|
|
|
|
|
|
From: Todd Porter
Sent: Monday, June 02, 1997 8:25 AM
To: John Romero; Mike Wilson; Robert Wright; Tom Hall; Jerry O'Flaherty
Subject: Dominion
I had a lot of time this weekend to think about Dominion and thought I should give my thoughts "for the record".
Dominion is not just "a way to burn an option" it is - in my opinion - a top ten product and should be thought of that way.
The Knowns are:
A. Electronic Arts is willing to pay 2.1 million for the title and give them a small royalty (<8%). This is 1.5 million up front and $600,000 more to finish the product.
B. Broderbund - through their new game division - is willing to pay over 1 million (exact amount unclear) for the title and give a larger (8%) royalty.
C. Sony has pulled out of negotiations as they deem Dominion will be less attractive on a game machine (non-pc)
Other intangibles:
D. The acquisition of the team members - which Bob has said that Jeff Croson said there was movement on.
E. A title ready for the fall.
F. Bad sneak reviews of the competition - Dark Reign, Star Command, StarCraft, means it could be the hot title this fall.
G. We can make it even better with Kee's input on multiplayer.
H. The money to be paid comes from Eidos or other party and anything < 3 million is money in the bank.
I. Even though 7th Level may eventually go bankrupt, the game will, in the opinion of both Mike Dalton and Martin Zacarias, be "Lost in bankruptcy".
I am not saying that we should pay more than our spreadsheets indicate is profitable for the title (we have scenarios from $1 million, $1.5 million to $2 million that make sense), just that the concept heretofore has been to look at Dominion as a "filler" or "option burner" when, in fact, we are talking about a title that could sell 500,000 units.
Whatever happens in the meeting with 7th Level, one thing is abundantly clear we will not get Dominion for < $1 million - 7th Level already has offers for more.
If we don't get Dominion because of our desire to "bargain shop", AND the title ends up being the smash hit I know it will, I want to make sure I voiced my opinion now.
From: John Romero
Sent: Monday, June 02, 1997 5:08 PM
To: Todd Porter; Mike Wilson; Robert Wright; Tom Hall; Jerry O'Flaherty
Subject: RE: Dominion
I doubt that Dominion will be a 500k+ selling title - there’s no killer buzz about it and if it makes it into the top 10, I would be surprised. Also, there hasn’t been a game designer on the project for over half a year, so I’m sure it’s not in a good state. We will have to invest time and money into the game to get it to a decent quality level and out the door.
The only reason we’re thinking about acquiring it is so we can burn an option, simple as that. We don’t want to get it because it strongly represents what Ion Storm is all about, because it doesn’t - it’s being developed by a company that sucks so bad it’s going out of business.
John Romero
From: Todd Porter
Sent: Monday, June 02, 1997 3:33 PM
To: John Romero
Subject: RE: Dominion
The title, not the company, is what we are talking about. I can't agree with your assessment of the title itself - even if it has been 6 months since Jerry and I have been there. I feel then as I do now that it could - with an appropriate campaign - sell 500k. Remember, there was little buzz about Warcraft and it sold over 1 million...
From: Mike Wilson <mikew@ionstorm.com
To: Todd Porter <todd@ionstorm.com; Jerry O'Flaherty <jerry@ionstorm.com; Robert Wright <bob@ionstorm.com; Tom Hall tom@ionstorm.com
Subject: RE: Dominion
Date: Monday, June 02, 1997 7:09 PM
I think if we leave biz and numbers to the biz guys, we wouldn't have to be all worrying about the negotiations. If numbers hadn't already been discussed that were too high before we were even brought in, we wouldn't be stating so emphatically that we won't pay 'too much' for the project.
Mike Wilson
From: todd [SMTP:todd@ionstorm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 1997 7:44 PM
To: Mike Wilson; Jerry O'Flaherty; Robert Wright; Tom Hall
Subject: Re: Dominion
What numbers are you talking about? I've never given 7th Level any numbers at all. In fact, at the meeting we could they could never get over the employees working here hurdle. Perhaps you should check your facts next time...
From: Mike Wilson [SMTP:mikew@ionstorm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 8:55 AM
To: todd; Mike Wilson; Jerry O'Flaherty; Robert Wright; Tom Hall
Subject: RE: Dominion
Whatever, Todd. Perhaps you shouldn't talk so loudly about it next time.
Mike Wilson
From: Todd Porter [SMTP:todd@ionstorm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 11:09 AM
To: Mike Wilson
Subject: RE: Dominion
Mike,
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have never mentioned any numbers to anyone at 7th Level.
I have wondered for some time why it is you seem bent on attacking me whenever the opportunity arises. Is there some resentment that I don't know about?
I can't imagine why you would want to drive a wedge between yourself and I, perhaps it is just plain office politics.
You've questioned the Eidos Contract. You've questioned my work ethic.
You've insinuated secret negotiations between myself and 7th Level. You seem to have nothing good to say about anything I've done.
If you have issues, then talk to me face to face. I'm not going anywhere in the next five years so there's plenty of time for discussion.
Todd
From: Todd Porter
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 4:24 PM
To: 'tporter@onramp.net'
Subject: FW: Dominion
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Wilson [SMTP:mikew@ionstorm.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 11:36 AM To: Todd Porter Subject: RE: Dominion Great, you email me to tell me to talk to you face to face. I don't have any general problem with you... I very much want for you to do what you say you can do and become a crucial part of the success of our company. I do, however, have a few specific issues that I suppose we should address. I hope that you really didn't quote any 'hypothetical' numbers to 7th level... what I was referring to is you asking others in the office (not even owners) how '2 ˝ million against 20% sounded'. Other than that, pretty much all I've heard from you since I've been here are reasons why you can't work. Poor environment (at the Quadrangle). Then you said you couldn't do a design doc without the engine, and then you couldn't do it without art time. Then, all I hear at our meetings about how to structure the company are concerns about 'what happens to me' when this place all goes to shit. Everyone else seems to be confident with their partners and reliance on them, but you seem to be focused on meltdown strategies, and protecting the individuals, not the company. This worries me. You told us all how long you had been in the industry, but we had to wait for a deposition to discover that you've never actually finished much of anything. You bark orders at people like they're a bunch of fucking construction workers... even those not on your team. You go around ordering hardware and interfering in business affairs that have nothing to do with you designing AND IMPLEMENTING your game. You consistently try to elevate yourself above the other non-partner, or even 'junior partner' members of this company. Still, we push on, accept and attempt to encourage you and believe that this time you will actually implement and complete a game that we can all be proud of. This is one of the qualities in John that I admire the most... his ability to believe in people and give them a chance that others wouldn't, and I want very much to be like that. I hope this doesn't drive a permanent spike between us. I hope that you don't dislike me personally. The only things I 'dislike' about you are things that distract from what you truly are.. a gifted, creative, game designer. All the wrong ways that you attempt to command respect, all the exaggerations and embellishments, and your propensity for quick distraction from your main task are all things that keep you from reaching your full potential. I someday hope to be accepted by you as someone who helped to push you beyond what you have achieved before, while making sure your surroundings stay intact and that your title receives all the things I can provide to help it reach "A+" status before it ever releases. All I'm doing is being the 'asshole' that says to you what I'm thinking, rather than politely ignoring issues. I hope all that doesn't sound too pretentious, but I think you deserve honesty, even when it may seem unpleasant. If you'd like to go talk about any or all of this over a couple of beers, I'd be more than happy. BTW>>> I don't EVER engage in office politics. I am what I am without any of that, and politicking would get me nothing. What do I possibly have to gain? Mike Wilson
From: Todd Porter [SMTP:todd@ionstorm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 1:28 PM
To: Mike Wilson
Subject: Grow up I began to read your response and after two lines realized your never going to change.
Are you expecting me to fire back and answer all the attacks you >made in that document?
Hell, I stopped reading after the first paragraph.
Even if I had read it I wouldn't go on the attack. This is an adult environment and I wish to keep it that way.
You once said that we need to say "positive" things about each other.
That was the smartest thing I've heard you say. Let's remember to do that.
From: Mike Wilson [SMTP:mikew@ionstorm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 3:46 PM
To: Todd Porter
Subject: RE: Grow up
If you'd read the email, you'd see that that's what I got to. You ask me if I have some sort of problem with you and then you don't want to hear it? That's great communication.
Mike Wilson
|
|
|
|
dallasobserver.com | News & Features | Sports | Arts | Music | Dish | Film Calendar | Classified | Romance | Letters | Web Extra | Archive | About © 1998 New Times, Inc. All rights reserved. |
