Sony makes Xbox 360 Ghostbusters game disappear

by James Ransom-Wiley { Jan 25th 2007 at 6:56PM }

That didn't take long. Zootfly has confirmed that Sony Pictures has had all references to Zootfly's Ghostbusters game removed from the Slovenian developer's website. The prototype game was being developed for Xbox 360. In addition, the video of the work-in-progress has been pulled from YouTube.

Columbia Pictures, which owns the Ghostbusters IP, was acquired by Sony in 1989. Zootfly is supposedly in negotiations with Sony for the rights to use the license. Interestingly, the studio has a very similar game in simultaneous development, TimeO. Perhaps this Ghostbusters fiasco -- dead in the water from the get-go -- is being used to draw attention to Zootfly's new IP, which may have had trouble generating press otherwise. Now that's hustlin'!

Tags: Ghostbusters, IP, Sony Pictures, SonyPictures, Zootfly

Related From Joystiq

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Arno @ Jan 25th 2007 7:01PM

Damn you Sony!

Gavin @ Jan 25th 2007 7:05PM

Yeah, damn you Sony for putting the kibosh on a game that was never going to have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being released for anything.

el chino @ Jan 26th 2007 12:34PM

A game about Ghostbusters. What is this 1990?

Borat @ Jan 25th 2007 11:07PM

Why do Sony Picture's games appear on non-Sony platforms? Wouldn't sony want some kind of synergy with its movie and music studios to help push the playstation brand? As in exclusive Spider-man 3 game tailored specifically to the PS3 strengths, or "Open Season", a Sony Pictures Animation movie, coming out only on PS2? Please somebody explain why these aren't exclusive to sony platforms. OK, Spider-man is a property of Marvel, but Open Season is Sony's and that's it.

Oh, and just to be a little of topic, I want a "Seinfeld" game exclusively for PS3.

kevinski @ Jan 25th 2007 7:15PM

Wow. Sony, how about focusing on important things, such as, oh, making your PlayStation 3 not suck? Thanks.

David "CheapyD" Abrams @ Jan 25th 2007 7:17PM

No such thing as bad publicity when you are trying to sell something.

firerock @ Jan 25th 2007 7:18PM

Is it me or Sony is trying really hard to piss everyone off?

Yogarine @ Jan 25th 2007 7:23PM

Why didn't they just develop it for PS3? :-(

trujunglist @ Jan 25th 2007 7:24PM

Anyone manage to save the footage of this before it was pulled? I'd like to see what this thing looks like.

Dapper Dan @ Jan 25th 2007 7:23PM

i love my 360, but damn, this could have been a great multi-platform game. even as gimmicky as the wii is to this would have been perfect for that! sucks that a japanese company controls the rights to an american classic. that is not a bash against japanese culture for anyone who be offened, as i thoroughly enjoy japanese culture.

Dapper Dan @ Jan 25th 2007 7:23PM

slight typo, i meant the wii is gimmicky to me

Virtua Fanboy @ Jan 25th 2007 7:31PM

Heh, that sucks but you can't lose what ya never had. I never looked at the footage so I'm not to disapointed. Sony makes two times the money if they let it go multiplatform though (crosses fingers for those who want the game). Oh ya and yay (not a big yay just yay) on another PS3 exclusive (UT2007) biting the dust. LOL

sanjay @ Jan 25th 2007 7:34PM

good move

Madboy @ Jan 25th 2007 7:35PM

Stop your crying. Sony owns the Ghostbuster series, if they dont want it on other platforms then they dont want it. I dont know why you all crying, while i admit Sony would make some more money if they were to have it multi platform. I think they rather have Ghostbuster as a PS3/PSP exclusive.

Pretty Obvious @ Jan 27th 2007 1:40PM

Uh, so why then are the Spiderman Movie games multiplatform? Marvel?

PT Cruiser @ Jan 25th 2007 7:46PM

I think the developers knew exactly what they were doing when they started developing a 360 game based on what is essentially a Sony-owned license. They put together a demo for Ghostbusters to create enormous buzz around an engine that they planned to develop a full, original game around instead.

You can't blame Sony for shutting it down...who in their right mind would allow their competitors to profit off their own properties? To expect a different outcome would be unreasonable. But hopefully we can get a real game out of this thing.

Tadioku @ Jan 25th 2007 7:49PM

whats wrong with Sony if they don't want their movie making a profit for their competitor NOTHING AT ALL.

Ryan Renna @ Jan 25th 2007 7:57PM

For those defending Sony, explain too me why they released Spiderman on all consoles last gen then?

Bruce Wayne III @ Jan 25th 2007 7:59PM

To the people complaining: do you really mean it's okay to exploit intellectual property that belongs to a different company?

That developer is making plain stupid business decisions...

Kuyu @ Jan 25th 2007 8:02PM

Dear Sony,

Go die in a fire.

Regards,
Everyone

Gavin @ Jan 25th 2007 8:12PM

Dear Kuyu,

Stop being a moronic fanboy.

Regards,
Everyone

mike @ Jan 25th 2007 8:10PM

i got an idea lets nuke sony

Elroc @ Jan 25th 2007 8:13PM

"Why didn't they just develop it for PS3? :-("

Because the PS3 is harder to develop for and it would take longer and be delayed a lot of times, like most of their games are right now.

Killer Loki @ Jan 25th 2007 8:15PM

15. For those defending Sony, explain too me why they released Spiderman on all consoles last gen then?

Simple numbskull - Activision paid a license fee to Columbia Pictures (Sony) for the Spiderman brand - every studio does it. The problem with this Ghostbusters game was that Devs didn't bother to obtain a license, again from Columbia Pictures - and used copyrighted material in order to make their game. Let's see how many of you 360 owners would bitch and complain if someone decided to port Halo and Halo 2 on the PS3 and didn't bother to get permission from Microsoft to do it

MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Jan 25th 2007 8:30PM

@21

The SpiderMan movies were far from stellar hits, they were barely solid titles. Plus Sony had last generation in the bag already, so why would they care if it went multiplatform and their enemies have it?

Things are different now. Sony is in deep shit, and the potential of this game being a blockbuster hit was there, and it was exclusively for the enemy's system. Why would they allow such a thing?

On a lighter note: Sony put themselves in such a bad public relations situation that anything they do will cause controversy and skepticism.

JJ @ Jan 25th 2007 8:52PM

You're honestly gonna say that the spiderman games were bad?

Wow we must of played different games then since i feel the spiderman games were one of hte FEW move tie in games to brake the mold of lameness (Especially the last one spiderman 2).

Plus how would a game that is OWNED by Sony be exclusive to another system when the devs in question never obtained a license?

This is just hating on sony for pretty standard procedure.

I dont even get why there is an argument, i could of told you this was going to happen. It would be like Sony Pictures making a Halo movie without the consent of MS and without them getting a dime from it.

Not going to happen

MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Jan 25th 2007 9:03PM

"You're honestly gonna say that the spiderman games were bad?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension Read it, understand it, and think before you open your mouth.

I said the games were not stellar hits and system sellers. Stop putting words in my mouth.

crawli @ Jan 25th 2007 9:10PM

"Because the PS3 is harder to develop for and it would take longer and be delayed a lot of times, like most of their games are right now."

More like nobody gives a shit about PS3, nobody bought one, and a game on it won't sell anyway since there is no market.

Harlock @ Jan 25th 2007 9:12PM

* Yes it's true. Sony has no dick.

fightinfilipino @ Jan 25th 2007 9:38PM

i was gonna post something, but Harlock wins the thread.

gg Harlock, gg.

Game Artist @ Jan 25th 2007 9:39PM

Ironic that someone is posting a text page on reading comprehension...... then asking them to read and understand it. Kinda like having billboards for illiteracy help.

Diman @ Jan 25th 2007 9:44PM

Sony is a huge corporation, so what does this have to do with PS3? Some sad people, shit like this happens all the time.

shoop008 @ Jan 26th 2007 1:27AM

While both part of the same corporation, Sony Pictures is a different company than Sony Entertainment. I'm guessing that it might even be illegal for Sony to not give developers the option to develop licensed games for all systems. The reason this was taken down was because the developer never got permission to use it.

vaylen @ Jan 25th 2007 10:47PM

Just be thankful Sony doesn't change the deal further...

Spiderman, James Bond and Rocky can all be taken away from Microsoft at Sony's whim.

I guess Microsoft could always put the kibosh on that game that was being developed for the PS3 based on Mr. Paperclip.

Joe @ Jan 25th 2007 11:17PM

I love what vaylen said about James Bond if these games would only be on the PS Brand lots of people would be mad. Plus there are lots of different movies that are made from Sony and if they are at least on the PS brand and Sony gets a big pay they will allow them on another system. But this was to only be on the 360 so why would they allow that.

So say Halo was made into a movie by Sony and Sony said the Halo series would only be on the PS3 MS would be pissed. So clearly Sony is in the right.

Plus I think that Sony saw lots of people wanted this game so it will become a PS3 only game.

Aegies @ Jan 25th 2007 11:10PM

Easy there. Not getting rights to the IP doesn't mean we'll never play the game. It just means it won't be called Ghostbusters. Don't believe me? Anybody remember that Dawn of the Dead game we played last August? The one called Dead Rising? The one with a black box on the front of the box that said "THIS GAME WAS NOT DEVELOPED, APPROVED OR LICENSED BY THE OWNERS OR CREATORS OF GEORGE A. ROMERO'S DAWN OF THE DEADtm"?
It'll release. And good or bad, it will sell, because there's already buzz for it banking on nostalgia. So here's hoping it doesn't suck.

http://eat-sleep-game.com

samfish @ Jan 25th 2007 11:09PM

*puts another mark down for Sony in his Shit List*

thanks, Sony! Way to not recognize a good thing when you see it!

In fairness to what is fast becoming the Lousiest Company On Earth, though, I doubt this really bad anything to do with the PS3. As others have pointed out, Spider-Man movie games are multi-platform. Sony's music and movie departments have a good bit of detachment from the Mothership. This was more than likely the just as infuriating/irritating movie industry lawyer over-reaction.
If you want to blame anything, blame THEM...or giant companies gobbling each other up in the first place. THAT'S what made the Ghostbusters license such a clusterfuck.

Ninja Formally known as Jason @ Jan 25th 2007 11:10PM

"Sony, next time someone asks you if you want a good game on your system, you say YES!"

KnuxSonic @ Jan 26th 2007 11:43PM

Dear Sony,

Thank you for ruining everything, everywhere, all the time.

Thanks again,
-Humankind

Dr. John A. Vengeance @ Jan 26th 2007 1:17AM

You people are (mostly) idiots. Sony Pictures works almost completely independantly from SCEA/I. Shutting the game down has nothing to do with it being made for Xbox 360, and everything to do with Sony protecting their intellectual property by preventing more word from getting out about a game they either don't want made or want made under certain conditions (i.e., they want a ton of money for the license, and the footage may force them to "undersell" the license for fear of fan outcry).

Yes, it's ridiculous that Sony Pictures doesn't seem to want people to know about the game or compromise on a way to get the game made, but get your heads out of your collective asses. This has nothing to do with Playstation 3. End of story.

Also, bad move, Virtua Fanboy. That footage was sooooooo good.

anti-fanboy @ Jan 26th 2007 2:37AM

Sony doesn't own Spiderman. The last time I checked Spiderman was the property of Marvel not Sony. Sony only had the license to make a movie based off of a Marvel property. Activision had the right to make a licensed game based on a licensed movie. that is why it appeared on all platforms. Ghostbusters is own by Columbia which is a subsidary of Sony. Sony owns Columbia, Columbia owns Ghostbusters so Sony owns Ghostbusters.
Sony has other and more pressing issues other than who's making a game using one of their licences. Like how are they going to sell a system that is too expensive for the average consumer.

Steve @ Jan 26th 2007 2:50AM

" I think they rather have Ghostbuster as a PS3/PSP exclusive.

Posted at 7:35PM on Jan 25th 2007 by Madboy"

Unless the developer says screw you.

So rather than make some money off of the IP, Sony in it's panic to catch the 360, decides to step in now and have the game killed outright. Like someone else said of Dead Rising and it's connection to Dawn of the Dead, if I were this developer, I would be flipping Sony the bird and changing the name of my game and it's characters. Ghosts Rising or some such thing. That way we get what looks to be a promising game and Sony gets nothing but more egg on it's face. Motion control THAT.

DrXym @ Jan 26th 2007 7:00AM

I don't quite understand why people are complaining here. Sony holds copyright on Ghostbusters. This games company decided to use copyrighted clips & themes without permission. The clip got yanked.

Does anyone think that another studio or company would do any different?

Grunge @ Jan 26th 2007 7:23AM

Yeah, most of you people here are retarded and know nothing about intellectual property rights. Sony would have to be the stupidest company in the world to let someone make a game out of their IP without having permission (or contact of any kind, it seems). This isn't about Sony being evil, it's about Zootfly trying too desperately to get attention (Though TimeO does look pretty good).

Scythegpd @ Jan 26th 2007 7:44AM

This is hilarious and really highlights the stupidity of fanboys.
Sony loses tons of exclusives like Asassins Creed, Fatal Inertia, Grand Theft Auto, Virtua Fighter 5, Bladestorm, Resident Evil and rumoured to be losing Devil may Cry, Unreal Tournament and Metal gear Solid etc etc. What do you hear from xbots? "Woohoo, MS iz teh bomb, tehy roxxorz, goez MS!!one11!one!!"

Sony (pictures notheless, not even games) prevent a company from "making" a 360 game based on a license they havent even paid the LICENCING FEES for and what to the xbots have to say? Well refer Arno (1), kevinski (3), firerock (5), kuyu (17), crawli (25) and all the othe xbots who have to flock to every single PS3/Sony article and fling their bollocks.

Here's an idea, if your 360's are so great ... play them. They must be helluva boring if you're so threatened by the PS3 that you sideline them in order to troll the internet looking for ways to bash Sony and the PS3.

Morons.

KaneRobot @ Jan 26th 2007 5:04PM

WHO YA GON' CALL?

THE LAWYERS

Dukhat @ Jan 27th 2007 9:39PM

By the way, Microsoft cancelled the Dead Rising Sequel from PS3 by giving Capcom a crapload of money.

Every console manufacturer does it.

D @ Jan 26th 2007 11:48AM

I have to agree with Scythegpd. I think the majority of joystiq posters have proven once again why they they are the dumbest and ill informed community on the web. Try taking some business 101 courses before opening your mouth on intellectual property and licensing agreements.

Just because you bought an HDMI-less last generation console that looks like a lego set when you purchase all the add-ons, it's no reason to cry. If you get cold, don't forget you have that big brick of a power supply to keep yourself warm (that is if the latest MS updatee hasn't bricked your console).

Enjoy your reading of Copyright, Trademark and IP books and don't forget to post more movies on YouTube because you obviously have no clue on why something like that would be illegal.