usually when a company pays another company tens of millions of dollars they usually make them do what ever the hell they want.... QD isnt funding the project and paying the bills, sony is, so yeah its actually a big deal there letting them do what ever thet want. go look at any other 3rd party developer and see if there publisher doesnt force them to do things they want

Creative freedom? Sony doesnt dictate the titles, but if they dont sell they will close down the studios. So its freedom at your own risk.

The closing of studio liverpool was an eye opener.

Do you think Sony would allow radical changes to their biggest franchises like Uncharted, Gran Turismo or GOW?
Maybe, I don't know, that's what would impress me. But it doesn't surprise or impress me that they don't mind developers taking chances and doing largely what they want on games that sell 1 or 2 million.

Let's look at Naughty Dog's situation. They're allowed to branch off and do a new IP, but that's because they have 2 teams now, and the other can work on Uncharted. If ND was still a one team studio do you think we'd be seeing TLOU instead of UC4? I doubt it.

If Heavy Rain sold 5 million units would Quantic Dream be working on BEYOND or another Heavy Rain title? This one's tricky since they're second party. Apply it to Sucker Punch, does anyone think they're working on another Infamous? If Infamous 2 sold 6 million copies they sure would be.

Some studios like Rare aren't even allowed to work on Stuff they want to and get forced into making crap instead of awesome fighting games.
Or how was it about Alan Wake?They had to fight and take the costs so they can bring Alan Wake one year later to PC.
I know Rare is 1st party but they aren't allowed to do anything - Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios are allowed to work on new stuff.
In general you hear a lot for example Microsoft is pretty bad to work with - Patch costs,restrictions and directions in which way they have to go and what they are allowed to.
Sony surely has some rules too but you have there a lot more freedom and can create new things.A lot of new IPs,Genres and game concepts are done by Sony and people who work WITH them.Only sad thing those awesome games aren't selling 10+ Million Units each but that is the fault of the "Gaming" Community of this Gen.

Sony is by far the best place to work for if you have the quality to deliver.
It's widely known now - Probably not even Nintendo comes close to them cause Sony has a far better relationship with 2nd and 3rd Party than Nintendo.

Too much creative freedom leaves publishers playing a risky game. Ideally the money-holders should have a light touch, to be generally tolerant but to also know when things have gotten unacceptable and to bring the hammer down. As we can see in The Last Guardian's case: no hammer

not really, because we're not talking about sony the platform owner we're talking about sony the publisher.

“Usually, you make indie development, and you have limited resources, but you have freedom, or you work on a triple-A and you have the resources, but limited or no creative freedom. And I’m in the strange position where I have both.”

even on PC you can either go the small budget indie route or you hook up with the EA's or the Activisions and have your freedoms stripped just as much as on a console platform.

OT - i do really like this about sony because i've gotten to play the heavy rains, the littleBigPlanets and tear aways, the journey and flower, the ICOs and SotCs...  but at some point they need to have a studio or two that really dig downs and really tries to be more mass marketable.  they are going to drive themselves out of business this way.

Yeah, Sony's been far too lenient with studio japan, more specifically team ICO. How much money have they sunk into that project? 7 years of development can't be cheap, and for a game that'll be lucky to sell 1 million? That's just a joke. They have developers creating trilogies in the time it takes this studio to make one game.

Nintendo is probably the exact opposite of that in effect. If memory serves, being forced to make sequels to everything was the reason Masahiro Sakurai left Nintendo for a period of time.
That said, I personally prefer if the "creativity" of developers is regulated. I mean, this industry is still about serving the consumers, not the developers. If some developer is being forced to make a sequel, it's probably because the market wants a sequel. Sure, being liberal with creativity sounds great, but, in effect, it usually (but evidently not always) means that fewer people on the consumer end will enjoy a product, even if the developers of the game are having the time of their lives.
If you want to express yourself, writing a book or making a movie is a far better idea.

I think it is fair to say David Cage and team have earned their creative freedom and their game proposals are inherrantly interesting so once Sony signs on they let whatever time table is set carry out without being a disruptive force.

Consider Team ICO which earned a lot of trust with ICO and then Shadow of Collosus. Sony gave them many years of creative freedom and then when they failed to deliver The Last Guardian in any kind of reasonable timeline, Sony started getting involved again trying to salvage the project and have a quality title released to appease the prospective fan expectations.