By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
J_Allard on 12 May 2014
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
J_Allard said:
DonFerrari said:

If of course financials were the bigger part and then IP ownership, and both are kept out and just summarized as "MS is better partner then Sony" how can you say they were precise?

Previously feeding hand just if they decide not to keep releasing content financed by Sony.

Who knows how big a piece of the pie financials were. How much more precise can they be than saying MS gave them a better deal?

They can partner with Sony for another R&C game and it is irrelevant to this project. MS is the feeding hand here.

More precise saying not that they partnered with MS because they are great partners but because they were the only willing to support them in their terms? (If they decide not to say about the finances specific).

I'll repeat that my only problem in his comment was when asked why the game won't release on PS4 and the answer being because MS are terrific partners. Maybe that was taken out of context or the guy rushed to answer, but certainly seems disrespectful.

Isn't that just splitting hairs? "MS are terrific partners" and "MS was the only one willing to give the support we needed"? If I was of the mind to think the first comment was "disrespectful", I certainly would think the second was equally if not more disrespectful.

More importantly, again, what do you think this actually means to Sony? Do you think Kaz or whoever runs SCEA now (assuming dumb ass Tretton is gone already, he might still be there) were angry when they read that? "Blah is an awesome partner" is pretty much the standard line given by any developer to their publisher. It's not like if Sony was thinking of doing another R&C, they'd blow Insomniac off because of this.