In out website we've interviewed José Herráez from Tequila Works, who talks about the controversy with RiME.
Neogaf Sony extremist fans (not the regular Sony fans, they're great people) trying to ruin careers over losing a platform exclusive.
Well why did Sony lose it as a platform exclusive?
From what I have read on Twitter, GAF, podcast they couldn't show Sony a working product it was delay after delay and Sony just got tired of funding the project.
Practically the same thing that happened MS and Scalebound. MS didn't see any progress and was wondering where the money that gave was going.
They did not lose it, they walked away from it as developer was not hitting development goalposts.
Same thing as Scalebound I imagine
@ bennibop Sony didn't walk away from the game. Tequila work bought the right back from sony. https://www.google.com/amp/... @ Septic. Its not exactly the same. PG didnt buy back the right for scalebound.
It lost it because the dev wanted to reach a larger audience. @Farsendor1 If you read the article. He says it clearly and plainly. Tequila wanted the IP back and to reach more people. They speak about Deadlight and how that was on xbox and so why wouldnt RIme be on xbox too. They wanted to reach a larger audience that is all. The english translation which says "Well, we have located the person who has done it. He is nobody from the studio, nor close as he wanted to make believe. Many things are not only invented but sought to do harm. Perhaps what has hurt me the most is that few media contacted us to check the information, they directly published what they read in NeoGaf." demonstrates that all these rumours and news never went to the source. News sites didn't even bother checking the information. Probably even this N4G sites which claims they dont allow unverified rumours , etc. Lets face it. This game was on peoples lists when it was an exclusive. It was also being praised and spoken well of. The moment it lost exclusivity suddenly it became a horrible game. Wild rumours began to fly everywhere. Pisses me off the attitude people have with regards to sony exclusives. If its exclusive its highly anticipated and revered. If it isnt then its crap. @HarryPuttar What exactly is your problem. This has nothing to do with Scalebound. That game was shown at e3 and the majority agree it needed lots of polish and looked cringy. It wasn't just xbox fans saying that btw. But that is a completely other matter. Nothing to do with this game.
Problem with Scalebound was MS was forcing the creators to whitewash the game, which was very demotivating for the creative team.
@ Yi-Long Link please. I would love to read that
@Eatcrow Well that doesn't make much sense. If they wanted to bring the game to a wider audience they shouldn't have made the deal in the first place. Many Indies managed to release their games on multiple platforms without the aid of one of the big three. I don't see why this developer didn't do the same.
@EatCrow They couldn't have bought the rights back to the game unless Sony agreed to it. They sold the rights to Sony in order to get funding for the game. The only way to get the rights back is to ask nicely / beg, as they signed a contract. If it's development was hitting every milestone and they had an amazing working prototype, why would they let them buy the rights back? Sony had the rights and the only logical reason to let them buy it back is that they saw no progress on the game being made and wanted to cut their losses (the game would still release on the PS4, so it's not a total loss).
maybe the criticism got him to pull his act together, so he was done a favor actually.
I dont buy this story TBH The game was revealed, and then went completely in the dark for 4 years?? until the rumors surfaced giving us the only possible update on the game. And then what happens next? They go multiplat (not that theres anything wrong) and release a trailer. That seemed to me more of a response to the backlash the game was getting after the rumors. I honestly dont think they had a product at the time of announcement, and the partial blame is on sony for revealing it but mostly the devs for leading for leading them on. The game is still on my radar, maybe for my Nontendo switch even, but im gonna hold off to see how it turns out
I have to even wonder why Rime not being a sony exclusive even matters. Not long ago when MS made TR a timed exclusive people were up in arms and mad about MS keeping games out of the hands of all gamers. This dev goes out of their way to put this game in the hands of all gamers and now we get comments of "Sony dropped them", "the dev is shady", "they didn't meet sonys obligations" and other tales that haven't been confirmed. The game is still coming to PS4, but now its also on x1 and Switch. What exactly is the issue?
It's a great game, but not a loss for going multi. We have some big bombs coming up this summer. a game like Rime should not ruffle any feathers.
@gangsta, the issue is that it was exclusive and another piece of ammo for ps4 owners to throw at xbox owners. Now that it isn't, well they will say they never liked it to begin with. That's what exclusivity does to people and why there should never be any "3rd party" exclusive deals. Only 1st and 2nd party studios are truly exclusive as they are generally owned by the platform holder.
@gangsta: "I have to even wonder why Rime not being a sony exclusive even matters. Not long ago when MS made TR a timed exclusive people were up in arms and mad about MS keeping games out of the hands of all gamers." It doesn't, and RotTR was an entirely different thing - RiME is a brand new IP, TR is an IP with a long-standing history on PS consoles. RiME was also very clearly announced as an exclusive when they revealed the game for the first time, RotTR was never revealed as an exclusive when it first appeared during their 2015 E3 presentation. The first TR reboot was also first revealed in their E3 presentation, so you cannot take RotTR's reveal on their stage to mean it was exclusive (if you go back to watch their presentation that year, you'll notice that every single exclusive has a disclaimer stating whether it's full, console or timed), in fact MS danced around the language of its timed exclusivity for about a year after they said it was "exclusive." I doubt people would have been upset if RotTR was a brand new IP - the outrage came from the fact that it was an already well-established IP, and I also think a significant portion of that outrage came from a reaction to MS's coy, vague language, and tip-toeing around the questions surrounding the nature of its exclusivity (it didn't help than Greenberg basically called Keighley a liar when he said it was only exclusive for the Holiday 2015: https://twitter.com/aarongr... ). So if you're going to make a comparison, at least make it a situation that's actually comparable.
@ziggurcat The situation is comparable, doesnt matter if its a new ip or an old ip. The arguement was games being offered to more users and not being paid by any company to keep it off of another platform. Even still doesnt excuse most here and elsewhere the unfounded hate Rime is receiving just because it's not an exclusive anymore. Again, shouldn't this game be celebrated for the drv being able to get the ip back and making it available on more systems and being able to be enjoyed by all gamers on every system? Or is that narrative now over?
The Money from scalebound went towards a sports car for all the team. Thanks MS.
@zigg, only two games in the entire tomb raider franchise were exclusive to PS and that was because Sony paid to get the contract for #'s 2 and 3 after the success of the first (which originated on the Saturn and did very well for itself in the process). All other TR games have been and continue to be multiplatform. It was one of the first times Sony paid to keep a game from releasing on competing hardware and that trend has continued to this day despite Sony openly saying "we don't pay for exclusives." (I can't find the exact link to that quote but we all pretty much know its been said and repeated numerous times) Now when MS pays... it's just for a short time and the games still come out to other platforms. Sometimes with improvements which was one of Sony's mandates last gen. They didnt want sloppy seconds unless it came with a few extra bits and pieces for the trouble of having to have its users wait. Many dont understand that this is just business.
@gangsta: Well, no... you're comparing apples, and oranges. It's one thing to announce a new IP as an exclusive, and another to announce an existing, long-running franchise as "exclusive Holiday 2015", pretend it's a full exclusive, and use confusing language that lead peopel to believe that it was only coming to Xbox/PC (i.e. "same deal as Ryse, and DR3"). A proper comparison would be to cite an entirely new IP announced as an exclusive for Xbox One (say, Cuphead, for example), and I don't recall anyone being outraged to the extent people were about RotTR over any exclusive game announced on MS's platform that wasn't an already-established multiplatform IP. And I mean, I suspect there were upset Xbox One owners when SFV was announced as a PS4/PC exclusive, so you also can't just pin being upset about exclusivity deals solely on PS owners.
***I have to even wonder why Rime not being a sony exclusive even matters.*** Any game not being an exclusive doesn't matter. There's just suspicion as to the events of this game. Announced in 2013 with a trailer as a PS4 exclusive. Shows zero gameplay for 3 years while other games shown at the same time have been released. In a surprising twist that is extremely abnormal for Sony, they take a loan from the Spanish government to buy back their IP from Sony, who gives it up (that's the very unusual part here). Somehow this argument turned into "what does it matter if it's exclusive" to draw it away from the actual topic of "why would Sony ever give up an IP when they have a huge history of not doing that?" along with the "why has this developer shown zero actual gameplay in three years?" Now, you obvious see nothing wrong with it. Cool! But, I'm not keen on that and I am very skeptical of the whole situation and the progress that they supposedly were making. I think there were problems, I think Sony saw them, I think they got the IP back for some cash so Sony could lose less on the deal and move on to other IPs Does any of that mean the game won't be okay at release? Nope, but many of us do think it's a sign of development problems that we typically attribute with poor game releases elsewhere, but for some reason here, because it's now not a Sony exclusive, it's okay, nothing wrong, nothing to see here, people need to stop acting the same way they do with any other game that has a similar history.
@darth: I never said TR had a long-standing exclusive history on PS consoles. Like I said, part of the outrage probably came from the coy language MS was using that made it seem like RotTR was never coming to PS4 (hence the keeping games away from people argument that was being made against the MS/SE deal).
Sony didn't really lose it as a platform exclusive they got rid of it.
To my understanding it was sony that was funding the entire project and basically owning intellectual property. They sold it back and stop funding rumor is because the game was basically built on fraud and a scam apparently the footage was not even real gameplay in the team was fabricating the entire development it's why we randomly would just stop seeing it at events. @veg,- might be one of the dumbest things I've read in quite a while did you not realize that Sony must be willing to sell for tequila to even purchased the property in the first place? For Sony to be selling it back and not wanting it funded in the first place very much shows something was wrong. @Christopher - 100% agreed I know I can't be the only one that was suspicious on this game just randomly disappearing. For Sony to basically sell back an intellectual property very much shows that there has to be some truth to that rumor of this team's fraudulent Behavior.
@ Patriot one company is an upstart that doesn't have a name or pedigree the other has one of the best game directors in the industry. I think there is a bit of a difference between Microsoft and Sony in this situation.
@christopher "Somehow this argument turned into "what does it matter if it's exclusive" to draw it away from the actual topic of "why would Sony ever give up an IP when they have a huge history of not doing that?"" One has to only look at Sunset Overdrive to see while it is not common it does happen and maybe some people experience with sony isnt all candyland as other devs have experienced. Whats surprising is when this does happen how quick gamers are ready to throw the game under the bus with little to zero evidence. Its hard to argue why Sony let them go when no one actually knows, but it is easy to place the blame on an indie developer and excuse Sony of anything. At least with games that had similar problems like NMS, or speculation of gameplay like The Order, there was actual gameplay shown and a lot of coverage given for gamers to criticize. But for Rime its only because of them leaving Sony that all this criticism and suspicion is being brought up and analyzed. ""along with the "why has this developer shown zero actual gameplay in three years?""" Who knows why an indie developer wouldnt show off early unfinished footage to the public...i mean its not like they wouldnt receive any hate if people didnt like what they see right? And they did show off something recently and from what I saw it looked pretty good and it did look more polished than what was originally shown. But I guess that isnt enough. Even if there was some development problems why didnt Sony step in and help, why didnt sony tell them to take as much time as they needed? Sony took close to 10 years for TLG, they couldnt wait three for Rime? Could it be just as simple as this team wanting their rights back....is it really that much of stretch to believe? I see on this site all the time the majority telling gamers to give certain games a chance whenever bad reviews are released, or saying dont believe the hate and wait for the game to come out, but for some reason this doesnt apply to Rime. I have no issues with being cautious of a developer. But this game hasnt been cancelled, the footage shown looks good and the only difference seems to be that now its on Switch, Xbox One....and PS4. So yea, i have to ask...whats the problem?
Yes. Its a shame. We need more normal Sony fans and less fanatics. Actually scrap platform fans and just have normal gamers. @Harry My second line already references that.
@curryman What Xbox one fans? All I see on this site is fanatic PS4 fanboys downvoting everything that is not PS4 related.
@Poseph Yeah cause downvoting really shows people....SMFH. Of course there is more PlayStation fans here, they have double the install base.
The amount of xbox fanboy here is incomparable to sony fanboy. Other articles beside sony related ones are usually bombarded with these sony fanboy's negative comments.
That's Sony fanboys for you full stop.
Sony did not "lose" it, they cut funding because it was not meeting a criteria that was agreed upon.
Do you have a link where Sony officially states that this is what happened? Because as of now the story is Tequila bought the rightd back to their game. Or are we adding our own spin because this game used to be a sony exclusive that most were excited to play when it was first shown off?
@ gangsta_red Good luck waiting for that link. I'm still waiting on the link that MS wanted to whitewash platinum games creativity on scalebound from Yi-Long.
Please. Cite because this same article with one of the devs refutes your comment.
@gamgsta You will not find any link stating any facts because of an NDA. This per the developer of the game. The contract for rime ran out in 2015 with both parties agreeing to separate ways. They showed the game in 2013. Going by what you can piece together through comments and by how the game looks now compared to the 2013 version.,, it is clear the developers could not reach said goal of the original vision. The differences between this and scalebound is Sony gave back the rights allowing for the game to still be made and be released instead of Microsoft keeping the rights to scalebound and not allowing any further work to be done or for the game to be released. So for any kids out there, one buys the rights putting a stronghold on the developer, the other said that they no longer wish to find the project with no clear path in sight and giving the freedom back to the developer to finish their vision.
@gangsta: All of the information about RiME's 2014 reveal being faked gameplay footage, etc... all seems to stem from this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum... While not exactly an official source, it's allegedly coming from someone who has/had close ties with the studio, so the accusations weren't being pulled out of thin air. I'm not presenting this as fact, it's just the source of the rumours - I am fully aware of how thin this source happens to be. And while you're right in that it doesn't matter whether this game is exclusive or multiplatform (I'm glad it's still being released, frankly - I don't care that it's multiplatform), TW having to acquire the rights from Sony does indicate that something happened along the way that resulted in Sony not wanting to retain the rights to the game (Sony doesn't exactly have a history of giving up the rights to their IPs), so I don't think it's as simple as TW buying the rights because they were wanting to reach a wider audience.
@rude-ro "Going by what you can piece together through comments and by how the game looks now compared to the 2013 version.,, it is clear the developers could not reach said goal of the original vision." What was the original vision? You mean a game where a demo of gameplay that was shown from 2013 looks different after more dev time, polish and coding? The game looks better than what was shown, so I have to wonder what were you expecting from a snippet that was shown in 2013? And even then the actual ganeplay now isnt vastly or completely different from what was originally shown. The difference is Sony likes to keep a short leash on indie developers and their ips. Sony more than likely wanted the game for a good while before letting the dev release on other platforms and get a wider audience Unlike MS who like with Sunset Overdrive lets a dev keep the rights to their ip. ;)
Gangsta 1 of very few games under said scenarios with said company. This why you do not see a lot of sequels from old Microsoft exclusives. They own the publishing rights if not the game outright. So, they buy games and do not have the devs to continue the developing the games for sequels.
@gang-you sell something by choice it is voluntary , if you're selling it is because you owned it and decided you did not want to own it any longer. I mean you basically sound like you don't even understand elementary school economics 😂😂😂 in order for tequila to actually purchase that intellectual property Sony actually have to even be willing to sell it in the first place. .. Why are you adding the spin that tequila purchased a property as if Sony had no choice in the matter? The real issue here is that Sony is even willing to sell it in the first place which actually gives Credence to the rumor that something is wrong with its development in regards to fraudulent Behavior. The fact that they were trying to blame another part of their development team and then the fact that some journalists are coming out in speaking about this questionable quality is enough to probably question what was going on with this game's development.
Does anybody seriously believe we the "we bought the rights back to reach more people line?". Seriously, that's transparent PR spin. It's the equivalent of a public figure sayinh "I'm leaving to spend more time with my family," when the truth is they were forced to resign
@rude-ro So again, what was the original vision? And how was the footage shown now drastically different from what we saw then? @uth "Does anybody seriously believe we the "we bought the rights back to reach more people..." I'm the one who said this, i dont think the actual dev put that out as PR. @edmix Lmao, sure bud, have no idea what you're talking about (as usual) but the few lines I did bother reading I already knew it had nothing to do with the actual topic.
Really? That's quite the theory.
Its not a "theory", there was a big article about it very recently.
"MS didn't see any progress and was wondering where the money that gave was going." No, lol. They kept changing shit around on the team which led to delays. If anything, MS had the right to cancel it, but at the same time they got what they deserved for consistently interfering with the development. You don't f*** around with a team like PGs. You agree on a game and let them do their thing. Want recent proof? Nier Automata.
I keep asking yet no one can provide a link to this. Please submit some proof MS was interferring with PG or stop making shit up. @ HarryPuttar Yeah like i thought. Sonyfanboy can't back up the BS they putting out. Just find a link that backs up your claim that Ms interferred. Its not hard you can help him if you want. But it shouldn't be this hard for you.
@HarryPuttar "platinum games delivered a high scoring game recently just fine. So fk outta here with the BS" Let's also ignore the few mediocre games Platinum delivered recently. Let's also not consider the scope of Scalebound compared to Neir. Unless Neir also features 4 play co-op in a huge open world enviroment where each player also controls and can ride a huge dragon that along side them can fight huge enemy bosses. "Please give us proof MS didn't interfere." No one knows what happend, thats the damn point. It's all speculation and rumors, so its funny to read people leave comments as if they were there and then be quiet a.f. when asked for sources.
@ Harryputtar So we should believe whatever made up shit that comes out your mouth. You can't provide one shred of proof of what happened with PG and MS. But i just proved that your full of shit like I thought Just provide proof. Link us to MS mistreating PG. Thats all. Come on you can do it
Harryputtar Instead if acting like a child. Find a link and provide proof of mistreatment with MS and PG. Thats all I'm asking for. But you can't and like the child you are you want to insult people. I provide links to my claims. Can you do that
I guess we'll know for sure soon enough when reviews start rolling in.
Dunno why but that thumbnail looks like a big middle finger to me. Can't get it out of my head now...
Sony fanboys are the worst
This is absolutely nothing like the Scalebound situation. No one is canceling Rime. This is only to do fanboy hatred towards an ex-exclusive game. And rumours gone unchecked.
Why make a deal with Sony in the first place if your goal is to release the game on as many platforms as possible? Also https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/a...
Maybe they were confident enough that they wanted it on more systems...Seriously...does it matter? The game looks good, it's still releasing, just now on more platforms.
Change of mind. As far as Im aware dev teams are made up of humans. Humans tend to change their minds every now and then.
But they signed a contract with Sony and backing out of something like that does have its consequences. The way I see it they should have been more careful in the first place. If they didn't need Sony's financial backing they could have made the game with many other source of income. Many other developers did it so I don't see why they couldn't have done the same.
And what does any of that have to do with the point of the article. Lies and dishonesty running amok and you're blaming a company for wanting to reach a larger audience for its issues right now? Obviously they were released from contract.
When Rise of the tomb Raider came to the ps4 i never see sony fanboy say it will have consequences. ...........
If they wanted to make the game multiplatform they should have done that form the beginning. Many developers choose to make a game a timed PlayStation exclusive. After developing the game with the aid of Sony and receiving development kits from them they proceed to use the revenue from the sales of the PlayStation version to fund the development of other versions of the game. A great example of this is Jonathan Blows game called The Witness.
Why from the beginning? I'm not entirely disagreeing with you actually but what is the foundation of that opinion. Why should they choose in the beginning? Can't devs choose if theyre going to be exclusive at any point in development? Also besides the dev kits what other financial backing did Sony give the studio? There was financial backing in Rise of the Tomb Raider from MS. Does that mean it was right to have it be exclusive for a year?
"Can't devs choose if theyre going to be exclusive at any point in development? " You don't sign a legally binding contract that makes the game an exclusive to a platform and then break said contract halfway through development. Once a contract has been signed each party must respect their side of the deal. Like your example with ROTR for example. Did Square Enix break the contract with Microsoft and release the PS4 version at the same time as the XB1 version? These agreements are a lot more than just signatures on paper napkins. I'm just saying that they should have thought about making it multiplatform from the beginning. Just like Jonathan Blow did with The Witness. If Jonathan signed an agreement where he gave The Witness IP to Sony he could never release it on Xbox. But in the end The Witness was released on Microsofts console. I'm just saying they should have aimed for a different type of agreement if they wanted to bring the game to other platforms later on.
But the point here is they did not break contract. Sony allowed them to reacquire the IP. Its not that Tequila broke contract at all. So what does your comment have to do with the facts.
What contract are they breaking? What are the terms of the contract? You don't know There's games like Everybody's gone to the rapture/Arkham VR that seem to be sony exclusive at release but later on becomes not
"These agreements are a lot more than just signatures on paper napkins." I figure you saying this would clue you in on this game's development. The original agreement changed. Sony & TWorks parted ways, they wrote up a new contract for TWorks to get IP back, TWorks found another publisher. "Once a contract has been signed each party must respect their side of the deal." Contracts can be re-negotiated if things aren't going to plan. This isn't a new thing. "I'm just saying they should have aimed for a different type of agreement if they wanted to bring the game to other platforms later on." That's not what they initially had in mind though. TWorks went to MS, Sony, (and maybe Ninty) for exclusivity deal for some good $$$. Their development didn't seem to pan out as expected, so they adapted. Now? They're going for as many markets as possible now that they own IP.
Generally, deals like this do have a buyout clause that allows the dev to back out if things change. It typically requires paying back any money invested in the project, as well as some buyout fee....which can vary at different points in development....typically to cover marketing costs, and to discourage the clause being exercised.. This clause typically can be exercised up to a certain point in development, based on milestones. Usually, the further along a game goes, the less likely it is to have this happen, because it becomes cost prohibitive. Whether Sony wanted it to happen or not, he clause was likely there to allow the dev to do so. Anyhow, I don't know the details surrounding this, nor if they decided to exercise this clause before or after Sony decided to "drop" the game. But I've noticed a lot of people acting like the dev couldn't have done this without Sony's approval, or acting like it was a scramble for them to get the IP back after Sony didn't want to continue development. I've also noticed a lot of people making sweeping assumptions with the thought process they understand how these deals work, when from what I can tell, not a single person here actually does. I will go on record as saying that despite the above comment, I'm not aware if TW had this clause in their contract. I'm as in the dark as everyone else. My point of view is just what it fairly typical in contracts where an independent dev contracts with a publisher to make a game. Anyhow, these clauses being exercised is quite rare. Typically because of the cost involved. Generally, if a company takes deals like these, it's because it's the best possible option for them. Very few devs have the resources to actually back out....and overall, it's not always wise to do so, because there are advantages to being a 2nd party dev, with a console maker publishing your game.....as we can see here, where Sony marketed the game a bit, and got it some notice.
Let's see... - Rime announced in 2013 - Sony to publish as an exclusive/timed exclusive, and therefore put funding into development/marketing, etc - After years of deadlines missed, Sony drops support - Scalebound announced in 2014 - Microsoft to publish as an exclusive/timed exclusive, and therefore put funding into development/marketing, etc - After years of deadlines missed, Microsoft drops support, game cancelled That's odd, they look pretty similar to me. The only difference is Scalebound would have been far more expensive to fund than Rime