Do you believe BHVR lost the Predator license and that's why we have the skull merchant?

Too much evidence to not be imo.

I mean, plenty of other killers were inspired by horror icons and serial killers (Trapper & Jason, Billy & Leatherface, Clown & John Wayne Gacy, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same case (even if the name "Skull Merchant" still seems odd for her).

In truth, when companies spend money on things, they scarcely just pack it in when deals go south - they scrap the effort and turn it into a new thing.

Think of it like baking a cake. If you already made the batter and preheated the oven for your friend's party, but then it gets cancelled, are you going to throw the batter away or make cupcakes for your kids?

"There's no way mom was baking a cake for her friend! See, these are cupcakes! Completely different! If the party was cancelled, she would probably just throw all the cake batter out into the trash and start over - there's no way that she'd make cupcakes out of yesterday's cancelled cake batter!"

Things don't typically work like that. Talks are long, business meetings go through.

"What will this look like?" "Can we see how this will be displayed?" "What do your numbers say about this or that?"

Deals like this don't happen with a phone call or mailing money - a lot of interconnected parts have to be set in motion and checked.

Processes start, there is velocity, momentum, and agreements - but there's also a lot of opportunity for things to fail and the deal to crumble.

For instance:

"CEO, we have been in discussions with the legal team over at 20'th Century. We believe that for our DLC package arriving in Q1 we will have the Predator IP secured"

= "Good, we need months to work on this and a lot of effort, marketing companies will be called in January to prep for the rollout and Christmas is fast approaching, do you know what the deal looks like?"

"They are optimistic, but they're still in talks with the holders regarding the pricing - they're quite stubborn about the potential shift in the perception of their product, especially after their recent cinematic release."

= "Damn... if we don't start work on it now, it won't be ready in time for the end of Q1 2023. Start working on the chapter as an original, have some vertical slices to show the investors and the holders. If they back out later, we cannot jeopardize the release."

Behavior has the rights to their work - 20th Century doesn't have the rights to Behaviot's work and if they declined the license, there's really no way they can legally challenge the company.

Start making the product with an end goal in sight. If you cannot secure the juicy license, bake it into a different pie and release it as an original.

Behavior is a software development company with shareholders and salaries to pay. The trains will run on time. They now what's going to be happening later on this year and have, without a doubt, already taken steps to arrive at that conclusion. Things may change on the surface (Gender, height, tools, cosmetics, lore) but you have to start prototyping with a goal to chase.

The thing I'm really hoping you understand is this:

Approval isn't the be-all-end-all.

Product is the be-all-end-all.

It takes months to get legal work done for a license to be drafted and take effect. It takes months to design and integrate the content into the game. There is no possible way that Behavior is unprofessional enough not to have backup plans and failsafes in order.

If they intend to have an ALIENS chapter in November or something, they're working on the content now. If the deal falls apart, the effort and content will be released - just not with the licensed aspects.

Behavior will ship their DLC package in the fiscal quarter that the executives have set before them. There will, under no circumstances, be a cancellation due to legal shortfalls.

I'm not saying that this is exactly what happened, but you have to understand that this is how business works.

You're basically saying that no song has ever been repackaged due to a label fall-through, or that multi-billion dollar companies just burn money on scrapped projects.

District 9 is a movie. It exists. Do you know why it exists? Because they started working on a Halo movie and Microsoft didn't play ball. They started the ball rolling and got money, talent, and effort thrown in behind it - then it turned into a new project after the initial idea fell through.

I do appreciate your kind words in protest, but I really don't understand why even the POSSIBILITY is an impossibility for you to admit.

Given my experiences, as limited as they are, in the field of production - knowing how these things go through - it seems highly likely that at some point during development Tools Of Torment was aimed towards being a Predator tie-in.

And I honestly don't know why you're willing to accept that it can be possible everywhere else, but when it comes to BHVR being a professional company, you're saying that "There's no way in hell" ???

And you believe what this guy says is correct? Hell, even accurate? I see him as a PR man, saying what needs to be said when he has too. Might be a hard take. But his expressions and body language to some questions are so telling to me.

All good! Wasn't trying to be authorative, sorry if that came across. He just demonstrates all the signs of lying on camera imo. And the fact he represents a company also supports my conclusion. We'll know eventually though! :D

My friend, I don't think you're really understanding what I'm saying.

There's a clear communication issue here between us.

1.) This is a poll. It is about what we as individuals BELIEVE. I believe something based on what I know and understand, you believe something different based on what you know and understand. It is good to discuss our differences and see the other side of the table, but it is unbecoming to try and combat other viewpoints or discredit them wholesale. It seems like you have a particular disdain for even the mere suggestion that a chapter MAY have been handled a certain way. None of us here actually worked on the project, so none of us know with absolute certainty - but saying that because there is no concrete evidence that my opinions are somehow invalid or lesser than your own - which are equally as devoid of direct evidence - is no way to conduct one's self.

2.) I apologize if I miscommunicated, but it is not so simply a 'backing out' of any sort. To back out of a deal, things must be agreed on beforehand and interests must be 'in'. Time, effort, and budget can go towards a deal that never materializes. The music industry works much this way too - where artists create music for IPs that do not actually get accepted in the end, where film productions get the budget and power to pursue a particular vision only to be reallocated during pre-production due to their inability to secure a partnership. I really do want to emphasize to you that this is simply how the world works, it is a real and legitimate part of production where the business side must start a project and land it within a particular launch window... but must also be flexible with what that project may become. Especially after Stranger Things, it is a near impossibility that Behavior does not have generic assets lined up for partnerships that do not renew - or even may back up mid development. It's just a reality of business. If this is or is not what happened here is up for debate, it is entirely possible that this has never happened in Behavior at any point, but to treat it like some sort of conspiracy theory is absurd.

3.) You're trying to explain to me that products do not have set release dates or launch windows on the business side because... they were working on the Knight long before his release? This is not evidence in the least. If I leave my house an hour early to get to work on time, being on the road half an hour before my shift is not evidence that I don't have a set time to arrive at work. it takes a lot of effort to create these chapters and a lot of elements have to align properly. They did not start work on the Knight halfway through 2022, that would have been insane.

4.) You ask "Why wouldn't they just WAIT for the next opportunity to make it a predator IP?" - It's because that's no way to run a business? Why shelf a product that's ready to ship? If Q1 is fast approaching, which project are you going to focus on - the one that's almost done, or one that needs several months of crunch to get to where it needs to be? I really don't understand what the point of this line of thought is - as if Behavior just comes up with these projects one after another and crunches them out in a number of weeks. As the interview says for itself - They'll tweak and make changes to give the chapter an identity of its own and preserve many of the initial ideas for next time - but they're not going to do things like scrap prototypes or start anew with everything from the ground up. If the contention is that "If the Predator IP fell through, why don't they just change everything and then wait for the next opportunity to do things 'right'?" - then we're both agreeing indirectly at that point.

5.) "I don't see why people are so attached to-" My brother in Christ join me as we look in the mirror. We are here expressing our lines of thought and you seem to be convinced that in sharing what you believe, that everyone else should simply bow to the self-appointed superiority of your opinion. There are a lot of business and production reasons why it is POSSIBLE for this to have been a Predator IP at some point... and the overwhelming quantity of overlap between this half-baked chapter and the Predator IP is convincing in and of itself. Is it true or false? None of us can tell for certain because we were not there during development. Some will think that there's a good chance of it, others will think it improbable at best. But suggesting that one side is completely unrealistic or illogical and emphasizing that you alone might be correct - that others simply 'cling to it' in some lowly way while you stand by your own ideals - it is the definition of inflexibility and hypocrisy. You are better than this.

6.) I appreciate the video and link. But as others have pointed out, Mathieu Cote is a professional having to steer this ship. Not only is it in his best interest to bend the truth, but as someone who has worked with a customer facing management position - at times your lips are going to be sealed from corporate or legal obligation. You're interviewing a guy who's entire livelihood and career is tied up in a lot of Professional Agreements and NDAs. While I don't think anyone would assume that a misspoken word would cost him his job, I believe we can all agree that Cote is a seasoned professional that likely knows better than to land himself in hot water with saying too much in an interview. Your video is a wonderful addition - but it is sadly made irrelevant for three primary reasons:

• This is a slightly heated topic and no professional would come out in an interview and sell out their partners or disclose confidential business agreements with third parties. Not only would it be unprofessional and against their best interests, but they have no obligation to do so.
• In this interview, Mathieu himself was deliberate in talking about powers and the identities of each character through gameplay. "bespoke" as he called it - which is not what is in question. The contention is that during pre-production at some point this may have been aimed towards being a Predator IP, not if the power itself was 100% going to belong to The Predator. Cote indicates that they have a veritable toybox of powers to use, so why burn the perfect IP power on an original when they can swap out the power with one less fitting from the toybox? This is a good point against the prospective Predator IP intending to have drones (Which don't fit perfectly) but that was never the point. The point was "Maybe they wanted it to become a Predator IP and Behavior just took the guts of what they were doing and made it this drone lady instead?" Which is not at all disproven by his statement. He clearly says that licensing is sometimes a "hard pass" from the holders, and that instead of using the perfect power for those potential Killers, they use a different one (however so) that they had on paper. This has nothing to do with the potential pre-production of the chapter.
• This interview was in October 2021. It has nothing to do with the Tools of Torment expansion. It might be relevant if they were speaking specifically about this project, but they were not speaking of it nor about anything relevant to the discussion.

7.) Finally, my friend. I think I have gone on enough. I respect your opinions and points of view. You are clearly an intelligent and reasonable individual. You are not doing yourself any favors by speaking as though your perspective is more valuable or reasonable than others; using the words that you have is telling and unbecoming. I hope that you respect the convictions and perspectives of others instead of trying to explain to them why their thoughts are wrong and not being particularly convincing at any rate.

Have a good day, see you in the fog.

Honestly, what's the point in replying if you didn't take the time to read what was said.

Next time, don't skim or you might sound a little silly.