I have never heard one person state that Insomiac was owned by Sony, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that they were independent.

Anyways, there are two more things that are wrong with the OP's post.

1. Resistance (and all of the games Insomiac has ever developed on PS3) are I.Ps owned by Sony. Sony can let any dev make any resistance game if they chose, an example would be Resistance:retribution which is made by Sony Bend.

2. R2 was not in direct competition with Gears2, if anything it was more indirect. COD:WAW on the other hand, was released on the same console as R2 and (correct me if I'm wrong) on the same week as R2. CODwaw is also a FPS, like R2. It's pretty illogical to believe that CODwaw was not DIRECT competition to R2, while Gears2 was.

Conclusion: Think before posting your opinions. Just the article would have been fine.

EDIT: I'd also like to add...

Yes, If Microsoft were the ones that owned the I.P for Resistance, it would have sold ALOT more. Why? because Sony did an awful job marketing and exposing R2 and the 360 has a larger install base that cater to FPS titles.

Evidently, you failed to read my OP, but it's typical of what goes on with posters on these boards.  I offered my opinion on a story I read, and I never claimed to be a journalist, who is supposed to simply report, "just the facts".

so because you don't know the facts... you go ahead and make dumb statements about topics you have no clue about? Opinions become wrong when people use false facts as a base. I never said you were some sort of journalist (no shit), I just said that your statements are false. Which you'll see down below.

To respond to YOUR opinions of my post, I DID have someone post that Insomniac was owned by sony, and maybe they mis-spoked, and meant the IP.  I also clearly stated I wasn't sure who owned the Resistance IP, and never alluded to it NOT being owned by Sony, since I wasn't sure, so I'm not sure how I was wrong.

So because you had someONE post that Insomiac was owned by Sony, You claim that you've heard it from MANY posters. Again, you're lying out of your ass. Also, I don't see how someone can just blabber on about a topic that he/she has no knowledge of, as you admitted. Let me make it simple:

Someone having no knowledge of an issue + Someone trying to make theories about it = Someone being wrong.

Secondly, CoD is multiplatform, so from a risk perspective, the publisher and developer hedged their bets, and diversified their risk on the success or failure of the final project.  In doing so, they also assumed that developmental cost to develop the game would be balanced out by sales on their respective platforms, which might not have been the cash on something like BioShock's not as successful port of that game to ps3.  In 3rd party exclusives, the developer and publisher are increasing their risk and decreasing their earning potential, based on whatever rule set that is being used.  Given that Resistance sold 3.2+ million, you would think a highly touted sequel would be a shoo-in, but I guess you can blame sony’s poor marketing effort…maybe they spent all their bullets on pushing lbp, and not enough on R2…whatever the case might have been, I’d be VERY concern if I was in Price position, and I’m seeing the trashing my top rated game is getting at the hands of CoD, and comparatively at GeOW2.

Nothing you've said has anything to do with why you claimed COD:waw was NOT direct competetion to R2, and why Gears2 was.

• R2 was a game made mainly targeted to PS3 owners in mind. COD:waw was a game made to target almost every platform. Gears2 was made to target Xbox360 owners.
  
• COD:waw is on the PS3. R2 is on the PS3. Gears2 is on the Xbox360.
  
• R2 and COD:waw are both FPS games, Gears2 is a TPS.
  
• R2 and COD:waw were released within the same week (correct me if I'm wrong).
  

With that being said, anyone with half a brain would know that COD:waw directly influenced R2 sales, with a arguable likelyhood of Gears2 being the indirect factor.

I found this piece to be really interesting, because MANY poster had reported that Insomniac was owned by sony, and couldn't possibly port the Resistance franchise to 360.  Now, I know sony published the previous 2 games, but I'm not sure who owns he IP, but based on what he said, they are independent, just like Bungie is now, but have a special relationship with sony....BUT...in the last question ask, and I will quote it:

- You claim that "MANY" poster had "reported" that insomiac was owned by Sony. To this day, I have yet to hear one person state that without being harshly corrected.

- You were not aware that Resistance (and PS3 insomiac games) is a Sony owned I.P, yet you go on and make scenarios on a blind limb as if were weren't. 

Does this mean they are planning on going multiplatform, not necessarily, but those comments looks to have left the door WIDE OPEN to doing so in the future.  Resistance 2 was in DIRECT competition with Gears of War 2, this holiday season, Not CoD: WaW, and the results haven’t been pretty.  Insomniac is scratching their heads, looking at the boatloads of cash being raked in by Epic, and have got to be wondering about what Resistance 2 could have done, had it been multiplatform.  It’s going to be interesting to see what happens in 2009.    

- You claimed that R2 was in DIRECT competition with Gears of War 2, and not CODwaw. (that has to be one of the stupidest comments I've EVER heard). 

- You claimed Insomiac is scratching their heads wondering what R2 would have been if multiplatform, after failing to realize that Resistance is obviously a Sony owned I.P. 

I'm of the opinion that Insomniac are fond of the 'one focus' approach - i.e. if all your development is on a single, constantly evolving engine for one platform, development costs are reduced and speed to market increased.

Remember in the time that Epic have got out two Gears they have released two Resistance, one R&C full game and one R&C expansion - and although I'd argue both RFOM games had a few rough edges they were both pretty polished while the R&C games were very polished.

According to wikipedia, Insomniac has 145 employees while Epic has 96. Some of them are probably working on supporting their engines' licensees.

I suspect Insomniac must run two streams at once. Looking at their output again it seems crazy they could get so many games out unless there were people working on each at the same time at some point.

I was just stating their model is build around maintaining their own engine for one platform.

Agreed and that point is well taken, I was just saying that the fact they're putting out more games probably has more to do with their size than with their choice of targeting a single platform.

I think I remember seeing some estimate that targeting two platforms (talking 360/PS3 games only here) adds 10% in cost, but I'm not sure what the source was.

I'm of the opinion that Insomniac are fond of the 'one focus' approach - i.e. if all your development is on a single, constantly evolving engine for one platform, development costs are reduced and speed to market increased.

Remember in the time that Epic have got out two Gears they have released two Resistance, one R&C full game and one R&C expansion - and although I'd argue both RFOM games had a few rough edges they were both pretty polished while the R&C games were very polished.