Crash Bandicoot: The Thread

[Shiny Gems]

I should have known that Activision still owned the rights to Crash. Oh well, hopefully, whatever we see at E3 will still be good.

[Marcello]

5 hours ago, CrashRatchetFan said:

A. They can license it out without selling it.
B. I am totally sure that the contract would definitely NEVER include a clause to not publicize the transfer until the deal was made public :V
C. This doesn't matter at current time, but there are SEVERAL Crash trademarks. One of several that are called "Crash Bandicoot" was abandoned and it blew up as "Activision abandons Crash BAndicoot IP" when that simply wasn't true.

A. Yes, I said that.
B. Then they'd say nothing at all, I think.
C. OK? Not sure what you're getting at here.

2 hours ago, Jango said:

You think this is funny Marcello? Come here, a thread you've never been before, JUST to post bad news? Talk about not having anything better to do, hm?

I do think it's funny, yes. No, I have nothing better to do. Also, I've actually been in this thread a lot of times!

 

[Jango]

1 hour ago, Dejimon11 said:

Why the heck would they lie about legal rights? 

Why the heck is Activision NOT in Uncharted'a credits? This is also a legal matter, and much more legit than a mere tweet just to shut people's mouth about it untill it's official.

For the record, when Microsoft bought the rights of Gears of War, they announced it before the deal was in fact valid. These things take time.

Yeah, maybe he's telling the truth, in the present time, Activision still owns Crash, this is in fact true, if you check the trademark database right now. But if Sony really bought it, they probably are keeping the trademark on hold to avoid ruining the surprise. When the real announcement happens -most likely at E3- they can safely make the transition.

[CrashRatchetFan]

1 hour ago, Marcello said:

A. Yes, I said that.
B. Then they'd say nothing at all, I think.
C. OK? Not sure what you're getting at here.

I do think it's funny, yes. No, I have nothing better to do. Also, I've actually been in this thread a lot of times!

 

Listen, I know how much you detest this franchise for no apparent reason but hear me out. Did you honestly expect him to blurt out in public, "Yea, we own the IP now. Expect some news and a game at E3!" 

If you check the trademark database, you'll clearly see that Activision still owns the trademark for "Crash Bandicoot." But there are several other Crash trademarks that Activision owns that they let die (which led to that Sony rumor back in 2013 but this is a different story). If Sony did make some deal to acquire Crash Bandicoot, it wouldn't make sense for the trademark to be transferred until after it's announced, otherwise it would ruin the surprise. Looking at the European trademark database, it shows that the Gears of War trademark wasn't transferred to Microsoft until February 20, 2014, which is a month after Microsoft announced it had acquired the IP.

The point is, something could be going on with Crash at Sony, and saying Activision "owns the rights" wouldn't actually be a lie, at least right now.

And honestly, that's the only thing that makes sense given the fact that (spoiler about a big game releasing shortly) neither Crash or Acti are mentioned in U4's credits. If there has been an IP change, then nobody is listed in the credits because they don't want to announce the swap until they announce the game. Provided there has been a swap to begin with.

[Marcello]

1 minute ago, CrashRatchetFan said:

Listen, I know how much you detest this franchise for no apparent reason but hear me out. Did you honestly expect him to blurt out in public, "Yea, we own the IP now. Expect some news and a game at E3!" 

If you check the trademark database, you'll clearly see that Activision still owns the trademark for "Crash Bandicoot." If Sony did make some deal to acquire Crash Bandicoot, it wouldn't make sense for the trademark to be transferred until after it's announced, otherwise it would ruin the surprise. Looking at the European trademark database, it shows that the Gears of War trademark wasn't transferred to Microsoft until February 20, 2014, which is a month after Microsoft announced it had acquired the IP.

The point is, something could be going on with Crash at Sony, and saying Activision "owns the rights" wouldn't actually be a lie, at least right now.

And honestly, that's the only thing that makes sense given the fact that (spoiler about a big game releasing shortly) neither Crash or Acti are mentioned in U4's credits. If there has been an IP change, then nobody is listed in the credits because they don't want to announce the swap until they announce the game. Provided there has been a swap to begin with.

I don't detest Crash. I don't particularly care for him, but I certainly don't detest him. I said I was just teasing right after I posted the pic.

No, of course I don't expect him to just say they own the IP, because they don't and never will, I'd expect him to say nothing at all or that Sony doesn't comment on rumors, if it were true.

I still don't see what the whole trademark stuff goes against Sony not owning the IP.

You're right that the lack of credits for Crash or Activision is odd, but Naughty Dog probably just stole the stuff like with the AC4 concept art  I'd rather listen to the word straight from the horse's mouth than fan speculation on that. 

Maybe I'll be wrong, maybe I won't, I don't know. We'll see.

[Dejimon11]

1 hour ago, Jango said:

Why the heck is Activision NOT in Uncharted'a credits? This is also a legal matter, and much more legit than a mere tweet just to shut people's mouth about it untill it's official.

For the record, when Microsoft bought the rights of Gears of War, they announced it before the deal was in fact valid. These things take time.

Yeah, maybe he's telling the truth, in the present time, Activision still owns Crash, this is in fact true, if you check the trademark database right now. But if Sony really bought it, they probably are keeping the trademark on hold to avoid ruining the surprise. When the real announcement happens -most likely at E3- they can safely make the transition.

Wait I just realized something: If Activision wasn't mentioned in the uncharted 4 credits was crash bandicoot mentioned at all? I guess we have to wait and see.

[Jango]

47 minutes ago, Marcello said:

Maybe I'll be wrong, maybe I won't, I don't know. We'll see.

You will be wrong.

 

43 minutes ago, Dejimon11 said:

Wait I just realized something: If Activision wasn't mentioned in the uncharted 4 credits was crash bandicoot mentioned at all? I guess we have to wait and see.

It is confirmed that neither are mentioned.

[Tani Coyote]

In all honesty, I think Sony will probably give up on any bold platforming revival projects. Thieves in Time wasn't so hot, the Ratchet film wasn't so hot, and while the Ratchet game has done well enough, don't Ratchet titles normally do fairly well outside the spinoffs? Combine this with Star Fox Zero's beating in the Nintendo arena and I think we can deduce the market just isn't there for furry franchises anymore. Doubly so since a lot of them are trying to ride nostalgia rather than try and be something new, which isn't too surprising because most people don't really crave them anymore. They are literally hoping using a name that hasn't appeared on video game boxes for a decade or more sells and... in pretty much all cases, it doesn't.

I'm as sad as anybody that the furry platforming (and furry in general) genre is dead, but it is what it is. Bringing Crash back doesn't make much sense.

All that said, let's try not to stir any fires on either side of the debate.

Given the cult that's developed around Zootopia, though, maybe Sony should leave its critters with Disney.

[pppp]

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

In all honesty, I think Sony will probably give up on any bold platforming revival projects. Thieves in Time wasn't so hot, the Ratchet film wasn't so hot, and while the Ratchet game has done well enough, don't Ratchet titles normally do fairly well outside the spinoffs? Combine this with Star Fox Zero's beating in the Nintendo arena and I think we can deduce the market just isn't there for furry franchises anymore. Doubly so since a lot of them are trying to ride nostalgia rather than try and be something new, which isn't too surprising because most people don't really crave them anymore. They are literally hoping using a name that hasn't appeared on video game boxes for a decade or more sells and... in pretty much all cases, it doesn't.

I'm as sad as anybody that the furry platforming (and furry in general) genre is dead, but it is what it is. Bringing Crash back doesn't make much sense.

All that said, let's try not to stir any fires on either side of the debate.

Given the cult that's developed around Zootopia, though, maybe Sony should leave its critters with Disney.

I don't see what the furry aspect has to do with it. As you said, Zootopia is part of that and everybody loves it, critics and audiences alike. It also made 950+ million dollars worldwide. Hell even Japan, who aren't that keen on furries are seeing it:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/japan-box-office-zootopia-climbs-891808

The Ratchet movie didn't do well cause it sucked and it had terrible marketing. SF Zero's beating is not cause of furries, it's cause of its sucky motion controls.

I really don't get where this attitude of "Oh people hate furries, there's no market anymore". If the works being made are good and well marketed people will buy them.

[Tani Coyote]

31 minutes ago, pppp said:

I don't see what the furry aspect has to do with it. As you said, Zootopia is part of that and everybody loves it, critics and audiences alike. It also made 950+ million dollars worldwide. Hell even Japan, who aren't that keen on furries are seeing it:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/japan-box-office-zootopia-climbs-891808

The Ratchet movie didn't do well cause it sucked and it had terrible marketing. SF Zero's beating is not cause of furries, it's cause of its sucky motion controls.

I really don't get where this attitude of "Oh people hate furries, there's no market anymore". If the works being made are good and well marketed people will buy them.

Well if so, companies are pretty ambivalent to actually putting effort into it, thus guaranteeing constant failure.

Really, if both Sony and Nintendo aren't really putting care into products, perhaps it's best that Crash doesn't get a revival.

[CrashRatchetFan]

What does Star Fox got to do with anything? I don't play the games but they're not even platformers (besides Temperatures I guess) to begin with so that wouldn't make sense. As a matter of fact, why is Zootopia suddenly in this? 

And yes, the Ratchet movie did absolutely terrible but the game is the fastest selling one of the franchise (beating the likes of UYA and CIT) and is getting rave reviews so that has to count for something even if the movie is failing. 

Of course Crash isn't going to appeal to all the audiences, but if we can still have Mario games and highly successful crowdfunded projects like Yooka-Laylee and A Hat in Time, maybe you ought to rethink your logic. Of course Crash is never going to compete with some of the big boys like Uncharted, but if you go by that alone, that means the industry will stagnate and crap out nothing but the same games over and over again. You also seem to forget that just because you're used to a crowd, it doesn't mean there aren't different people out there. Thinking like this is exactly what caused Crash to disappear in the first place. 

[Jango]

I agree. Also, Crash is not furry :V

Nobody thinks Crash will WOW the gaming community like Battlefield, Uncharted and other blockbusters do. I love this franchise, I am super positive about its return, but I don't believe that myself. I believe thought, that the part of the community whom cares for platformers should have the right to play something great. I find myself going through lots of emulators just to play platformers, simply because they are old games. Don't get me wrong thought, I also like games with deep stories and realism, I think The Last of Us, for example, is one of the best games I've ever played and one of the best games ever made. But most of the times I just want to pick something simple and fun to play. Something not so ambitious or... busy. Yet all I see in stores are shooters.

Rayman Origins came out of nowhere in a time when platformers were even less relevant than now. And it's an amazing game on its own right. Ubisoft brought Michel Ancell, the original creator of Rayman, to direct the game and make sure it would achieve the level of quality Rayman (and platformers) fans wanted and deserved. The game was a sucess, it won a lot of awards and praise from critics and gamers, and even got a sequel that is just as great.

I can't see why Crash shouldn't return, and I also can't see why people are still willing to think it will not be sucessful or relevant. Especially because it is Crash after all. Most of the gamers I know got into PlayStation thanks to Crash Bandicoot. And they own a Sony console untill today, because Crash opened that door. And even if they are not the biggest fans of platformers like me, I can guarantee that they would still want to buy a new Crash game for the PS4.

Sony has great first party developers and they can hire great third party devs too. If they really want a new Crash for the PlayStation, it will not end up being an average, forgetable game. Crash is still a great franchise. It has a cast of fun characters, unique aesthetics and that Warner Bros. charm that never gets old, because it simply isn't an obnoxious humor. The original games are still solid and tight as fuck, simple and fun games that hold up untill today.

I rather see Sony try to bring Crash back than simply forget about it because "most gamers don't care for platformers nowadays" bullshit. It has a public, it has potential, it can be great and it can sell. That is what I believe.

[Your Vest Friend]

One thing to note as well is that Star Fox never really got that big to begin with, it's more of a cult classic franchise than anything.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

On top of that, Sony's not particularly to blame for the movie. Keep in mind that the game, aka the part that was handled mostly by Insomniac and Sony has broken the series record for fastest sales, beating A Crack in Time, and Up Your Arsenal. The movie suffered from a mediocre animation studio who hasn't had a good product since the late 90s, and almost definitely suffered for allowing T.J Fixman to quit because they decided to throw in a director/writer who thought he knew the franchise better than the fucking writer for the games himself. According to T.J, some of his plot points and jokes are retained in the movie, but the majority of them came from the new writer, which probably explains why the writing wasn't as good as the games. 

[Nepenthe]

4 hours ago, Jango said:

I agree. Also, Crash is not furry :V

I hate to break it to you, but he's an anthropomorphic animal. Therefore, he's a furry character by default. :X

Regardless, I do agree that platformers can still exist and make money, so long as companies are realistic about any potential returns of a product and do their homework. However, the issue at this moment isn't even whether or not a classic Crash game can be made. It's whether or not Sony will do one and make it good.

[CrashRatchetFan]

Read the quoted post AND the actual post. They explain it better than I could:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=203061111&postcount=651

[Milo]

22 hours ago, Detective Reptiles said:

One thing to note as well is that Star Fox never really got that big to begin with, it's more of a cult classic franchise than anything.

Eh, I'd say it was pigeonholed into a cult classic series rather than starting out that way. The original SNES game sold over four million and SF64 sold over three million. Not Mario / Pokemon-level gangbusters, but it's definitely a notable step up over the sales of the later titles starting with Adventures (none of which surpassed 2 million). It's also worth noting the post-64 titles notably moved away from the formula of the first two games (and consequently weren't as well-received from both reviewers and fans), so it's not like the SF series on its own terms was on relatively good standing.

[Tani Coyote]

12 hours ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

On top of that, Sony's not particularly to blame for the movie.

It's their IP, so I presume they do have some sort of review power. Which means they're culpable.

Forcing a product out just because it's made is how bad things happen. Sony pushed back the Ratchet game to ensure it was of good quality, and it paid off. It seems they didn't pay as much attention to quality in the film. And that's just damned sad.

16 hours ago, Jango said:

I can't see why Crash shouldn't return, and I also can't see why people are still willing to think it will not be sucessful or relevant. Especially because it is Crash after all. Most of the gamers I know got into PlayStation thanks to Crash Bandicoot. And they own a Sony console untill today, because Crash opened that door. And even if they are not the biggest fans of platformers like me, I can guarantee that they would still want to buy a new Crash game for the PS4.

Because the Give-A-Damn-O-Meter is empty for the most part on the part of the IP holders. Ratchet's game is a success, yes, but overall it seems platformers, particularly furry platformers and furry games in general, have long since passed their zenith.

Quote

I rather see Sony try to bring Crash back than simply forget about it because "most gamers don't care for platformers nowadays" bullshit. It has a public, it has potential, it can be great and it can sell. That is what I believe.

Think about this from a business perspective. Why pour a ton of money and effort into something where the success is not guaranteed? The market has spoken: the critter genre is largely dead.

Then it becomes a downward spiral because this leads to lower budgets and less qualified developers (e.g. Sanzaru with Sly 4), which leads to poorer sales, which reinforces the bias against the genre.

It comes down to economics. And it's ultimately easier to invest time and money into the big boys than try and revive a former big boy, especially when attempts to revive big boys have mixed success. It'd perhaps be more lucrative to create a brand new IP altogether.

And the worst part is companies tend to have too much pride to go for crowdfunding to test the market. Then you have the legions of (I assume not well versed in business) people who get antsy at the idea of non-indie devs using crowdfunding, even though it's a brilliant way to see if the demand is there.

17 hours ago, CrashRatchetFan said:

What does Star Fox got to do with anything? I don't play the games but they're not even platformers (besides Temperatures I guess) to begin with so that wouldn't make sense. As a matter of fact, why is Zootopia suddenly in this? 

We're examining the mass marketing appeal of anthropomorphic characters.

Quote

And yes, the Ratchet movie did absolutely terrible but the game is the fastest selling one of the franchise (beating the likes of UYA and CIT) and is getting rave reviews so that has to count for something even if the movie is failing. 

That is awesome, yes, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The overall market data would seem to indicate that critter characters don't have anywhere close to the same punch they used to.

Quote

Of course Crash isn't going to appeal to all the audiences, but if we can still have Mario games and highly successful crowdfunded projects like Yooka-Laylee and A Hat in Time, maybe you ought to rethink your logic

Mario's not a critter. He's also Mario. He was here first so he is entrenched and anyone who comes after will be held to his standards which Nintendo, generally making good choices, have kept very high.

Crowdfunding projects are not comparable, because crowdfunding projects don't have the same risk. Indie devs put a little money in for a prototype, show the masses, and if the masses don't care for it, they can move onto something else. A larger dev has to forward the initial cost of development (normally, barring such oddities as Shenmue 3), and so there's a huge element of risk.

If I'm the executive of Sony, I'm not going to pour a bunch of money into something because it MIGHT sell a ton on nostalgia. I'll hire a cheaper second rate dev to pump one out, and when the game does poorly, I'll assume it's a lack of demand for the games and proceed to either can the franchise or cut investment even further.

it's an ugly, sticky situation, and why indie devs will probably be leading the way in this for perpetuity unless the masses are hit with a 90s-era trance for cartoon animal protagonists. I mean really. If the furry fandom doesn't actively follow a lot of these franchises, what chance do they have of being blockbusters with the general public?

[KHCast]

So we're going under the assumption that Sony would be expecting AAA CoD/Tomb Raider levels of money with this? Cause again, I don't see how they can loose if they simply just budget the game reasonably. I mean Sony releases tons of one off games that end up forgotten in the long run, but they aren't considerable losses because they weren't over budgeted. If it's a quality and enjoyable experience, I'm pretty damn sure it will make its money back. Especially considering how hype culture is nowadays and with Sony being the king of hyping people lately.

 

If Sony can support risky titles like No Man's Sky, that likely won't make tons of cash, I don't see why they'd all of a sudden use the "it won't make money" excuse for Crash. 

[CrashRatchetFan]

@Raccoonatic Ogilvie- I've yet to see how Star Fox is comparative to the "low demand of furry animal games". Sure, the games have anthropomorphic animals just like Crash but it's a totally different genre all on its own compared to the likes of Crash and Sonic where their forte is mainly platforming whereas SF is on-rails shooter. 

Even though you didn't mention this, I'm going to anyway. Crash has the potential to be RELAUNCHED as a franchise, not just based on nostalgia fuel. To date, the series alone has made 50 million plus in sales. I'm not good at estimates but a friend of mine who's good at these sorts of schematics estimated that that's about $2 billion dollars in revenue. 7 million alone were Crash 2, which sold 2 million more on top of Crash 1's 5 million. (May have been 4~ million). So apparently people were pretty into the sequel. And let's be clear, those sales figures were on the PS1 install base, with much lower budgets and expenditures than today, and those figures would still be good in today's market. IIRC, these numbers might even be the NA-only figures. Even the later entries like Titans and MOM both sold over 2 million through, and believe me, they were not AAA budget games. 

[Jango]

Yeah, looks like you've ignored my first sentence. I know Crash will never be as big as "the big boys", like you said so. I think nobody expects an AAA game. But an enjoyable one is possible without rivers of money being invested. If it's made for the right reasons and by the right people, it can be great. And if it is great, I'm sure as hell it will sell. That happens with movies all the time, a low budged movie end up becoming a huge sucess.