Jump to content

50% of Playstation Studio's investment will be in new IPs by 2025


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Voidler said:

Technically something like Spiderman isn't a new IP, it is a licensed IP. And it definitely doesn't carry the same risk factor as creating a new IP does

 

Bloodborne is 100% a new IP though. Having some design elements in common with their other games doesn't prevent that. It'd be like saying TLOU wasn't a new IP cause it had design elements in common with Uncharted, or Portal isn't a new IP cause it has elements of Half Life

 

 

 

Bloodborne is literally built on the Souls framework, it carries over not just design ideas but many of the same exact UI elements, animations, sound effects, etc. Its ludicrous to consider it a new IP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why Sony remain kings.  While Nintendo and MS churn out the same things year after year. Oh another Pokemon this year! Mario sports title? No way! Whattt Forza coming out this year? 

This is why I love Playstation, can can never go 100% hermit. By far the most risk-taking of the big publishers, and it pays off more often than not.    

Arguing that Bloodborne isn't a new IP is one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen on this board.

39 minutes ago, Voidler said:

Technically something like Spiderman isn't a new IP, it is a licensed IP. And it definitely doesn't carry the same risk factor as creating a new IP does

 

Bloodborne is 100% a new IP though. Having some design elements in common with their other games doesn't prevent that. It'd be like saying TLOU wasn't a new IP cause it had design elements in common with Uncharted, or Portal isn't a new IP cause it has elements of Half Life

 

 

 

TLOU and Portal were new IPs when they launched.   That's not even comparable to a Souls game called Bloodborne. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bloodborne is 100% a new IP.  It's entirely new and takes place in a different universe.  It utilizes many of the same design elements... but it's a distinctive property different from Souls, and is literally published by different companies compared to the Souls games.

 

Demon's Souls is it's own IP

Dark Souls is it's own IP

Bloodborne is it's own IP

Sekiro is it's own IP

Elden Ring is it's own IP

 

 

Souls games could be considered a genre...a style of game, to which Bloodborne is a part of... but it's a different property altogether.

Edited by Remij
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 

TLOU and Portal were new IPs when they launched.   That's not even comparable to a Souls game called Bloodborne. 

Doesn't share any branding, world, or even the same gameplay loop as Dark or Demons Souls. Don't mistake the director having signature elements to his games making them a single IP 

 

And from a purely business perspective, new trademarks and copyrights were created for Bloodborne which are owned by Sony - unlike Dark Souls owned by Bandai Namco. It is 100% a new IP

 

In fact something like Portal would be even less of a new IP seeing as it lifts the first person mechanics of Half Life 2 directly, and is in the same world.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Genetically deficient Sheep go into corporate lawyer mode to say Spiderman isn't new because Spiderman is a license, but then deny Bloodborne which is totally original.

 

So Mario, Yoshi, Kirby, Donkey Kong, and Metroid are all the same IP. Mario Kart and F-Zero are the same, and also F-Zero is in the Mario IP. This is truly pillhead logic. 🧠

💊

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce said:

Arguing that Bloodborne isn't a new IP is one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen on this board.

 

Re-skinning a game isn't enough to make it a new IP. Thats insulting to developers who have put out actual new IPs. You have studios that build games from the ground up but somehow they're lumped into the same category as it game thats sharing most of the same code as its predecessors. How is that reasonable or fair?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

Arguing that Bloodborne isn't a new IP is one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen on this board.

I don't think they even know what the definition is :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Goukosan said:

 

 

 

 

I see reading is hard for your dumbass. :sabu:

 

IP is intellectual Property.  Spiderman 2018 is a NEW game but it's not a new IP you slow fuck. 

 

Sony is talking about new IPs like Horizon which was a new IP when it launched last gen and games like Ghosts of Tushima... Which again was a new  IP when it launched. 

 

 

Quoting me five times isn't going to get your point across.

 

As I've already stated it's a new game from a licensed IP sure but it's pretty much it's own video games series from now on under Insomniac, it is a new ''video games IP'' if you want to get technical for Sony first party games line-up but you're right, that it's an already established IP, obviously, not so much in the video games market though. Trying to downplay it is ridiculous, it was as fresh of an experience as Ghost of Tsuhima or Horizon. That's my point.

 

Regardless I'm glad you dropped it with Bloodborne at least. :umad:

 

 

Edited by Ramza
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Twinblade said:

 

Bloodborne is literally built on the Souls framework, it carries over not just design ideas but many of the same exact UI elements, animations, sound effects, etc. Its ludicrous to consider it a new IP.

A new IP isn't technically defined by how new it is, it's just a term for a license that belongs to a company. Judgment is a new IP and it pretty much re-use all the Yakuza games assets.

 

We can argue which Sony first party games had the most refreshing new experience last-gen but that's a different case. Bloodborne certainly wasn't one of them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ramza said:

A new IP isn't technically defined by how new it is, it's just a term for a license that belongs to a company. Judgment is a new IP and it pretty much re-use all the Yakuza games assets.

 

We can argue which Sony first party games had the most refreshing new experience last-gen but that's a different case. Bloodborne certainly wasn't one of them. 

 

Judgment isn't a new IP though, its classified as a Yakuza spin off which is completely appropriate

 

Quote

Judgment[a] is an action-adventure video game developed by Ryu Ga Gotoku Studio and published by Sega. A spin-off to the Yakuza series

 

There's no reason Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring shouldn't be considered spin offs of the Souls games as well

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce said:

 

Oh god, it just keeps getting dumber.

 

Thing thing about Bloodborne and Sekiro is that they aren't published by Namco so the terminology becomes a bit murkier. But legal implications aside I would still say it makes more sense for them to be considered Souls spin offs than new IPs. Thats why the whole 'soulsborne' term exists in the first place, to define games like Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Twinblade said:

 

Thing thing about Bloodborne and Sekiro is that they aren't published by Namco so the terminology becomes a bit murkier. But legal implications aside I would still say it makes more sense for them to be considered Souls spin offs than new IPs. Thats why the whole 'soulsborne' term exists in the first place, to define games like Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring.

Nerds on forums shouldn't be talking about "IP" at all. It's legal jargon which encompasses all kinds of irrelevant topics like patents, trade secrets, etc. "Soulsborne" is not a legal concept. Notice that blatant copies of the formula like Nioh and Jedi Fallen Order are not challenged in court because you can't copyright game mechanics. Also when From made Dark Souls as a multiplatform game Sony was in no position to challenge them despite owning Demons Souls.

 

For our purposes there is no defensible difference between "ip" and "franchises".

 

 

Edited by sugarhigh
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Twinblade said:

 

Re-skinning a game isn't enough to make it a new IP. Thats insulting to developers who have put out actual new IPs. You have studios that build games from the ground up but somehow they're lumped into the same category as it game thats sharing most of the same code as its predecessors. How is that reasonable or fair?

I honestly don't think you know what Intellectual Property means.

 

What do you think, if they made a Dark Souls first person shooter that it would be a new IP? :biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, madmaltese said:

I honestly don't think you know what Intellectual Property means.

 

What do you think, if they made a Dark Souls first person shooter that it would be a new IP? :biggrin:

 

Its not that simple though. When it comes to gaming the meaning of new IP goes deeper than it just being a new 'property' with a different name.

 

Think about a hypothetical involving the game awards later this year. Do you think it would be fair for Elden Ring to win all the New IP/Best original game awards? Over other games that are built from the ground up and not based on a 13 year old framework? Because just taking the term new IP at face value means that kind of scenario would be completely reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Twinblade said:

When it comes to gaming the meaning of new IP goes deeper than it just being a new 'property' with a different name.

 

Does it really? Dino Crisis is just a re-skinned Resident Evil, but nobody has a problem referring to them as separate franchises, IPs, or whatever other jargon you want to use. Gaming didn't have a problem with Wolfenstein, Doom, and Quake back in the day and it hasn't had a problem with the dozens of other similar examples over the years so I'm not sure why you feel like this is anything deeper than "Does the developer consider it a new IP?"

 

6 hours ago, Twinblade said:

Think about a hypothetical involving the game awards later this year. Do you think it would be fair for Elden Ring to win all the New IP/Best original game awards? Over other games that are built from the ground up and not based on a 13 year old framework? Because just taking the term new IP at face value means that kind of scenario would be completely reasonable.

 

Who even has that award? I checked The Game Awards, Gamespot, and IGN and none of them do. "Best original game of 2021" doesn't show much in Google, either. "Best new video game IP 2021" first result is an article about Elden Ring being the best selling new IP since The Division lol. "Best new video game IP 2015" first result is some random video game blog counting down the top 5 new IPs of 2015 with Bloodborne at #1.

 

As a hypothetical, though, I think Elden Ring should be considered for best new IP/best original game absolutely. Whether it should win would depend on the competition and I have no problem using similarities to previous From games against it in making that decision.

 

I think Elden Ring is also on a completely different level with its comparisons to Dark Souls than Bloodborne or Sekiro. Elden Ring could be called Dark Souls 4 and nobody would question it, but Bloodborne being called Dark Souls 3 (because of when it released) or Sekiro being called Dark Souls 4 would be pretty weird.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloodborne and Elden Ring are new IPs, though I can see one thinking of them as reskinned versions of other From titles (mainly with Elden Ring). And @Hot Sauce is spot on with his comparisons. Hell, Onimusha is RE with swords. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...