wrestleman
Member
I'll make the game, I've worked on Crash Bandicoot before!
Of course, it was Crash of the Titans on GBA...
Actually, curious what you did on that game, if you don't mind?
I'll make the game, I've worked on Crash Bandicoot before!
Of course, it was Crash of the Titans on GBA...
A lot I was a programmer, there were only three of us on the team, so I programmed about a third of it. The things I remember working on in Crash of the Titans GBA: the cutscenes, hero (Crash) combat system, taking control of enemies, the Neo Cortex boss fights, and I think I did the end credits. Remember, Crash of the Titans was the one where they decided to add beat-em-up fights with a leaner, meaner Crash.Actually, curious what you did on that game, if you don't mind?
ND wasting time on a new crash would be the worst thing ever, what a waste of talent that would be.
Jak I can understand, but Crash ? Might as well make something entirely new.
ND wasting time on a new crash would be the worst thing ever, what a waste of talent that would be.
ND wasting time on a new crash would be the worst thing ever, what a waste of talent that would be.
Jak I can understand, but Crash ? Might as well make something entirely new.
Curious why the VP of developer relations word isn't good enough? Why is there still speculation on this? Because of UC4? Probably a favor granted.
Even if a new crash game or a rerelease of crash games happens, it'll be Activision doing it. I bet it'll be multi platform too.
Because he can be telling the truth at present and it can change later. Deals aren't immediate.
UC4 features no reference to Crash's ownership, despite Naughty Dog's art book containing Activision credits. "Favor" or not, ND and Sony would be required to list them. It's a curious thing, whether it was an oversight, part of a license deal, or actually turns out to be an IP change or something, it's an interesting thing that throws a wrench in the usual "it's Activision's" stuff.
The fuck are you even talking about? I feel half the points you're using against me are the ones I made you aware of.I'm done, because you seem incapable of understanding that funding a project doesn't always mean funding development. It means paying for certain aspects of a game project period. And Sony must be a big enough contributor for PR, advertising, show promotions, and their "Third Party Relations group" which you seem to know nothing about to have it exclusive.
It's the same group used for the Port of Street Fighter 4 ultimate on PS4 when they had a deal with Capcom. If you had read any of the articles it clearly states the involvement of Sega for licensing, and use of assets from SHenmue 1-2.
If you had also done more research from reputable sources outside of a fucking tweet, you would know there have been many articles that all say the same thing in terms of Snet and Shibuya Productions involvement as in it's their baby with other partners such as Sega+ Sony lending money and assets on a publishing level. I bet Sony is using their Third party Production Group to facilitate publishing for this game.
And the fact you don't understand my last sentence talking about all publishers involved which means, Sega, Sony and who ever else there is that's not known at this time.
Polygon
Yeah, an IP change can be made on the day that the game's announced.
This is the most that has ever been done with the Crash IP in ages so something had to give. Every trademark Sony doesn't own (such as Polaroid, for example) is mentioned in the credits. This is a requirement enforced by law, and failing to comply can lead to a hefty fine and a lot of trouble. Even the Crash box art seen in the game has no references to Activision whatsoever, not even Universal.
for NOW they would still have to credit Activision
A lot I was a programmer, there were only three of us on the team, so I programmed about a third of it. The things I remember working on in Crash of the Titans GBA: the cutscenes, hero (Crash) combat system, taking control of enemies, the Neo Cortex boss fights, and I think I did the end credits. Remember, Crash of the Titans was the one where they decided to add beat-em-up fights with a leaner, meaner Crash.
The fuck are you even talking about? I feel half the points you're using against me are the ones I made you aware of.
You've u-turned on "Sony are funding Shenmue III a decent amount" to all this stumbling, bumbling bullshit about how that's not what you really meant and "YOU SHOULD READ MORE LOL". I gave you RECENT, LEGITIMATE sourced quotes from the producer of Shenmue III, and he stated:
. Sony's role is solely publishing/marketing the PS4 version
. SEGA's role is limited to IP usage and assets
. Shibuya Productions and YSnet made a deal with SEGA without the involvement of Sony
. Shibuya Productions are the largest non-Kickstarter funding body
None of that gels with your statement that "Sony is funding Shenmue III a decent amount", and that's why I pointed that out to you. You've tried to do the whole "that isn't what I meant, it's YOU who doesn't understand" thing, but that's because you've poorly structured your argument and haven't used quotes to support what I assume is your conjecture on Sony having a larger role in Shenmue III.
Don't blame me for your lack of debate skills, asshole.
I agree with the above that even if Sony isn't funding development, funding any part of the production at all should pretty much just be called funding the game. Whether they're paying for actual dev or paying for marketing, they're still putting their hands in the pie.
It certainly feels obvious to me.
Sony's E3 conference is dead on a month away from today right? That day we'll learn what the exact circumstances are beyond Crash's return hopefully, and then I can finally be put out of my misery. Shawn Layden or Andrew 'indahouse' House blurting out on stage "WE OWN CRASH NOW!" would be easily on a par with one of the dream announcements from last year's conference. But that's if it happens of course.
what
© 2013 Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. The Last of Us, Jak and Daxter, Uncharted, and Crash Bandicoot are trademarks of Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. "PlayStation", "PS3" and the "PS" Family logo are registered trademarks of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
Dude, no. This is not a good argument, and your understanding of these issues is flawed.Yeah, an IP change can be made on the day that the game's announced.
This is the most that has ever been done with the Crash IP in ages so something had to give. Every trademark Sony doesn't own (such as Polaroid, for example) is mentioned in the credits. This is a requirement enforced by law, and failing to comply can lead to a hefty fine and a lot of trouble. Even the Crash box art seen in the game has no references to Activision whatsoever, not even Universal.
Dude, no. This is not a good argument, and your understanding of these issues is flawed.
The whole thing is wrong. You are not required by law to disclose all copyright or trademark information in the credits of games.Curious as to which part you meant, because Sony would absolutely be required to list the ownership of the trademarks they don't own, Crash Bandicoot included.
Also, it would probably be helpful if, when you see someone with incorrect lines of thinking, you tell them why they're wrong instead of just stating it.
The whole thing is wrong. You are not required by law to disclose all copyright or trademark information in the credits of games.
The whole thing is wrong. You are not required by law to disclose all copyright or trademark information in the credits of games.
Of course they need AB's permission, but they are under no legal obligation to list the copyright info in the game's credits. AB can demand they do, but the government does not.Yeah, no.
Sony can't just willy nilly use Crash for their own needs. They ABSOLUTELY need permission from Activision to even make this a thing, no other way around it. If they haven't, their asses would've been sued.
Want proof? Activision's copyright and ownership of the IP appeared in the ND art book.
Of course they need AB's permission, but they are under no legal obligation to list the copyright info in the game's credits. AB can demand they do, but the government does not.
The senario is that Zippo and the Polaroid license holder have standard contacts for the use of their products in interactive media that Sony signed, and those have different demands in them than whatever deal Sony worked out with AB.So in what scenario does it make sense that they would attribute the trademark's ownership to them in an artbook containing nothing but old content, but would NOT do so in a game where not only is the content actually entirely new content based on that trademark, but that trademark's name is spoken aloud, and the logo is used? Note thatthe description of that item is "Crash Bandicoot" -- so obviously they are not just neglecting to do it. Again, total conjecture here, but it seems fishy that it would be done for the art book, yet not done here, especially when things like Zippo lighters and Polaroids are listed in the credits, when they're not even used to that degree, and not even mentioned by name or called attention to. Correct me if I'm wrong on them not being mentioned by name, I have not actually played the game myself, just going on someone I trust's report.when you pick up the Crash Bandicoot game case in Uncharted 4
The senario is that Zippo and the Polaroid license holder have standard contacts for the use of their products in interactive media that Sony signed, and those have different demands in them than whatever deal Sony worked out with AB.
Which is what happened.
Basically, sure, you can argue that they're not REQUIRED to do it but it's good practice to do so, they have precedent OF doing so, and it legally covers their ass. It seems stupid NOT to.
Well AB does own the property, and they did allow it. So...I don't know what to tell you.You've missed my point, that was a comparative mention, not my main point. Activision required them to do the attribution in an artbook that will sell nowhere near the level of Uncharted 4 itself, but then allows them to use it as they please in Uncharted 4 itself with no attribution?
What would the reasoning possibly be for that?
For that matter, I think this point still stands:
Well AB does own the property, and they did allow it. So...I don't know what to tell you.
It's not that odd. Trademark and copyright issues are very complicated, you can't just say "if this why not this?"Is that because you've seen the contract yourself or are you making an assumption based on the fact that Crash is in the game and there's no copyright text regarding him?
I'm not really even debating whether they allowed it or not, frankly I don't care if they did -- I'm debating the strangeness of the fact they would not require attribution when compared to previous usage by Sony and Naughty Dog OF their property, and that I find it to be odd enough that it's worth talking about.
The senario is that Zippo and the Polaroid license holder have standard contacts for the use of their products in interactive media that Sony signed, and those have different demands in them than whatever deal Sony worked out with AB.
Which is what happened.
It's not that odd. Trademark and copyright issues are very complicated, you can't just say "if this why not this?"
Deals are worked out all the time. All I'm saying is, the lack of a trademark or copyright note in the credits of U4 mean nothing. You said they were required by law. They are not. You said it's in the book. It doesn't matter, they are not related.It's odd based on precedent of how Activision previously handled it, so I feel I'm perfectly justified in questioning the sudden change in the handling of it. It's rare a company is so gung ho about protecting the use of something and then becomes so lenient in the space of time that's passed between the two.
It wouldn't stand out to me as much if Bruce Straley hadn't gone on record saying that this segment was cut and was "impossible" due to Activision's ownership. They tried and failed to acquire a license at one point, and then suddenly down the road it's somehow available to them. Did they try again, months and months later, on a whim? Did they lie? Why even put the idea in people's heads then when it would be a surprise without mentioning it?
I am not one of those who is claiming this means "oh, sony bought Crash" -- I'm just curious as to the implications and reasoning of Activision's sudden leniency on the licensing of it to Sony -- whether it means Sony has some sort of development license, or something beyond Uncharted 4.
While I'm sure you're correct that it's all down to the license agreed between Sony and Activision Blizzard, it still strikes me as odd that they would have to credit Activision in an art book and then 18 months later not need to credit them in a game when there's a mandatory part of the game which everyone has to play in order to progress.
I'm not sure I really believe this is happening because it feels like a great big swirling storm of forthcoming disappointment, but some of these circumstances are definitely kind of curious.
it's not that strange. one is an easter egg and one is celebrating the work of ND. I'm guessing the art book had a decent amount of Crash art and there were future Crash titles produced outside of their hands, Acti probably wanted the copyright to note the distinction since every other game listed in that book is still tied to ND.
It's not an easter egg though - you literally have to play that part to progress. Everyone who plays past chapter 4 will play that section, which is probably going to be at least a few million people. It just strikes me as odd that Activision would not want to be credited for it.
easter eggs don't have to be inherently secret. why? who reads the credits well enough to notice this besides the people that would see this and think this is hinting towards a new crash game?
I disagree. I've always understood the term 'Easter Egg' to be a hidden reference in some way or another, whether it's the Jak & Daxter board game in The Last of Us, the graffiti saying something like "You're not supposed to get in here" in the stadium in GTA3 or the loot cave Destiny piss take in Dying Light. Surely the very term is referencing hiding chocolate eggs for children to find?
If Activision make a game for PlayStation and sell it, Sony get a fee of 30% which normally works out at about £12.00. Apart from waiving that fee they can't really do much more than to either fund the game or the marketing or better yet, aquire the publishing rights.
I'll make the game, I've worked on Crash Bandicoot before!
Of course, it was Crash of the Titans on GBA...
A lot I was a programmer, there were only three of us on the team, so I programmed about a third of it. The things I remember working on in Crash of the Titans GBA: the cutscenes, hero (Crash) combat system, taking control of enemies, the Neo Cortex boss fights, and I think I did the end credits. Remember, Crash of the Titans was the one where they decided to add beat-em-up fights with a leaner, meaner Crash.
I don't see why another studio couldn't do it really.
Still not seen a convincing rational argument as to why AB aren't credited in the Uncharted 4 credits.
Are people treating that rumor as fact? Why would Marvel let Sony have the exclusive rights to Spider-Man in video games? That's a ridiculous rumor based on the fact that Disney do not do console exclusive games. Sony have creative control/ownership of the Spider-Man movie series, but even all those games based around them were released multi platform.I get that's how it's typically done, but my point is Activision and Sony could negotiate some sort of unique deal that makes sense for both of them, sunch as the Sony/Marvel Spiderman deal.
I don't know what that deal would be, and I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just pointing out that Sony as a corporation has already demonstrated a willingness to negotiate an outside the box deal when the perceived potential profits were worth it.
It's also against the law to sell an IP and not officially switch names.