12-22-2012 05:00 AM
12-22-2012 08:43 AM
This I get money guy needs to chill out. Sony CANNOT force developers to give up their characters. It's been said MANY times that Sony needs to ask permission from even the first party developers to use the characters. You still haven't explained why some of those franchises that you have mentioned are that important to playstation.
There was a guy earlier that explained why Wild Arms should have a rep due to its success in sales and such. Please do something akin to that instead of bashing people for saying that popularity =/= importance. Please define what you mean by importance so that we can wrap this argument up already.
12-22-2012 09:00 AM
In fairness, 20 characters isn't that bad. In most of the older classic games, they have like.. 10 characters or something like that. And as their series progressed, more and more character came about. This is what I think is going to happen with All stars.
And you're making it sound like 20 is a small number!
12-22-2012 09:37 AM
12-22-2012 11:56 AM - edited 12-22-2012 12:00 PM
Third party characters that are important to PS are only a small amount, most of the important characters are first party.
Such as? The first party PS characters are already here. Crash, Spyro, Snake, Cloud, Lara Croft, Rayman and so on are all third party. That's why it's a issue getting them. You are asking for more obscure characters than folk who want a Mortal Kombet rep or whatever.
12-22-2012 06:31 PM
12-22-2012 07:51 PM
I just hope the guys who started this thread comes back and sees it. Haha
what are the chances?
I can't believe this thread died right when I found the proof this guy needed. hahaha
yeah, once again, what are the chances...
12-22-2012 10:42 PM
Guys do you reckon crash and spyro are iconic anymore? There are to me but most people under 20 don't even know who they are. The most they say they never heard of crash and spyro they say skylanders
Don't get me wrong they are a big part of my gaming life still to this day (bought syro trilogy) and did fantastic but are they actually still THAT iconic to the new generation???
Just a down to earth comment.
To a gamer of the new generation snake, kat and even big daddy could be more iconic.
Love crash + spyro but glad universal stole them because insomniac and naughty dog gave birth to jak and ratchet (which am thankful for as there amazing franchises) and thankful they could be put in this game
Whether a game/character is iconic or not has nothing to do with who remembers them, cares them or anything like that.
Crash and Spyro are two of the most iconic PlayStation characters/games.
iiGeTMoNeY23 wrote:Kat isn't important to PS
Are you serious? She's pretty much the #1 reason you should buy a Vita, and one of the best Vita games right now.
But that doesn;t mean she's iconic to PlayStation, which she isn't, at least yet.
Exactly, this game is about PlayStation's future too, not just the past.
This game is about celebration of PlayStation, PlayStation icons. Kat and Gravity Rush simply aren't as of right this exact second. Maybe later on they will be, we don't know. Also, there is absoliutely nothing wrong with non iconic characters being in the game, as many can be in the game but it's wrong when so many iconic characters aren't in the game but non iconic characters are. See what I'm saying?
That's just it, they can't get those iconic characters because they don't belong to Sony and their IP holders don't want to have them here, does that mean SB should stop adding more PlayStation characters because they're not as popular? Of course not, there's nothing they can do about it and we should take what we can get.
A 3rd party dev/pub not wanting a game included in this game and that's the reason why they are not in the game is completely understandable, but there is no excuse on 1st party games unless it's proven that on some or all 1st party games, the inclusion depends on the devs and not Sony.
If Sony decides on 1st party games than all the iconic 1st party characters that aren't in this game yet aren't in the game or ven announced but non iconic characters like Big Daddy, new Dante, Rising Raiden, Fat Princess and Emmet are in the game, that's wrong. Plain and simple and it's done because greedyness and not acualy about celebrating PlayStation, PlayStation icons like it's suppse to be and how Sony/SB said it is.
Ok, seriously? How many times does this have to be said? Many people that have been active on this forum much longer than you (myself being one of those people) have heard from Omar Kendall himself in interviews that they had to specifically talk to individual IP holders to use their characters in PSASBR. We have been following this game since almost its announcement and I had watched every developer interview up until release. Us forumers specifically remember the interview where Omar revealed this information. He even gave an example of how they had to specifically ask Santa Monica Studios if they could use Kratos, and Sucker Punch Productions if they could use Cole. He even revealed that they were initially going to have a Cole MacGrath that changed his moveset as the match went on to become either Hero Cole or Evil Cole depending on your playstyle, but Sucker Punch said that they could only use Cole MacGrath if he was two separate characters. The consensus even believes that the reason why the Resistance franchise has so much content but no playable character is because Insomniac themselves didn't want a character to represent their franchise in the game. Sony Computer Entertainment cannot veto these choices by the individual IP holders. I can't believe you're forcing us to find proof, but I will find this evidence if it finally makes you to shut up.
tl;dr Many of us have been active on this forum longer than you and we know as a fact that SuperBot needs permission from the individual IP holders to use every single character in the game.
EDIT: I found the interview. Start watching around the 3:27 mark:
To the OP: please listen to what Omar Kendall, the director of PSASBR, has to say about character inclusions in this interview. Spoiler alert: he states that it is up to each individual IP holder, even those that are part of Sony, whether or not their characters are included in the game.
Great job finding the video. What's odd about what Omar says is that Sony owns both the studios and IPs of their 1st party games because that's how it is, 1st party games are games made from studios owned by Sony (for example, Naughty Dog/ Team ICO) or IP's that Sony owns. So Sony is who completely owns and is in complete control of all 1st party games. What he has to be referring to are 2nd party games because 2nd party games are games that Sony owns 90% of the IP's, games that are made from a studio that aren't owned by Sony (Eat Sleep Play) but make exclusives for Sony. The only other conclusion is that Omar was lying there because the above are facts not opinion and we all know video game companies sometimes lie.
And before anyone tries to say the opposite, the above are actual facts, how it actually is and works, there are no what, ifs or buts about it.