• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony Playstation: First Party Studios & their Current Projects

H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Spider-Man looking pretty good from the little bit they showed at D23

eh8HEAJ.gif


oJpVk3n.gif


Also:

8lKB2Cja


JCxNPfyv


G34AoG3y


rtILzZM8
Click to expand...
 
L

LiquidSolid

Member
HStallion said:
Spider-Man looking pretty good from the little bit they showed at D23
Click to expand...

At the same time, am I the only one who finds it strange how Sony's never mentioned as Spider-Man's publisher? Like when they introduced the game, it was something like "Marvel's Spider-Man from Insomniac Games and Marvel and exclusive to PlayStation." They make it sound more like a moneyhat than a first party game, so it's no surprise people get confused over its status. Giantbomb thought it was only a timed exclusive at E3, for example.
 
C

Cyclopsfire021

Member
LiquidSolid said:
At the same time, am I the only one who finds it strange how Sony's never mentioned as Spider-Man's publisher? Like when they introduced the game, it was something like "Marvel's Spider-Man from Insomniac Games and Marvel and exclusive to PlayStation." They make it sound more like a moneyhat than a first party game, so it's no surprise people get confused over its status. Giantbomb thought it was only a timed exclusive at E3, for example.
Click to expand...

When they were talking about finding a developer for spider they made it known it's a one game contract, which would have to be renewed annually, so maybe they don't want Spiderman to become a ps4 mascot (ala crash) and leave abruptly later.
 
J

JuanLatino

Member
Cyclopsfire021 said:
When they were talking about finding a developer for spider they made it known it's a one game contract, which would have to be renewed annually, so maybe they don't want Spiderman to become a ps4 mascot (ala crash) and leave abruptly later.
Click to expand...

they said the future of spiderman lies with Sony & insomniac tough


Insomniac/Sony's Spider-Man series will be the only console Spider-Man series going forward. They want to find excellent teams and then dedicate the IPs to them so they can focus on quality. That's not to say Spider-Man can't be in a cross-over game, but you won't see something like Activision console Spider-Man games coming out alongside these. Jay explicitly says "The future of the Spider-Man console games is with Sony and Insomniac."
Click to expand...
 
L

LiquidSolid

Member
Cyclopsfire021 said:
When they were talking about finding a developer for spider they made it known it's a one game contract, which would have to be renewed annually, so maybe they don't want Spiderman to become a ps4 mascot (ala crash) and leave abruptly later.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then if I were in Sony's shoes, I'd be concerned over whether Marvel would pull a WB on them. Remember when Arkham Asylum was an Eidos/Square Enix game?
 
P

privitsan02

Member
LiquidSolid said:
If that's the case then if I were in Sony's shoes, I'd be concerned over whether Marvel would pull a WB on them. Remember when Arkham Asylum was an Eidos/Square Enix game?
Click to expand...

The difference here is that WB didn't fund major projects in-house through game publishing channel back then. WB did however heavily invest into publishing games as well as funding them slowly between 2005-2009. Not to mention, Eidos went bankrupt. Square Enix own 25% of Rocksteady in shares, but WB were in total control of how to handle their new shining star in Arkham games and their ambition in being a major player in the video games industry.

This situation is different. Marvel went to Sony, who then decided to team up with Insomniac. Marvel didn't directly go to Insomniac. Now it's possible that Marvel and Insomniac could cut the middle man in Sony and get another publisher but which other publisher would ever fund a single player, cinematic AAA Spider-Man game? Sony is still paying Insomniac and helping them produce the game, as Marvel licensed them the IP. Obviously Marvel want to show that it's their game, not a Sony property, which is also the case with their movie affiliation. It's Marvel's mascot.

I'm not even counting the movie studio affiliations here. Until Marvel don't get their own dedicated gaming publishing channel through Disney Interactive, (which Disney themselves axed several years ago to focus on casual games), they will continue to partner with the likes of Square Enix, Sony and Capcom because they won't screw them over like what Activision and Sega have done.

EA are a possibility as well, but clearly they are more than happy to stick with Star Wars and I'm sure Disney would rather let their other IPs thrive than continuously worry about the state of Spider-Man. They've done fine without him in their media thus far.

Best wishes.
 
R

RSchmitz

Member
We also discovered what Sanzaru´s been up to. It is indeed a vr game as suggested, but seems a small project. I wish they´d give Sly another go. No idea how big they are or if they even want to.

That E3 leaker on reddit who said stuff about SotC and FFVII said a Sly would be shown, didn´t he?
 
L

LiquidSolid

Member
privitsan02 said:
The difference here is that WB didn't fund major projects in-house through game publishing channel back then. WB did however heavily invest into publishing games as well as funding them slowly between 2005-2009. Not to mention, Eidos went bankrupt. Square Enix own 25% of Rocksteady in shares, but WB were in total control of how to handle their new shining star in Arkham games and their ambition in being a major player in the video games industry.

This situation is different. Marvel went to Sony, who then decided to team up with Insomniac. Marvel didn't directly go to Insomniac. Now it's possible that Marvel and Insomniac could cut the middle man in Sony and get another publisher but which other publisher would ever fund a single player, cinematic AAA Spider-Man game? Sony is still paying Insomniac and helping them produce the game, as Marvel licensed them the IP. Obviously Marvel want to show that it's their game, not a Sony property, which is also the case with their movie affiliation. It's Marvel's mascot.

I'm not even counting the movie studio affiliations here. Until Marvel don't get their own dedicated gaming publishing channel through Disney Interactive, (which Disney themselves axed several years ago to focus on casual games), they will continue to partner with the likes of Square Enix, Sony and Capcom because they won't screw them over like what Activision and Sega have done.

EA are a possibility as well, but clearly they are more than happy to stick with Star Wars and I'm sure Disney would rather let their other IPs thrive than continuously worry about the state of Spider-Man. They've done fine without him in their media thus far.

Best wishes.
Click to expand...

Not really sure how that's a difference, Disney don't fund major projects in-house at the moment either. At the time, Warner Interactive had been around forever but most of it was spent doing what Marvel does now: Licensing out their properties and providing input into them. They did start growing into a publisher early last gen but they were still relatively small, which is why they still licensed their properties out to other publishers. EA had The Dark Knight license and Pandemic were working on that game before it was sadly cancelled. Eidos had the more general Batman license and Batman: Arkham Asylum was their game. Midway then went bankrupt, Warner bought most of their remaining studios and assets, greatly increasing the size of the publisher, and not so long afterwards, we found out they were publishing Arkham City by themselves.

I'm not sure where you got the idea Eidos went bankrupt but that never happened. Square Enix bought Eidos out and basically renamed them Square Enix Europe (while laying off a ton of people at the old Square Enix Europe, who'd done a great job localising games over the years). They're still around and basically manage (or mismanage) all of Square Enix's western studios and operations.

Regardless, my point is if I were Sony, the concern I'd have is if Spider-Man's a huge hit, Disney might look at that and say "hey, maybe we should give Disney Interactive another go."

But hey, maybe Sony want to be downplayed to help emphasise the Marvel brand and make it more appealing to all the MCU fans.
 
C

Chasetopher

Banned
RSchmitz said:
We also discovered what Sanzaru´s been up to. It is indeed a vr game as suggested, but seems a small project. I wish they´d give Sly another go. No idea how big they are or if they even want to.

That E3 leaker on reddit who said stuff about SotC and FFVII said a Sly would be shown, didn´t he?
Click to expand...

Anyone have a link for that guy's page? I lost it a while ago but now that my faith has gone from 90% to 100%, I'd like to look through it again.
 
F

F4r0_Atak

Member
LiquidSolid said:
At the same time, am I the only one who finds it strange how Sony's never mentioned as Spider-Man's publisher? Like when they introduced the game, it was something like "Marvel's Spider-Man from Insomniac Games and Marvel and exclusive to PlayStation." They make it sound more like a moneyhat than a first party game, so it's no surprise people get confused over its status. Giantbomb thought it was only a timed exclusive at E3, for example.
Click to expand...

Whether it was E3 2016 or 2017... I don't know how GB or any other video games news websites could have missed this: "Sony Interactive Entertainment Presents". This is usually meant for First-Party exclusives. That and the "Only on Playstation" should have tingled their "spider-senses". :/

source (2016): https://youtu.be/3R2uvJqWeVg?t=3s
source (2017): https://youtu.be/K4zm30yeHHE?t=3s
 
W

Wozman23

Member
RSchmitz said:
We also discovered what Sanzaru´s been up to. It is indeed a vr game as suggested, but seems a small project. I wish they´d give Sly another go. No idea how big they are or if they even want to.

That E3 leaker on reddit who said stuff about SotC and FFVII said a Sly would be shown, didn´t he?
Click to expand...

Every time I see the Sanzaru logo slapped on something that isn't another Sly, I die a little more inside. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make another since they were the ones who wanted to take over the franchise. It's more about whether Sony wants to make another game.

The budget title is a wonderful idea, but results have been mixed. Ratchet sold well, but it's really the only success story. Tearaway: Unfolded and Sly were fair to middling. Puppeteer sold to me and like 3 other people. Hopefully Knack 2 can be another success story that helps justify more budget titles. Because I want a Sly Twooper: Thieves in Time and Sly Cooper: Threeves in Time.
 
W

Wozman23

Member
DriftingSpirit said:
Crash did well too.
Click to expand...

True. (Forgot about it since I decided to sit it out... for now.) So if Knack works out well, which I'm buying Day 1 despite being burned by the original because it does look much improved, that'd be 3, distinctly different, mascot action-platformers in a row with successful track records. At that point, Sly practically greenlights itself!
 
D

DriftingSpirit

Member
Wozman23 said:
True. (Forgot about it since I decided to sit it out... for now.) So if Knack works out well, which I'm buying Day 1 despite being burned by the original because it does look much improved, that'd be 3, distinctly different, mascot action-platformers in a row with successful track records. At that point, Sly practically greenlights itself!
Click to expand...
It is absolutely a must. Sly should have already come back by now.
 
I

Icolin

Banned
Is the Sly movie still alive? Because doing a Ratchet and Clank sort of thing where the game coincides with the release of the movie seems like the likeliest way that Sly will return.
 
PLASTICA-MAN

PLASTICA-MAN

Member
Ok. Seriously, where is the extended GOW E3 trailer shown behind closed doors that has extra 2 minutes? Days Gone released its behind closed door alternate gameplay. Why being too scant for this game specifically?
 
P

phantasmic_glaive

Member
LiquidSolid said:
Not really sure how that's a difference, Disney don't fund major projects in-house at the moment either. At the time, Warner Interactive had been around forever but most of it was spent doing what Marvel does now: Licensing out their properties and providing input into them. They did start growing into a publisher early last gen but they were still relatively small, which is why they still licensed their properties out to other publishers. EA had The Dark Knight license and Pandemic were working on that game before it was sadly cancelled. Eidos had the more general Batman license and Batman: Arkham Asylum was their game. Midway then went bankrupt, Warner bought most of their remaining studios and assets, greatly increasing the size of the publisher, and not so long afterwards, we found out they were publishing Arkham City by themselves.

I'm not sure where you got the idea Eidos went bankrupt but that never happened. Square Enix bought Eidos out and basically renamed them Square Enix Europe (while laying off a ton of people at the old Square Enix Europe, who'd done a great job localising games over the years). They're still around and basically manage (or mismanage) all of Square Enix's western studios and operations.

Regardless, my point is if I were Sony, the concern I'd have is if Spider-Man's a huge hit, Disney might look at that and say "hey, maybe we should give Disney Interactive another go."

But hey, maybe Sony want to be downplayed to help emphasise the Marvel brand and make it more appealing to all the MCU fans.
Click to expand...

That's a big stretch.. For them to re establish DIS, to be what they want it to be, it'll take em a decade or more.
And cost em way more money for worse an output. The Marvel ent. Umbrella is big enough.

You don't give a project like this to a developer and still have concerns, tho. The relationship between insomniac and Sony is... they might as well be another arm of Sony's and probably their most trusted developers behind ND and Atlus. They been there since the beginning, and even though they don't own them, they can count on em.

But I know what you mean. They could have gave it to a first party team and took a risk giving it to insomniac, but they most likely have a clause where they won't get cut out.
 
L

LiquidSolid

Member
Icolin said:
Is the Sly movie still alive? Because doing a Ratchet and Clank sort of thing where the game coincides with the release of the movie seems like the likeliest way that Sly will return.
Click to expand...
Turned into a TV series, the last I heard.

PLASTICA-MAN said:
Ok. Seriously, where is the extended GOW E3 trailer shown behind closed doors that has extra 2 minutes? Days Gone released its behind closed door alternate gameplay. Why being too scant for this game specifically?
Click to expand...
They never said they'd release it. Not sure why you'd expect it, we never saw the extended version of last year's trailer either. Days Gone is different because they wanted to demonstrate the different approaches you can take on missions.
 
PLASTICA-MAN

PLASTICA-MAN

Member
LiquidSolid said:
They never said they'd release it. Not sure why you'd expect it, we never saw the extended version of last year's trailer either. Days Gone is different because they wanted to demonstrate the different approaches you can take on missions.
Click to expand...

Well. last year, they showed a behind closed door playthrough with Cory visiting more areas of the same section showing hidden items and locations.
This year, it is different, since it is not a played demo but rather the same trailer we saw with extra 2 minutes of footage.
I can understand for last year demo since it was a personal playthrough, but for a longer trailer? This is weird for a game going to release next year.
 
B

Blackleg-sanji1

Banned
PLASTICA-MAN said:
Well. last year, they showed a behind closed door playthrough with Cory visiting more areas of the same section showing hidden items and locations.
This year, it is different, since it is not a played demo but rather the same trailer we saw with extra 2 minutes of footage.
I can understand for last year demo since it was a personal playthrough, but for a longer trailer? This is weird for a game going to release next year.
Click to expand...
Smoke and mirrors part 2?
 
Frostman

Frostman

Member
PLASTICA-MAN said:
Well. last year, they showed a behind closed door playthrough with Cory visiting more areas of the same section showing hidden items and locations.
This year, it is different, since it is not a played demo but rather the same trailer we saw with extra 2 minutes of footage.
I can understand for last year demo since it was a personal playthrough, but for a longer trailer? This is weird for a game going to release next year.
Click to expand...

Don't hold me to this, but I'm sure Cory said in an interview that he doesn't want to show to much of the game before release. Considering we still have PSX to go, I think it was the right decision, else there would be 3 gameplay showings to disect before release.

The more surprises the better imo.
 
E

Elfstruck

Member
PLASTICA-MAN said:
Well. last year, they showed a behind closed door playthrough with Cory visiting more areas of the same section showing hidden items and locations.
This year, it is different, since it is not a played demo but rather the same trailer we saw with extra 2 minutes of footage.
I can understand for last year demo since it was a personal playthrough, but for a longer trailer? This is weird for a game going to release next year.
Click to expand...

At this point, we basically have an idea about the gameplay of the game, so I'm not sure what you want to know in that extra 2 min.
 
BigEmil

BigEmil

Junior Member
After the Patapon remaster goes gold (or if it already has) I wonder what the people behind the remasters of the three games will do next

I know @DaveThach from Twitter who used to work on PS2toPS4 moved to work on remastering Parappa the Rapper/Locoroco/Patapon
 
T

Triggerhappytel

Member
LiquidSolid said:
Regardless, my point is if I were Sony, the concern I'd have is if Spider-Man's a huge hit, Disney might look at that and say "hey, maybe we should give Disney Interactive another go."
Click to expand...

Well, Sony has the Spider-Man license for three games it seems (according to a bunch of information posted by Nirolak a while ago), so it's not like they have to worry about Marvel/Disney stealing back the license until their contract has expired.

DriftingSpirit said:
Smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

Lol, what ever happened to that guy. Didn't he say it would be launching considerably later in the year than Q1 as well?
 
L

LiquidSolid

Member
Triggerhappytel said:
Well, Sony has the Spider-Man license for three games it seems (according to a bunch of information posted by Nirolak a while ago), so it's not like they have to worry about Marvel/Disney stealing back the license until their contract has expired.
Click to expand...

Cool, that makes a lot more sense than the one game contract thing that was brought up earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bungie Emerges As A Leading PlayStation First Party Studio w/ Over 1400 Employees Post-Acquisition
2
85
5K
Roxkis_ii replied
Eurogamer: Firesprite shedding talent over toxic work conditions, alarming number of people left after Sony retention bonus
2 3
149
9K
Blood Borne replied
IGN Exclusive: Connie Booth, One of the Chief Architects of PlayStation's First-Party Studio System, Is Joining EA
News
32
1K
Krappadizzle replied
PlayStation rebrands Savage Game Studios as Neon Koi following exec departures
News Business
4
790
AJUMP23 replied
Nintendo hires former PlayStation exec to head up AAA third-party games
2
443
Ozriel replied
Top Bottom