670°

Until Dawn Studio Supermassive Games [Goes Their Own Way] for The Dark Pictures Anthology

This week on The Trophy Room: A PlayStation Podcast, Hosts Joseph, Kyle and Special Guest Sean Capri talk about the latest news coming from Gamescom! Out of Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, Devil May Cry 5, and Shenmue 3 which has the gang more excited. Bloodstained Ritual of the Night gets a delay, and Vita version gets canceled, as the final death nail for PlayStation Vita. Spyro Reignited Trilogy gets pushed back to November 13th, and Supermassive Games leaves Sony for Bandai Namco's Dark Anthology Series, should Sony have bought Supermassive Games.

Read Full Story >>
thepolinetwork.com
ApocalypseShadow2104d ago (Edited 2104d ago )

As much as I like Supermassive, let's correct this a little with MY words and opinion...

"After tarnishing their image with 3 released games(Hidden Agenda, Bravo Team and The Inpatient-all below 66% on metacritic) that were rushed out the door to profit off of their success of Until Dawn(79%) and Rush of Blood(72%) on Playstation and PSVR, Supermassive games has gone multiplatform to recoup their losses and hopefully their reputation."

"Why would Sony buy a developer that didn't care for QUALITY over QUANTITY?"

Neonridr2104d ago

it's a fair point you bring up since it seems like their games are progressively getting worse in terms of quality. I am not sure if it's their desire to push into the VR market which is affecting their quality. Perhaps they should have just delivered another solid 2D game instead.

ILostMyMind2104d ago

The PSVR's game is not one of those low scored games.

Neonridr2104d ago

@ILostMyMind - go look up Bravo Team.. lol

himdeel2104d ago

Sony never owned them, so how exactly did they leave Sony now?

showtimefolks2104d ago

This isn't news since they came out after until dawn and said after their deal with Sony they want to make games for other platforms

Sony never owned them so its one of those things where the deal ended and both parties decide to part ways. Let's not forget the fact Sony put them on the map so I am sure supermassive appreciate t

gangsta_red2104d ago

@himdeel
They left Sony as a publisher.

@Showtime
"the fact Sony put them on the map"

Don't know if that's actually a fact considering Sony didn't push their games as much as they should have which is probably why they decided to not go with Sony this time and go multiplat.

Elwenil2104d ago

@gangsta_red,

You don't "pick" a publisher. You attempt to sell your idea to a publisher in order to get the game published and/or get more funding for development. If the publisher thinks the idea will sell and be profitable, then they will negotiate a deal. If not, then you move on to less desirable publishers and most likely less and less appealing deals. More than likely, due to the low performance of recent games, Sony declined to publish whatever their newest project is or offered a less appealing deal and they were forced to shop around for another publisher.

gangsta_red2104d ago

@Elwenil

Pretty sure that's not how it exactly works.

Supermassive's deal with Sony as a publisher probably forced them to let Sony own the IP for any game they made.

For their next project they more than likely wanted to keep the IP for themselves and therefore shop around for another publisher.

Considering it's Namco, I don't see how they would be "less desirable", especially when they are a major third party game developer and they are able to bring this game to every major platform.

uth112104d ago

i think they were contracted to do those games by Sony and overpromised what they could deliver in the time frame.

devs who work there have said as much

Razzer2104d ago (Edited 2104d ago )

This is nothing but speculation. We have no idea what prompted this. As far as we know, Sony simply didn't have any work for them. And that too is just speculation.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2104d ago
bluefox7552104d ago

I like Hidden Agenda actually, though I would have preferred them sticking to making great full length games rather than bite sized ones.

porkChop2104d ago

If the games were pushed out the door before they were ready that would be Sony's fault, not Supermassive. The publisher decides when games are ready for release.

And you don't "correct" something with an opinion as opinions aren't facts.

JesusBuiltmyHotrod2104d ago (Edited 2104d ago )

LMAo..no. Supermassive is independant...they had full control over there games. You clearly have no idea how this works. It is never as simple as "The publisher decides". Sony is one of the most open and gives devs freedom.

porkChop2104d ago (Edited 2104d ago )

You're the one who doesn't understand how game dev works. It doesn't matter if Supermassive was independent. The publisher decides when to release a game and whether to delay. Supermassive had creative control, but they don't control the business side of things.

showtimefolks2104d ago

Pork

It works both ways but if Sony saw that giving extra time wouldn't help than makes no sense but we do have history that shows Sony usually gives a lot of freedom and time

Look at the 3 reboots got dreams and games like heavy rain/detroit which other publishers didn't want to touch

2104d ago
JesusBuiltmyHotrod2104d ago (Edited 2104d ago )

So you know sony forced to release the game and Supermassive never said it was ready? I await your proof. The Burden of proof is on you. Sony is the most lenient pub out there.

porkChop2104d ago

@Gahl1k

EA regularly releases unfinished games, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Dragon Age 2, BF4, Mass Effect Andromeda, etc. EA literally has a history of releasing unfinished games.

@showtime

No one is denying that Sony usually gives devs plenty of extra time to make great games. But that doesn't mean they do so 100% of the time.

@Jesus

The proof are the Supermassive games that were released unfinished after being tested by Sony's own QA teams. They played the games, they would have seen that they weren't ready for release and needed more polish. Yet the games were greenlit and released anyway.

Don't pretend Sony wouldn't have known the games weren't ready. Every publisher knows. 90% of the time Sony's games are very well polished, but every once in a while they release a rough game. And that's true of every publisher, especially EA and Microsoft though.

sinspirit2104d ago

This goes two ways.

1. If the publisher proposes an idea to be completed in a certain amount of time, and the developer agrees it can make that happen.

2. In this case, SM came to Sony with their idea, given with their expected completion window, which the publisher agrees to. It's not always the publisher that brings up the release date. But, it is their final decision. SM failed to deliver in the window they said they needed.

porkChop2104d ago

@sinspirit

"SM failed to deliver in the window they said they needed."

Absolutely. No argument there. I'm just saying that when Sony was QA testing the games they would have seen that the games weren't ready. A delay should have been made for those games to get the polish they needed. The publisher makes the final call, and they made a mistake in that instance.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2104d ago
remixx1162104d ago

@red

Gotta agree with you on that last point, I like Sony but damn do they have an issue with marketing their exclusives.

Last year in Q1 Sony had gravity Rush 2, tales of bersia, yakuza 0, nioh, kingdom hearts 1.5 2.5 hd, nier automata and ni no Kuni 2 all releasing in the same period but unless you follow PlayStation heavily you'd think horizon zero Dawn was the only game dropping the first half of the year with how hard Sony pushed it. (Poor poor gravity Rush 2, my goty for last year next to botw and persona and it's servers already got shut down due to lack of sales/marketing)

Mr_Writer852103d ago

@remixx

Other than GR2 and Horizon Sony don't own or publish any of those games, take Yakyza 0 for example, the game is owned by Sega, who could port that game to PC or Xbox.

Why would Sony take money away from marketing from a game they have spent millions on (HZD) to market Yakuza?

remixx1162103d ago (Edited 2103d ago )

@writer

I'm not suggesting exactly that per se, more that if your first party studio develops an exclusive then either A: don't release it in the same window as a bunch of other more established exclusives on your platform or B: at least give it some marketing so it doesn't drown in a crowded window.

Also Sony helped publish a few of those for it's platform so why not market them, they market games like cod and red dead which aren't even exclusive (keep in mind I understand why they do this).

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2103d ago
doggo842104d ago

50°
Until Dawn Studio Supermassive Games Leaves PlayStation for The Dark Pictures Anthology

That's quite an overstatement there considering they were never owned by Sony and Until Dawn IP was always owned by Sony

DaReapa2104d ago

...And not to mention, The Dark Pictures Anthology is still releasing on PS4.

porkChop2104d ago

With the exception of two small games, Supermassive have been a PlayStation-only dev since they were founded in 2008. While they weren't owned by PlayStation they were still primarily a PlayStation developer.

doggo842104d ago

But just because they are making a multiplat game, it doesnt mean they have abandoned Sony and will never make exclusives for them again.

porkChop2104d ago

I didn't say they were abandoning anyone. They're still releasing games on PlayStation. But this sort of partnership they've had is ending, at least temporarily.

gangsta_red2104d ago

I know people like to read headlines only but maybe...

"Supermassive Games leaves Sony for Bandai Namco's Dark Anthology Series, should Sony have bought Supermassive Games."

They left Sony as a publisher to go with Namco.

letsa_go2104d ago

I like how you didn't even quote it right. It clearly says "Leaves Playstation". You see what you want to see, then make it fact.

gangsta_red2104d ago (Edited 2104d ago )

@letsa_go

Quote it right? Read the summary where I actually pulled the quote...here, let me help..

"Spyro Reignited Trilogy gets pushed back to November 13th, and Supermassive Games leaves Sony for Bandai Namco's Dark Anthology Series, should Sony have bought Supermassive Games."

You know like I said in my reply of not just reading the headline.

"You see what you want to see, then make it fact."

Lmao!!! Yeah, because it was a fact. Or was I being a "contrarian" again?

Razzer2104d ago (Edited 2104d ago )

What is a fact? That Supermassive "left" Sony? That isn't a fact. It is purely speculation. It could just as well been the case that Sony sent Supermassive elsewhere as they had no work for them. We don't know.

gangsta_red2104d ago (Edited 2104d ago )

@Razzer
"What is a fact? That Supermassive "left" Sony? That isn't a fact."

I agree, cause I never said that was a fact.

It could also be that Supermassive left them as a publisher to go with someone else like Namco, so they could get their game on multiple platforms.

Razzer2104d ago

Sure. Just like Remedy. It happens.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2104d ago
gangsta_red2104d ago

Don't worry, it was easy to mistake. Just only reading the headline it would be easy to think the podcast was implying Supermassive was owned by Sony.

But reading the summery that's right under the title proves a tad bit more information.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2104d ago
2104d ago Replies(1)
2104d ago Replies(1)
ILostMyMind2104d ago

"leaves"? Aren't they going to make games for PlayStation anymore?

Show all comments (71)
100°

CDPR say Witcher 4 will be different from Witcher 3: "We don't want to be stuck in the same spot"

The next Witcher game will still be an RPG but players can expect new things as CD Projekt Red want to push boundaries and discover new ways of storytelling.

Terry_B12h ago

Each of the 3 existing Witcher games is pretty different from each other..

Kaii12h ago

My only issue with 3 was with the combat

bRuud8319m ago

Combat was never the strongest part of the series.

Profchaos11m ago

I felt 3 was ok took a long for it to click but I tried 2 and I found combat controls to be my biggest barrier to actually enjoying it was about 50 times clunkier than 3

helicoptergirl12h ago

Bethesda seems like a studio that is "stuck in the same spot". Development wise. Glad CDPR are wary of that element in game design.

Hugodastrevas1h ago

This can either go very well or very badly. I hope the latter.

Show all comments (9)
210°

Resident Evil Zero and Code Veronica Remakes are reportedly in the works, not Resident Evil 1

Industry insider Dusk Golem reveals that there is no Resident Evil 1 Remake in the works. Instead, Capcom are reportedly in active development of Resident Evil Zero and Code Veronica.

-Foxtrot1d 16h ago

RE Zero would be better to do first over RE1 because they can tie the story into RE1 more.

The original RE Remake was weird because Rebecca never mentioned anything about what happened in Zero and it felt so disjointed because Zero was developed during the Remake and they clearly didn't share any notes with one another.

Cacabunga15h ago

Wise decision. 2 of my favorites!

repsahj3h ago

RE Zero is one of my favorite game on gamecube!

Knightofelemia1d 14h ago

Give me Dino Crisis dammit Capcom

TGG_overlord19h ago

And all it took was +24 years + a phone call from me lol.

GotGame81812h ago

LOL! A phone call from you? ROFL! They have been remaking RE games for YEARS! It was a matter of time!

Show all comments (18)
280°

Metal: Hellsinger dev says he is against Game Pass after seeing how it affects sales

Founder of Metal: Hellsinger studio says he wasn't against Game Pass until their game launched on Microsoft's service, which affected game sales.

TheProfessional1d 1h ago (Edited 1d ago )

Why did PS copy gamepass if it's so terrible and unprofitable? PS Now was before gamepass but it was streaming trash that no one had any interest in.

And honestly the way the industry releases overpriced and broken games with day one season passes and dlc who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?

Only biased PS fans would defend paying more to a corporation rather than an option that's cheaper for the consumer overall. If it's from an indie studio that needs the sales that's different but games published by larger companies are fine on a subscription model. Also any of these devs who complain did decide to put their games on gamepass in thr first place.

ocelot0723h ago

Ahhh yes the typical but but but Sony in a Microsoft article.

When did Sony copy Microsoft? I havent seen Sony's big day one titles such as God of war Ragnarok or GT7? Do you want to know why they are not on the service? Because people are still willing to PAY for the games. Sony has already admitted they lost millions putting Horizon Forbidden West and Ratchet & Clank on PS+ Extra.

"larger companies are fine on a subscription model" Oh really? So why is all the cod games yet to be on it? Where is elden ring? Resident Evil 4 Remake? Street Fighter 6? Boulders Gate 3? Alan Wake 2? Where are they of gamepass is great and big publishers are fine putting newer games on it?

I'll tell you where they are. They are currently still selling for their respected publisher's. You know actually making them money. That money they can use to fund the next project.

who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?

I'm one of the millions who much rather pay $70 so fully support the publisher. Why do we do this? Well for starters I rather just pay for it rather than keep renting it each month. If we all just kept renting years ago blockbuster would still be around. Secondly, I rather we have AAA titles in 10 years time to enjoy. Rather than play mobile quality crap from a subscription.

Tell me how this is a good thing for gaming going forward. The last time I subbed to Gamepass was October 2023. During that one month subscription I played the newly released Starfield, Forza and a few other titles. All for the cost of about $7. Since then Microsoft have not released anything I want to try out or put anything on GP I want to try. So they last made $7 from me 8 months ago.

In the last 3 months. I have bought Sea of Thieves on PS5 (earning MS more money on that than my 1 month subscription to gamepass). Resident Evil 4 for £20 and Diablo 4 for £25 (again earning MS more buying this than buying a sub). Tell me how it's best for gaming I pay $7 and play the latest and greatest for a month. Rather than just buying what I want even if it means waiting a few months and getting it cheaper than full price yet earning the publisher more than renting said games of a monthly sub.

darthv7216h ago

...but didn't this game leave GP and then join PS+?

If a sub service is so bad, why get into another one right away?

Cacabunga15h ago(Edited 15h ago)

Finally devs waking up! More will follow .. reminds me of capcom during PS3,360 era almost going bankrupt they released extremely poor games because Xbox gave them paychecks not to release them on PS3 for as period. Sales were terrible and they went away from that.

Hofstaderman22h ago

Sony has never released new titles day one. They experimented with Forbidden West which was fairly new and quickly discovered that it cannabalized sales. XBOX gamepass was always an act of desperation to remain relevant and in their desperation they effectively dug their grave where today everybody is biding their time for their formerly exclusive titles. In a nutshell GamePass made XBOX not relevant.

Plague-Doctor2715h ago

It wasn't desperation. Subscription Models had a very different outlook in 2017 and then with the gaming surge during COVID reaching critical mass seemed more and more possible.

Phil convinced Satya to chase a trend and it hasn't worked out

shinoff218311h ago(Edited 11h ago)

Pretty much. People can say what they want but Ms said it themselves with the court papers. It was definitely desperation. Xbox was getting it handed to them. They were desperate.

lellkay22h ago

Literally dev who put game on gamepass:
It's not good

TheProfessional: but but sony but sony

S2Killinit21h ago(Edited 21h ago)

Sony didnt copy MS. MS copied Sony, then MS went on to make xbox a subscription device. Remember that part? Yeah.

MrNinosan20h ago

You're not too bright, right?

First of all, Sony didn't copy Microsoft regarding PS+ and GamePass, which you admit to early in your comment, but with some faults. PSNow was not only streaming.
The mentality at Xbox gamers, is to NOT buy games, because they are used to get it on GamePass, preferbly day 1 like with all Xbox Studios games.

This is not a thing at PS+ and never was.
Sure there was plenty day 1 games on PS+ like, Rocket League, Stray, Sea of Stars, Tchia, Operation Tango etc, but those didn't take away from gamers that it was more like a "bonus" than a "thing".

Playstation gamers buy games, a lot of games and PS+ has been proving to be way better for business than GamePass, both by actually having more subscribers but also no eating up sales.

dveio20h ago(Edited 20h ago)

"Only biased PS fans would defend paying more to a corporation rather than an option that's cheaper for the consumer overall.“

How can you possibly come to this conclusion?

First, you pay for a subscription.

Then download games. But games will eventually leave the service. You will again need to buy them if you want to play them ever again. Or if you cancel your subscription. Right?

Eventhough this may NOT have an effect on every subscriber, this IS in fact the economical motiviation behind the service like GP.

If you are not already paying "double" this way, you pay at a 1.2 or maybe even at a 1.5 ratio eventually than opposed to simply buying the game in the first place.

As I said, this maybe doesn't apply to every subscriber. But this doesn't erase the fact of this business model existing. And possibly keep growing.

It's driving me nuts at times that especially the die hard Xboxers seem not to understand what they are actually cheering for foolishly.

The Wood19h ago

xbots always tryna group...

..they'll never understand or refuse to acknowledge why these two console brands are miles apart. Gamespass isn't the golden egg some would have you believe. Its hit its peak and is nowhere near the demanded target of subs by the purse holders

The Wood19h ago(Edited 19h ago)

xbots always tryna group...

..they'll never understand or refuse to acknowledge why these two console brands are miles apart. Gamespass isn't the golden egg some would have you believe. Its hit its peak and is nowhere near the demanded target of subs by the purse holders. on top of that it seems more devs on top of the devs that have shunned the service are not seeing the value of subs vs actual sales. Sell first, sub later works better than sub off the bat. MSGaming has a major sea change decision to make regarding COD. Do they release it dod and lose a high portion of up front revenue or either up the price of gp on the whole or create an even higher sub tier to cushion the blow or don't release it on gp at all and potentially damage the good will gesture reiterated not too long ago. The acquisition money wasn't free money....they'll have to pick their poison

anast18h ago

"Why did PS copy gamepass if it's so terrible and unprofitable?"

They didn't copy GP. They aren't dumb enough to put their exclusives day 1.

"Who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?"

People who don't like to rent things.

outsider162416h ago

It's funny when he says who wouldn't pay for a subscription instead of paying 70$. Well no shit...if MS keeps releasing average titles who wouldnt..🤣

Cockney14h ago(Edited 14h ago)

The reason is playstation didn't copy anybody and they don't release broken games, their games are still not day 1 and Ps players still buy games so ps+ is just an option for those that want a subscription service, the fact playstation doesn’t push it front and centre should tell you a lot.
On xbox gamepass IS front and centre with an option to buy games on the side, look how that is panning out for them!
Xbox fans are the only ones trumpeting this from the rooftops

shinoff218313h ago

Weren't we able to download ps3 on ps3 and ps4 on ps4 systems back then I really don't remember.

Truth is Ms still copied Sony and made a couple adjustments. One adjustment being day one games which clearly has been xboxs issue hence the ps5 releases, and they groomed the base to not buy games.

romulus2311h ago

To be fair it takes it's own level of bias to not see the harm day one game pass is doing to xbox and the industry as a whole. Harm that xbox themselves have admitted to.

ChasterMies11h ago(Edited 11h ago)

“Why did PS copy gamepass”

This is a long story that spans decades. Sony subscription services for games (PS+ and PS Now) before Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft weren’t the only ones. We’ve seen OnLive die, Google’s Stadia die, and disc rental services die. What made Game Pass successful is the amount of money Microsoft is able to lose. Everyone expected Sony to offer a one-to-one Game Pass competitor and they did. To actually make money, Somy sells its own games for at least a year before relegating them to PS+. Sony also has scale. More PS5s sold means more users which means more money. Will these subscription services last? Probably not. Few things do.

Flewid6388h ago

As a huge fan of PS Premium, I don't recall a single AAA game launching on it. Even a AA game.

Everything I've found on PS Premium has already been out for sometime. Better selection too. There are games I trialed that I said "yup, I'm buying".

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 8h ago
Skuletor1d ago

I feel no sympathy for the guy, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that putting your game on gamepass would affect sales.

JEECE18h ago

Seriously, how is it that devs need one of their games to bomb in sales due to Gamepass for them to realize what so many people could easily predict? Like people joke about "armchair CEOs" on here, but at least with respect to the effect of Gamepass, we keep seeing that the armchair CEOs are actually smarter than the real heads of these indie studios.

Skuletor11h ago

Probably short-sightedness when he saw that initial Microsoft check, temporarily made all reason jump out the window 🤑

shinoff218311h ago

In some of the devs defense they know the game won't sell. So why not take the gamepass check. Hopefully yaluza/like a dragon sell decent on Xbox. I'd like to keep this series around.

dveio22h ago(Edited 22h ago)

The 'day-one' feature is the breaker or maker with GP, business-wise.

GP is no Netflix.

Because, from all the Marvel's Avengers to Sicarios, illustratively speaking, they all had their box office money. Before they had entered Netflix.

This concept shows you what Microsoft have actually put themselves into.

And what situation studios put themselves into if they go day-one into GP.

solideagle17h ago

GP/PS Extra day one is best suited for GAAS or free to play games

truthBombs22h ago

Why not sell your game the traditional way first? Then after about 6 months to a year put it on a sub service.

Day one on gamepass is a gamble. It works for some (Pal world) and not for others.

anast17h ago

It's the old psych. experiment. Set out some candy and tell the person they can have it all now, or if they wait, they can have double the amount. Most choose the first option, then complain when it doesn't work out for them.

Show all comments (50)