Stargate SG-1 Cancelled?

Gamecloud reports another twist in the ongoing epic saga of the Stargate SG-1 game (thanks Frans). This project was previously reported as cancelled by JoWooD (story), a report that was contradicted by developer Perception (story). It was then revealed that Namco was eager to step in as publisher of this game (story and story), while a subsequent finding by a bankruptcy court seemed to find fault in the dispute over the game to lie with Perception (story). The new report comes from Crazy Ivan's Stargate Alliance Board, where word is:
It pains me to say this but unfortunately Stargate SG-1 The Alliance has been canceled.

An official statement is forth coming from MGM and/or perception in the coming days.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the employees of Perception all the very best for the future. Having seen the game first hand I know you guys did a fantastic job and you have every right to feel proud of what you have done.

I encourage all the Perception employees who are hidden members of this forum to let yourselves be known. You should be proud of the work you have done and I encourage all members of the forum here to congratulate the Perception crew and to wish them all the very best.
View : : :
9.
 
Re: It should be said
Jan 21, 2006, 16:00
9.
Re: It should be said Jan 21, 2006, 16:00
Jan 21, 2006, 16:00
 
From one of the staff members at Perception:

"For the last couple of months, we have had several good offers from interested publishers. They only needed one thing - MGM's approval. Since MGM are the owners of the Stargate license, everything needs to be approved by them, even new publisher contracts. So, when we approached MGM about these contracts...MGM basically sat on their hands and did nothing. They didn't flat out say no, but they didn't say yes either. They expressed concerns with areas of the game. We addressed those concerns. Still no publisher approval. We showed them other offers from publishers, and that said publishers were asking for more information on the license. Did MGM provide it? No, even though contractually they were supposed to.

In the end it was pretty obvious MGM wanted the project canned for some reason that eludes everyone except them, but they didn't want to be the ones to do it. So, they just sat on their hands and did nothing for several months, to the point where Perception could not afford to keep working on the game knowing that they didn't have MGM's approval, and will probably never get it. Developers need publishers to fund the creation of a game. Without the publisher, the developer gets no income. Without MGM's approval, Perception couldn't sign a publisher. So the equation is pretty simple. There's only so long a developer can hold on financially without publisher backing.

As of about Friday the 20th of January 2006, at about 1pm Sydney time, the title "Stargate SG-1: The Alliance" was terminated for all SKU's. This also means the entire development team was "let go". I am now out of a job. After putting blood, sweat and tears into this thing for the last year and a half, and pulling some ridiculous hours on more occasions I can count, it's all for nothing."

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
2.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
3.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
4.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
5.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
6.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
7.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
12.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
18.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
28.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
8.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
 9.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
    Re: It should be said
33.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
24.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
25.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
     Re: Excellent
26.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
      Re: Excellent
32.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
       Re: Excellent
34.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
        Re: Excellent
35.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
         Re: Excellent
29.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
      Re: Excellent
31.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
       Re: Excellent
37.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
        Re: Excellent
38.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
         Re: Excellent
42.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
         Re: Excellent
49.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
10.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
16.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
20.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
22.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
11.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
13.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
14.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
19.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
21.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
15.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
27.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
17.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
23.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
30.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
36.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
43.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
39.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
40.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
41.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
44.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
45.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
66.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
67.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
76.
Jan 24, 2006Jan 24 2006
68.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
72.
Jan 23, 2006Jan 23 2006
69.
Jan 23, 2006Jan 23 2006
70.
Jan 23, 2006Jan 23 2006
71.
Jan 23, 2006Jan 23 2006
46.
Jan 21, 2006Jan 21 2006
48.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
52.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
53.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
73.
Jan 23, 2006Jan 23 2006
74.
Jan 23, 2006Jan 23 2006
     Re: No subject
47.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
50.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
51.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
55.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
56.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
57.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
58.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
     Re: No subject
59.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
      Re: No subject
60.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
       Re: No subject
62.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
63.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
64.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
     Re: No subject
65.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
      Re: No subject
54.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
61.
Jan 22, 2006Jan 22 2006
75.
Jan 23, 2006Jan 23 2006