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

Forums - Sony - Sony: “We’re Always Open” to Acquire New Studios, There’s “Always an Appetite”

alabtrosMyster on 15 December 2015

They should have kept liverpool, I want a wipeout game on PS4



Around the Network
Zoombael on 19 December 2015
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Yet they weren't independent, and weren't pressured by investors. They were owned by Sony, and told by Sony to make it more like CoD, and then shut down when it (not surprisingly) failed. So again, the less studios MicroSony owns, the mo betta imho.

As already said it could come from Sony, investors of CEO of the studio. Being owned by Sony or not can't be put as the main reason the game looked like CoD. And I say this coming from several developers that developed what they wanted and said Sony didn't pressure them to make a specific game. They even allow some devs to stay developing a game for several years and hold their financial side... and if that dev was independent it would have gone under.

There are verified former Zipper employees on GAF who have said multiple times SOCOM 4 played the way it did because Sony wanted a CoD clone. Of course publishers don't pressure all developers on all games to change their work in various ways. But this one did here. You can continue to point out that probably maybe other pubs would have maybe potentially done the same Sony did to Zipper, but I don't need any maybes or probably or any of that, I have reality on my side. And in Zipper's case, if they were third party instead of owned by Sony, they could have been pressured into changing a game and ending up releasing a turd, but still came back to do other things. See: Fuse with Insomniac.

But in Zipper's case being owned by Sony meant they had to change the game and were shut down. I hope that helps, not going to reply to more hypothetical "other pubs too!" stuff. Not sure why you're really arguing here LOL.

If it makes you feel any better on the inside, I can reference a Microsoft example too. Ensemble Studios.

 

Zoombael said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Yet they weren't independent, and weren't pressured by investors. They were owned by Sony, and told by Sony to make it more like CoD, and then shut down when it (not surprisingly) failed. So again, the less studios MicroSony owns, the mo betta imho.

No shit sherlocks. This is business. These things happen. It's not like it doesn't happen to indie devs. Like Full Control, developers of Space Hulk Ascension. They didn't even finish the last job. Thus the trusty customers are being left with a broken game, a game they paid good money for. A game that is nearly unplayable now and propably will never be free of game breaking bugs. And guess what, it's still available on Steam. Yeah, indie gaming, woopdiefuckingdoo.

To be honest I have no fucking clue what you're ranting about here. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can not be owned by MicroSony, yet also not make indie games.

 

I'm suppose to know and care what your rant is about?

And of course you have no clue. That is very obvious to me.

LudicrousSpeed said:


If it makes you feel any better on the inside, I can reference a Microsoft example too. Ensemble Studios.

 

Oblivious to you, the big difference between Sony and Microsoft, Sony maintains and finances a way bigger number of studios and projects of significance, keeps a diverse library of games alive, whereas MS goes solely for the profit, mangles good studios without compensation, keeping expenses for new IPs and technology regarding gaming at a minimum. Yes, you have no clue whatsoever.



Hunting Season is done...

LudicrousSpeed on 19 December 2015

Irrelevant to anything in the discussion you quoted, but I give you a B for effort as that reply was at least readable.