Unusual Joint Trademark Filing Raises Questions
Both Sony Interactive Entertainment and California-based indie studio Giant Squid filed a joint European trademark for Sword of the Sea on October 7, 2025, according to documents discovered by Gematsu. The two companies are listed as co-owners of the trademark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, an unusual arrangement that has sparked immediate speculation about the nature of their relationship.
What makes this filing particularly intriguing is that Sword of the Sea, an atmospheric adventure game released on PlayStation 5 and PC on August 19, 2025, was neither published nor developed by Sony. While the game launched day-one on PlayStation Plus Game Catalog, Giant Squid remained an independent studio throughout development and release. The co-ownership of the trademark suggests something has changed, though exactly what remains unclear without official confirmation from either party.
Three Possible Scenarios
Industry observers have identified three plausible explanations for this joint trademark. The first and most conservative theory is that Sony simply acquired the intellectual property rights to Sword of the Sea while Giant Squid remains an independent studio. This would give PlayStation ownership of the franchise for potential sequels, adaptations, or expansions while allowing the developer to continue operating autonomously.
The second possibility is a full studio acquisition, with Sony bringing Giant Squid into PlayStation Studios as a first-party developer. This would follow the pattern of Sony acquiring creative independent studios that align with PlayStation’s focus on artistically ambitious, narrative-driven experiences. Giant Squid’s pedigree and proximity to existing PlayStation studios make this scenario plausible.
The third and perhaps most likely explanation is that this trademark simply reflects Sony’s existing financial stake in the game. Matt Nava, Giant Squid’s founder, has publicly stated that Sony’s funding and PlayStation Plus inclusion effectively saved Sword of the Sea from potential cancellation during its five-year development cycle. The joint trademark may formalize that financial relationship rather than indicating new acquisition activity.
| Scenario | What It Means | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| IP Acquisition | Sony owns Sword of the Sea IP, studio remains independent | Possible |
| Full Studio Acquisition | Giant Squid becomes PlayStation Studios first-party developer | Speculative |
| Existing Funding Arrangement | Trademark reflects Sony’s existing financial investment | Most Likely |
Push Square’s Take
Push Square, a prominent PlayStation news site, suggests the reality is probably less exciting than full acquisition. They note Sony invested heavily in Sword of the Sea’s development and that the trademark likely formalizes PlayStation’s existing financial stake rather than indicating new acquisition activity. However, they’ve reached out to both companies for clarification and will update when responses arrive.
How Sony Saved Sword of the Sea
Understanding Sony’s relationship with Giant Squid requires context about Sword of the Sea’s troubled development. The game spent five years in production, an unusually long cycle for an indie title that created significant financial pressure on the small studio. According to interviews with founder Matt Nava, Sony’s intervention came at a critical moment when the project’s future looked uncertain.
Nava told Games Industry in an August 2025 interview that Sony has a dedicated group inside the company that genuinely cares about the artistic aspect of gaming. This team provided funding that allowed Giant Squid to complete development and arranged for Sword of the Sea’s inclusion in PlayStation Plus Extra at launch. That day-one subscription inclusion gave the game immediate exposure to millions of potential players despite Giant Squid lacking resources for traditional marketing campaigns.
Nava expressed gratitude for Sony’s program supporting creative indie projects, calling it fantastic that such a powerful company maintains initiatives for artistically ambitious games. This relationship between Sony and Giant Squid mirrors PlayStation’s broader strategy of partnering with talented independent developers to create unique exclusive or console-exclusive experiences.
Giant Squid’s Impressive Pedigree
Giant Squid Studios was founded in March 2013 by former Thatgamecompany staff, most notably Matt Nava who served as art director on both Flower (2009) and Journey (2012). He was joined by lead designer Nicholas Clark and Journey composer Austin Wintory, creating a studio with serious creative credentials from one of gaming’s most respected independent developers.
Their debut title, Abzu, released in August 2016 as a spiritual successor to Journey featuring oceanic exploration instead of desert journeys. The game received critical acclaim for its art direction and musical score, with many reviewers noting the clear influence of Nava’s previous work while praising Abzu’s unique identity. The game launched on PlayStation 4 and PC before expanding to Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, and Amazon Luna.
Their second project, The Pathless, arrived in November 2020 published by Annapurna Interactive. This action-adventure game featuring archery and exploration launched as a PlayStation 5 launch title alongside PC, later expanding to other platforms. The Pathless further established Giant Squid’s reputation for creating visually stunning, mechanically unique experiences focused on movement and environmental storytelling.
Giant Squid’s Game Portfolio
- Abzu (2016) – Oceanic exploration adventure, published by 505 Games
- The Pathless (2020) – Archery-focused action-adventure, published by Annapurna Interactive
- Sword of the Sea (2025) – Hoverbike adventure with surfing mechanics, PS Plus launch
- All games critically acclaimed for art direction and atmosphere
- Team includes former Thatgamecompany developers
Sword of the Sea’s Critical Reception
Sword of the Sea launched to rave reviews in August 2025, with critics praising its unique traversal mechanics combining hoverbike riding with surfing-inspired movement. The game features a post-apocalyptic ocean world where players ride across vast desert-like landscapes searching for water and uncovering the mysteries of a drowned civilization.
Review scores placed it among 2025’s highest-rated indie releases, with particular praise for its art direction (naturally, given Nava’s pedigree), atmospheric storytelling, and fluid movement systems. The game’s availability on PlayStation Plus Extra from day one gave it immediate visibility among PlayStation’s subscription audience, though this also meant Giant Squid received different compensation than traditional sales revenue would provide.
Why Sony Might Want Giant Squid
If Sony did acquire Giant Squid fully, the rationale is straightforward. The studio creates exactly the kind of content PlayStation values – artistically ambitious, critically acclaimed, narrative-focused experiences that differentiate the platform from competitors. Giant Squid’s games don’t sell millions of copies, but they generate prestige and diversify PlayStation’s portfolio beyond blockbuster action titles.
The studio’s location in Santa Monica places them near several established PlayStation Studios including Santa Monica Studio (God of War), Naughty Dog, and others. This geographic proximity facilitates collaboration and resource sharing. Additionally, Giant Squid’s small team size (approximately 10-15 developers) means acquisition costs would be modest compared to Sony’s recent purchases of larger studios.
Most importantly, Giant Squid has proven track record of shipping polished, critically successful games on reasonable timelines. In an era where AAA development increasingly takes 5-7 years and costs hundreds of millions, having studios capable of delivering quality AA experiences in shorter cycles with smaller budgets has strategic value for platform holders managing release calendars.
Community Response Split
Reddit discussions on GamingLeaksAndRumours show divided opinions about potential acquisition. Some users argue Sony should establish a dedicated AA game division, with studios like Giant Squid producing mid-budget titles that release more frequently than blockbuster franchises. These projects would maintain PlayStation exclusivity while filling gaps between major releases.
Others question whether acquisition makes business sense for Sony, pointing to the company’s recent studio closures including Pixelopus and the downsizing of Japan Studio. Those closures suggested Sony was moving away from experimental, artistically focused projects that don’t generate massive commercial returns. Acquiring Giant Squid would seemingly contradict that strategy shift.
A third perspective notes that Sony’s XDEV publishing division already handles relationships with independent studios, fulfilling the role Japan Studio once served. Rather than acquiring these developers, Sony could continue partnering with them for specific projects while they remain independent, preserving their creative autonomy without the financial burden of full ownership.
The Japan Studio Comparison
Several Reddit commenters drew parallels to Japan Studio’s closure in 2021, suggesting Sony’s recent history with artistically ambitious but commercially modest projects doesn’t inspire confidence about Giant Squid’s potential future under PlayStation ownership. Japan Studio created beloved titles like Gravity Rush, Ape Escape, and Patapon, but most projects didn’t achieve blockbuster sales.
Sony restructured Japan Studio, spinning out Team Asobi (creators of Astro Bot) as an independent first-party studio while closing the main Japan Studio operations. The move suggested Sony wanted teams capable of creating innovative, critically successful games, but only if they could scale to larger audiences and revenue. Whether Giant Squid could meet those expectations if acquired remains debatable.
Waiting for Official Confirmation
Both Gematsu and Push Square have reached out to Sony Interactive Entertainment and Giant Squid for comment but haven’t received responses as of October 9, 2025. Companies typically don’t comment on acquisition rumors until deals are finalized, so silence doesn’t confirm or deny anything. If this is simply a trademark reflecting existing financial arrangements, clarification could come quickly. If acquisition discussions are ongoing, official announcements would wait until legal processes complete.
Trademark filings occasionally hint at unrevealed business relationships, but they’re not always indicators of major deals. The joint filing could reflect something as simple as Sony securing co-ownership rights as part of their funding agreement, ensuring they have input on how the Sword of the Sea IP is used in future projects, merchandise, or potential media adaptations.
FAQs
Did Sony acquire Giant Squid Studios?
Unknown. Sony and Giant Squid filed a joint trademark for Sword of the Sea, but neither company has confirmed whether this indicates a full studio acquisition, IP acquisition, or simply reflects existing financial arrangements.
Who is Giant Squid Studios?
Giant Squid is a Santa Monica-based indie developer founded in 2013 by former Thatgamecompany staff. They’ve created Abzu (2016), The Pathless (2020), and Sword of the Sea (2025), all critically acclaimed for artistic direction and atmospheric gameplay.
When was the joint trademark filed?
Both Sony Interactive Entertainment and Giant Squid filed the Sword of the Sea trademark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office on October 7, 2025. Gematsu discovered the filing on October 8.
What is Sword of the Sea?
Sword of the Sea is an atmospheric adventure game featuring hoverbike traversal mechanics. It released August 19, 2025, for PlayStation 5 and PC, launching day-one on PlayStation Plus Extra subscription service.
Did Sony fund Sword of the Sea’s development?
Yes, founder Matt Nava stated Sony’s funding and PlayStation Plus inclusion effectively saved the game during its challenging five-year development cycle. Sony invested significantly in the project.
Where is Giant Squid Studios located?
Giant Squid is based in Santa Monica, California, placing them near several PlayStation Studios including Santa Monica Studio (God of War) and Naughty Dog.
What other scenarios could explain the joint trademark?
Besides full studio acquisition, Sony might have acquired just the Sword of the Sea IP rights, or the trademark could simply formalize Sony’s existing financial stake in the game from their development funding.
Have Sony or Giant Squid commented on the trademark?
No, neither company has responded to media requests for comment as of October 9, 2025. Both Gematsu and Push Square have reached out but received no response yet.
Conclusion
The joint trademark filing between Sony and Giant Squid raises legitimate questions about their relationship, though jumping to acquisition conclusions may be premature. While the filing is unusual, it most likely formalizes Sony’s existing financial investment in Sword of the Sea rather than indicating a surprise studio purchase. Sony saved the game through funding and PlayStation Plus inclusion, so having co-ownership of the IP trademark makes business sense as protection for that investment. If Sony did acquire Giant Squid fully, it would align with PlayStation’s strategy of partnering with creatively ambitious independent studios, though recent closures like Pixelopus suggest the company is questioning whether artistically focused but commercially modest projects fit their current direction. The studio’s pedigree from Thatgamecompany alumni, track record of critically acclaimed releases, and Santa Monica location make them an attractive acquisition target if Sony wants to maintain a pipeline of AA creative projects between blockbuster releases. Until either company confirms what this trademark actually represents, speculation will continue, but the smart money suggests this reflects existing business arrangements rather than breaking acquisition news. If acquisition were happening, both parties would likely remain silent until deals finalize legally, so the lack of official comment tells us little either way.