Why "good going Sony"? It clearly says Activision need to give them the go ahead, too...
Good going, Sony.
Remember that some Sony executive included this in the list of things to look to when it comes to 3rd party support.
I still don't understand why not to just port CODBO2 to Vita.
I still don't understand why not to just port CODBO2 to Vita.
If Sony cared they would have been all-in for it, then asked Activision. It is Sony's platform, mainly it is their call.
I note that they basically confirmed that Sony is (at minimum) sharing the drivers' seat with Activision.
Then people would bitch about it being another port-able
Of course Sony or Activision could demand that Zombies are in the game. But then they'd have to delay the game to get them in, and the game looks rushed as it is.
I note that they basically confirmed that Sony is (at minimum) sharing the drivers' seat with Activision.
I still don't understand why not to just port CODBO2 to Vita.
Zombie content will eventually be DLC. That there is the plan.
Good going, Sony.
OP seems to make it out like its Sony's fault.
Where is this list?
Koller points to a couple upcoming PS Vita exclusives that are unique interpretations of popular console franchises, and says that Sony tells publishers to "Follow what Ubisoft is doing with Assassin's Creed. Follow what Activision is doing with Call of Duty."
What is wrong with OP or does he just have selective reading? Why would Sony purposely not want a developer to add value to a product. It's obviously Activision's call since they're the publisher and IP holder.
No .. it's more that Sony asked for it's franchise to be on the Vita, Activision said yes but you develop it. Final sign off is still Activision.
I note that they basically confirmed that Sony is (at minimum) sharing the drivers' seat with Activision.
Which is why Gearbox and Rovio where pushing for the same thing for their games.So... this seems to further confirm what many of us have suspected since Gamescom: this is effectively a first-party title that Activision is merely publishing. Otherwise, why would Sony have any control over the game's feature set?
unless we think Nihilistic are lying in that tweet Sony are in a position to prevent it. now consider *why* that might be. all the rumours suggest that Sony are basically bank rolling the Vita port. if they didn't budget for a zombies mode, Nihilistic aren't going to have the staff to make one.
i mean, that's only my theory, but Sony's name wouldn't even be in that tweet if they didn't have the ability to prevent Zombies going in. that 'AND' wouldn't be an 'AND' if they didn't have the ability by themselves. again, not saying that's a fact, cause i don't know...
but it sure seems logical.
Seems to me Sony would have to give it the go ahead from a budget POV, but it's Activision's IP so they'd have final say on whether it goes in the game or not.
right. that's what i said.
Sony is developing the game under license from Activision (and likely bankrolling the project), Activision is publishing. Nihilistic got the call to develop from Sony.I understand the platform is Sony's but what control would they have over this game? Activision should be the only one making these calls, right?
Sony is developing the game under license from Activision (and likely bankrolling the project), Activision is publishing. Nihilistic got the call to develop from Sony.