By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Insominiac biting the feeding hand?

crissindahouse on 09 May 2014
DonFerrari said:
crissindahouse said:

So, they got probably 1000 tweets yesterday from people complaining about how they could work with Microsoft and he simply responded to one of these tweets telling that this guy can say what he wants about Microsoft but they are a great partner? What do you exactly expect from Insomniac or their employees? To say nothing positive about Microsoft even if they think that Microsoft deserves it because they are simply a great partner for them?

"we can ever say anything good about any partner in the future because we worked with Sony"


The article and the gaf thread put it as..

"Why this game isn't on PS4 as well" -> "Because MS is terrific partners".

Not saying they can't or shoudln't acknowledge MS, but they certainly could have done the message in a better way.

I don't care what the article or GAF say, I read the original post which was from some guy tweeting on twitter to the Insomniac guy:

" wish it wasn't MS published :|"

 

and the Insomniac guy replied

"say what you want, but they made that game happened and embraced its vision. Been terrific partners"

so all he did was telling someone who complained like a lot of other people about Microsoft as publisher that Microsoft is the reason why we even get this game and that they are a terrific partner. OMG how could he do this!



Around the Network
CommonNinja on 09 May 2014

Fun fact, this game actually started from a conversation at lunch.  It was never meant to happen, but ended up happening anyways.

I think they chose Xbox for 2 main reasons.

1.)  The majority of the Xbox fanbase love shooters more so than the Playstation fanbase, and so shooters usually sell better on Xbox platforms.  (just look at X1's 2 best selling games - Cod & Titanfall.

2.)  Microsoft has a verry good online infastructure, and are offering thier Xbox Live servers for use to developers for verry reasonable prices.  This was a big part of the reason why they went with Xbox as they want to incorperate some big online features with SO.

 

I don't think they are tring to make enimys with sony, rather, they are proving thier independance from sony.



J_Allard on 09 May 2014
DonFerrari said:
J_Allard said:
In what way could they have explained the situation without making it seem as if Sony didn't step up to the plate? By not giving Microsoft the credit and recognition they deserve, THAT would be biting the hand that feeds, since Microsoft is actually the hand feeding them right now. What you're proposing is they kind of downplay the role MS had in order to appease a company they used to make exclusive games for.

We don't really know what happened behind the scenes, but from all accounts it seems MS was willing to step up with more money and not take control of the IP. Doesn't Sony know this also? It's not like they'd read these comments and be shocked. They know Insomniac came to them with the idea for the game and that they (Sony) did not give Insomniac a good enough offer.


The way of truth would help a little, as you said MS footed the bill and asked for exclusivity (the terms we don't know), wasn't just because MS is terrific partner... As I said the problem is more on the phrasing than on what happened. And as someone mentioned if we consider they could be butthurt on Sony for not freeing their IPs or against EA for lefting them on the ground because of Fuse flop then it makes sense. But the way they answered the direct question puts the conotation I said in the OP.

They did tell the truth. MS was a better partner for this project. Not only a better partner, but a "terrific partner" according to Insomniac. Again, seems you want them to kind of soften their wording for Sony's sake. Why would they do that?



DonFerrari on 09 May 2014
Imaginedvl said:
DonFerrari said:
Imaginedvl said:
DonFerrari said:
Imaginedvl said:

So, when Minecraft creator clearly bitched on Microsoft who helped them (and this is one of few example), it is normal and very well accepted by a certain fan base :) But when it is the other way around, those developers are traitors/biting the feeding hand/blah blah blah...

Also, Sony and/or Microsoft are both doing the same thing by the way. They are paying (in many different ways) to have different publishers/developers to develop for their platform... I find really funny the fact that a several people believe that people are develop for the Sony platform just because Sony are "nice" :) No they are not, for them (and MS) gamers are just customers, nothing else... And they are both trying to do their best to win them over.

And like Respawn Ent., for me it looks like MS contribution actually helped (or even saved) the game/project...
Sony had the opportunity to do the same and they did not.

Have you see me on the Minecraft saying anything agaisn't MS?

Have you saw me here complaining about MS support for this game?

I think your agenda doesn't fit the OP. Now if you want to address the only person who called them traitors go straight to him.

Even if you did not mention anything like that the point of the OP is talk about the kind of behavior from developers/publishers.

But anyway, I'm sorry, did not realize this thread was here to talk/respond to you and only you :) My understanding of a forums was wrong... So we should use PMs now to have a "public" discussion? 

OP talks only about the way Insominiac answered the question sounding like their old partner (for the last 10 years) is bad, not about they releasing content in a different platform.

It is a open discussion. But if you answer without quoting no one it is easier to think you are answering the OP or a collectivity, and for both cases your point weren't valid. Now if you wanted to address just the 2 people (saw another one after answering you) who called them traitors you could have quoted them. And you tried to attack a specific fanbase, a thing that wasn't even topic here, so I don't see why the passive agressiveness on your answer is needed.

Seriously people need to stop this shit whenever we post in a sarcastic way and stop being so defensive... There is no attack, just stated facts. Fan bases in general (MS or Sony or even Nintendo) tend to see things with their own light when it is fiting their agenda and in a totaly diffferent way when it is not... There is no attack here and you are just making a huge deal out of nothing instead of understanding the point. Sorry if the way I posted it hurted you in any way but it was not my goal (it was more sarcastic than anything close to aggressive).

My point stays the same. Both companies ARE businesses. Gamers are just customers for them... Developpers/publishers are others businesses and everybody in this little world are trying to make money and survive. Your OP is talking about two businesses like they were almost good friends or family members... And it does not apply (in my oppinion) at all when we are talking about business opportunities...

Also, regarding the public image, nobody will care in 2 years when Insomniac will come out with another exclusive for the PS4... Again, gamers are customers and even if they can be very vocal at a time, they are switching side in a second when something good is coming on the other side...


You know sarcasm can't be seem on typing right? But I'll accept your point and no need to be sorry. But when you answer direct to OP and says the fanbase acts X, it certainly seem as including me on the same behavior patern (altough I do belong to Sony fanbase I don't fit in that answer, altought I would in several others).

About bussiness part (Sony and Insomininac had a close relationship, that is what partnership is about), and I have no problem with them seeing a better opportunity for them and aligning with MS. What I was focusing was on the way the message was delivery. And I know gamers won't even remember what happened on SO even on the next game Insominiac releases. Or that this particular comment won't be remembered by majority of gamers on the next week.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

sales2099 on 09 May 2014
Porcupeth said:
More than Res 3 and Fuse... but that's it.
And fuse was multiplat, not PS3 exclusive.

Also any ratchets after 2009 forsure. As for fuse....its combiend sales are still easily passable.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 09 May 2014
crissindahouse said:
DonFerrari said:
crissindahouse said:

So, they got probably 1000 tweets yesterday from people complaining about how they could work with Microsoft and he simply responded to one of these tweets telling that this guy can say what he wants about Microsoft but they are a great partner? What do you exactly expect from Insomniac or their employees? To say nothing positive about Microsoft even if they think that Microsoft deserves it because they are simply a great partner for them?

"we can ever say anything good about any partner in the future because we worked with Sony"


The article and the gaf thread put it as..

"Why this game isn't on PS4 as well" -> "Because MS is terrific partners".

Not saying they can't or shoudln't acknowledge MS, but they certainly could have done the message in a better way.

I don't care what the article or GAF say, I read the original post which was from some guy tweeting on twitter to the Insomniac guy:

" wish it wasn't MS published :|"

 

and the Insomniac guy replied

"say what you want, but they made that game happened and embraced its vision. Been terrific partners"

so all he did was telling someone who complained like a lot of other people about Microsoft as publisher that Microsoft is the reason why we even get this game and that they are a terrific partner. OMG how could he do this!


From what the article puts they were answering like this on a direct question on gaf as well.

Now regarding the tweet don't see much problem on saying they will release the game on X1 because MS embraced the game and been a terrific partners.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Porcupeth on 09 May 2014
sales2099 said:
Porcupeth said:
More than Res 3 and Fuse... but that's it.
And fuse was multiplat, not PS3 exclusive.

Also any ratchets after 2009 forsure. As for fuse....its combiend sales are still easily passable.


I know that about FUSE, i was simply saying that as a multiplat, its failure is unrelated to Sony's marketing.

Ratchets after 2009 were all smaller, cheaper, digital-centric games.



sales2099 on 09 May 2014
kitler53 said:
i think insomniac has done well for itself.

if sunset overdrive was exclusive to sony's systems everyone would think it is the generic looking slow paced average game that it is. but since it's exclusive to ms they benefit from ms marketing team and people think it looks "amazing" and "the first true next gen title" and all that other praise that is really, really laughable imo.

Its funny because I would think people would respond exactly the same way they are now if it were exclusive to Sony......albiet with a lot more console war bragging, as you know, majority fanbase and what not.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Conegamer on 09 May 2014

Guys, please keep things civil here and trim the quote trees.

No need to start generalizing or attacking users/fanbases here.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

DonFerrari on 09 May 2014
J_Allard said:
DonFerrari said:
J_Allard said:
In what way could they have explained the situation without making it seem as if Sony didn't step up to the plate? By not giving Microsoft the credit and recognition they deserve, THAT would be biting the hand that feeds, since Microsoft is actually the hand feeding them right now. What you're proposing is they kind of downplay the role MS had in order to appease a company they used to make exclusive games for.

We don't really know what happened behind the scenes, but from all accounts it seems MS was willing to step up with more money and not take control of the IP. Doesn't Sony know this also? It's not like they'd read these comments and be shocked. They know Insomniac came to them with the idea for the game and that they (Sony) did not give Insomniac a good enough offer.


The way of truth would help a little, as you said MS footed the bill and asked for exclusivity (the terms we don't know), wasn't just because MS is terrific partner... As I said the problem is more on the phrasing than on what happened. And as someone mentioned if we consider they could be butthurt on Sony for not freeing their IPs or against EA for lefting them on the ground because of Fuse flop then it makes sense. But the way they answered the direct question puts the conotation I said in the OP.

They did tell the truth. MS was a better partner for this project. Not only a better partner, but a "terrific partner" according to Insomniac. Again, seems you want them to kind of soften their wording for Sony's sake. Why would they do that?


Not soften their words for Sony sake. But so you think the truth is that they partnered with MS because they are terrific and sony not as good, and not for financial reasons? And should I even answer on why you don't bad mouth someone that supported you previously?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."