It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
PoSSeSSeDCoW: Read the conflicts section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_First
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: From that article it looks like most of the conflicts stem from Strategy First's 2004 bankruptcy. Basically Strategy First ran out of money to pay the various debts they owed, went into bankruptcy (sounded like chapter 11, or whatever the Canadian equivalent is), and as part of the process were allowed to shield themselves from debt obligations surrounding royalty payments to several developers. Naturally those developers aren't particularly happy about not being paid, but pissed off creditors are pretty much a given with any bankruptcy filing.

This is the credited response.
You pick a publisher. You run a risk. That's life.
Post edited September 14, 2009 by cioran
Their business practices may be questionable, but to take the games off of the service would be extreme. They're already on there, and have been for a while; removing them now would be detrimental to the service.
avatar
TheCheese33: Their business practices may be questionable, but to take the games off of the service would be extreme. They're already on there, and have been for a while; removing them now would be detrimental to the service.

Not to mention, how does stopping the sale of their games do anything to get money into the hands of the developers? If SF isn't selling games, they won't ever have money to pay off their creditors.
avatar
Zellio2009: And yes, they aren't paying their clients again.
avatar
BladderOfDoom: Source please?

To expand on that, a credible source please. Not a forum post.