Sony Lets Bloodborne Trademark Expire a Day Before Its Release

[A-D.]

The claims that "Sony helped with the development" don't sit right with me from could have developed the game themselves but they chose to take money from sony to make it an exclusive. And anyway if it is true and "Sony helped" and even sony cannot make the thing run at 60 then there is something seriously wrong with that console. But in reality its caped to 30 and from what i have seen from gameplay videos it takes all over the place ( disclaimer: this may have been the recording method, however videos from the same person on DS1 and 2 did not have the same issue).

Its all just coperate bull , sony did this to try and force people into buying a PS4, they did not do it out of the goodness of there heart to seen bloodborn made. Exclusives exist for no other reasons than to screw over the customer and make rich executives even richer fuck em. I am doing my part by not buying the console or the game.

I doubt From Software "could have developed the game themselves". Sony probably paid the development costs of Bloodborne in exchange for getting an exclusive, similar to the deal they cut with Capcom for Street Fighter 5. Demon's Souls was a PS3 exclusive for similar reasons. It's not an altruistic move, but neither is it a nefarious money grab. From Software is not a rich studio, and they were trying to double the size of the Souls team to support DS2 and Bloodborne at the same time. The upfront money to hire developers and marketers has to come from somewhere, and Sony was willing to foot the bill because they need good exclusives.

Keep in mind also that the Souls series is known for having dodgy engine code and framerate issues in general. Blighttown had terrible performance too. This is why so many people are clamoring for a PC port: they know that the PC has enough raw power to make up for the game's other shortcomings. (To give them credit, the DS2 PC port was excellent.)

Firstly, Street Fighter 5 is not a Playstation exclusive, its also coming to PC. In short only the direct competitor consoles are left out. Secondly, the contract was signed either shortly before or shortly after the Artorias DLC was finished, so either before or during the PC release of the Prepare to Die Edition that ported DS1 to PC. That means at the time From did not even have the option to negotiate much of a deal, now they can because their potential market is bigger than whatever install-base the PS4 can provide. Sony knows this. Which is why they kept Demon's Souls back to begin with, it never was considered a system seller even when it was new, but they didnt allow a port because they knew that From could make more money than by whatever exclusive deal Sony offers, unless Sony actually goes deep into their pockets.

In short, if Bloodborne is never ported, there wont be a 2. Because simply put, Sony probably wont pay for the exclusive rights, timed exclusive maybe, but permanent? No. And if Sony does port it, then it will only happen 2-4 years down the line when Bloodborne stops selling PS4's.

 

[esserin]

The good thing about this is that it shows that "the last guardian" trademark issue wasn't because sony doesn't care anymore.

They were just screwing up in general.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Wow...so...lot of hostility in this thread, eh? I'm primarily a PC gamer these days and I don't even own a PS4 but damn, I can't believe how angry people are getting about the very concept of exclusives. I mean they're not exactly a new thing. Its basic marketing strategy for consoles; when did it become such a rage-worthy issue? Or is this specific to Bloodborne?

The good thing about this is that it shows that "the last guardian" trademark issue wasn't because sony doesn't care anymore.

They were just screwing up in general.

To be honest with the loss of their company attorney coupled with these two trademark issues it sounds like their legal departments is basically in total chaos. At a guess with the way things have gone recently it sounds like the former attorney was the only person who actually fully knew what was going on and since they're now no longer there nobody has a complete overview of everything that needs handling; so stuff keeps getting overlooked.

Its pretty farcical for a multinational corporation to make such simple legal mistakes.

 

[Gladion]

Which is why they kept Demon's Souls back to begin with, it never was considered a system seller even when it was new, but they didnt allow a port because they knew that From could make more money than by whatever exclusive deal Sony offers, unless Sony actually goes deep into their pockets.

In short, if Bloodborne is never ported, there wont be a 2. Because simply put, Sony probably wont pay for the exclusive rights, timed exclusive maybe, but permanent? No. And if Sony does port it, then it will only happen 2-4 years down the line when Bloodborne stops selling PS4's.

What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe you need to explain it a bit differently, but these claims are utterly pointless, from what it looks. Firstly, Demon's Souls was part of a two-way exclusivity deal From had with both Sony and Microsoft. Sony wanted Demon's Souls and Microsoft some shit Ninja QTE-fest that nobody cared for. The reason Sony "didn't allow a port" for Demon's Souls was, well, they paid for it to be a PS3 exclusive. What's the point of your argument? That Sony should have provided both the money and tech for From that made Demon's Souls possible in the first place and then pass up the benefits they negotiated in exchange for that money and tech before?

And anyhow, that didn't stop FS from making two sequels to Demon's Souls. Sure, the name'll be different, but is it really that important to you that the box says "Bloodborne 2" instead of "Goreborne" or whatever awful name they'll come up with next? It's not like the games are very heavy on plot and characters anyway. So your second point is really weird, too, because I don't see at all how a multiplatform sequel to Bloodborne is impossible to happen, just because Bloodborne is an exclusive.

 

[A-D.]

What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe you need to explain it a bit differently, but these claims are utterly pointless, from what it looks. Firstly, Demon's Souls was part of a two-way exclusivity deal From had with both Sony and Microsoft. Sony wanted Demon's Souls and Microsoft some shit Ninja QTE-fest that nobody cared for. The reason Sony "didn't allow a port" for Demon's Souls was, well, they paid for it to be a PS3 exclusive. What's the point of your argument? That Sony should have provided both the money and tech for From that made Demon's Souls possible in the first place and then pass up the benefits they negotiated in exchange for that money and tech before?

And anyhow, that didn't stop FS from making two sequels to Demon's Souls. Sure, the name'll be different, but is it really that important to you that the box says "Bloodborne 2" instead of "Goreborne" or whatever awful name they'll come up with next? It's not like the games are very heavy on plot and characters anyway. So your second point is really weird, too, because I don't see at all how a multiplatform sequel to Bloodborne is impossible to happen, just because Bloodborne is an exclusive.

How's that not make sense? Do you think Sony actually paid for exclusivity? Sure, they could have, we have no real way of knowing whether they did or not, but they made sure the IP was theirs, so From cant exactly do anything if Sony says no. Case in point Sony didnt allow Demon's Souls 2 to be made, even though From wanted to, the result being Dark Souls. My assumption is therefore that Sony didnt pay for exclusivity, but rather they pay to keep the IP, same endresult really because it means nobody can port anything because the IP is owned by Sony now, they cant even make a sequel without Sony's say-so.

Right now, just as with any potential Demon's Souls sequel or port it would be the same, Bloodborne cannot be ported or made a sequel of unless Sony says yes first, they paid to keep that IP in their pockets, not just to get one exclusive game. So if Bloodborne was to be ported, Sony must say yes first, they wont say yes for a while because right now Bloodborne sells their console, so its a system seller which they will keep for as long as it sells consoles, so if in 3-4 years it stops selling consoles, if not even sooner, then they might think about a port, or a sequel, either way. But the decision stays with Sony so a Xbox port is unlikely, same for WiiU, simply because those two are the direct competition in the console market, at least on the PC Sony could publish themselves and as such still get money from the IP, hence the slight possibility that it might actually happen.

 

[Gladion]

snip

I do have to ask the question what exactly you think exclusivity means? Because in your first sentence you question whether Sony paid for exclusivity, then in the next two you say that they paid "for the IP". That is exclusivity. If you're arguing whether we can't know if Sony actually had any part in the development of the game (even though that is not the defining feature of an exclusivity deal), then I can point at the credits of Demon's Souls. Aside from a couple producer credits (which could admittedly very well just mean "we paid for this"), Sony has a number of QA and "support" credits: technical, online, all that good stuff that needs expertise and/or manpower.

Also, From Software aren't a bunch of braindead idiots. If they could have gotten as far as they did with Demon's Souls without Sony's help AND were sure they would make more money without the deal with Sony... they wouldn't have made the deal with Sony. Meaning the IP is not theirs "now", it has always been theirs to begin with.

And again, even if Sony doesn't allow Bloodborne 2 (read: pay for it to happen, let's not forget that these types of AAA games still do need publisher money to even exist), which would of course be PS4 exclusive again, what's stopping FS from making one of those popular "spiritual sequels" with some other publisher?

Maybe I completelmy misunderstand you, but I really don't get it. Yes, Bloodborne won't get released on any other platform. Not ever. Because Sony owns the name. Do you want to add something to that or did you simply want to make that observation?

 

[A-D.]

snip

I do have to ask the question what exactly you think exclusivity means? Because in your first sentence you question whether Sony paid for exclusivity, then in the next two you say that they paid "for the IP". That is exclusivity. If you're arguing whether we can't know if Sony actually had any part in the development of the game (even though that is not the defining feature of an exclusivity deal), then I can point at the credits of Demon's Souls. Aside from a couple producer credits (which could admittedly very well just mean "we paid for this"), Sony has a number of QA and "support" credits: technical, online, all that good stuff that needs expertise and/or manpower.

Also, From Software aren't a bunch of braindead idiots. If they could have gotten as far as they did with Demon's Souls without Sony's help AND were sure they would make more money without the deal with Sony... they wouldn't have made the deal with Sony. Meaning the IP is not theirs "now", it has always been theirs to begin with.

And again, even if Sony doesn't allow Bloodborne 2 (read: pay for it to happen, let's not forget that these types of AAA games still do need publisher money to even exist), which would of course be PS4 exclusive again, what's stopping FS from making one of those popular "spiritual sequels" with some other publisher?

Maybe I completelmy misunderstand you, but I really don't get it. Yes, Bloodborne won't get released on any other platform. Not ever. Because Sony owns the name. Do you want to add something to that or did you simply want to make that observation?

The point is that exclusive has many different terms which sets them apart. For example Rise of the Tomb Raider is exclusive, but only for a time, hence the term Timed Exclusive, so it will appear on microsoft consoles first and everywhere else later. Then you have exclusive based on "I want this one game on my console", but owning the IP directly is again a little different. Basicly the difference is mainly in whether only one title is exclusive, or any titles in that series are. For example Bandai Namco published both Dark Souls titles, correct? But does Bandai now own the IP? Not really because FromSoft actually self-published in japan, so that means Dark Souls is theirs. It gets a bit convoluted as it were.

I also never made the argument that Sony only acquired the rights to Demon's Souls afterwards, they most likely got contracted, or went to Sony and Sony essentially offered to publish it and money to make it in return for ownership of the IP. The same is true for Bloodborne now. However seeing as the PC is essentially a free-for-all device, Sony could publish titles on the PC if they so choose, however this wont be for a long while as right now it sells their console, which obviously gives them alot more money. But as said once that becomes less, they would either ask for a sequel, which From can negotiate over given they now know how big their potential market is (Reminder, Bloodborne was started after Artorias DLC), or Sony could allow a port provided they remain publisher as they would still gain revenue from this, albeit less than if people bought a PS4 for it, but if nobody buys them for it, then there is really no consideration in that regard.

So in short, the only possible port that Sony would most likely allow, which by default is a very slim chance to begin with, is to PC as Sony can publish the title there without having to make a direct deal with anyone. Furthermore any future Bloodborne installments will most likely have to be renegotiated over, granted Sony owns the IP but whether FromSoft will work on a sequel to it would be questionable unless Sony would be willing to pay alot more to get it made, after all FromSoft could instead work on a Title which reaches all of their market, not just 1/3rd of it.

 

[CrystalShadow]

So could this open the door to a PC bloodborne? Or am i misunderstanding the concept of Trademark.

It would mean Sony would have to rebrand the product, and someone else could name their game BloodBorne.
If they somehow failed to reclaim it that is.


PC version will probably come once they push enough copies/figure out how to make it run at 60FPS on consoles("definitive edition").

Lol, you wish pc elitists xp its staying on consoles.

Since it IS a sony product and PC's are microsoft... Cough.

PC's aren't microsoft's territory. Valve holds dominion over the sacred PC lands.

But, yeah, bloodborne is unlikely to ever make it to PC :,(

Bwahahaha! XD uh, no, valve could die tomorrow and PC gaming would continue without much issue.
Kill windows (aka microsoft) and you kill about the last 20 to 25 years of PC gaming.
Without Windows, PC gaming collapses, because the alternatives are barely viable for gaming.

Steam OS might change that, but it's chances are kind of low.

Windows, DirectX and OpenGL are the primary components of PC gaming. Valve merely owns a popular distribution service. But that accounts for maybe at most 70% of PC games, while windows accounts for probably 99%, (including steam itself)

Face it. PC = Microsoft, and has done since about 1981. There's no obvious signs of that changing any time soon, in spite of some attempts at it...

 

[Rozalia1]

The point is that exclusive has many different terms which sets them apart. For example Rise of the Tomb Raider is exclusive, but only for a time, hence the term Timed Exclusive, so it will appear on microsoft consoles first and everywhere else later. Then you have exclusive based on "I want this one game on my console", but owning the IP directly is again a little different. Basicly the difference is mainly in whether only one title is exclusive, or any titles in that series are. For example Bandai Namco published both Dark Souls titles, correct? But does Bandai now own the IP? Not really because FromSoft actually self-published in japan, so that means Dark Souls is theirs. It gets a bit convoluted as it were.

I also never made the argument that Sony only acquired the rights to Demon's Souls afterwards, they most likely got contracted, or went to Sony and Sony essentially offered to publish it and money to make it in return for ownership of the IP. The same is true for Bloodborne now. However seeing as the PC is essentially a free-for-all device, Sony could publish titles on the PC if they so choose, however this wont be for a long while as right now it sells their console, which obviously gives them alot more money. But as said once that becomes less, they would either ask for a sequel, which From can negotiate over given they now know how big their potential market is (Reminder, Bloodborne was started after Artorias DLC), or Sony could allow a port provided they remain publisher as they would still gain revenue from this, albeit less than if people bought a PS4 for it, but if nobody buys them for it, then there is really no consideration in that regard.

So in short, the only possible port that Sony would most likely allow, which by default is a very slim chance to begin with, is to PC as Sony can publish the title there without having to make a direct deal with anyone. Furthermore any future Bloodborne installments will most likely have to be renegotiated over, granted Sony owns the IP but whether FromSoft will work on a sequel to it would be questionable unless Sony would be willing to pay alot more to get it made, after all FromSoft could instead work on a Title which reaches all of their market, not just 1/3rd of it.

I've been giving you time but you are clearly going nowhere with all this. Sony are not Microsoft and will not put this on PC even if it were to bomb

Second lost sales are an overhyped concept in cases like this. Platform overlap very much exists as much some would like to deny it and certain games sell better on certain platforms. Look at FF13 for example where the PS3 version just squashed the 360 version in sales... would the sales have been less overall if there was simply the PS3 version? No doubt however not all those 360 customers would have been "lost" as again overlap exists.
Now what sets Bloodborne apart from FF? Simply put what Sony offers makes up for any difference and its not simply a money thing... Bloodborne for example is being pushed as the first GOAT of the generation... you don't get a push like that if you're not being managed and promoted by one of the top guys in this business.

Now as for Bloodborne 2. From Software would be foolish to pass up such an opportunity if Sony wanted them to make it as the "Souls" games are money... but so what if they were to refuse. Sony has plenty of talent and they can always find some more out there to take up the gimmick.

Of course this would mean From Software would than be feuding with Sony's new guy, and their "souls" would be going head to head with Sony guy's "Souls" game. That alone garrantees a loss of sales for From Software, but even worse they will also be without a manager as skilled as Sony at their side to aid them in their matches.

 

[A-D.]

The point is that exclusive has many different terms which sets them apart. For example Rise of the Tomb Raider is exclusive, but only for a time, hence the term Timed Exclusive, so it will appear on microsoft consoles first and everywhere else later. Then you have exclusive based on "I want this one game on my console", but owning the IP directly is again a little different. Basicly the difference is mainly in whether only one title is exclusive, or any titles in that series are. For example Bandai Namco published both Dark Souls titles, correct? But does Bandai now own the IP? Not really because FromSoft actually self-published in japan, so that means Dark Souls is theirs. It gets a bit convoluted as it were.

I also never made the argument that Sony only acquired the rights to Demon's Souls afterwards, they most likely got contracted, or went to Sony and Sony essentially offered to publish it and money to make it in return for ownership of the IP. The same is true for Bloodborne now. However seeing as the PC is essentially a free-for-all device, Sony could publish titles on the PC if they so choose, however this wont be for a long while as right now it sells their console, which obviously gives them alot more money. But as said once that becomes less, they would either ask for a sequel, which From can negotiate over given they now know how big their potential market is (Reminder, Bloodborne was started after Artorias DLC), or Sony could allow a port provided they remain publisher as they would still gain revenue from this, albeit less than if people bought a PS4 for it, but if nobody buys them for it, then there is really no consideration in that regard.

So in short, the only possible port that Sony would most likely allow, which by default is a very slim chance to begin with, is to PC as Sony can publish the title there without having to make a direct deal with anyone. Furthermore any future Bloodborne installments will most likely have to be renegotiated over, granted Sony owns the IP but whether FromSoft will work on a sequel to it would be questionable unless Sony would be willing to pay alot more to get it made, after all FromSoft could instead work on a Title which reaches all of their market, not just 1/3rd of it.

I've been giving you time but you are clearly going nowhere with all this. Sony are not Microsoft and will not put this on PC even if it were to bomb

Second lost sales are an overhyped concept in cases like this. Platform overlap very much exists as much some would like to deny it and certain games sell better on certain platforms. Look at FF13 for example where the PS3 version just squashed the 360 version in sales... would the sales have been less overall if there was simply the PS3 version? No doubt however not all those 360 customers would have been "lost" as again overlap exists.
Now what sets Bloodborne apart from FF? Simply put what Sony offers makes up for any difference and its not simply a money thing... Bloodborne for example is being pushed as the first GOAT of the generation... you don't get a push like that if you're not being managed and promoted by one of the top guys in this business.

Now as for Bloodborne 2. From Software would be foolish to pass up such an opportunity if Sony wanted them to make it as the "Souls" games are money... but so what if they were to refuse. Sony has plenty of talent and they can always find some more out there to take up the gimmick.

Of course this would mean From Software would than be feuding with Sony's new guy, and their "souls" would be going head to head with Sony guy's "Souls" game. That alone garrantees a loss of sales for From Software, but even worse they will also be without a manager as skilled as Sony at their side to aid them in their matches.

First off, try to be less rude. "Oh i watched this from the sidelines and now im going to jump in to be a dickbag", not helping your case at all. Secondly, well DUH, of course Sony isnt Microsoft, but your argument is what? That sony would never put games on pc? Well there was this company called Sony Online Entertainment, im sure you heard of them. Im merely pointing out that if a port were to happen, which cant be 100% ruled out because Sony is smart enough to not make a statement either way just in case, even if we can assume that it is unlikely, said port would most likely be a PC port at best, as there is no reason to offer it to rival console platforms.

Further, what even are you arguing? I never said anything about lost sales, i specifically mentioned that From's potential market is bigger than PS4 only, i dont see how that would translate into lost sales when the specific intention on Sony's part is to sell more consoles because it is exclusive. Obviously there will be people who wont buy it because they arent going to spend 400 bucks or whatever just to play one game, true its a "lost sale" but to Sony it wouldnt matter because the intent isnt shipping units, its shipping consoles.

From could sell their game on their own at this point because nobody gives a shit that Sony publishes, they care that From develops. So even in the scenario you point out, if Sony contracted another company to make the Bloodborne 2, do you think people would care? They would look at it, see its not made by FromSoft and give it a pass. Thats the truth of the matter. People have favorite devs, not favorite publishers.

As for the argument that its one of Sony's flagship titles, well of course it is because they dont really have anything else to show at this point, there isnt really that much they can offer to make that console worthwhile, that being said however, if Bloodborne is the big title to show off their console's power, they really shot themselves in the foot considering that it still cant run at 60 fps, still cant manage proper 1080p, not to mention glitches and bugs out the ass.

Now that we went through all that, how about you actually argue the point i made rather than walking around the argument and going off on tangents which are barely related at all to what i said.

 

[Rozalia1]

First off, try to be less rude. "Oh i watched this from the sidelines and now im going to jump in to be a dickbag", not helping your case at all. Secondly, well DUH, of course Sony isnt Microsoft, but your argument is what? That sony would never put games on pc? Well there was this company called Sony Online Entertainment, im sure you heard of them. Im merely pointing out that if a port were to happen, which cant be 100% ruled out because Sony is smart enough to not make a statement either way just in case, even if we can assume that it is unlikely, said port would most likely be a PC port at best, as there is no reason to offer it to rival console platforms.

Further, what even are you arguing? I never said anything about lost sales, i specifically mentioned that From's potential market is bigger than PS4 only, i dont see how that would translate into lost sales when the specific intention on Sony's part is to sell more consoles because it is exclusive. Obviously there will be people who wont buy it because they arent going to spend 400 bucks or whatever just to play one game, true its a "lost sale" but to Sony it wouldnt matter because the intent isnt shipping units, its shipping consoles.

From could sell their game on their own at this point because nobody gives a shit that Sony publishes, they care that From develops. So even in the scenario you point out, if Sony contracted another company to make the Bloodborne 2, do you think people would care? They would look at it, see its not made by FromSoft and give it a pass. Thats the truth of the matter. People have favorite devs, not favorite publishers.

As for the argument that its one of Sony's flagship titles, well of course it is because they dont really have anything else to show at this point, there isnt really that much they can offer to make that console worthwhile, that being said however, if Bloodborne is the big title to show off their console's power, they really shot themselves in the foot considering that it still cant run at 60 fps, still cant manage proper 1080p, not to mention glitches and bugs out the ass.

Now that we went through all that, how about you actually argue the point i made rather than walking around the argument and going off on tangents which are barely related at all to what i said.

You were/are going nowhere as what you're saying is tired IGC nonsense.
First putting MMOs and the like on PC proves nothing, secondly Sony is smart enough to know like Nintendo what the power of a brand means by not cashing in constantly, thirdly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daybreak_Game_Company. So try again.

These "lost sales" you speak of (you are) won't make Sony put it on another platform not now, not in 3 years.

Hehehe you have no idea what you're talking about. First there is the head to head matter that will likely cannibalize a good part of their sales on the playstation platform as Sony's angle would be Demon Souls - Bloodborne - new game. It'd mean whoever takes up the gimmick for them would instantly be credible (SCE Japan Studio would be the best choice) and not seen as false outside the few folk on the internet that matter all of zero.
Than in the actual battle its actually irrelevant if From Software can actually pull more sales over their rival... look at Infamous vs Prototype for example. Which one is still performing today?

Still cant manage proper 1080p/60 frames oh boy haven't heard that one before. http://uk.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

I address your points, perhaps you just didn't understand. No insult, merely I can be hard to grasp at times.