By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

Quite possible, let's see if it's the end of milking R&C or what Sony do next... but I still don't see much difference in owning the IP if you can just release in one place. Is kinda like you work for a company and all the work you do there belongs to them *even your inventions and projects that you developed alone or were fruit of your work there even if indirect*, then you quit and start working for yourself and sign consulting contracts were all the output of the consulting belongs to you but just can be used for the person who contracted you.

The reason to own the IP is because contracts do not last forever.  Also any royalty gained from the IP, the developer get paid for it.  They can also sell stuff based on the IP and not have to share with the publisher.  There are many reasons to own your own IP and the best one is that Sony nor MS can just take that IP and give it to another developer.  IS probably have the same agreement with MS like Respawn/EA.  The first game is exclusive but anything after that is free game.  They could stay exclusive or go multiplat but if their game is a success they will have options.

Thanks and agree with most of the points (but we don't know what are the clauses yet, could be one game or the franchise). About losing the IP and sending it to a different pub, Sony haven't done that to they so it isn't a big concern.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."