By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
CGI-Quality said:
mantlepiecek said:
CGI-Quality said:

I have nothing against including 3rd party IPs with 1st party IPs, just re-word the meaning. If it read - "what new IPs has Sony been involved with or put out", that would make more sense. But an IP not created by Sony shouldn't be credited to them as the creators, just because they slapped their name on it and called it their property.

Also, Bungie is the creator of the Halo IP, so no matter how many times MS asks another dev to make a new Halo title, the IP wasn't created by them. This goes for Resistance as well. Even if Naughty Dog were to take over, they didn't create the IP (which snuggles in with my point).


So, in the case of LBP, who made it? Sony or Media molecule?

Media Molecule.

They pitched their original idea called "Craftworld" to Phil Harrison (the then head of SCE WW Studios), which Sony then went on to help fund the project (much like HEAVY RAIN). Only difference is, David Cage didn't want to give away the IP, which is why HR isn't Sony's property.

And media molecule is first party. How do you know Naughty Dog didn't think of Uncharted and then decided to use Sony's money to make it? Of course they would have no other solution but even then logically its always the developer who makes an IP, not a publisher. Sony has never made an IP before, never will because they are the publishers, unlike Valve who are publishers and developers themselves.

Sony isn't represented by a single developing studio, hence they never made an IP. How can one call Killzone as made by Sony when its made by guerilla games? Guerilla games could have easily bought themselves out and made the IP, but they choose to do it with Sony instead. Sony does nothing when an IP is considered other than funding a project.

Besides infamous right now wouldn't be the infamous we have because of Naughty Dog helping Sucker Punch. Sucker punch and insomniac have helped naughty dog as well.