Jump to content

Bruce Everiss Vs Stuart Campbell


Swainy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Calling Stuart by the name of bellend really does you no favours. It's an argument tactic from the playground.

Fun to watch, though!

The sycophants on his website are calling it "libel and defamation of character."

But they don't notice all the names he has called me over the last couple of weeks.

Hypocritic sycophants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Bruce! I'm absolutely not getting involved in your delusional insanity again, but I have to take a moment to address this scandalous, libellous comment regarding Jon Hare.

Hare did not back him up. Quite the opposite. Jon specifically says that Bellend was not Development Manager. That he was lead designer in just one game (not three as implied).

Pretty much NONE of this is even remotely true. What I said, and what you helpfully quoted, is that I was involved in the production of three games, and that I did most of the work on one of them. This is unquestionably, empirically, indisputably true. I most certainly WAS involved in the production of SWOS and Sensible Golf, though I've openly acknowledged many times, including on my own website, that my involvement on those was minor compared to my role on CF2. Jon Hare, as you know full well, has NEVER said anything to the contrary - I know this because you're such an odious little man that you forwarded his private and personal correspondence to me without his permission, so I know precisely what he did and didn't say, and it bears no resemblance to what you've said here, you revolting, cowardly, pathological liar.

Anyway, you've done such a fantastic job of digging a huge, muddy slimy hole for yourself over the last week or so that I don't intend to bother helping you make it any deeper. You're a professional bullshitter, Bruce, and a completely mental one at that, flatly denying you ever said things that people have supplied scanned black-and-white evidence of you saying. Everyone's laughing at you, and no matter how much you delete they'll still know.

(Oh, and PS - Cannon Fodder 2 sold only fractionally fewer copies than the first game, despite being more expensive, coming out on fewer formats and being released when Bruce would have you believe that the Amiga market had been murdered by piracy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Oh, and PS - Cannon Fodder 2 sold only fractionally fewer copies than the first game, despite being more expensive, coming out on fewer formats and being released when Bruce would have you believe that the Amiga market had been murdered by piracy.)

What on earth does "fractionally fewer" mean? One tenth? Ninety-nine hundredths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question I'd like you to answer Bruce is:

If piracy didn't exist would Imagine have collapsed?

Because (and I'll admit only because of that article) it seems that Imagine was sooo badly run that it would have destroyed itself anyway. Imagine didn't even have a professional accountant.... I mean WTF? You're running a business employing tens? Hundreds? of people and you don't employ an accountant....!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question I'd like you to answer Bruce is:

If piracy didn't exist would Imagine have collapsed?

Because (and I'll admit only because of that article) it seems that Imagine was sooo badly run that it would have destroyed itself anyway. Imagine didn't even have a professional accountant.... I mean WTF? You're running a business employing tens? Hundreds? of people and you don't employ an accountant....!?!

Imagine was just over 100 people. Companies of this size can generally survive on a book keeper.

Ian Hetherington was the financial director. It was his job to look after the accountancy side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Very Reverend Bellend is deluded. Hare did not back him up. Quite the opposite. Jon specifically says that Bellend was not Development Manager. That he was lead designer in just one game (not three as implied). And that Cannon Fodder 2 had already been designed in Cannon Fodder 1.

There is no way anyone would have paid Imagine £11 million up front for anything. Obviouly Bellend and yourself know very little of business.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're drunk/unwell this morning, because otherwise your dismal behaviour would be incredibly damning.

I believe what happened was you posted a very spurious and poorly informed article, and then very many people armed with information and facts challenged your position. You then began deleting comments that asked you awkward questions, then went on to openly lie about why you were deleting comments. This upset a number of people, especially those who had written intelligent, coherent and extremely well researched responses, which you repeatedly ignored.

Obviously lots of people find this all hilarious. You start screaming about the £11m being the delusions of the stupid, when it came from an article you wrote. No matter how many people point this out, you continue to scream that Stuart, or whoever else might have read your own words, are lying or stupid. This is enormously amusing to a point, because it's you having an argument with yourself. But unfortunately when you start behaving in your current manner, calling people childish names, and attempting to smear others of whom you're afraid, it's extremely ugly and distasteful. The entertainment wears off, and we're left staring at a spiteful man resorting to the most immature of means to try and win... whatever it is you feel you need to win.

It's unsurprising that the only person you so vociferously attack is Stuart. It's a cowardly move based on your awareness that many here don't like him, so you assume it will gain you sympathy. Instead the most extraordinary thing has happened: people on rllmuk have reluctantly defended Stuart, even admired him for his conduct in communication with you. The scale of this must be lost on you. However, reading through the extensive comments on your blog post, Stuart was one of very many people making the same argument, armed with the same facts, mostly rather helpfully supplied by you in the past. You ignored almost all of them, and continue to do so now.

I think the most telling factor in this whole debate is that when people reference your seven-point article on the cause of the demise of Imagine and its having no mention of piracy, your response is only ever to claim that a sub added the "not piracy" line in the strap, rather than acknowledge that if one were writing a seven part piece on the reasons why a company closed, one might include the one that one thinks is the primary cause. It's the tacit acknowledgement in your article by not mentioning piracy, not even alluding to it within seven other stated reasons, to which people are refering. I don't believe this is lost on you - I believe it's very awkward for you to acknowledge, thus your refusal.

I plead to you to stop your current campaign. Trying to arm yourself with private emails from unwilling individuals you dragged in is utterly grotesque. You are so very fortunate that Stuart is infinitely more genteel than you, and would not stoop so low as to do the same. It would be rather embarrassing for you.

You will forever believe in the Great Evil of Piracy, because you are demonstrably unable to listen to any other points of view, astonishingly including your own. So there is no point in anyone attempting to reason with you on the matter. But hopefully you can be reached with regard to your current conduct.

Yours,

John Walker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine was just over 100 people. Companies of this size can generally survive on a book keeper.

Ian Hetherington was the financial director. It was his job to look after the accountancy side.

Bruce, why do you think that Imagine failed and Ultimate didn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stu Campbell is a liar: Remember that time he said he was never going to post here again?

:lol:

Already proven. Multiple times.

But he is so deluded that he thinks that he is always right.

Development Manager at Sensible Software during their most successful period in the mid-90s. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce, why do you think that Imagine failed and Ultimate didn't?

Ultimate had a very, very small staff.

And ran from small cheap offices in a small town (Ashby)

So they had a low overhead base to survive (for just one year more than Imagine, remember)

Imagine had over 100 people in expensive city centre offices. So they were very exposed when income collapsed because of piracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's John Walker? Wasn't he the Greater Manchester Police commissioner who went on to advertise security awnings and window grills?

I think he's John Walker, games journalist par excellence, and EG's resident Japanese puzzle game expert. Slitherlink's 10/10? Him.

Unless I'm hopelessly wrong and it's another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so I can get this right, Stu wasn't Dev Manager for Sensible? He's used his spell at Sensi a lot in the past as credentials as a voice of authority in a number of arguments.

Stu's own post just a few pages back stresses his involvement in 3 games at Sensi but doesn't refute Bruce's claims he didn't do much beyond level design for one game.

Looking at MobyGames he's credited as Manual Writer for SWOS, tester for Golf and level designer for CF2. I know what's written in manuals doesn't always capture the extent of someone's involvement in a project but on the face of it this does seem to backup what Bruce is attributing to Jon.

That said I do think Bruce is getting wrong on the piracy thing and I mostly agree with Stu on this one case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much NONE of this is even remotely true. What I said, and what you helpfully quoted, is that I was involved in the production of three games, and that I did most of the work on one of them.

Crikey, the way that reads it looks like you designed, coded, tested, did the graphics and composed music for one of the games. Which one was that then? Did you do the marketing as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimate had a very, very small staff.

And ran from small cheap offices in a small town (Ashby)

So they had a low overhead base to survive (for just one year more than Imagine, remember)

They sold off the catalogue to US Gold in 1985 and continued for, erm, another TWENTY-ONE YEARS as Rare, Bruce. Their income didn't "collapse because of piracy".

Imagine had over 100 people in expensive city centre offices. So they were very exposed when income collapsed because of piracy.

As I suspected would be the case, you forgot to mention that Ultimate designed and produced consistently outstanding games, whereas Imagine... didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sold off the catalogue to US Gold in 1985 and continued for, erm, another TWENTY-ONE YEARS as Rare, Bruce. Their income didn't "collapse because of piracy".

On a platform with considerably less piracy due to it requiring additional hardware (in the form of cartridge and floppy drive that back then cost a fair bit) to run copied software.

Why do you think so many developers ran to the cartridge based consoles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also true that Imagine had *three* sets of city offices, two of which were left empty (according to Bruce). The overheads on that probably didn't help much, either.

Why do you think so many developers ran to the cartridge based consoles?

But surely, the point that we're trying to put across is that many didn't. And they still had great success in the remaining years of the 8-bits. So to claim piracy as a major reason for Imagine's failure (which Bruce has backtracked a little from, to be fair) just seems incredible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.