I disagree with that because optically this will be irrelevant for most people. It's a LEGO game. My kids love the LEGO games. They don't give a rat's ass about the things we're arguing about in this thread.
That's great for your kids and I'm glad they will be enjoying the game regardless. But the reason I like discussing this stuff is because it informs me on the direction these companies are going in, and whether or not that direction is one I necessarily am in favor of.
But Sony...Sony
OWN the Horizon IP!!!
This is 100% their game. Or are you willing to say, Helldivers 2 is not their game? Because that's what Phil Spencer was trying to say months ago.
If he was wrong then, you're wrong now.
You missed the point. Read what I replied to. He referenced the suggestion that Sony "don't own it because of Lego" as mental gymnastics. So you explain to me how Sony "owns it" when its got Lego's name on it? Sony own's the Horizon part obviously, but they do not own the game in its entirety. Just like Sony doesn't own Spider-man or Wolverine.
And no, I didn't say anything at all about Sony being beholden to Lego. If you went and dug up a post where I said publishers decide where a game goes then seems clear that I was wrong. Not the first time.
There's definitely a lot of mental gymnastics in trying to frame this game as if it is something other than a Lego spinoff as well.
I dunno, man. The whole situation is just messy all around, and that's SIE's fault. I see this the same way I see stuff like Helldivers 2: whether it's a 1P studio making the game or not, SIE are the ones who own the IP rights. Or, half the IP rights in this game's case, since like you said, they don't own the LEGO IP.
But if this is in fact not a GAAS, and it's in fact releasing Day 1 on PC, then as far as I'm concerned, what was said at the investor's call on May 30th was a lie. Sure, LEGO Horizon itself may not be a "tentpole game" since it's a spinoff, but it's absolutely based on a tentpole SIE IP, it's non-GAAS (or at best has optional MP like Ghosts), and yet it's seemingly PC Day 1. So why would Herman say what he said at the investor's call?
Did they really think "tentpole" only meant games specifically made by their 1P internal teams? That it wouldn't mean that same game, or a spinoff of that IP, made by a 3P in collaboration with SIE, just because the 3P isn't an internal 1P team? If that's the case I think SIE have looked at this the wrong way.
As you know, every contract is different, you are dealing with different people over different situations, just because Sony and Marvel made an agreement to make Spider Man and Wolverine (and presumably X Men) exclusive to PS4/PS5/PS6 for X amount of time does not mean they'll get the exact same deal with Lego (especially as, for all we know, it's being developed by a third party). You can't compare the two.
So you think somehow, LEGO have leverage over SIE in a way even Disney & Marvel do not?
Sorry, I just don't buy that. And Spiderman is a much bigger IP than LEGO, so if anything Marvel would have the leverage to push Day 1 PC. Yet they haven't (at least, not yet).
Not like this matters much going forward; I can already feel whether pressured or not, SIE are moving towards Day 1 for all games to PC anyway. Just a matter of when. As someone who knows the power and benefits of genuine exclusives to a given platform, this is a shitty scenario playing out.
I genuinely don't think we're ever going to see the limit-pushing innovations of late PS2 or PS3 SIE ever again.