marconelly!
Veteran
Not that intention was too difficult to guess after his DICE speech 
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/03/09/news_6091064.html
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/03/09/news_6091064.html
Jason Rubin will quit Naughty Dog / Sony
- Thread starter marconelly!
- Start date
Pork chops
Newcomer
Good.
Maybe Naughty Dog will develop a new IP instead of relying on another Jax game.
Maybe Naughty Dog will develop a new IP instead of relying on another Jax game.
...because they didn't create Jak from nothing despite having a widely popular licence previously to lean on?
Maybe he was tired of the severe case of sequel-itis that seems to have struck Naughty Dog. They haven't done anything but Jak games for years now.
Um... They're working on finishing their third. How many games bore the Crash Bandicoot name previously? (And Jak 3 I imagine is mainly to take advantage of their solid engine before they move to a new one for the PS3--which I'm sure is being worked on currently as well.)Guden Oden said:
They served up J&D from nowhere while Crash Bandicoot was their strong licence and had lots of followers, so obviously they're not infected by too much "sequel-itis" and just know how to make good games. Jak II itself was notably different from J&D to be much less "sequel"-feeling than other games, to boot.
Quite possibly they'll serve up a new license each generation, creating another new one for PS3. They can always work on actual sequels to the side if they want, or perhaps one of those games featuring their characters...
How are they remotely "severe" compared to other companies?
I don't know if this has been posted but Didier malenfant (ND coder )
has left naughty dog to create his own Cie.
http://www.readyatdawn.com/founders.asp
has left naughty dog to create his own Cie.
http://www.readyatdawn.com/founders.asp
cthellis42 said:
Four, I believe.
J&D is a more sane-looking Crash, they're not taking advantage at all of having a sidekick along for the ride. Rare at least did some cool stuff with their Banjo-Kazooie, but from what I can tell, pretty much all Daxter does is talk in a funny chain-smoking New Yorker-like voice during the cutscenes.
They make four Crash games and three Jak games and you say they're not suffering from sequel-itis? I'm like,
, actually.Yeah, they're doing their line of Jak games just like they did their line of Crash games before that.
Rubin's just a very outspoken guy with a big appetite for challenge. When the PS2 was early and he took it as a personal responsibility to help it become as successful as it could be, I once heard him rip into the Dreamcast when someone suggested that it was a good platform. When he explained why selling his company to Sony was the best move at the time, he went overboard emphasizing his point by portraying the creative freedom and power of development at Sony as some utopia and all other major publishers as dead-end operations. It seems now he's satisfied his craving for pushing the envelope at the forefront of industry development, though, and has new horizons in mind, as I've been hearing about growing friction between his lead at Naughty Dog and the publisher, Sony, since early in the PS2 era.
Rubin's just a very outspoken guy with a big appetite for challenge. When the PS2 was early and he took it as a personal responsibility to help it become as successful as it could be, I once heard him rip into the Dreamcast when someone suggested that it was a good platform. When he explained why selling his company to Sony was the best move at the time, he went overboard emphasizing his point by portraying the creative freedom and power of development at Sony as some utopia and all other major publishers as dead-end operations. It seems now he's satisfied his craving for pushing the envelope at the forefront of industry development, though, and has new horizons in mind, as I've been hearing about growing friction between his lead at Naughty Dog and the publisher, Sony, since early in the PS2 era.
If he goes to Nintendo (as someone stated) or alligned himself with N or MS, then obviously it's bad
But, depending how this turns out and where he goes, the leaving of many high profile, high level executives can be a great thing for SCE.
What I'm referring to is the recent departure of Brendan McNamara (or Okamoto) who left an established company to form a new 2nd / '3rd party with attachment' to SCE. By leaving the established company and forming a new one which he'll mold from the ground up, they're effectively expanding their developer list very smartly.
But, depending how this turns out and where he goes, the leaving of many high profile, high level executives can be a great thing for SCE.
What I'm referring to is the recent departure of Brendan McNamara (or Okamoto) who left an established company to form a new 2nd / '3rd party with attachment' to SCE. By leaving the established company and forming a new one which he'll mold from the ground up, they're effectively expanding their developer list very smartly.
Five I think, if you count the Collector's Edition. (It did have its own unique Mario Party-like mode.) And if I recall, they were all platinum sellers and have sold better than pretty much every platformer but Super Mario 64 (at least of this generation and last. Spyro followed closely behind). Guaranteed sellers, and pretty much the de facto mascot of the platform. So what did Naught Dog do then? They handed off the license and went back to making other platformers of their own creation with new characters and style. (And Crash Bandicoot: Cortex didn't sell much worse than J&D on the PS2, despite being a much less thrilling or well-designed platformer overall. What do you think ND would have gotten if they continued CB with their abilities?Guden Oden said:They make four Crash games and three Jak games and you say they're not suffering from sequel-itis? I'm like,
)Naughty Dog isn't a large studio by any means (some 30 people all told? or at least on the game-creation end), and they've pretty much specialized in platformers, so you don't see tremendous variance between their games, or multiple projects continued simultaneous, that's for sure. But how many companies can you name that have taken a very popular licence, let others manage it, and started from scratch again?
Remember I said "compared to other companies." We have system mascots continually getting games since the early 80's, and popular platformers pretty much ONLY breed the same type, since they're more of a risk just relying on their gameplay. (And have been declining in popularity over time.) I found the gameplay in J&D to be different enough from CB, and Jak II's to actually be more different than I would have expected from titles in the same series. While Super Mario Sunshine was very fun and satisfying to play, I didn't see it as too much of change from Mario 64. (Certainly nowhere near the scale of Mario 64 to its predecessors.) And that is the only other strong (sales-wise) PURE platformer out there. (Other long-running series like Castlevania and MegaMan were finally making the switch to 3D [in Castlevania's case, one that doesn't suck
] so were different enough due to that, but those are two of the longest-running series out there. )In the global scheme of real "sequelling" out there, they're still pretty palsy--just good and focused, and them move on. (Insomniac much similar, leaving behind the success of Spyro to go R&C-a-ways.) Just think compare them to fighting games... Success breeds more success usually bearing the same name--'tis the fate of all forms of entertainment.
Are Nintendo and Capcom and Konami pathetic companies for all the sequelling they've done? Games might sell better through strength-of-license and long-running fandom, but games are only good games if they are--in fact--good. To people like us, that should be what's most important, ne?
(And just for reference, my favorite platformer so far this generation was Sly Cooper.
Just to ward of any bias cries.)MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
I was under the assumption that they actually lost the license.
Could be--I haven't followed the specifics. I have, however, seen comments about Traveller's Tales (or at least them through Universal Interactive) saying things to the effect of "the developer entrusted with the Crash Bandicoot" license and others that make me think it voluntary. (I've seen others talking about Naughty Dog having "let go" of the license previous to announcing their PS2 plans or showing anything of J&D.) Since I can't think of any reason for ND to let it go, or Sony to farm it out, I rather assume ND just didn't want to continue, and perhaps they and/or Sony didn't want to trust it to another 1st-party developer if it wasn't themselves, and figured there would be more profit from selling the licence instead.
Of the few comments that can be found on ND's site, it seems to indicate that as well. On their timeline, at 12-99: The staff takes a month to re-energize its creative batteries.......As CBR (Crash Bandicoot Racing) reaches Japanese consumers, Naughty Dog officially says farewell to the bandicoot. It's hard to say goodbye...especially since all four Crash games continue to sell well. But there might be more going on behind the scenes we never see. I just can't see Sony forcefully taking it away from them, or ND dropping the license unless they wanted to. ND would certainly be the best part to have continued to make more, and in that case it would sell more, and... how would that be a bad thing?
Perhaps there's a Q&A floating around somewhere that has more specifics.
Of the few comments that can be found on ND's site, it seems to indicate that as well. On their timeline, at 12-99: The staff takes a month to re-energize its creative batteries.......As CBR (Crash Bandicoot Racing) reaches Japanese consumers, Naughty Dog officially says farewell to the bandicoot. It's hard to say goodbye...especially since all four Crash games continue to sell well. But there might be more going on behind the scenes we never see. I just can't see Sony forcefully taking it away from them, or ND dropping the license unless they wanted to. ND would certainly be the best part to have continued to make more, and in that case it would sell more, and... how would that be a bad thing?
Perhaps there's a Q&A floating around somewhere that has more specifics.
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
Doesn't the license actually belong to Universal?
Now it does, since that's who they sold it to. But all the original games were developed by ND and sold by Sony, so...
Would make for a peculiar progress, then. But then why are there so many "Naughty Dog decided to sell the rights" comments, then? (And of UI "snapping it up?") If true it can't be THAT unknown that virtually every gaming periodical refers to it that way, could it? It sounds more like there's some general confusion to the matter, and not something addressed specifically one way or another. Mayhap other people can find appropriate comments out there somewhere. ^_^
AFAIK Its has been Univeral's IP since ND first signed the publishing deal, they effectively always owned it. ND signed with Universal, end of story, its fairly standard in these kind of contracts to sign over IP to the publisher but retain first refusal on sequels.
Seems they were (UI's logo is also on the old games), though it's funky to see one company go through a number of iterations and Sony have exclusivity rights for a long stretch. (Which I guess they couldn't maintain, but may not have been interested in if ND was off to other things. Hence they bought ND and didn't chase after Crash. Hehe...)
Still, I can't imagine they were forced out, as UI or Sony... who would they most want to make further Crash Bandicoot games? Still looks like they wanted to try going another direction, and UI didn't want to see the license sit inactive. (And there may have been multiple companies owning the rights, so ND might simply have sold "their share" over, which supports in a way all sides of it.)
Complex business though, so who knows? Heh...
Still, I can't imagine they were forced out, as UI or Sony... who would they most want to make further Crash Bandicoot games? Still looks like they wanted to try going another direction, and UI didn't want to see the license sit inactive. (And there may have been multiple companies owning the rights, so ND might simply have sold "their share" over, which supports in a way all sides of it.)
Complex business though, so who knows? Heh...
