Microsoft rumored to be buying...... [2020-04, 2020-07, 2020-11]

[eastmen]

And you haven't shown the contract that says people can't. You also state, "insomniac has the license," without any evidence there is a license beyond what we've actually been told, they were invited to make a game.

Does Sony have an exclusive license? Link?

Here's a PR announcement of Activision's long-term licensing deal from 2003 : https://investor.activision.com/new...marvel-enterprises-expand-alliance-and-extend

Can you furnish us with the same thing from either Marvel or Sony saying there's a video game licensing partnership?

I think people are very confused over the movie license which is independent. Sony secured the movie license in 1998. Activision secured the game license in 2003. The movie license currently resides with Sony and the game license has returned to Marvel.

I can simply point to the fact that there are no other spiderman titles out . I admit that i do not have the contract. However I doubt that sony would have used an ip that anyone had access too and with the success of the title you would expect tons of copy cats to produce more

I still don't see the distinction your trying to make.

Can you show me proof that MS would have an exclusive License to WB characters ?

Its odd that your trying to spin spiderman in such a positive way dispite it being on one platform but a hypothetical WB purchase by MS as such a negative. It could end up being the same exact type of deal and none of us would know


I'm not really confused on how things work here. If you have an IP you can license it out to one company or many. The more companies you license it out to that compete with each other the less valuable it is. For instance take the Marvel characters in theme parks. Marvel gave Universal a license for exclusive usage of the characters in theme parks east of the Mississippi river back in the 90s and we saw universal studios islands of adventures have a land based on marvel super heroes. Do you think Universal would have paid the same money for the license if Disney was also able to use the same ip in Walt Disney world just miles away from Islands of adventure ? Prudential used to license the Peanut characters. Do you think they would have paid the same money or even paid for it at all if Geico also did ?

Now look at the Flinstones. Miles labs used to make the vitamins that were then made by bayer. During the 90s Nestle was producing Flinstone push pops. This is two companies using the same IP but notice they are different types of items.

I'll ask again can you show me Spiderman on another console from a different company in the same time frame as the one on the ps4 by insomniac. If not can you explain why another company wouldn't produce a game with the same ip that is currently selling millions of units on playstation and is getting a sequel for the ps5. Again we have zero proof the contract is as you say it is and frankly i find it doubtful that Sony would get a non exclusive license for such an ip

 

[smithg]

What your saying is Insomniac did such a good job, Marvel won't want to move the franchise. That has nothing to do with Sony's business manoeuvres then. In Marvel want to keep SM PS exclusives, that's on them. But that's a completely different proposition to a console company buying rights to a franchise to force its exclusivity to their platform which is what you've been implying Sony have done.

Im not trying to blame anyone for anything. I think exclusivity is a natural and acceptable component in this industry, but we don’t need to get into that argument. I’m just pointing out that this circumstance, regardless of whose “fault” it is, is tantamount to an exclusivity deal. Even if it stops after Mile Morales (which I highly doubt), it has already been that way for 4-5 years. Marvel would have been silly to approach another developer in 2016 to simultaneously develop an additional Spider-Man game.

The whole point I’m making, and I think others as well, is that the supposed “damage” that a Batman exclusivity deal would do has already been done via Spider-Man in the last couple of years, and will likely continue. I don’t see many Sony fans petitioning for Spider-Man to be released on XBox out of some moral principal, and personally I don’t think there’s any reason to.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Can you show me proof that MS would have an exclusive License to WB characters ?

Of course not because at this point it's a hypothetical discussion. I highly doubt MS would get exclusive rights to all DCU video games even if they did buy WB's game studios. However, in the case that they do, if that happens, it'll be very different to Sony getting one or two platform exclusives on loan, which was Inuhanyou's point that you aren't seeing and which I'm trying to explain.

Its odd that your trying to spin spiderman in such a positive way dispite it being on one platform but a hypothetical WB purchase by MS as such a negative. It could end up being the same exact type of deal and none of us would know

I'm not spinning it. I've already said I think the platform exclusivity of SM a bad thing for gamers and SM fans. I'm trying to explain the distinction between a console company licensing from a parent company for a game or three, and a console company buying those rights outright and securing exclusivity (options) in perpetuity.

I'll ask again can you show me Spiderman on another console from a different company in the same time frame as the one on the ps4 by insomniac.

[Of course not as none exists, but that doesn't mean Sony have an exclusivity deal. There are lots of reasons why no-one else has a SM game out, not least the fact that SM's success was only apparent in 2018, when it released. How long would it take to make a new SM game on another machine? Which studios would want to? How many studios are available and not already entrenched in their current projects? How long would it take to reach a deal with Marvel?

Furthermore, that's on Marvel. If Marvel decline other games because they want the industry focussing on one title at a time, that's on them.

The idea that 'if other developers could make SM games, they would' isn't founded on anything realistic and isn't proof of anything. OTOH we have real information saying Marvel have the rightss and Marvel started the deal, so why ignore that real information in light of an unrealistic hypothetical licensing deal?

Again we have zero proof the contract is as you say it is and frankly i find it doubtful that Sony would get a non exclusive license for such an ip

Why? And why would Sony spend big bucks securing a deal without telling their investors? And why does the origin story for the game tell us Marvel approached Sony who approached Insomniac who chose SM but not include information that then Sony secured a 10 year deal with Marvel for SM?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Im not trying to blame anyone for anything. I think exclusivity is a natural and acceptable component in this industry, but we don’t need to get into that argument. I’m just pointing out that this circumstance, regardless of whose “fault” it is, is tantamount to an exclusivity deal....

Fair enough, but this discussion stems from Inuhanyou expressing concerns over IP being bought up and a conversation arising as to whether that's different from what Sony did with SM or not.

As far as gamers getting isolated from games they want, it's no different a per title basis, but in terms of the potential impact, and in answering the question whether Sony's activities are the same or not, it is different, isn't it?

Sony buying Marvel and making all Marvel games PS exclusive is a very different scenario to Sony licensing Spider Man for a few years, isn't it?

Maybe at some point we'll get everyone agreeing a console company buying up rights to a whole creative universe is different to a console company licensing a franchise for a few titles and then get back to discussing what studios WB has and what this possible acquisition would mean for MS's talent pool, whether MS get exclusive game rights to the DCU or not.

 

[eastmen]

Of course not because at this point it's a hypothetical discussion. I highly doubt MS would get exclusive rights to all DCU video games even if they did buy WB's game studios. However, in the case that they do, if that happens, it'll be very different to Sony getting one or two platform exclusives on loan, which was Inuhanyou's point that you aren't seeing and which I'm trying to explain.

I'm not spinning it. I've already said I think the platform exclusivity of SM a bad thing for gamers and SM fans. I'm trying to explain the distinction between a console company licensing from a parent company for a game or three, and a console company buying those rights outright and securing exclusivity (options) in perpetuity.

[Of course not as none exists, but that doesn't mean Sony have an exclusivity deal. There are lots of reasons why no-one else has a SM game out, not least the fact that SM's success was only apparent in 2018, when it released. How long would it take to make a new SM game on another machine? Which studios would want to? How many studios are available and not already entrenched in their current projects? How long would it take to reach a deal with Marvel?

Furthermore, that's on Marvel. If Marvel decline other games because they want the industry focussing on one title at a time, that's on them.

The idea that 'if other developers could make SM games, they would' isn't founded on anything realistic and isn't proof of anything. OTOH we have real information saying Marvel have the rightss and Marvel started the deal, so why ignore that real information in light of an unrealistic hypothetical licensing deal?

Why? And why would Sony spend big bucks securing a deal without telling their investors? And why does the origin story for the game tell us Marvel approached Sony who approached Insomniac who chose SM but not include information that then Sony secured a 10 year deal with Marvel for SM?

1) I disagree. Looking at a structured deal what are the valuable parts of WB games ? You get established development teams yes and the second part is the IPS ? Some will transfer over easily like Mortal Kombat. The second type are DC character based. Injustice is a strong seller. So how would MS continue to sell it going forward ? What's the value. So I fully expect whatever company buy's WB games will get an exclusive IP license the question is for how many years and i would think that depends on what is in development and how far out those titles go

2) no one thinks MS is going to buy the IP rights to WB properties for ever. I don't see that happening. I could see whatever company buys WB gaming will get a limited time exclusive ip deal that can be extended further as I've already said multiple times. Maybe right of refusal or an opportunity to match any new bids when the original deal is done

3) So if its on marvel because they offered sony the license wouldn't it be on WB then ? I still see no difference. Why isn't the idea of developers making spiderman games because they can? That is what your putting forth with WB. Hey guys The extremely sucessful studio behind the Batman games is making another one this time with the backing of MS hey this is a great time for our small team to license the ip and make a game for batman... Its not going to happen just like it wont happen for spiderman

4) why would it need to be told to investors ? Did investors get told the inner workings of the spiderman video game deal? I never got any information on it and i own about 300 shares (well 276 but close enough). Hell i own 30 shares of Disney and got a huge novel worth of information on the Fox deal i had to vote on.

The fact is that for Sony they are most likely paying a % per copy of spider man profits over to Marvel/ Disney

 

[Shifty Geezer]

4) why would it need to be told to investors ? Did investors get told the inner workings of the spiderman video game deal? I never got any information on it and i own about 300 shares (well 276 but close enough). Hell i own 30 shares of Disney and got a huge novel worth of information on the Fox deal i had to vote on.

Doesn't that kinda show you that if there was a big deal, shareholders would have been told about it?

I have not made any arguments at all about MS not publishing cross platform or any sort of possible future for DCU IPs. This isn't about the future of DC games. The only thing I've argued is that there is a difference between a console company buying another IP holding company to secure its IP in perpetuity versus licensing an IP from the holder for a couple of a exclusives. That's true regardless of the companies involved.

Sony buying DC and securing all future DC game IP would be different to Sony licensing a Batman game or VR Superman game.
MS buying Marvel would be different to MS licensing XMen for a number of games.
Nintendo buying Activision and securing all their IPs would be different to Nintnendo licensing COD for one NSW specific title.
Google buying WB Studios and securing all the DC game IP for Stadia is very different to Google licensing a five year Justice League exclusive option.

In the hypothetical scenario where MS obtains the DCU game IP, anything could happen. It could be they make cross-platform games. I've not debated the outcome at all, only the difference between a license and an IP acquisition.

Oh, and I've debated the assertion that Sony have some sort of license for SM exclusivity where there's really no evidence for it, no public announcements unlike the Activision one from 2003, no mention in any stories talking about the MCU film negotiations, no mention in the open discussion about how the game came into being, and now including your above observation that as a shareholder, you've not been told anything. There's as little evidence that Sony have a exclusivity deal as there is that I'm the Batman!

 

[eastmen]

Doesn't that kinda show you that if there was a big deal, shareholders would have been told about it?

I have not made any arguments at all about MS not publishing cross platform or any sort of possible future for DCU IPs. This isn't about the future of DC games. The only thing I've argued is that there is a difference between a console company buying another IP holding company to secure its IP in perpetuity versus licensing an IP from the holder for a couple of a exclusives. That's true regardless of the companies involved.

Sony buying DC and securing all future DC game IP would be different to Sony licensing a Batman game or VR Superman game.
MS buying Marvel would be different to MS licensing XMen for a number of games.
Nintendo buying Activision and securing all their IPs would be different to Nintnendo licensing COD for one NSW specific title.
Google buying WB Studios and securing all the DC game IP for Stadia is very different to Google licensing a five year Justice League exclusive option.

In the hypothetical scenario where MS obtains the DCU game IP, anything could happen. It could be they make cross-platform games. I've not debated the outcome at all, only the difference between a license and an IP acquisition.

Oh, and I've debated the assertion that Sony have some sort of license for SM exclusivity where there's really no evidence for it, no public announcements unlike the Activision one from 2003, no mention in any stories talking about the MCU film negotiations, no mention in the open discussion about how the game came into being, and now including your above observation that as a shareholder, you've not been told anything. There's as little evidence that Sony have a exclusivity deal as there is that I'm the Batman!

not really because the IP rights for Spiderman video games would be extremely small. Disney buying fox was 50B. I

Anyway we are just going to keep going back and forth on this. I get it , Spiderman console exclusive is okay because maybe some how someone might be able to make another spiderman game for the other consoles or pc but no one has . But Batman and WB properties being exclusive to xbox and PC is a horrible thing because Sony consoles and Nintendo consoles would loose out on the IP ?

i mean that sums up what your saying quite well. I don't agree with any of it and I laid out my reasons so unless new information comes out I'll leave this conversation with us just not agreeing

 

[Bickle2]

Of course not because at this point it's a hypothetical discussion. I highly doubt MS would get exclusive rights to all DCU video games even if they did buy WB's game studios. However, in the case that they do, if that happens, it'll be very different to Sony getting one or two platform exclusives on loan, which was Inuhanyou's point that you aren't seeing and which I'm trying to explain.

I'm not spinning it. I've already said I think the platform exclusivity of SM a bad thing for gamers and SM fans. I'm trying to explain the distinction between a console company licensing from a parent company for a game or three, and a console company buying those rights outright and securing exclusivity (options) in perpetuity.

[Of course not as none exists, but that doesn't mean Sony have an exclusivity deal. There are lots of reasons why no-one else has a SM game out, not least the fact that SM's success was only apparent in 2018, when it released. How long would it take to make a new SM game on another machine? Which studios would want to? How many studios are available and not already entrenched in their current projects? How long would it take to reach a deal with Marvel?

Furthermore, that's on Marvel. If Marvel decline other games because they want the industry focussing on one title at a time, that's on them.

The idea that 'if other developers could make SM games, they would' isn't founded on anything realistic and isn't proof of anything. OTOH we have real information saying Marvel have the rightss and Marvel started the deal, so why ignore that real information in light of an unrealistic hypothetical licensing deal?

Why? And why would Sony spend big bucks securing a deal without telling their investors? And why does the origin story for the game tell us Marvel approached Sony who approached Insomniac who chose SM but not include information that then Sony secured a 10 year deal with Marvel for SM?

No it says Marvel approaches Sony to make a Marvel game. That doesn't even hint at a licensing deal. Sure there's no concrete proof that there isn't a deal, but there's no concrete proof that there is, and there's plenty of logical suggestion that there isn't. eg. If Sony signed a licensing deal with Marvel, why is there no PR announcement? If Sony secured the rights to SM, why are we told that Marvel approached Sony approached Insomniac and it was Insomniac that chose Spider Man? In the light of the evidence that does exist, it's far more likely there's no such contract beyond what we've been told about.

If you want to prove otherwise, present something, anything, pointing to a licensing deal. Find us a PR statement. Find a Gamasutra article about some rumours. Anything at all. given a choice between no evidence and some convincing evidence, I'm going to side with the latter every single time.

Sony doesn’t develop multi platform titles until extremely recently. Sony did a deal across multiple divisions through Sony Pictures.

Marvel had just closed out Activision’s deal and needed a new partner. They also wanted a new game out for the reboot (didn’t work out).

Every piece of evidence fits this scenario. You just don’t want to accept it so unless we steal the contract you won’t believe it. Call Marvel tomorrow and try to license for a spider man Xbox game. See what they say,

 

[Silenti]

Marvel would have to find a studio that they believe can produce solid results for all platforms.
That's sort of the challenge here.
Insomniac was an obvious choice to do it, until they were bought.

Now.... looking at the play-field, I'm not sure who else would be willing to step up.

Any reason Insomniac couldn't do it? SIE San Deigo makes MLB The Show and it will be on the Xbox and Switch.

 

[eastmen]

Any reason Insomniac couldn't do it? SIE San Deigo makes MLB The Show and it will be on the Xbox and Switch.

I believe that only happened because of the MLB license renewal

 

[Shifty Geezer]

i mean that sums up what your saying quite well.

Not at all. That's just platform warring. I already summed up my argument in a platform agnostic way. Here you say:

I get it , Spiderman console exclusive is okay because maybe some how someone might be able to make another spiderman game for the other consoles or pc​

When I've already said it's not okay. Explicitly in response to you:

Its odd that your trying to spin spiderman in such a positive way dispite it being on one platform but a hypothetical WB purchase by MS as such a negative. It could end up being the same exact type of deal and none of us would know

I'm not spinning it. I've already said I think the platform exclusivity of SM a bad thing for gamers and SM fans​

I have stated it's not okay or good for a company to secure an exclusive, numerous times, but you keep throwing up this fake interpretation that I'm in support of Sony's SM exclusive for platform reasons.

My argument is platform agnostic. If you're going to agree to disagree, at least disagree with what I've said instead of what you imagine I've said:

A company licensing an IP in an exclusive title is a different situation to a company buying up the perpetual rights to that IP.

 

[BRiT]

Looks like the discussion is going in circles and not advancing at all. This seems like an opportune time for everyone to agree to disagree and move on. Can we leave it at that?

I dont think it's worth the effort when it's just a rumor that has no details to discuss. If it ever happens and we have the breakdown details, then we can look at that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Warner Brother's Game Studios

• Avalanche Software in Salt Lake City, Utah, founded in 1995, acquired and re-opened from The Walt Disney Company on January 24, 2017 after Disney Interactive Studios being closed in May 2016.[33]
• Monolith Productions in Kirkland, Washington, founded in 1994, acquired in 2004.
• NetherRealm Studios in Chicago, founded as Midway Games Chicago in 1988, acquired from Midway Games on July 27, 2009 and renamed in 2010.
• Rocksteady Studios in London, founded in 2004 and majority stake acquired in February 2010.
• TT Games in Knutsford, England, founded in 2005, acquired November 8, 2007.
  • Playdemic in Manchester, founded in 2010, acquired on February 8, 2017.[34]
  • Traveller's Tales in Knutsford, England, founded in 1989, reorganized as subsidiary of TT Games in 2005.
  • TT Animation
  • TT Fusion in Wilmslow, England, founded in 2005 as Embryonic Studios, reorganized as division by TT Games in 2007.
  • TT Games Publishing in Bristol, England, founded in 2003 as Giant Interactive Entertainment, reorganized as division as TT Games in 2005.
  • TT Odyssey in Brighton, founded in January 2018 as TT Games Brighton, renamed in March 2018.[37][38]
• WB Games Boston in Needham, Massachusetts, founded in 1994, acquired in 2010.
• WB Games Montréal in Montreal, founded in 2010.[21]
• WB Games New York in Troy, New York, founded in 2017.[39]
• WB Games San Diego in San Diego; founded in 2019.[40]
• WB Games San Francisco in San Francisco, founded in 2013.[41]

 

[Silenti]

I believe that only happened because of the MLB license renewal

Guess I should be more specific. IF the deal was for a single game, meaning it is time for a new license, then it would be in Marvel's best interest to want it on as many platforms as possible. The Show was offered only as an example of a game where it is licensed to Sony, and yet coming to other platforms as well on the insistence of the IP owners.

Meaning, I see no reason Insomniac cannot do it again, with Sony publishing, and Marvel insisting on it being released on all platforms.

 

[AzBat]

Warner Brother's Game Studios

• Avalanche Software in Salt Lake City, Utah, founded in 1995, acquired and re-opened from The Walt Disney Company on January 24, 2017 after Disney Interactive Studios being closed in May 2016.[33]
• Monolith Productions in Kirkland, Washington, founded in 1994, acquired in 2004.
• NetherRealm Studios in Chicago, founded as Midway Games Chicago in 1988, acquired from Midway Games on July 27, 2009 and renamed in 2010.
• Rocksteady Studios in London, founded in 2004 and majority stake acquired in February 2010.
• TT Games in Knutsford, England, founded in 2005, acquired November 8, 2007.
  • Playdemic in Manchester, founded in 2010, acquired on February 8, 2017.[34]
  • Traveller's Tales in Knutsford, England, founded in 1989, reorganized as subsidiary of TT Games in 2005.
  • TT Animation
  • TT Fusion in Wilmslow, England, founded in 2005 as Embryonic Studios, reorganized as division by TT Games in 2007.
  • TT Games Publishing in Bristol, England, founded in 2003 as Giant Interactive Entertainment, reorganized as division as TT Games in 2005.
  • TT Odyssey in Brighton, founded in January 2018 as TT Games Brighton, renamed in March 2018.[37][38]
• WB Games Boston in Needham, Massachusetts, founded in 1994, acquired in 2010.
• WB Games Montréal in Montreal, founded in 2010.[21]
• WB Games New York in Troy, New York, founded in 2017.[39]
• WB Games San Diego in San Diego; founded in 2019.[40]
• WB Games San Francisco in San Francisco, founded in 2013.[41]

I could see all those studios being sold piecemeal to multiple companies. Not sure where Microsoft has holes that need filling. Even though TT Games has probably the most lucrative IP(Lego games) I would be surprised if Microsoft was interested due to Minecraft. Avalanche with their Disney titles is another I don't see them interested in. Or maybe I'm wrong & they would be great studios to fill Game Pass up with? No idea. Anyway, the studios with most interest in are probably the Batman, Mortal Kombat, Harry Potter & Lord of the Rings franchises. That's a lot of studios with licensed IP. In fact, I'm not sure if any of them are original IP that started with WB other than Mortal Kombat? Will be interested to see how it gets divided up.

Tommy McClain

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What's the deal with TT and Lego? Is that a super long-term license or just an agreement? I doubt the individual game IPs are transferred with each studio.

The original article is talking about want to tackle a $150 billion debt, so we may be looking at big deals with big terms as there's no way for WB to make a dent on that amount from a simple sale. TBH that amount is so large, I don't see the value in a sell off. WB games must be very profitable as they capitalise on some very big brands. Selling off that income stream seems a bit daft.

 

[eastmen]

Guess I should be more specific. IF the deal was for a single game, meaning it is time for a new license, then it would be in Marvel's best interest to want it on as many platforms as possible. The Show was offered only as an example of a game where it is licensed to Sony, and yet coming to other platforms as well on the insistence of the IP owners.

Meaning, I see no reason Insomniac cannot do it again, with Sony publishing, and Marvel insisting on it being released on all platforms.

It depends on the deal. MLB games don't sell a lot anymore and I am sure for Sony it was not worth paying extra to keep it exclusive when they could port it and make more money. For something like Spider-man? Its a huge IP and while Disney may want it on more platforms if Sony guarantees cash up front to keep it only on PlayStation it could be a no brainer for them. Also its more than just cash in terms of Spider-man , its now a marquee title for Sony and they devoted a lot of time at thier event to what amounts to dlc for the game. The amount of marketing push that Sony is giving to the game itself can also be a factor in Disney keeping it exclusive to sony.

lets also not forget that out of all the IPs we can pick the Spiderman ip is insanely tangled up. Disney owns the comic rights and merch rights , sony owns the movie rights and I believe tv rights , and Disney again owns the video game rights that they license to Sony. But then Sony and Disney have a limited deal for Spiderman to be part of the MCU. So yea its a huge tangled web

 

[eastmen]

What's the deal with TT and Lego? Is that a super long-term license or just an agreement? I doubt the individual game IPs are transferred with each studio.

The original article is talking about want to tackle a $150 billion debt, so we may be looking at big deals with big terms as there's no way for WB to make a dent on that amount from a simple sale. TBH that amount is so large, I don't see the value in a sell off. WB games must be very profitable as they capitalise on some very big brands. Selling off that income stream seems a bit daft.

4B in upfront cash for development studios don't see that much. Also the IP license could just be for the games in development already and for any other IP license for sequels would be another multi year contract resulting in more money.

I think the $150b is in long term debt but a quick $4b in cash can allow them to keep from going into further debt while movie theaters and other revenue streams are closed. You also at the same time remove the operating costs for those studios. I wonder how many years it would take WB games to make $4b in profit for WB proper

Disney also did this. They had their own studios and then closed them in favor of licensing the franchises out. Its a simple revenue stream where they are paid either yearly or paid a portion of the profits on the games while investing nothing.

Now its interesting that you bring up Lego. MS with Minecraft and Lego could be a really interesting deal.

Getting all the lego games on game pass would make it a great value for families with younger kids. My nephews played those for many years before moving on to roblox and minecraft and then fortnite

 

[AzBat]

What's the deal with TT and Lego? Is that a super long-term license or just an agreement? I doubt the individual game IPs are transferred with each studio.

Found this on Wikipedia...

In 2003, The Lego Group's video game division, Lego Interactive, commenced plans to develop Lego Star Wars: The Video Game, based on the company's licensed Lego Star Wars toy sets.[1] They contracted Traveller's Tales to develop the game, though Lego soon stepped out of the video game industry.[1] Tom Stone and Jonathan Smith of Lego Interactive's senior management formed Giant Interactive, gaining the exclusive licence for Lego video games.[1] As work progressed, Traveller's Tales manager Jon Burton recognised the potential of the game and the Lego licence, and how effectively the two companies worked together.[1] Lego Star Wars was released in 2005 to positive reviews and strong sales, wherefore Traveller's Tales acquired Giant Interactive in April, forming TT Games.[1][2]

EDIT:

And this...

Lego Interactive (formerly Lego Media and later Lego Software) was the video game publishing division of The Lego Group.[53] The company was founded as Lego Media in 1996 and headquartered in London, England.[54] In February 1999, Lego Media announced their move into the girls' software industry, starting with Lego Friends.[55] Eventually, The Lego Group opted out of the video game business and Lego Interactive was shut down.[56] Former Lego Interactive staff opened Giant Interactive Entertainment, which later became part of TT Games.[56]

Tommy McClain

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Hmm, I'm none the wiser. Obviously TT are being allowed to make the games exclusively as a natural progression of that relationship, but if they are acquired, I guess Lego games will be up for grabs. There's nothing clearly in writing in those excerpts and there needn't be with things as they are and a good working understanding.