Top
150°

The Tomorrow Children Director “Really Enjoys” Working With Sony, They’re “Very Hands-Off”

When you’re a smaller developer, the idea of working with an enormous corporation like Sony can be intimidating, but this isn’t the case for Dylan Cuthbert, Managing Director of Q-Games, at the helm of The Tomorrow Children.

Read Full Story >>
dualshockers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
triple_c1122d ago

And people wonder why Sony gets so much more games than other competing platforms. Well.. this is 1 of the reasons.

Kingthrash3601122d ago

Agreed. ..giving a dev the freedom to compose games really gets great games and a great relationship with developers. Leads to better more creative games which leads to happy gamers. ..its a all around win way of doing things and it shows.

freshslicepizza1122d ago

yes but not always. insomniac is one example.

MasterCornholio1122d ago (Edited 1122d ago )

@Moldy

Bad example.

Insomniac wanted to keep the IP and Sony said no. That's why they went with Microsoft.

In terms of granting them creative freedom, Sony did it in the past with Insomniac. Good examples are when Insomniac decided to create a new IP called Resistance.

triple_c1122d ago (Edited 1122d ago )

@moldybread

Sony only wanted to own the Sunset Overdrive IP for whatever reason. The Sunset Overdrive thing with Insomniac had nothing to do with Sony not allowing them creative freedom to create a game they wanted to create.

Having ownership of an IP is not the same thing as letting developers have creative freedom to make games that they want to create.

freshslicepizza1122d ago

"Having ownership of an IP is not the same thing as letting developers have creative freedom to make games that they want to create."

care to explain why not? allowing developers to own their own ip allows them to be as creative with it as they want and do with it as they wish. want a prime example? heavy rain. sony wanted playstation move controls for the game and quantic dream wanted to create dlc instead.

http://gamerant.com/heavy-r...

now watch all the disagrees come my way for showing proof just because it doesn't show sony to be a complete saint when it comes to allowing freedom. that isn't to suggest sony isn't supportive because we all know they are but at the end of the day it is a business.

jb2271122d ago

@moldy

Allowing a dev to own their ip is not the same thing as allowing them creative freedom. Insomniac kept the rights to the name but that doesn't mean that Microsoft had no stipulations that they needed & expected to be met. Heavy Rain is a great example actually but not in the sense that you are using it. Quantic Dream came to MS with their game idea for Heavy Rain and MS turned it down because it didn't have an mp component. That's an instance of the stipulation that MS required, and it's the same thing they ask of almost all devs, Insomniac included, that some form of mp be on the disc. Sony had never had that requirement. Same thing seems to be happening with Rise of the Tomb Raider, they dropped mp but now they are reporting that there will be some form of online component for that game as well, which naturally sounds like the MS mandate that is present in nearly all of their games.

Also the article you pointed towards is telling in that you had to reach back over 5 years to find an example, and even then Sony never forced them to not work on dlc and they were absolutely free to do so. Cage made the decision to not go forward with the dlc because it would've eaten into the development time for their next project, a project that remained a Sony exclusive even when Quantic remained a 3rd party studio with no requirement to release on the Sony platform. The whole game was a big gamble for Sony in the first place, one that MS was unwilling to make. So your point still remains to be proven.

It's commonplace knowledge that Sony has a history of affording more creative freedom than any other platform, maybe that changes in the future but I'm not seeing any hard & fast proof of that at this point.

Spectre_StatusN71122d ago (Edited 1122d ago )

@Moldy

Owning the ip only has to deal with where the ip goes and what can happen with it. It has nothing to do with creative freedom in development. Sony has always had a very great track record of allowing developers the freedom to create what they want, they are very lenient.

triple_c1122d ago (Edited 1122d ago )

@moldybread

Because Sony isn't necessarily telling Quantic Dream what game they want Quantic Dream to create, they are just taking ownership of the IP that they are creating.

For example, if I owned a candy business and 1 of the people that was close to me and worked with me wanted to create a new kind of candy but I told him that he can create the candy he wants to make but my company would have ownership over it, does that mean that I'm not giving him creative freedom to create whatever kind of candy he wants to create? No. It doesn't mean that since I'm not telling the person I'm working with what kind of candy I want him to create. I'm only telling him that my company would own the candy he creates.

Do you see the difference?

First you were talking about Insomniac, now you're talking about Quantic Dream. You're really trying to keep this argument alive, huh?

freshslicepizza1122d ago (Edited 1122d ago )

@jb227
"Also the article you pointed towards is telling in that you had to reach back over 5 years to find an example, and even then Sony never forced them to not work on dlc and they were absolutely free to do so. Cage made the decision to not go forward with the dlc because it would've eaten into the development time for their next project"

it doesn't matter if it happened 5 days ago or 5 years ago. what i have eluded to is when a developer does not own the ip they do not have full control of the project. sony push playstation move support in favor of dlc. that was not david cage's decision, it was sony's. and not once have i ever suggested microsoft to be more supportive. i will go on record to say they are not.

but do not try and create this illusion that sony allows devs to do as they please. they run a business and will still make decisions that can impact development if they are part of the development process and/or own the intellectual property.

@triplec
"First you were talking about Insomniac, now you're talking about Quantic Dream. You're really trying to keep this argument alive, huh?"

insomniac is a prime example of a developer who wanted control of it's own ip's and wanted to do something else. don't try and mislead others into thinking sony does not have any influence on them to keep making ratchet games or resistance games. even naughty dog gets pressure from sony to keep making uncharted games and now another last of us is probably coming. sony is in the business to make money.

Spectre_StatusN71122d ago

@Moldy

You held up an OK argument until that last paragraph where it went completely wrong. Sony has no influence on Insomniac as they do not own them. Sony technically CAN"T make Insomniac do Ratchet and Clank over and over, if Insomniac wished to not do a Ratchet and Clank, Sony could just hand it over to a different developer, They've done so before with other ips. Second, Naughty Dog is a horrible example. Naughty Dog probably gets the LEAST pressure from Sony. You realize that Uncharted 4 is the last Uncharted game? That was Naughty Dog's decision not Sony.

freshslicepizza1122d ago

@Spectre_StatusN7
"Sony has no influence on Insomniac as they do not own them. Sony technically CAN"T make Insomniac do Ratchet and Clank over and over, if Insomniac wished to not do a Ratchet and Clank, Sony could just hand it over to a different developer, They've done so before with other ips."

and it might happen with resistance but the point was sony can try and persuade them to keep making those games while saying no to any new projects they may want to make. could be why they wanted to go elsewhere.

"Second, Naughty Dog is a horrible example. Naughty Dog probably gets the LEAST pressure from Sony. You realize that Uncharted 4 is the last Uncharted game? That was Naughty Dog's decision not Sony."

which is why i used them as an example. the last of us made a lot of money for sony, why wouldn't they pressure naughty dog to do another?

new ip's are expensive gambles, it's why we see so few of them. the console business is a multi-billion dollar business and it explains why developers get burnt out from the pressure. guys like david jaffe and cliffy b and peter molyneux have been there. so don't tell me there is total creative freedom for any of them. not when games are in excess of 20+ million on average.

the tomorrow children looks excellent by the way and i do believe sony is very hands off, especially with smaller projects.

QuickdrawMcgraw1121d ago

Sony must be breathing a sigh of relief that Insomniac decided to go in another direction this time....

jb2271121d ago

@moldy

I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Sony lets devs run hog wild & do whatever it is they please in every single instance. I'm sure there are cases where Sony makes requests just like any other company. The point is that even though no company gives complete & unhindered freedom, Sony seems to give the most freedom out of all of the platforms according to the accounts of the devs themselves.

As far as owning ip goes, I think you are misinterpreting what it means to retain the rights to the ip. For all intents & purposes the only thing that means is that the company is free to take that franchise anywhere they choose in the future to do with as they please at that point, it's present installment is still beholden to the whims of the platform holder and they still have the final say in what goes into that particular installment, not the future ones. The mp component in SSOD was a stipulation on MS' part, just like every other game they release as an exclusive. The only example that comes to mind of MS not requiring mp is in the case of Remedy & their Alan Wake & Quantum Break titles, the rest all have it, and many devs as well as Spencer himself have said in the past that that's one of their sticking points that they enforce. Per your Heavy Rain example, Sony isn't forcing Move support on every single title, Until Dawn is an instance of a game initially created with it in mind but Supermassive were allowed to go in a different direction. There is no across the board requirement for Sony titles like MS & their mp requirement. I think that in & of itself illustrates that Sony affords the most freedom in the console realm.

Spotie1121d ago

Jesus Christ, moldy. The rest of your buddies will attack me, but you seriously do just go into Sony articles looking for something negative to say.

Sony never stifled Insomniac's creativity. The end. Wanting to own the ip isn't telling the developer how to make the game. It doesn't matter how many bubbles you spend trying to "intelligently" convince us otherwise, because we're not stupid enough to buy it. Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

johndoe112111121d ago (Edited 1121d ago )

@moldybread

Do you actually sit and read the tripe you write before you post. What exactly are you arguing? Your argument makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with the original topic. It's as if you just came here to argue for the sake of arguing. What the hell does creative freedom have to do with owning your own ip? Sony allows all of their first party studios complete creative freedom when they are creating games. This has been stated many times over. It doesn't matter who owns the ip, they give them their freedom. It's like you just have to say something negative in a Sony article otherwise you won't be able to achieve some sort of high or something. At least if you want to debate let your arguments make some sort of sense.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 1121d ago
Pillsbury11122d ago

Sony has a great strategy: let the developers create great games and leave the suits out.

MazzingerZ1122d ago

Looking forward To this game, Q-games always delivers.

_LarZen_1122d ago

As my father says.."winning".

Show all comments (26)
The story is too old to be commented.