Sony and Insomniac. Two companies with a long storied history of ventures together. Originally, Insomniac was one of the developers for the long defunct 3DO platform. However, once the 3DO fizzled out, they moved onto the new up and coming (at the time) system, the Playstation. And thus, the union began. Ever since their first game for the system, Disruptor, Insomniac has had continued success within the playstation family of systems. Spyro, Ratchet & Clank, and Resistance were all franchises they've created and these franchises assisted heavily into the growth of the Playstation brand. However, even with their great business relationship, Insomniac has always managed to remain independent, time and again turning down any potential buyouts by Sony.
20°
20°
10°
40°
Ad 
20°
What are you talking about FUSE looks terrible, with Overstrike it looked promising but under EAs control they will be ruined just like Bioware and Visceral Games.
I really hope Sony buys then, I think Fuse will fail, not because it looks generic and that it's had hardly no marketing despite coming out in a few months but because in that same month it's going up against God of War and Gears of War.
I really hope they will go bac to Spyro is Sony ever buys the rights back, same goes for Crash Bandicoot who they arn't even using.
RIP Rare, Bungie, Lionhead, Ensemble Studios (Age of Empires) , Aces Studio (classic Flight Sim games).
For the love of God Insomniac Games, don't be shackled.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
"I wouldn't mind them somehow taking control of Spyro again somehow. Sony, Activision, and Insomniac need to talk. "
-
Activision OWNS Spyro. Insomniac would have nothing to do with such a negotiation.
Now I honestly still don't know anything about Skylanders, but I see Spyro all the time on the displays, so obviously it's tied directly into Spyro in some way. Activision is ALL about the money, and with the amount of money being generated with Spyro by way of Skylanders, there's no way in gaming hell, anyone else is getting those rights.
Visceral Games will be ruined under EA by people like you who don't purchase the games because it's an EA published game, despite how good it may actually be.
If you haven't noticed, the budget that EA gives Visceral Games is a bit ridiculous and the quality of the games show. Too bad we have fanboys like you who avoid these games because of some biased opinion about the publisher.
Yes. A lot of studios have went under because of EA, but it wasn't really because of EA specifically. It's because the games they developed stopped selling. Why is EA going to keep a development studio that isn't turning a profit?
Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft have closed down many studios and laid off many employees. You want to know why we don't hear about most of it? Because this is usually their own studios that they hired a number of people. Although just recently Sony closed down three of their studios. Liverpool Studios who developed some amazing games on the PSX closed down because the games they developed didn't sell well. Sony developers are given freedom with their projects, so I'm not sure if Liverpool wanted to continue making Wipeout or if it was Sony that wanted them to. Either way, the last few games in the series barely sold, so why should Sony continue to lose money by continuing their funding.
When EA shuts down a studio. Guess what happens. The same thing when any other developer shuts down a studio. These same people usually get hired by another studio. Or atleast potentially hired.
You don't hear people bit**ing that the Saints Row team is made up of a lot of former Rockstar employees. OMG. ROCKSTAR LAYS PEOPLE OFF AND FIRES THEM. I'M NOT BUYING GTA5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You people hating on EA when other companies do pretty much the exact same thing is hypocritical. If EA never bought the companies, they wouldn't have made as many games as they had because they wouldn't have had the backing, and most of them would have more than likely went bankrupt long ago. EA did nothing more than give these developers a much longer life than they would have had otherwise.
At the end of the day. These companies are businesses attempting to make money. Origin Systems, Bioware, Bullfrog, Psygnosis(Liverpool,) etc, didn't have to sell themselves to EA, Sony, whoever. They had the choice and they decided to sell their company for a certain sum of money.
Such a long paragraph and the only thing it reminded me to do was to not buy EA games. Sure I like some of the developers they've purchased in the past but my support for them doesn't outshine my fiery hot desire to see EA go out of business.
Short half Assed DLC
Fifa 13
Madden
Cutting content for Day 1 DLC
Online passes
Yea f those guys. I liked Westwood studios and command and conquer but those games just weren't good after being bought out by EA. That's not even the only developer that's fizzled out under EAs oversight either. Then lets look at origins and limiting where you can buy games, it sure doesn't seem like they want to broaden their market.
I completely agree with you.
@ ScubbaSteve
Nobody is forcing you to buy DLC. That responsibility is on YOU not EA. If you don't like the length of the DLC at the price they are asking....then don't buy it.
Fifa 13 is the most realistic soccer game on the market and the highest reviewed by the industry. If you don't like it, go buy PES 13.
Show me any kind of PROOF that content was cut from any game so that it could be day 1 DLC. You are just speculating.
Online passes shouldn't affect you UNLESS you buy used or pirate. If you buy used and know about the online pass, then make sure you are getting a good deal on a used game. If not, then it's simply just better to buy new.
Games I loved this gen:
NHL series
Dead Space 1&2
Mass Effect 2&3
Dante's Inferno
Mirror's Edge
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
Battlefield series
Dragon Age
Crysis series
Fight Night series
NBA Jam
Rock Band
EA has given a wide assortment of games in so many genre's I highly doubt that ANYONE who is a gamer hasn't liked at lest 1 or 2 of these EA titles that claim they are EA haters.
The only thing I got out of your rant was this
"Visceral Games will be ruined under EA by people like you who don't purchase the games because it's an EA published game, despite how good it may actually be."
Who said I don't buy them because it's EA, I bought Dead Space, I bought Dead Space 2 but after what EA has done to them and turned DS3 into a generic, over the top action game like what Capcom did with RE6 why would I buy it. It's called not sucking up to a developer when you know deep down they screwed up.
"but after what EA has done to them and turned DS3 into a generic, over the top action game like what Capcom did with RE6 why would I buy it."
What EA has done to them? Visceral Games is the one that changed the style of Dead Space 3. EA owns them, but they had nothing to do with that. If Visceral ruins their games EA isn't the reason behind it.
I know what you're talking about now. You're talking how EA sends their corporate leaders to supervise each game and give decisions based on their opinion rather than the opinion the designers had. They only do this after the first or second game, that way they can make sure to get one good game out then ruin the company. Because that's the way EA rolls, son.
You're a complete idiot if you think anyone but Visceral had any say of the change in Dead Space 3. Budget, time frame, etc. Those are things that corporate EA controls. They don't tell developers how to make their games.
But way to go being one of the many supporters of the EA hate train on the basis of nothing more than them being a company or the fact that it's popular to hate on EA.
Your dulusional mate if you honestly think that EA dosen't have a say in the develoeprs they have under them then I pity you...I really do
EA has influenced Bioware, VG, DICE and even Insomniac...what they say goes.
Uncharted originally wasnt going to be a TPS but it was Sony, the publisher, that wanted Uncharted to be more realistic after seeing the success of shooters on the 360.
http://www.gamesradar.com/u...
And this is Sony, one of the few publishers out there that allows their devs to have creative freedom. Demons Souls, SoTC, HR, LBP, TLG, Sly... are a result of that freedom.
Cover system, infinite ammo and co-op in DS3 were most likely added to DS3 in order to meet the 5 million units sold wich is EA sales target. They saw the success of Gears and Uncharted and what better way to achieve it than copy those games?
But with Dead Space 3, it's still the same game, and the change to it I'm sure isn't because EA said do this or do that. Visceral is a competent developer who's made two great games in the Dead Space series and I'm sure it was Visceral that decided to branch out and do something new with the series, or otherwise have fan backlash for a second time that the game is too similar to the first title, just like they received with the second. The series even in the enclosed corridors has always been a survival horror/shooter, now there are some areas in the game that are going to be open and not so enclosed.
If you've seen the videos they're still going to be in enclosed areas, but also out in the open. But do you really want to be in a ship or ships the entire time once again for the third game as well?
I'm just saying it was a shooter already. EA didn't make it as such. Let's say EA told Visceral to change the location of the game. If EA told Visceral to do something other than being in a small ship the entire game on the third game, wouldn't it be something you agree with rather than be against? Or like I said above. Would you rather be in an enclosed space and feel like you're playing the exact same game for a third game in a row?
Only one month after Dead Space 3 releases, Army of Two the Devil's Cartel is released. There's your Gears of War clone. The series is better than Gears if you ask me, although that's a matter of opinion.
Also Insomniac don't want to be bought by anyone...
You are simply generalizing (based on Capcoms history) that EA is doing it when you have absolutely ZERO proof or facts to substantiate your claims that EA is withholding content from games for day 1 dlc.
I asked you for PROOF that EA has withheld content from a game for Day 1 DLC.
NOW PROVIDE IT with some kind of source or stop generalizing and spreading misinformation.
These kinds of clauses force developers to do certain things they know will succeed based on the market, meaning less risks taken or less possibilities of new IP's. So screw EA and any developer that decided EA were worth doing business with. Nowadays, the best way to get interesting new content is either by going with Sony or going with a Kickstarter.
As much as I hate the deviation of Spyro in Activision's hands, you have to admit that they did a damn good job making the game financially successful.
About this speculation, I have no clue why Sony would do that. Ratchet and Clank was obviously passed off from Insomniac to lesser companies - All 4 One was not enjoyable at all. Their new title looks like Yet Another Shooter With a Comic Style To It Part 401: This Time, It's Different. Resistance, while fun, isn't going to net a giant amount of cash without a drastic change.
For that to happen - not that it will, but for it to happen - I'd imagine that Sony either was shown something very new and very awesome, or they would refocus the company on something else entirely.
Oh and i forgot to add one important detail: Hale as main protagonist, thank you.
-Creepieness of RFOM. The narrator, the bigger aliens, the grungy look.
-Bigger battles. I don't care about "personal battles" I want 30 vs 30 matches again!
If they do make another game resistance game I'd pick it up for next gen. They need to give it a rest for this gen.
Oh boy :/
I doubt the decision was an easy one... but look at the industry now. All studios are "forced" to work with publishers to bear the increasingly costs. The only ones not working with publishers, are indie games who sell cheap, "small", less graphical-savy games... The industry as an industry sucks compare it's former "glory"....
I know Sly Cooper, Infamous, R&C, Resistance are all Sony owned and these were created when Sucker Punch (and obviously Insomniac) were 2nd party.
Heavenly Sword as well
If you take everything on the internet this seriously, it's a miracle your still alive.
The others Spyro, Ratchet and Clank and Resistance 1 were awesome. R2, & 3 (to some degree) weren't very good either but still a hell of a lot better than Fuse.
Insomniac are really talented and have won multiple awards for being one of the best small companies to work for in America.
Honestly I am still going to get it because Insomniac excels at storys and characters, which the game still seems to have.
Insomniac games usually have a certain signature to them that tells you insomniac made this.
Maybe it's just me but it looks generic like anyone could have made it.
I think Sony should leave them alone to do there own thing. from a multiplatform point of view.
Although..... If Sony buys them, they would receive the same 'special' treatment the other Sony studios get, and get to use much more powerful in-house engines. Imagine a Resistance with Killzone graphics?
Or Ratchet and Clank (which already looks amazing...at least the Insomniac ones)>
OVERSTRIKE looked great and they ruined that with their focus testing and/or EA sticking their noses in. Heck, FUSE could be a good game, but it will still be too generic and I'll always be thinking about how much better it could have been if it was developed based on its initial promise. Let's hope that they decide to go back to making quirky games with real personality and attitude. Wonderful games like Ratchet & Clank: A Crack in Time.
Meanwhile, I'm predicting Bungie's new IP, DESTINY, to see huge success across all platforms and be something truly defining for the sci-fi genre.
Can anyone tell me what the article goes on about?
Sony demonstrated why its good to be with them. Insomniac was afraid of "being tied down" and Sony said fine "go explore" there were no hard feelings of them doing it at all. IG got to explore, and Sony still stood there with them. IG learned developers like EA destroy games and take freedom away, since third parties prefer the safe route and not the "lets try something new" route Sony supports.
If anything Sony proved themselves, IG should see that, and let Sony buy them. Only thing I'd be scared of is watching what Sony did to Zipper. However with Sony you have freedom and you don't have to worry about distribution, so who cares if it isn't selling like a third party title.
I also agree above. Sony should buy more genre defining studios. They don't have a good RPG studio yet. Buy NIS :P
Instead of Resistance continuing to go down and Killzone going up, IG delivered the best entry in their series and Guerilla (I think in large part due to influence from Zipper) delivered a dumbed down version of KZ2.
http://www.psu.com/forums/s...
Trouble with the 3rd is the low rez, would love to see a resistance game in 1080p or just use the cryengine. I think it would look amazing with resistance.
For a "first party" developer also... I feel they really didn't do enough with the amazing hardwear they were given either!
As providers of multi genre games Rare were better.
And as providers of adventure games, Naughty Dog are better.
I wouldn't buy them out. If you're going to buy anyone out these days make it a studio who is exceptionally skilled in 1 particular genre - there's too much gaming choice to buy a studio that fulfils a middle ground.
Note: I'm probably the biggest fan of the Resistance franchise on this website. I LOVE the Resistance games.
1. http://ign.com/articles/201...
2. http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...