half of Battlefront III’s development.

Second, it is the source’s belief that Free Radical “underestimated” or “misrepresented” its ability to meet dates and create a compelling product. And third, the situation became even more problematic when Free Radical missed new assigned dates. “This was a huge confidence killer and ultimately their downfall,” he said.

The source was employed at LucasArts during the production of the Pandemic Studios-developed Star Wars: Battlefront games. He said that as is the case with most developers, Pandemic at times underestimated its ability to meet dates. However, unlike Free Radical, they “were upfront about it.”

GameSpot has also learned of a detailed development schedule for Star Wars: Battlefront III. According to the source, production started in mid-2006 for delivery in October 2008. However, Free Radical missed numerous milestones, he said, noting that though some cases were due to subjective quality issues. Other times, functionality was simply not present.

“For much of 2007, Xbox 360 builds simply did not work. Initially, Free Radical claimed it was a US/UK kit difference, but when we asked to FedEx one of their working machines to the US for a build review, they declined.”

“In December 2007, Free Radical still did not have simple AI working in levels,” he said.
“For much of 2007, Xbox 360 builds simply did not work. Initially, Free Radical claimed it was a US/UK kit difference, but when we asked to FedEx one of their working machines to the US for a build review, they declined.”

Additionally, the source claimed several game modes were not implemented, and the only gameplay in place was team-based free-for-all. On top of this, maps “generally tested poorly with no focus for action,” he said.

This was only just the beginning of problems for Free Radical and Battlefront III. In 2007, the source began to suspect that its payments to Free Radical were in fact being used to complete Haze and not Battlefront III. What’s more, during this time, Haze became a PlayStation 3 exclusive, which affirmed LucasArts’ belief that the studio’s engine was not compatible with Xbox 360 at the time.

In August 2007, the source said Free Radical was “struggling” with Haze and Battlefront III and thus began to (as time would prove unsuccessfully) shop around TimeSplitters 4. It was also during this time that the source levied his most serious claims against Free Radical.

“At this point, I felt that Free Radical was akin to a Ponzi scheme where time and budget from the next game was being used to finish the previous, late, title,” he said.

During January 2008, the source said Ellis himself told LucasArts that Free Radical would not be able to meet development milestones for 2008. LucasArts and Free Radical then agreed to a new street date of April 2009, with LucasArts consenting to cover the costs of the extra seven months of work.

“At this point, I felt that Free Radical was akin to a Ponzi scheme where time and budget from the next game was being used to finish the previous, late, title.”

If LucasArts’ new agreement with Free Radical instilled any confidence that further development time would lead to a better product, that feeling would be short-lived.

A critical milestone came in May 2008 when Haze finally shipped. The game was more than a year late and received generally poor review marks. “The quality of the game was extremely alarming to us,” he said. “Free Radical insisted that the delays were to ensure the game was a gem with 85+ review, but that was very clearly not the case.”

Development on Battlefront III continued to suffer from there. By late 2008, Free Radical was again missing its previously agreed upon dates. “It now looked like the April 2009 street date could not be met,” he said. Then in September 2008, “key staff” left Free Radical, and by October of that year, the company did not deliver work due for its August and September milestones. “And the October milestone was not going to be met either,” he said.

The next point on the beleaguered and strained development of Battlefront III was its last: cancellation.

“The failure of Battlefront III was tragic for everyone involved, not least the fans,” the source said. “There’s a lot of blame to go around and many different perspectives. I won’t though let Steve Ellis whitewash the part that he and Free Radical played. I’d suggest that everyone keep this as something tragic to muse over with a beer rather than throwing stones in public.”

Crytek UK (formerly Free Radical Design) did not respond to GameSpot’s request for comment concerning the development of Star Wars: Battlefront III. Should a representative provide comment, it will be added here.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Free Radical cofounder Steve Ellis says ill-fated Star Wars game only needed bug fixing, would have been company’s “most successful game.”

Star Wars: Battlefront III was 99 percent complete at the time of its cancellation, Free Radical cofounder Steve Ellis told GamesTM magazine (via NowGamer).

“We had a 99 percent finished game that just needed bug fixing for release. It should have been our most successful game, but it was cancelled for financial reasons,” Ellis said.

A report from May revealed Battlefront III was in development at Free Radical (now Crytek UK) from mid-2006 through early 2008. Other cofounder David Doak said things went well with the project until a management change at LucasArts led the publisher to make deep cuts and essentially sabotaged Battlefront III.

“[W]e went from talking to people who were passionate about making games to talking to psychopaths who insisted on having an unpleasant lawyer in the room,” Doak said at the time.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Free Radical co-founder says publisher hamstrung development of shooter sequel, was led by “psychopaths who wanted to destroy us.”

Several years ago, the Star Wars: Battlefront series had a third game in the works at TimeSplitters studio Free Radical Design, but the project–and soon thereafter the developer itself–was killed by LucasArts. That’s just one of the unpleasant allegations made by former Free Radical developers in a Eurogamer feature recapping the studio’s entire history.

Battlefront III concept art.

From mid-2006 through early 2008, Free Radical was working for LucasArts on a new installment in the third-person shooter take on the Star Wars universe. Studio co-founder David Doak told the site things went well with the project until a management change at LucasArts led the publisher to make deep cuts and cancel projects.

“[W]e went from talking to people who were passionate about making games to talking to psychopaths who insisted on having an unpleasant lawyer in the room,” Doak said.

Free Radical audio director Graeme Norgate said LucasArts’s new management essentially sabotaged the Battlefront III project and the studio, withholding milestone payments for months as they contested every detail of what Free Radical was obligated to deliver in order.

“LucasArts hadn’t paid us for six months,” Norgate said, “and were refusing to pass a milestone so we would limp along until the money finally ran out. They knew what they were doing, and six months of free work to pass on to Rebellion wasn’t to be sniffed at.” (Rebellion did not end up finishing the project, although some of Free Radical’s work was passed on to the studio.)

Doak said Free Radical’s contract had provisions that should have protected the studio, but they didn’t matter because they would not be able to afford the court costs to win the protracted legal battle with LucasArts necessary to collect on those clauses.

“My role at Free Radical meant that I was simultaneously involved in these unpleasant ‘high level’ discussions with psychopaths who wanted to destroy us, and then the next day sitting with our dev staff at their desks trying to boost people’s morale,” Doak said. “Helping them to pass milestones that I knew would subsequently be manipulated to cause them to fail. It was the most depressing and pointless thing that I have ever been involved in. The dream job which I once loved had become a nightmarish torture.”

Free Radical entered administration in late 2008, with part of the studio acquired by Crytek and renamed Crytek UK in February of 2009. Doak has since left game development entirely.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Free Radical founder says Call of Duty and Battlefield are only profitable shooters on market, publishers afraid to pursue projects that don’t follow established formula.

Call of Duty and Battlefield the only first-person shooter franchises making money, TimeSplitters developer and Free Radical founder Steve Ellis recently told Edge. As a result, the longtime developer believes publishers are wary to green-light projects that buck established trends.

Publishers won’t pursue a unique FPS, according to Ellis.

“I spent the whole of 2008 going round talking to publishers trying to sign up Timesplitters 4,” Ellis said. “There just isn’t the interest there in doing anything that tries to step away from the rules of the genre–no one wants to do something that’s quirky and different, because it’s too much of a risk. And a large part of that is the cost of doing it.”

Crytek UK (the name Free Radical took on when Crytek purchased the outfit) recently confirmed TimeSplitters 4 was not in development despite the game having been announced in 2007.

“Nobody really buys any FPSes unless they’re called Call of Duty,” he elaborated. “I guess Battlefield did OK, but aside from that, pretty much every FPS loses money. I mean, [look at] Crysis 2: great game, but there’s no way it came anywhere close to recouping its dev costs.”

Ellis left Crytek UK in February 2009 to start open a mobile game studio called Crash Lab. He explained that the FPS genre today has morphed considerably from what it once was.

“We’ve been through more than a couple of console generations and seen things grow and grow to a stage where it’s not really the business we got into,” he said. “It’s not really what we signed up for at the start.”

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Nottingham-based studio responsible for Haze, TimeSplitters taking on development duties for as-yet-unnamed sequel.

While THQ’s stock dived as a result of the mixed critical reception for Homefront, the publisher hinted in May that a sequel was on the way when it announced that 2.6 million sales represented “a solid start for this new franchise.” Hopes of a full sequel were dealt a blow back in July when THQ confirmed that it was to shutter Kaos Studios, but today the publisher confirmed that another Homefront game was indeed in the works.

Homefront was praised for its engaging and engrossing vision of the future.

The sequel to Homefront will be released at some point in the THQ’s 2014 fiscal year–which translates as some time between April 2013 and the end of March 2014–according to the publisher. The game, which does not yet have a title, will be developed by Crytek’s Nottingham studio, which was known as Free Radical before it was bought up by the German developer best known for the Crysis series and Crytek engine.

Free Radical’s most recent game before being annexed was the less-than-stellar Haze, though before that it was best known for the revered Timesplitters series. Details on the game were scarce, save that it wil be powered by “the very latest” CryEngine technology.

The game will be released on “PC and home console platforms,” according to THQ. The press release for the game does not confirm specifics, though it does reference both PlayStation and Xbox platforms, with no mention of the Wii U or other Nintendo offerings. For more on the franchise, check out the GameSpot video review of the original Homefront below.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot