• 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.

So we know PoPoLoCrois is 3DS-bound, but... SCEI owns the name for video games. WHAT?

H

Hero of Legend

Member
We have the thread about the game already, but I think this SERIOUSLY needs more attention.

Long story short; the IP as a whole seems to be owned by the author (it started as a manga IIRC) Yosuke Tamori who's name is always part of the copyrights.

He then went to Sony to make games exclusively for PS1, PS2, then ported one or two from PS1 to one PSP game, Sony published all of these in JP (Agetec localized the PSP game). And on the boxes you see the line "PoPoLoCrois" is a trademark of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., you'd think "oh, this must've just expired and Marvelous just picked it up for 3DS no prob right"?

WRONG!

Various websites like Famitsu and even Marvelous' own page for the game STILL mention that line! (See here)

So my question is; how the hell is this possible?! Sony has before and still is putting their IPs and whatnot on mobile devices, so is Microsoft and even Nintendo with a few Pokemon spin-offs (Pokemon Say Tap, Pokedex for iOS, and Pokemon TCG Online).

But this feels so unprecedented, Microsoft did this yes on GBA and DS but they have no handheld to this day, strange as it is now that they're not on 3DS at all, but Sony has the Vita! How is this allowed to be on 3DS? This kind of thing hasn't happened since the N64 IIRC where an IP is on a literal competing platform (see Wipeout 64).

I'm just so blown away by this!

What are your thoughts GAF?
 
M

MUnited83

For you.
Nintendojitsu said:
I always knew Sony would go 3rd party before Nintendo.
Click to expand...

Wipeout64.jpg
 
C

casiopao

Member
Hero of Legend said:
We have the thread about the game already, but I think this SERIOUSLY needs more attention.

Long story short; the IP as a whole seems to be owned by the author (it started as a manga IIRC) Yosuke Tamori who's name is always part of the copyrights.

He then went to Sony to make games exclusively for PS1, PS2, then ported one or two from PS1 to one PSP game, Sony published all of these in JP (Agetec localized the PSP game). And on the boxes you see the line "PoPoLoCrois" is a trademark of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., you'd think "oh, this must've just expired and Marvelous just picked it up for 3DS no prob right"?

WRONG!

Various websites like Famitsu and even Marvelous' own page for the game STILL mention that line! (See here)

So my question is; how the hell is this possible?! Sony has before and still is putting their IPs and whatnot on mobile devices, so is Microsoft and even Nintendo with a few Pokemon spin-offs (Pokemon Say Tap, Pokedex for iOS, and Pokemon TCG Online).

But this feels so unprecedented, Microsoft did this yes on GBA and DS but they have no handheld to this day, strange as it is now that they're not on 3DS at all, but Sony has the Vita! How is this allowed to be on 3DS? This kind of thing hasn't happened since the N64 IIRC where an IP is on a literal competing platform (see Wipeout 64).

I'm just so blown away by this!

What are your thoughts GAF?
Click to expand...

Well u must at least makes money from your properties right?
 
J

Josh7289

Member
Did Wipeout 64 have "Sony" written anywhere on the box, in the manual, or in the game?

EDIT: If not, and if this new PoPoLoCrois games does credit Sony directly once it's actually released, then yes, this is unprecedented as far as I know. But otherwise, no, it's not unprecedented. I think it's still interesting either way though.
 
T

Takao

Banned
casiopao said:
Well u must at least makes money from your properties right?
Click to expand...

It's not Sony's property, which is why this is a thing that exists.

I don't know. It's weird, but I imagine this is a one-off due to the nature of PoPoLoCrois. PoPoLoCrois Farm Story isn't a Sony game. Even when Vita is officially discontinued, I highly doubt you'll see SCE support Nintendo handhelds.
 
Living Proof

Living Proof

Member
Josh7289 said:
Did Wipeout 64 have "Sony" written anywhere on the box, in the manual, or in the game?
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but I think Psygnosis wholly owned the property at that time, so it wouldn't have been necessary. I'm pretty sure their properties were their to publish wherever until they were integrated as Sony Liverpool (RIP), because their games were also on other competing platforms.

Someone who knows better than me can clarify if needed.
 
J

Josh7289

Member
Living Proof said:
I may be wrong, but I think Psygnosis wholly owned the property at that time, so it wouldn't have been necessary. I'm pretty sure their properties were their to publish wherever until they were integrated as Sony Liverpool (RIP), because their games were also on other competing platforms.

Someone who knows better than me can clarify if needed.
Click to expand...

I'm looking up images of the Wipeout 64 box right now and I see "Wipeout 64™ & © 1998 Psygnosis Ltd. All rights reserved." but nothing about Sony.

Doctor_Thomas said:
No, it's from when Psygnosis were owned by Sony, but operated idependently, before Sony reigned all that in.
Click to expand...

So that would back up what I'm seeing right now. Interesting. Then this PoPoLoCrois stuff may be unprecedented.
 
F

funkystudent

Member
BernardoOne said:
Wipeout64.jpg
Click to expand...

How the heck did this happen anyway?

Looking at the Wiki and it says the game came out 5 years after Psygnosis was bought by Sony.

Sony didnt just accidentally let one of its developers make a N64 game so I assume it was part of some weird legal thing.


edit.
Josh7289 said:
I'm looking up images of the Wipeout 64 box right now and I see "Wipeout 64™ & © 1998 Psygnosis Ltd. All rights reserved." but nothing about Sony.
Click to expand...

Makes sense if weird.


Fun wiki fact 2. Psygnosis was offically changed to Studio Liverpool a year later.

Maybe releasing a friggin' N64 game was enough is enough for Sony.
 
J

Josh7289

Member
Living Proof said:
You might be interested in this fairly recent GAF thread I dug up via a Google search: http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=862813

Moreso related to the whole Psygnosis thing, but there you go.
Click to expand...

That's awesome. Thank you.

Regarding PoPoLoCrois on 3DS, it's both developed and published by Marvelous, so I don't think Sony has a hand in its development at all. They probably just noticed they had the PoPoLoCrois trademark sitting around but didn't want to make a game themselves with it, so they decided to just license it out to Marvelous, who would develop a game for it on whatever platform they felt most appropriate, and Sony would just receive some form of payment for the license. It's probably just a quick way to make a little cash. I don't think there's anything more than that that we can infer from this one instance of a SCEI trademark showing up on a 3DS game.
 
R

rjc571

Banned
Clearly Sony is going handheld 3rd party. Gravity Rush 2 3DS exclusive confirmed! Or maybe they just brokered an agreement to allow Popolocrois to appear on the 3DS.
 
Living Proof

Living Proof

Member
funkystudent said:
How the heck did this happen anyway?

Looking at the Wiki and it says the game came out 5 years after Psygnosis was bought by Sony.

Sony didnt just accidentally let one of its developers make a N64 game so I assume it was part of some weird legal thing.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, Psygnosis retained the rights to all of their original IPs until they were wholly integrated as Sony Liverpool, I believe. They published their properties on multiple competing systems as well as the N64, though they mostly operated on Sony's platforms.

Here's an old GAF thread about it that I linked to another poster: http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=862813
 
Living Proof

Living Proof

Member
rjc571 said:
Clearly Sony is going handheld 3rd party. Gravity Rush 2 3DS exclusive confirmed! Or maybe they just brokered an agreement to allow Popolocrois to appear on the 3DS.
Click to expand...

It's funny, but I remember a while back when Sony properties started showing up on iOS and Android that people went nuts thinking something was about to happen. PlayStation All-Stars Island and some other junk, I think?
 
Living Proof

Living Proof

Member
This whole topic reminds me of this game, too:
804px-Cover_DKRDS.png

I know Rare developed it, but was Microsoft ever credited in there as well? It's an almost identical situation.
 
J

Josh7289

Member
Living Proof said:
This whole topic reminds me of this game, too:
804px-Cover_DKRDS.png

I know Rare developed it, but was Microsoft ever credited in there as well? It's an almost identical situation.
Click to expand...

Does MS have anything to do with DKR though? Diddy Kong is obviously a Nintendo IP. Rare probably has some autonomy, at least with handheld games, and was able to develop it on their own. That's my guess.
 
Living Proof

Living Proof

Member
Josh7289 said:
Does MS have anything to do with DKR though? Diddy Kong is obviously a Nintendo IP. Rare probably has some autonomy, at least with handheld games, and was able to develop it on their own. That's my guess.
Click to expand...

You may be right; I was assuming that Microsoft had some hand in it due to Rare's characters being removed from the game, though. As far as I know, Microsoft actually retains the rights to Rare's characters now, which is why Conker and Banjo were not featured in this release.
 
S

SirUltimos

Member
Even weirder was when full-on Microsoft properties appeared on the DS, as was the case with both Age of Empire games and the Mech Assualt game released for the system.
 
J

Josh7289

Member
Living Proof said:
You may be right; I was assuming that Microsoft had some hand in it due to Rare's characters being removed from the game, though. As far as I know, Microsoft actually retains the rights to Rare's characters now, which is why Conker and Banjo were not featured in this release.
Click to expand...

Yeah, since Microsoft isn't credited anywhere on the box as far as I can tell, it makes sense that their characters were removed from DKR DS. Maybe there was a legal issue with having a Nintendo character show up next to MS characters? Or maybe it was something less complicated and MS simply didn't find it worth their time, or maybe Rare didn't even bother to try and have those MS characters included.
 
G

Game Guru

Member
It's likely Marvelous just licensed the trademark from Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. for the new PoPoLoCrois game. What's Sony going to do with the trademark? Let the trademark sit and expire? Hell, no! Marvelous wants to use it for a 3DS game and was willing to license it from SCEI, so SCEI probably let them do it, chuckling a bit at the thought, but not helping Marvelous at all with their PoPoLoCrois game otherwise since it's on a competing platform. It's not the first time this has happened, but it is rare to happen. I mean Phillips had to license the Zelda franchise from Nintendo to make the Zelda CD-i games way back when.
 
Living Proof

Living Proof

Member
SirUltimos said:
Even weirder was when full-on Microsoft properties appeared on the DS, as was the case with both Age of Empire games and the Mech Assualt game released for the system.
Click to expand...

You know, the more that I think about it, the more I realize it might just be Microsoft wanting to make some cash with their properties on the portable market without having to manage their own system. That was before what we'd now consider capable smart phones or anything like that, and they had said repeatedly that they were not going to release a handheld (I remember the endless rumors in magazines back then), so they played their cards and tried to make a few bucks on the DS.

It's not like they outright claimed "hey, we're going to publish our huge IPs on Nintendo's handhelds from now on in a strategic partnership!", but it's interesting to think about.
 
Living Proof

Living Proof

Member
Josh7289 said:
Yeah, since Microsoft isn't credited anywhere on the box as far as I can tell, it makes sense that their characters were removed from DKR DS. Maybe there was a legal issue with having a Nintendo character show up next to MS characters? Or maybe it was something less complicated and MS simply didn't find it worth their time, or maybe Rare didn't even bother to try and have those MS characters included.
Click to expand...

Whatever the case, we'll likely never find out. I'd wager it had to do with the game being 99% Nintendo-owned anyway, so Microsoft let Rare "remaster" it while removing and replacing characters who might have been in conflict with whatever the legal issue might have been.

Things like this make me sad, now that I'm thinking about it. It's the same kind of branding that prevents us from enjoying a lot of Japanese games that coincidentally have different publishers or voice actors or copyrights or what have you. One or two small conflicts ruin the whole endeavor, and often companies don't feel it's worth the effort to circumvent the issue.
 
C

CertifiedFP

Member
SirUltimos said:
Even weirder was when full-on Microsoft properties appeared on the DS, as was the case with both Age of Empire games and the Mech Assualt game released for the system.
Click to expand...

DS? Go deeper.

1088231322-00.jpg
Click to expand...

Also, on another note, I wonder how many people know that Nintendo was a 3rd party years before they became a first-party.

atari_2600_mario_bros_cartridge.jpg


Course' though, then ET happened and Nintendo found a nice little spot to cement themselves in to the console market with Atari's downfall.
 
J

Josh7289

Member
Living Proof said:
Whatever the case, we'll likely never find out. I'd wager it had to do with the game being 99% Nintendo-owned anyway, so Microsoft let Rare "remaster" it while removing and replacing characters who might have been in conflict with whatever the legal issue might have been.

Things like this make me sad, now that I'm thinking about it. It's the same kind of branding that prevents us from enjoying a lot of Japanese games that coincidentally have different publishers or voice actors or copyrights or what have you. One or two small conflicts ruin the whole endeavor, and often companies don't feel it's worth the effort to circumvent the issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it really is a shame when legal issues block certain releases from happening, even when all the other resources are in place to make them happen. It does make for interesting reading though. :p

CertifiedFP said:
DS? Go deeper.
Click to expand...
Whoa, this was released 13 days before the original Xbox in 2001. I wonder if this was the last time a Microsoft IP showed up on a home console that wasn't their own...
 
K

KittenMaster

Member
Also, on another note, I wonder how many people know that Nintendo was a 3rd party years before they became a first-party.
Click to expand...
In fairness this was probably a demake done by one or two guys in the states (I can't confirm this though, since Atari liked to not credit their programmers) and Nintendo simply let the property be licensed.
 
J

Josh7289

Member
KittenMaster said:
In fairness this was probably a demake done by one or two guys in the states (I can't confirm this though, since Atari liked to not credit their programmers) and Nintendo simply let the property be licensed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as far as I'm aware Nintendo themselves never developed a single game for a non-Nintendo home console or handheld. Before the release of the NES, they did license some of their games for release on other home consoles or computers, but they were always actually developed by other developers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PlayStation 3 Games That Desperately Need a PS5 Remaster/Remake
Opinion Platform 2
68
2K
Hoppa replied
Xbox passed on deal to make Marvel games to focus on their own IP - Head of Marvel Games
9 10 11 12 13
649
34K
Gojiira replied
20 Best Video Game Remakes of All Time, Ranked
Opinion News 2
71
6K
xrnzaaas replied
  • Locked
Gamingbolt: Sony’s Decision To Make PSVR2 Over A PlayStation Handheld Is Baffling
2 3 4 5 6
269
16K
Jimmyisback replied
Interview with Shuji Utsumi (SEGA Co-COO) by Japanese media outlet Seizo-Trend
Business Game Dev
1
1K
Unknown? replied
Top Bottom