Hello Games Not Insured for Flood Damage, Microsoft VP Might Help

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Hello Games Not Insured for Flood Damage, Microsoft VP Might Help

Joe Danger Underwater- Main

The developer behind Joe Danger and No Man's Sky has been denied by its insurance company, but Microsoft's Phil Spencer is "going to look into it."

Hello Games hasn't had the happiest of holidays. On Christmas Eve, mother nature attempted to wipe out the Joe Danger developer's offices with a gigantic flood, but the team's holiday cheer remained in tact. And, somehow, even after their insurance company denied their claim, the folks at Hello Games still have a sense of humor.

"BAD NEWS!" tweeted a representative. "Had a 'hilarious' call with insurer yesterday. Small print is if you are in a flood risk zone, you are not insured for flooding."

Thirteen minutes later, Hello Games posted another message that shows just how optimistic this crew actually is. "On a brighter note," the message reads, "no insurance means we can just wade in and start setting things straight! Hello Games assemble!"

Yesterday, the Hello Games staff spent the day documenting their cleanup process via Twitter. Furniture, fixtures, and electronic equipment all met a watery end, but, thankfully, no injuries were reported.

Right now, the developer is working on No Man's Sky, a game that stole the show during VGX on December 7th. Hopefully, all of this flooding won't cause major problems for No Man's Sky. Developers, especially small ones, work on very tight budgets, which means that major financial setbacks can end up becoming studio killers.

However, when a Twitter user suggested that Phil Spencer, the corporate VP of Microsoft Studios, should think about tossing a little holiday cheer at Hello Games, Spencer said that he was "going to look into it." And, if a flood ends up turning into some kind of partnership with Microsoft, this situation might become a full-fledged Christmas miracle.

Source: Twitter: Hello Games, Twitter: Phil Spencer

Permalink

Oh no. Please don't let this turn into an Xbone exclusive on the console side of stuff. I know other PC players won't care, but I wanted to play this on my PS4.

inb4 Insurance companies are theives complaints. Good to hear someone's willing to help them out of the mess. At least the news got their name out into the public.

If they planned ahead, they'll hopefully have off-site backups of stuff. And hopefully it'll be recent enough to not have cost them too much time. Getting new equipment, on the other hand, will be a pain no matter what.

Josh Engen:
And, if a flood ends up turning into some kind of partnership with Microsoft, this situation might become a full-fledged Christmas miracle.

That truly depends on whether you think another developer getting into bed with a single company to make exclusives is a good thing, no?

OT- Sucks about the flood and insurance companies are thieving bastards, but they really should have made an effort to read their policy when they signed up for it. I thought people became aware of this shit after the whole "Katrina" thing when people found out they didn't have flood insurance despite having the "100% insured" policies. Sigh... Stupidity, stupidity never changes.

If Microsoft were run by David Xanatos, we'd find out later that they somehow made the flood happen in the first place.

Fortunately, they're not QUITE that bad yet.

Compatriot Block:
Oh no. Please don't let this turn into an Xbone exclusive on the console side of stuff. I know other PC players won't care, but I wanted to play this on my PS4.

Well they're indie devs who have lost pretty much everything and spent a lot of money getting this far for nothing.
If a publisher like Microsoft comes around saying "we'll fund you to make the entire thing again as long as you put it on X" of course they'll accept it.
Because who knows, the studio might quite literally die otherwise depending on their state of things.

jackpipsam:

Compatriot Block:
Oh no. Please don't let this turn into an Xbone exclusive on the console side of stuff. I know other PC players won't care, but I wanted to play this on my PS4.

Well they're indie devs who have lost pretty much everything and spent a lot of money getting this far for nothing.
If a publisher like Microsoft comes around saying "we'll fund you to make the entire thing again as long as you put it on X" of course they'll accept it.
Because who knows, the studio might quite literally die otherwise depending on their state of things.

I think we're all aware of that, but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate.

Yep, it's gonna be an exclusive deal now if it ever wasn't.

Didn't these geniuses have network backups? WHY WOULD THEY HAVE THEIR TOWERS IN A FLOODZONE???

To paraphrase Star Wars a moment:

So yeah, I have a bad feeling about this X3

strumbore:
Yep, it's gonna be an exclusive deal now if it ever wasn't.

Didn't these geniuses have network backups? WHY WOULD THEY HAVE THEIR TOWERS IN A FLOODZONE???

They probably have backups. The problem, of course, is the equipment they need. Computers aint cheap.

Just to query: Is "in tact" deliberate or is it meant to be "intact". Either/or, but the latter seems more appropriate.

Typical British insurers in a nutshell. With flood risk on the rise, they are doing everything they can to squirm ther way out of covering for water damage. Shame spines all sold out in Westminster years ago.

No Man's Sky looks fantastic, here is hoping they're offered the helping hand they need.

Strazdas:

Alexander Kirby:
So if they don't cover for flood damage in a flood zone, then they basically don't cover for flood damage at all; where else is it going to flood? It's like saying they won't cover your car if its involved in an accident. Still, they probably should have read the small print.

they cover from flood damage in place where it doesnt usually flood. Its like those people that build houses in a zone that floods every single year and then complain that they get flood. well duh, you should have looked where you are building.
Also standart car insurance does not cover accidents, especially if its your fault.

strumbore:
Yep, it's gonna be an exclusive deal now if it ever wasn't.

Didn't these geniuses have network backups? WHY WOULD THEY HAVE THEIR TOWERS IN A FLOODZONE???

I live in the same area as their HQ (the next town over, only a few minutes by train) and flooding in Guildford is almost unheard of. As I said in another post whenever it has flooded in this clingy before the flooding has happened north or east of here, but it is the first time in my lifetime that Guildford has flooded.

So it isn't like they failed to secure against floods in an area that was known for them.

edit - apparently the last flood was in 2001, so I'm retracting that comment about not having a previous flood in my lifetime.

Good on Microsoft, if they do step in to help. Yeah, it may means No Man's Sky becomes an Xbox One exclusive (or it may well not) but I'd rather have that and Hello Games survives this than another possible option which is that they don't.

FalloutJack:
If Microsoft were run by David Xanatos, we'd find out later that they somehow made the flood happen in the first place.

Fortunately, they're not QUITE that bad yet.

OT:Hello Games has had their data completely screwed up and MS comes to help, everyone's playing the obvious of tunes.

I for one am happy someone at least came to their aid, if anything they can still be aided rather than left to die and the game itself was console first more than anything so I'd rather it stay that way rather than the idea die in total.

FalloutJack:
If Microsoft were run by David Xanatos, we'd find out later that they somehow made the flood happen in the first place.

Fortunately, they're not QUITE that bad yet.

I love the reference.

I too am hoping to see what comes of this. They really are a creative and talented bunch. Quick, someone start a kickstarter to help them out!

The office I work in is on the same road as Hello's office. We actually had to leave early as the flood waters had reached our office (Which was slightly funny, watching people in Ģ300 suits trying desperately to keep them dry).

On the floodzone quips that everyone are making - Nobody thought it was going to flood quite as quickly as it did. I should also mention that the last major flood in this particular town was in 2001 (So this isn't a common occurance), and that our office, despite being closer to the river, IS insured against flood damage.

This is just insurance companies being insurance companies.

So if they don't cover for flood damage in a flood zone, then they basically don't cover for flood damage at all; where else is it going to flood? It's like saying they won't cover your car if its involved in an accident. Still, they probably should have read the small print.

Alexander Kirby:
So if they don't cover for flood damage in a flood zone, then they basically don't cover for flood damage at all; where else is it going to flood? It's like saying they won't cover your car if its involved in an accident. Still, they probably should have read the small print.

they cover from flood damage in place where it doesnt usually flood. Its like those people that build houses in a zone that floods every single year and then complain that they get flood. well duh, you should have looked where you are building.
Also standart car insurance does not cover accidents, especially if its your fault.

Andy Shandy:
Good on Microsoft, if they do step in to help. Yeah, it may means No Man's Sky becomes an Xbox One exclusive (or it may well not) but I'd rather have that and Hello Games survives this than another possible option which is that they don't.

No offence but Microsoft and Sony don't do anything out of the kindness of their hearts. They see an opportunity to force a developers hand into an exclusive and they will take it if they can.

Good on them, indeed.

Strazdas:

Also standart car insurance does not cover accidents, especially if its your fault.

It does in the UK - pretty much what it's for really. Breakdown cover doesn't, but that's something else.

Compatriot Block:
Oh no. Please don't let this turn into an Xbone exclusive on the console side of stuff. I know other PC players won't care, but I wanted to play this on my PS4.

I'd wager that the deal would be timed exclusivity, not forever. It would allow Microsoft an 'edge' and possibly drive a few more XBone sales, but eventually everyone gets what they want. As far as timing goes, NMS doesn't really have any apparent features that make getting the game late a deal breaker.

Welcome to the Microsoft-Family
Your office has been restored.
So now, letīs talk about DLC.

strumbore:
Yep, it's gonna be an exclusive deal now if it ever wasn't.

Didn't these geniuses have network backups? WHY WOULD THEY HAVE THEIR TOWERS IN A FLOODZONE???

I am certain they have backups. But that does not mean this isn't a major financial loss. They need their computers to make the game. Even if they have all their assets and code it does not mean that this couldn't break them.

OT: Personally, if I was Microsoft the deal I would go for would not be exclusivity. That will just make people angry. The deal I would go for is giving them the money in exchange for a prominent place in the opening sequence. Basically, Microsoft has a chance here to spend a relatively small amount of money for a huge amount of good press.

They can be the hero that stepped in the save a dying indie developer or they can be the asshole who took advantage of a natural disaster for financial gain. Lets see how smart Microsoft really is.

I thought this threads title was "HALO games not insured for Flood Damage", I was expecting some sort of clever pun/marketing ploy.

Oh well.

Strazdas:
they cover from flood damage in place where it doesnt usually flood. Its like those people that build houses in a zone that floods every single year and then complain that they get flood. well duh, you should have looked where you are building.
Also standart car insurance does not cover accidents, especially if its your fault.

I know, that's my point; why else would you insure your car other than to protect you financially if it were to get damaged? What else are you paying them for? If you are paying them to protect you against flood damage it seems a bit silly for you to be exempt from cover should you be in the only place that will ever get flooded: A flood zone!

You could always argue that it's the peoples fault for building on a flood plain, but then should it be the council/estate owners who actually built there paying up? Also, there's not much space left to build anymore, there are towns located in crazier places than somewhere that floods every 10 years.

DeepComet5581:
The office I work in is on the same road as Hello's office. We actually had to leave early as the flood waters had reached our office (Which was slightly funny, watching people in Ģ300 suits trying desperately to keep them dry).

On the floodzone quips that everyone are making - Nobody thought it was going to flood quite as quickly as it did. I should also mention that the last major flood in this particular town was in 2001 (So this isn't a common occurance), and that our office, despite being closer to the river, IS insured against flood damage.

This is just insurance companies being insurance companies.

This is what I expected to hear. Maybe their policy is different than yours somehow, but I doubt it.

Baffle:

Strazdas:

Also standart car insurance does not cover accidents, especially if its your fault.

It does in the UK - pretty much what it's for really. Breakdown cover doesn't, but that's something else.

ITs different in UK than here then it seems.

Alexander Kirby:

Strazdas:
they cover from flood damage in place where it doesnt usually flood. Its like those people that build houses in a zone that floods every single year and then complain that they get flood. well duh, you should have looked where you are building.
Also standart car insurance does not cover accidents, especially if its your fault.

I know, that's my point; why else would you insure your car other than to protect you financially if it were to get damaged? What else are you paying them for? If you are paying them to protect you against flood damage it seems a bit silly for you to be exempt from cover should you be in the only place that will ever get flooded: A flood zone!

You could always argue that it's the peoples fault for building on a flood plain, but then should it be the council/estate owners who actually built there paying up? Also, there's not much space left to build anymore, there are towns located in crazier places than somewhere that floods every 10 years.

You insure your car because the government tells you must. thats really it for most people. It also protects agasint damage, just not crashes. The way its set up here actually is that it might pay part of repairs for the other guy but you wont see a cent of it.
I guess i should have been mroe specific by people on flood planes. yes, the ones that have decided to build there are at fault. in my country mostly the builder, owner and person living in it are all same person and i realize its often far from that elsewhere. Not sure what is the "council" you talk about and how it affects where to build stuff.
No, there is plenty of space to build. there are plenty of locations without flood, earthquake or hurricane risks, yet people want to live in risky areas. flooding every 10 years is nothing i agree, i know towns quite near me where it floods EVERY YEAR. they knew it floods every year when building the houses. its been flooding every year for decades there. its river getting wide in spring and flooding the plane. funnily enough, the nearby hill that doesnt get flooded is an abandoned field when they could have built there instead.
You know those taifuns in Asia and towns that suffer from them multiple ties a year. i tried asking people why would they go live in a place like this and the most consistent answer i got was "Because it looks beautiful". Just more people risking their lives for beaty i guess.

Strazdas:
You insure your car because the government tells you must. thats really it for most people. It also protects agasint damage, just not crashes. The way its set up here actually is that it might pay part of repairs for the other guy but you wont see a cent of it.
I guess i should have been mroe specific by people on flood planes. yes, the ones that have decided to build there are at fault. in my country mostly the builder, owner and person living in it are all same person and i realize its often far from that elsewhere. Not sure what is the "council" you talk about and how it affects where to build stuff.
No, there is plenty of space to build. there are plenty of locations without flood, earthquake or hurricane risks, yet people want to live in risky areas. flooding every 10 years is nothing i agree, i know towns quite near me where it floods EVERY YEAR. they knew it floods every year when building the houses. its been flooding every year for decades there. its river getting wide in spring and flooding the plane. funnily enough, the nearby hill that doesnt get flooded is an abandoned field when they could have built there instead.
You know those taifuns in Asia and towns that suffer from them multiple ties a year. i tried asking people why would they go live in a place like this and the most consistent answer i got was "Because it looks beautiful". Just more people risking their lives for beaty i guess.

I see your point, but I must disagree with the idea that there are plenty of other places to build, because there really aren't, in some other countries maybe but definitely not here in England. The county councils (they're the people who ultimately decide what gets built and where) are really struggling as it is to find new places for housing estates and despite the massive need for new houses. Why? Amongst other things there just isn't enough space. Sure, there are a lot of fields, but the vast majority are being used for farming. As it is the UK doesn't produce anywhere near the amount of food required by the population, one of the major things affecting our economy is the sheer amount of products that we have to import. Also, I realise that some areas flood every year, but there are few built up places like that in the UK.

And then we have the problem that an entire city isn't going to move because of flooding. There is no such thing as a new city in the UK, many of them are hundreds of years old. Why is San Francisco on a fault line? Simply because whoever established it didn't realise it was a fault line and now it'd cost $billions to do anything about it at this stage, now that it's as well established as it is. And then of course there's just stubborn people, as you said.

I understand from a business standpoint why an insurance company wouldn't take the risk of covering someone who's guaranteed to make a claim, but when you get your insurance package that advertises flood damage cover, and your paying the same as other people who will actually get the cover, it can be a bummer to find out that the contents of that package varies depending on where you live, although the price does not. You are paying them for something they have no intentions of providing, meanwhile they're happily selling it to people that don't live on a flood plain and will never actually get flooded.

Alexander Kirby:

I see your point, but I must disagree with the idea that there are plenty of other places to build, because there really aren't, in some other countries maybe but definitely not here in England. The county councils (they're the people who ultimately decide what gets built and where) are really struggling as it is to find new places for housing estates and despite the massive need for new houses. Why? Amongst other things there just isn't enough space. Sure, there are a lot of fields, but the vast majority are being used for farming. As it is the UK doesn't produce anywhere near the amount of food required by the population, one of the major things affecting our economy is the sheer amount of products that we have to import. Also, I realise that some areas flood every year, but there are few built up places like that in the UK.

And then we have the problem that an entire city isn't going to move because of flooding. There is no such thing as a new city in the UK, many of them are hundreds of years old. Why is San Francisco on a fault line? Simply because whoever established it didn't realise it was a fault line and now it'd cost $billions to do anything about it at this stage, now that it's as well established as it is. And then of course there's just stubborn people, as you said.

I understand from a business standpoint why an insurance company wouldn't take the risk of covering someone who's guaranteed to make a claim, but when you get your insurance package that advertises flood damage cover, and your paying the same as other people who will actually get the cover, it can be a bummer to find out that the contents of that package varies depending on where you live, although the price does not. You are paying them for something they have no intentions of providing, meanwhile they're happily selling it to people that don't live on a flood plain and will never actually get flooded.

I dont presume to know the landscape of UK well enough to say your wrong, however are there no plains in there left? cant you build upwards? Farming is very inefficient way of using land. It is, or rather, was necessary for food produce, but with new growing methods (multistorey farming for example) this becomes less land area intensive. besides, as ironically as it sounds, world produces too much food. no, really. we throw hundreds of millions tons of wheat into oceans because we dont eat it. But we grow it because we heavily subsidies the agriculture sector. We can grow more in less space all the time and farming land is becoming lesser and lesser excuse really. Now i woudl say firsts are important, but we are cutting them down sadly, so while it would be nice to run out of land due to that reason, we arent doing that either.
Food is cheap to import and strong economy is better off importing the cheap stuff and exporting the expensive one. As far as strugling to find housing you can always build upwards. oh and do come here, we built so many hosues here pre-crysis that some still havent sold. hehe.

I can understand the whole city not moving, but in such cases wouldnt it be cheaper to find a way to block the water instead? like if its the river flooding just build higher banks. surely its cheaper than continuously negate flood damage. Thought i do understand the point your making and problems this creates. i was more talking about people who built the hosues 5 years ago on flood plains and complain about it.

Strazdas:
As far as strugling to find housing you can always build upwards. oh and do come here, we built so many hosues here pre-crysis that some still havent sold. hehe.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't correct, not all area's can support multi story buildings, some towns and cities are built on terrain that would literally sink with the weight of a sky scraper on it. I can't comment in this case though.

Strazdas:
I dont presume to know the landscape of UK well enough to say your wrong, however are there no plains in there left? cant you build upwards? Farming is very inefficient way of using land. It is, or rather, was necessary for food produce, but with new growing methods (multistorey farming for example) this becomes less land area intensive. besides, as ironically as it sounds, world produces too much food. no, really. we throw hundreds of millions tons of wheat into oceans because we dont eat it. But we grow it because we heavily subsidies the agriculture sector. We can grow more in less space all the time and farming land is becoming lesser and lesser excuse really. Now i woudl say firsts are important, but we are cutting them down sadly, so while it would be nice to run out of land due to that reason, we arent doing that either.
Food is cheap to import and strong economy is better off importing the cheap stuff and exporting the expensive one. As far as strugling to find housing you can always build upwards. oh and do come here, we built so many hosues here pre-crysis that some still havent sold. hehe.

I can understand the whole city not moving, but in such cases wouldnt it be cheaper to find a way to block the water instead? like if its the river flooding just build higher banks. surely its cheaper than continuously negate flood damage. Thought i do understand the point your making and problems this creates. i was more talking about people who built the hosues 5 years ago on flood plains and complain about it.

I'm aware that the world as a whole overproduces food, but the UK does not, and we are having problems with our economy (or, at the very least, that's what the government keeps telling us) so importing nearly half of our food isn't financially viable, especially considering that the amount we're importing is increasing. The problem is that the UK isn't a very efficient place to grow food; it's too cold and wet so a lot of our crops are grown indoors, which is expensive, and the government are very unlikely to give the same farming subsidies that your country does, but I digress.

Don't get me wrong; I do see your point. It's just that I don't see anything changing anytime soon. People in this country are stubborn, and while the most efficient thing to do would be move to Spain and occupy some of their abandoned towns, then just give up trying to grow our own food at all and get it all from hot countries with multistory farms, this is never going to happen.

Alexander Kirby:

I know, that's my point; why else would you insure your car other than to protect you financially if it were to get damaged? What else are you paying them for? If you are paying them to protect you against flood damage it seems a bit silly for you to be exempt from cover should you be in the only place that will ever get flooded: A flood zone!

You could always argue that it's the peoples fault for building on a flood plain, but then should it be the council/estate owners who actually built there paying up? Also, there's not much space left to build anymore, there are towns located in crazier places than somewhere that floods every 10 years.

The thing is they were not paying them to protect against flood damage. If you live in an area that is prone to natural disasters such as floods then the relevant insurance is never included in the basic package and is always an extra cost. This is for the dual purpose of it allows the insurance company to make more money off of stupid people who dont read contracts and it allows people who want to risk going without to save money since including flood insurance would necessitate raising the prices.

RicoADF:

Strazdas:
As far as strugling to find housing you can always build upwards. oh and do come here, we built so many hosues here pre-crysis that some still havent sold. hehe.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't correct, not all area's can support multi story buildings, some towns and cities are built on terrain that would literally sink with the weight of a sky scraper on it. I can't comment in this case though.

some places yes, but not the majority. however the tendency now seems to be more of a "lets build a over-sized house with 1 storey" than the opposite. its funny watching how the further west you go the larger houses become. its even more funny when an american visit and is appalled of how can we live at 42 square meters per person. not everyone is like that obviously, but ive seen people like this.

Alexander Kirby:

I'm aware that the world as a whole overproduces food, but the UK does not, and we are having problems with our economy (or, at the very least, that's what the government keeps telling us) so importing nearly half of our food isn't financially viable, especially considering that the amount we're importing is increasing. The problem is that the UK isn't a very efficient place to grow food; it's too cold and wet so a lot of our crops are grown indoors, which is expensive, and the government are very unlikely to give the same farming subsidies that your country does, but I digress.

Don't get me wrong; I do see your point. It's just that I don't see anything changing anytime soon. People in this country are stubborn, and while the most efficient thing to do would be move to Spain and occupy some of their abandoned towns, then just give up trying to grow our own food at all and get it all from hot countries with multistory farms, this is never going to happen.

Does not matter that UK doesnt as long as international trade is realiable. Btw, just a reminder, crysis is over, your government can stop panicking now. The EU wont fall either, so no reason to panic about these rumors either. time to actually make your economy work. Importing all if your food is financialy viable. food is cheap. just produce expensive goods you can export and you will make up the balance. Most expensive exportive goods are usually the ones produced by a brain, not a plow.
As you say, UK is efficient for food - then dont. allow countries that are efficient to grow food do it, instead focus on what your country can be efficient at. I actually dislike my farming subsidies (actually local government gives none, EU funds do a lot though). they support inefficient farmers. this summer our farmers were happy about certain wheat (i dont know the name in english) harvest of a record breaking 6 tons per hectare. Meanwhile european average is 10 tons. and we busidize these people who produce half as much on a good day as european average. Then again my country is very much agricultural heavy still, sometime for whatever reason people seem to be proud off (even though argriculture is the lowest form of economy).

Most efficient thing to do would be earth federation with unhampered trade and regions doing what they are best at, but as you say thats not going to come any time soon.
Also one can look at it from another angle as well, you are running outo f living space because there are WAY too many people in the world. ID be of opinion that somewhere around 1 billion would be much better for us than current 7. And there are multitude of ways to reach that, but it is quite clear we are neither trying to get the best ones nor are willing to do the alternative, so i guess we will just have to deal with the worst ways when they come without asking. im not saying we should kill all humans now or anything, i could write up a lot more about solutions but i doubt many here are interested in that and it would be offtopic.

Strazdas:
snip

I'd agree with you on those points. I'm actually pretty ashamed of the racism here in the UK; we're all paranoid about immigrants taking all our jobs and I'm genuinely afraid that we'll be out of the EU in the next few years. If anything, the only way the world could ever work is if every country was united and had the same currency etcetera, that way there wouldn't be any form of credit crisis as no currencies can go up or down in value since there is only one. And I'm with you too that there needs to be birth control; our population is just getting out of control. We don't need it so much in Europe, as especially in western European countries the population is actually decreasing as having just 1 child is becoming much more common.

Wow we've gone of topic.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here