Support NeoGAF

[wrestleman]

I'll make the game, I've worked on Crash Bandicoot before!

Spoiler

Of course, it was Crash of the Titans on GBA...

Actually, curious what you did on that game, if you don't mind?

 

[Dreamwriter]

Actually, curious what you did on that game, if you don't mind?

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.

 

[Acquiescence]

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.

 

[Infinitemadness]

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.

 

[Slaythe]

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.

 

[Varg]

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.

Damn son... The flat out disrespect that crash is getting here is crazy. A damn shame.

 

[CortexVortex]

ND wasting time on a new crash would be the worst thing ever, what a waste of talent that would be.

No, it would be absolutely awesome. Crash deserves some of the best developers out there.

 

[Hot Coldman]

The idea that a series as miserable as Jak is somehow more "worthy" of ND's time is a straight diss on Naughty Dog, no two ways about it

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

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.

This mentality is just silly. Its the same bullshit people spouted when it was revealed retro was making donkey Kong.

As if it's somehow beneath a studio to waste their talents on anything other than "mature" shooters. I just want great games.

 

[wrestleman]

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.

 

[SNURB]

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.

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.

 

[Spaghetti]

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

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.

 

[Voost Kain]

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.

You guys still going on with this illogical hogwash?

Using your own and the quoteds argument, even if they were selling the IP, for NOW they would still have to credit Activision.

It's also against the law to sell an IP and not officially switch names.

We've had guys working for the companies say Sony has changed nothing and we are still going on about some scene in Uncharted 4? Is everyone lying?

 

[wrestleman]

for NOW they would still have to credit Activision

So why aren't they?

Spoiler

Personally I have no stock in any particular theory of the meaning anymore.

 

[Onaco]

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.

Interesting. I'm sort of reading this like you didn't care for the direction it was going. Were there any fights or disagreements on the game's direction?

 

[Papacheeks]

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.

Someone else already chimed in on what I was saying that funding a game doesn't mean development money:

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.

It means money is being invested in some p[art of the games project. Which in my original statement I said on a publishing level for all involved. How the fuck is that saying Sony funded development? ANd all the links and articles that span earlier than that tweet all have the same to similar info on mostly all involved. I'm not spinning anything. I gave a vague comment on SOny investing money by using their marketing teams, publishing(either that be their third party publishing group or not which are used a lot for Japanese titles, or other wise)

Which you had no clue on.

All the articles specifically polygon's explains the same shit, yet your first response was dickish, and your info sheds no more light on the subject than what I presented. Literally a google search for the past year will result in the same to similar articles on who and how much people are involved.
No the bottom line is you reacted shitty as being a authoritative for the information regarding shenmue and the parties involved. Yet your info sheds no more than the info a google search shows from interviews on the project.

That's my issue, you were acting like I was shitting in your lawn with bad info, when I was just being vague with what is currently out. Since there is a thing called NDA where all involved can't elaborate on how much money is being invested development, publishing, marketing etc.
I',m not the one responding saying, "No......... it's like t his" when your info is no better than anyones since no one can go on record who is part of that game and tell us actually how much is being spend from different departments and publishers.

PM me if you would like to discuss this further.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

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.

"We know he has a lot of fans online and we're thrilled to be announcing a new instalment in the revered Crash Bandicoot series: Crash Treasure Runners! Coming exclusively to iOS this winter!"

 

[wrestleman]

what

Bruh I have never spoken to you before and I'm pretty sure my post you quoted was in agreeance with you

 

[ghostwritingduck]

The fact that Spiderman is in Civil War and that Iron Man will be in the next Spiderman movie makes me feel like nothing's impossible. Crash is probably worth more to Activision as a Sony exclusive if they can manage a deal where they make a percentage of the sales. I also think Ratchet and Clank's most recent success is another point toward a deal being made.

 

[wrestleman]

Don't wanna stir the shit pot or anything

Spoiler

(of course I do)

and this almost certainly means nothing, but three years ago, around the time of the beginning of the "They sold Crash" rumors this was posted:

http://www.sony.com/en_us/SCA/compa...ing-developer-naughty-dog-launches-new-i.html

© 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.

That's a pretty hilarious slip up both in hindsight and in light of current events. And obviously USPTO records show it's not accurate.

 

[Matt]

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.

 

[wrestleman]

Dude, no. This is not a good argument, and your understanding of these issues is flawed.

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.

 

[Matt]

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.

 

[SNURB]

The whole thing is wrong. You are not required by law to disclose all copyright or trademark information in the credits of games.

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.

Spoiler

The character is used, music, even the damn name "Crash Bandicoot" is mentioned by Drake at one point. All this, is ACTIVISION'S PROPERTY.

Want proof? Activision's copyright and ownership of the IP appeared in the ND art book. I really don't know why people think there's a difference between a book and a video game when both use the same IP.

 

[wrestleman]

The whole thing is wrong. You are not required by law to disclose all copyright or trademark information in the credits of games.

Really now? Of a trademark they don't own? I find it hard to believe that Activision would grant them license to use it without attribution.

 

[Matt]

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.

 

[wrestleman]

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.

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 that

Spoiler

when you pick up the Crash Bandicoot game case in Uncharted 4

the 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. EDIT: Polaroid is mentioned by name.

Basically, sure, you can argue that they're not REQUIRED to do it -- which frankly I'm not convinced of -- 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.

 

[Matt]

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 that

Spoiler

when you pick up the Crash Bandicoot game case in Uncharted 4

the 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.

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.

 

[wrestleman]

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.

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:

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.

 

[Matt]

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.

 

[wrestleman]

Well AB does own the property, and they did allow it. So...I don't know what to tell you.

Is that because you've seen (or are/were privy to details of) the contract yourself or are you making that assumption based on the fact that Crash is in the game, Activision owns it, and there's no copyright text regarding him in UC4?

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.

 

[Matt]

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.

It's not that odd. Trademark and copyright issues are very complicated, you can't just say "if this why not this?"

 

[Triggerhappytel]

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.

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.

 

[wrestleman]

It's not that odd. Trademark and copyright issues are very complicated, you can't just say "if this why not this?"

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.

 

[Matt]

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.

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.

If you want to talk about Straley interviews, fine. But that's a whole separate argument than the copyright note one.

 

[Rembrandt]

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.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

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.

 

[LAA]

As much as I want a new Crash, yeah, I do think it would be a waste of ND's talents and I think it seems like it's an area they don't really want to go back to. If they do, awesome, let them do what they want, but it feels their passion is more towards things like TLOU now.
I really want a new Jak too, but again, I'm not sure ND with their current interests and skill sets is really ideal for the job now.

I don't see why another studio couldn't do it really.

 

[Rembrandt]

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?

 

[Triggerhappytel]

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?

 

[Rembrandt]

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?

I think it could be both, but it's not really the crux of the matter, tbh.

 

[ghostwritingduck]

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 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.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Still not seen a convincing rational argument as to why AB aren't credited in the Uncharted 4 credits.

Everything amounts to "It's different 'cos I said so." Find me a game with a guest character where the guest's owner isn't credited in the credits.

 

[Messofanego]

I'll make the game, I've worked on Crash Bandicoot before!

Spoiler

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.

Cool to know!

 

[Englebert3rd]

I don't see why another studio couldn't do it really.

True, I'd give Traveller's Tales a break with all that Lego stuff and give it to them.

 

[Donthizz#]

Still not seen a convincing rational argument as to why AB aren't credited in the Uncharted 4 credits.

 

[roddjbrown]

I'm not saying this is what's happened by any stretch, but hypothetically, would it be feasible for Sony to prepay for the future transfer of IP. In other words, they already have a deal in place to purchase the Crash ip from Activision at a future date whereupon the ownership would change hands?

It would seem a very elaborate way to keep it hidden and not likely at all, I was just interested.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

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.

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.

 

[Cutwolf]

It's also against the law to sell an IP and not officially switch names.

Uh... What law is that?

 

[Tizoc]

I am baffled acti never bothered to make an ios game ft spyro and or crash
I mean ubisoft made 2-3 ios games ft rayman which were good for what they were