Support NeoGAF

[Family Fry]

Sony didn't swoop in. The developers went to Sony because they couldn't handle a project of that scale financially or from a development standpoint.

So they could have went pub fund?

 

[Kintaro]

Come on!

Are we going to use the term "money hat" to describe any circumstance of a console manufacturer using money to develop games?

There's supposed to be an act of deceit, like giving someone money to lie for you.

Uh, a money hat doesn't have to mean any act of deceit. It's simply giving money for the game to appear exclusively on their system. Timed or otherwise. Whether that money is used to develop the game or advertise the game or whatever, doesn't matter to me.

Sony used money hats to get DLC for Destiny. MS used it Rise and Assassin's Creed DLC. Sony uses it a lot for indies. We go on and on. Developers understand this. Publishers understand this. The only ones who get hurt over it are gamers who will just end up buying it anyway roughly 75.9% of the time. =P

No it is not worse. It would not exist without the funding from Sony, same as Bayonetta 2.

Already explained. Bayonetta 2 was never announced for anything, ever. It was straight up cancelled. EGTTR did exist, was announced for a platform, then bought up by Sony.

Even then, did you witness the hurt over Bayonetta 2 on this very forum at the time? Jesus Christ.

 

[SolidSnakex]

So they could have went pub fund?

I'm pretty sure pub funded games are for financial and marketing assistance. It doesn't necessarily include help from one of Sony's studio.

 

[kurahador]

So they could have went pub fund?

Maybe they need more than 1 mil?

 

[zackmorris]

My issue with Rapture was that they never actually tried to go to the avenue of securing funds from Kickstarter first before going to SSM for help. (Granted, we don't know what else they lacked aside from just money, maybe there's massive tech/production hurdles that can be solved with just money )

Why? If they tried to run a kickstarter and failed, maybe a company like Sony would lose interest.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Speaking of this game they posted a pic:
https://twitter.com/ChineseRoom/status/500569088398462976

Man, that's gorgeous. I'm so intrigued by the style and premise of this game; really looking forward to playing it.

 

[Kayant]

No, EGttR is exclusive to the Sony platform so even if some of the timed exclusives are similar deals no one really gets upset because of "Return of the King". Let's say Sony bought Remedy, or secured Quantum Break 2 as a timed exclusive...does anyone honestly thing gamers would be up in arms regardless of how the deal was formed...nope. Instead you'd be seeing a lot of "Megaton" posts. The tide is simply in Sony's favor right now.

To the people saying TR could be made just fine without financial help, I was listening to John Davison on his First for Gamers podcast last night and he specifically argued that SE spent too much developing the first TR and that it was initially a failure. He argues that if SE wants to make another ambitious AAA game out of TR2 then they absolutely needed financial support.

That is still someone's speculation that rise of tomb raider required help. There has been nothing to suggest they did.

No, EGttR is exclusive to the Sony platform so even if some of the timed exclusives are similar deals no one really gets upset because of "Return of the King". Let's say Sony bought Remedy, or secured Quantum Break 2 as a timed exclusive...does anyone honestly thing gamers would be up in arms regardless of how the deal was formed...nope. Instead you'd be seeing a lot of "Megaton" posts. The tide is simply in Sony's favor right now.

How the hell with people not be upset when they are upset with 1 year dlc exclusivity with destiny.....

But... You own it as a result of the moneyhat.

Yes which was because the game needed funding and production help. And Sony don't come in and "moneyhat" it away from PC the devs went to Sony themselves as said here expect you don't what to believe them -

When we started making Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture, we knew we wanted to make a console title. We also knew that Sony were committed to pushing really interesting indie and experimental work, and figured they’d be into the ideas we were putting together. In a completely idealistic and high risk move, we forgot about the idea of a Plan B, put together a prototype and approached Sony Santa Monica. They were just shipping Journey and Unfinished Swan and we thought we’d have a lot in common in terms of ideas about story, gameplay, player experience.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013...ps4-adventure-everybodys-gone-to-the-rapture/

So it's not the same thing -

MS approached Square Enix
The Chinese Room approached Sony Santa Monica after announcing the game for PC but realized they lacked both the resources and development skills to make the game.

Edit -

Even better thanks to Kintaro

 

[Kintaro]

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013...ps4-adventure-everybodys-gone-to-the-rapture/

So it's not the same thing -

MS approached Square Enix
The Chinese Room approached Sony Santa Monica after announcing the game for PC but realized they lacked both the resources and development skills to make the game.

This is more accurate. =P

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I think the gist of this situation is more:

-Microsoft throws money around
-Square Enix sees an opportunity to make their once fans miserable and make some money in the process.
-Mircosoft throws money at Square and Crystal Dynamics.

Yeah that's basically it. It's just business but of course fans of the game will be upset. I think the whole "it wouldn't have been made if it weren't for Microsoft" is just sugar coating it. That game would have been made with or without the help of MS.

 

[nynt9]

Yes which was because the game needed funding and production help. And Sony don't come in and "moneyhat" it away from PC the devs went to Sony themselves as said here expect you don't what to believe them -



http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013...ps4-adventure-everybodys-gone-to-the-rapture/

So it's not the same thing -

MS approached Square Enix
The Chinese Room approached Sony Santa Monica

B-but the devs are lying! They threw their fans in the trash! They didn't even consider options! It's just a coverup!

Spoiler

/s, if it wasn't obvious

I can't understand what sort of bone one must have to pick to go to lengths like this to read that much into the situation.

 

[jayu26]

So your saying you cannot money hat a game you bought with a money hat?

Makes perfect sense.

The devs announced the game in 2012 and PC owners were excited to see TCR doing a new and unique game for PC.

They got in trouble and in swooped Sony to the rescue, not only did they help them with cash and development but they did the developers a favour by outright buying their IP, which of course means there will never be a PC version.

Money hat is suppose to refer to a situation where someone gets an unfair advantage (because of them paying a large sum of money). When Sony buys timed exclusives, like Papers Please or Transistor, then by all means call it a money hat. When someone buys an IP out right, then I don't see it as having an unfair advantage. If anything they are taking on all the risk that comes with owning an IP.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Rapture is going to benefit from this a lot since they have help from a premiere studio alongside a bigger budget. And their idea is still intact.

 

[0ptimusPayne]

Sony Too!!!

 

[DNAbro]

No, EGttR is exclusive to the Sony platform so even if some of the timed exclusives are similar deals no one really gets upset because of "Return of the King". Let's say Sony bought Remedy, or secured Quantum Break 2 as a timed exclusive...does anyone honestly thing gamers would be up in arms regardless of how the deal was formed...nope. Instead you'd be seeing a lot of "Megaton" posts. The tide is simply in Sony's favor right now.

To the people saying TR could be made just fine without financial help, I was listening to John Davison on his First for Gamers podcast last night and he specifically argued that SE spent too much developing the first TR and that it was initially a failure. He argues that if SE wants to make another ambitious AAA game out of TR2 then they absolutely needed financial support.

Kagari has said Square didn't need help to make Tomb Raider. they just probably got a really good deal from microsoft.

 

[Mononoke]

This again ignores the fact that, people were upset that Tomb Raider was a third party multiplat series with the previous game being played by everyone on various platforms. Everybody Going to the Rapture is a new IP that they secured exclusivity for. So it's not cutting people out that have already played the series (or who are invested in the IP).

Now, if someone complained about the Titanfall deal, but don't see a problem with this, then I can agree they are pretty similar.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Kagari has said Square didn't need help to make Tomb Raider. they just probably got a really good deal from microsoft.

It's also worth pointing out that TR2013 took so long and cost so much because CD kept scrapping concepts. They won't need to do that with this game since they're just building off of 2013. So they won't need to spend as much time/money on developing it.

 

[JaseC]

why would you even say that when negotiating a deal?

no one in their right mind would ever say that, you are giving away bargaining power.

...it's why TCR approached Sony. I think we're talking at cross-purposes.

 

[Kayant]

This is more accurate. =P

I think so too

 

[Caddle]

Keep doing what your doing Microsoft. I doubt the owner of each system would be mad if it was they choice of platform manufacturer that was doing this.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

Keep doing what your doing Microsoft. I doubt the owner of each system would be mad if it was they choice of platform manufacturer that was doing this.

These posts are useless, you said the same thing yesterday in the Witcher 3 thread

Keep It up Microsoft, it's good to see grown men crying and whining about what's coming or not coming to their platform of preference.

 

[kurahador]

These posts are useless, you said the same thing yesterday in the Witcher 3 thread

lol

 

[nynt9]

These posts are useless, you said the same thing yesterday in the Witcher 3 thread

Gotta fight the good fight!

 

[Amir0x]

Rapture is going to benefit from this a lot since they have help from a premiere studio alongside a bigger budget. And their idea is still intact.

Sony at least seems to understand the necessity of cultivating real talent.

I mean look at how it went with the developers of The Tomorrow Children:

The off-beat storyline is accompanied by equally expressive artwork. Cuthbert tells me it's inspired by sources as diverse as (among other things) old Czech puppetry, and the 1960s British drama The Prisoner. The result is cinematic, in a vintage French art house kind of way. Cuthbert is keen to point out that a lot of these decisions weren't planned up front (as would be required by a AAA studio,) and that one of the main privileges of being independent is being able to, basically, do what you want.

But there's a paradox. The Tomorrow Children is an indie title in spirit, but Sony is financially involved with the project. So, how does this reconcile with Q Games' approach to game making? According to Cuthbert, it's not only not a problem, it's for the greater benefit of (his company's) indie games.

"I think it doesn't matter what size the game is [financially], as long as it's an expression of the creator... and it hasn't been meddled with... We just really enjoyed creating the technology [for the game], and obviously to create that technology we needed a bigger project to kinda buoy it up."

"From the start, Sony was positive, said start experimenting and they were hands off. They just let us do anything we wanted basically." And the result speaks for itself. How many other blockbuster titles have you opening Matryoshka dolls to collect DNA to rebuild your population? "In this game we've explored more 'different' ideas than we ever have before" says Cuthbert. Suggesting that despite dealing with suits doesn't have to mean compromises. So, perhaps money and indie spirit aren't so mutually exclusive after all?

Such relationships benefit the entire industry when it's done like this

 

[Withnail]

Uh, a money hat doesn't have to mean any act of deceit. It's simply giving money for the game to appear exclusively on their system. Timed or otherwise. Whether that money is used to develop the game or advertise the game or whatever, doesn't matter to me.

A publishing deal is not a moneyhat, it's just publishing.

Money hat is suppose to refer to a situation where someone gets an unfair advantage (because of them paying a large sum of money). When Sony buys timed exclusives, like Papers Please or Transistor, then by all means call it a money hat. When someone buys an IP out right, then I don't see it as having an unfair advantage. If anything they are taking on all the risk that comes with owning an IP.

Sony didn't buy Transistor as a timed exclusive, it's just a self-published indie game which the developers chose not to put on XB1 for some reason. Who knows what the situation is with Papers Please.

 

[Azull]

I have to give props to alexandro though, using the TR craze that is going on to bring up rapture again. Especially when they don't have anything in common in regards to the deal. Bravo for letting go dude.

 

[nynt9]

A publishing deal is not a moneyhat, it's just publishing.





Sony didn't buy Transistor as a timed exclusive, it's just a self-published indie game which the developers chose not to put on XB1 for some reason. Who knows what the situation is with Papers Please.

Usually it comes down to the fact that small studios can only focus on one platform at a time and the SDK/contract for one is more appealing.

 

[Amaya]

In all seriousness, does SquareEnix need help funding any game? Isn't that what they're there for?

 

[shem935]

But... You own it as a result of the moneyhat.

EGTTR would not have existed otherwise. Hardly a moneyhat. More of a lifeline. Tomb Raider was announced as a multi plat. The devs/pub did not need the money to bring the game to any consoles because it was the sequel to a 6 million seller reboot that had seen successful launches on both current gen consoles. That is a money hat. So obviously they are completely the same right?

 

[DNAbro]

In all seriousness, does SquareEnix need help funding any game? Isn't that what they're there for?

no

 

[nynt9]

Situation 1: MS: "hey, I see you're making this game. How about I pay you some money to not bring it to my competing platforms? (Or, bring it later, but let's not talk about that)"
SE: "sure!"

Situation 2: TCR: "hey Sony we were making this game for all platforms but turns out we can't fund it, can you help us out?"
Sony: "sure, but the game would have to be exclusive to our platform. "
TCR: "better than it not existing at all!"

Can people really not see the difference between these scenarios?

 

[shem935]

Situation 1: MS: "hey, I see you're making this game. How about I pay you some money to not bring it to my competing platforms? (Or, bring it later, but let's not talk about that)"
SE: "sure!"

Situation 2: TCR: "hey Sony we were making this game for all platforms but turns out we can't fund it, can you help us out?"
Sony: "sure, but the game would have to be exclusive to our platform. "
TCR: "better than it not existing at all!"

Can people really not see the difference between these scenarios?

Nah man they are the same because reasons.

 

[Zia]

EGTTR would not have existed otherwise.

That's not true at all. It isn't a Bloodborne situation, where the game was essentially commissioned by Sony. Everybody's Gone to the Rapture was in development for PC before a deal was signed. It probably wouldn't have existed in the same form, but it would have existed.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

Situation 1: MS: "hey, I see you're making this game. How about I pay you some money to not bring it to my competing platforms? (Or, bring it later, but let's not talk about that)"
SE: "sure!"

Situation 2: TCR: "hey Sony we were making this game for all platforms but turns out we can't fund it, can you help us out?"
Sony: "sure, but the game would have to be exclusive to our platform. "
TCR: "better than it not existing at all!"

Can people really not see the difference between these scenarios?

ooooh, when you put it like that!

*five more threads about Bloodborne and EGttR and Bayonetta...each*

 

[Dragonborn]

Situation 1: MS: "hey, I see you're making this game. How about I pay you some money to not bring it to my competing platforms? (Or, bring it later, but let's not talk about that)"
SE: "sure!"

Situation 2: TCR: "hey Sony we were making this game for all platforms but turns out we can't fund it, can you help us out?"
Sony: "sure, but the game would have to be exclusive to our platform. "
TCR: "better than it not existing at all!"

Can people really not see the difference between these scenarios?

Like someone else said, the. The basic gist of this thread is "other than all those major differences, they're practically the same thing"


I don't get why people have such a hard time understanding and heck, is t this one huge Sony Too thread?

 

[Occam]

Situation 1: MS: "hey, I see you're making this game. How about I pay you some money to not bring it to my competing platforms? (Or, bring it later, but let's not talk about that)"
SE: "sure!"

Situation 2: TCR: "hey Sony we were making this game for all platforms but turns out we can't fund it, can you help us out?"
Sony: "sure, but the game would have to be exclusive to our platform. "
TCR: "better than it not existing at all!"

Can people really not see the difference between these scenarios?

Here is the answer to your question:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=125649698

 

[nynt9]

That's not true at all. It isn't a Bloodborne situation, where the game was essentially commissioned by Sony. Everybody's Gone to the Rapture was in development for PC before a deal was signed. It probably wouldn't have existed in the same form, but it would have existed.

And you have proof of that? Considering the devs said they had no other way of securin the funding?

 

[shem935]

That's not true at all. It isn't a Bloodborne situation, where the game was essentially commissioned by Sony. Everybody's Gone to the Rapture was in development for PC before a deal was signed. It probably wouldn't have existed in the same form, but it would have existed.

The answer to this was already in the thread.

I queried further as to why we’re missing out, and Pinchbeck was refreshingly frank:

“So the thinking went like this,” he began. “We don’t have enough money or production expertise to make this game without help. We don’t think we can raise enough through Kickstarter or public alpha to make this happen. We could do with production support on a game this scale. We’ve always wanted to make a console game. Publishers have bad reputations all too often. Hey, Sony Santa Monica are great though. We’ve met them a few times and really like them and their attitude.”

“Also, PS4 is starting to look very cool as a platform. All eggs thrown into singular basket, Sony Santa Monica contacted, everybody likes each other, lots of love for the project. Long dark night of the soul mulling over implications of shifting across to console. Mix of pragmatism and excitement about the possibilities win out.”

 

[alexandros]

And you have proof of that? Considering the devs said they had no other way of securin the funding?

Actually they said themselves that they didn't even try to secure additional funds through Kickstarter or Early Access. It's right there in the article.

 

[Dragonborn]

Actually they said themselves that they didn't even try to secure additional funds through Kickstarter or Early Access. It's right there in the article.

"We don't think we can raise enough through kick starter or early alpha"


The answer is literally there

 

[Uno Venova]

Such odd behavior but I guess trying to find other bad situations in defense is better than addressing the current problem with deals making things worse for consumers.

 

[StuBurns]

"We don't think we can raise enough through kick starter or early alpha"


The answer is literally there

Sshhhhh, no logic, only crusading now.

 

[Zia]

And you have proof of that? Considering the devs said they had no other way of securin the funding?

The answer to this was already in the thread.

I queried further as to why we’re missing out, and Pinchbeck was refreshingly frank:

“So the thinking went like this,” he began. “We don’t have enough money or production expertise to make this game without help. We don’t think we can raise enough through Kickstarter or public alpha to make this happen. We could do with production support on a game this scale. We’ve always wanted to make a console game. Publishers have bad reputations all too often. Hey, Sony Santa Monica are great though. We’ve met them a few times and really like them and their attitude.”

“Also, PS4 is starting to look very cool as a platform. All eggs thrown into singular basket, Sony Santa Monica contacted, everybody likes each other, lots of love for the project. Long dark night of the soul mulling over implications of shifting across to console. Mix of pragmatism and excitement about the possibilities win out.”

Yes, I'm well aware of the game's publishing situation as I have been following the game since it was an idea. My point was that this, again, wasn't like Bloodborne or Bayonetta 2, something that was publisher driven. Sony didn't miracle it into existence. They could have signed a multipatform publishing deal, and I personally think a Kickstarter could have worked. They decided Sony was their best option and that's fine.

 

[shem935]

Actually they said themselves that they didn't even try to secure additional funds through Kickstarter or Early Access. It's right there in the article.

Your rage for this is very entertaining. Gonna go reread that thread now thanks for the link.

 

[Kintaro]

A publishing deal is not a moneyhat, it's just publishing.

You can spin it til the cows come home. These companies do what they do to get the exclusives on their systems. Timed or otherwise. Whether publishing, funding, helping develop or otherwise. All of these are a mature form of money hats. Do you think they would do any of these things if there wasn't something for them in return? Come on now.

It's okay though. It's business. Just call it what it is.

 

[Xando]

Man, were really are moving in circles.

2 days ago it was Bloodbourne, yesterday it was the 10 year old Tomb Raider, today its Everybodys going to the Rapture.

Is tomorrows game already set or can we still suggest tomorrows topic?

 

[ttech10]

Why are people so incredibly eager to defend MS on this TR deal? Every thread I've seen that attempts to relate it to something else in order to make it okay just ends up being told multiple ways their "argument" is flawed or just plain wrong.

 

[StuBurns]

You can spin it til the cows come home. These companies do what they do to get the exclusives on their systems. Timed or otherwise. Whether publishing, funding, helping develop or otherwise. All of these are a mature form of money hats. Do you think they would do any of these things if there wasn't something for them in return? Come on now.

It's okay though. It's business. Just call it what it is.

But you're not calling it what it is. Money hat has a meaning, you're just completely nullifying it with your definition, to the point making games is money hatting.

 

[Dragonborn]

Why are people so incredibly eager to defend MS on this TR deal? Every thread I've seen that attempts to relate it to something else in order to make it okay just ends up being told multiple ways their "argument" is flawed or just plain wrong.

I honestly don't get it. I also don't understand why anyone would even defend the MS deal as it literally benefits no one except MS themselves. It screws over PS/PC gamers and does literally nothing for X1 owners.

 

[shem935]

Yes, I'm well aware of the game's publishing situation as I have been following the game since it was an idea. My point was that this, again, wasn't like Bloodborne or Bayonetta 2, something that was publisher driven. Sony didn't miracle it into existence. They could have signed a multipatform publishing deal, and I personally think a Kickstarter could have worked. They decided Sony was their best option and that's fine.

I didn't say it was anything like those. I'm saying it isn't anything akin to the tomb raider deal, which you aren't arguing so I don't know where the disagreement is.

 

[alexandros]

"We don't think we can raise enough through kick starter or early alpha"


The answer is literally there

Before Dear Esther was released they were expecting less than 20.000 sales. They ended up selling close to (maybe over) a million units. Given this fact I think it would have been nice if they had given the PC community the chance to surprise them once again. They preferred the security of Sony but it's hard not to be disappointed by their decision as a PC gamer.