DarthFeanor
Banned
Spider-Man is not an Avenger anyway.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rumor: Spider-man playable character in Marvel's Avengers exclusive to PS4 / PS5
- Thread starter Bryank75
- Start date
eastwood333
Banned
I really hope MS acquires WB Games Division and makes Batman/Superman exclusive to counter this shit. And according to Jez, MS has indeed put in a bid for them.
Last edited:
This is crap in more than one way.
Beyond the basic of locking the most popular superhero behind one console, it means that said hero isn't built for the base game.
So is he a late thought? Do you just play him through other people's missions? If not, does that mean you don't get the full story on Xbox, or does his story just matter so little that you can go without?
A lot of people are celebrating the idea of Spidey being PS exclusive... And that might actually ruin playing as him.
Also, the amount of people who want to confidently spread the nonsense that the character is owned by Sony is way too high. Disney own the TV and video game rights. That means Sony has probably paid for this to be exclusive.
Beyond the basic of locking the most popular superhero behind one console, it means that said hero isn't built for the base game.
So is he a late thought? Do you just play him through other people's missions? If not, does that mean you don't get the full story on Xbox, or does his story just matter so little that you can go without?
A lot of people are celebrating the idea of Spidey being PS exclusive... And that might actually ruin playing as him.
Also, the amount of people who want to confidently spread the nonsense that the character is owned by Sony is way too high. Disney own the TV and video game rights. That means Sony has probably paid for this to be exclusive.
ScarletSpider
Banned
.
Last edited:
NonPhixion
Member
Some of you kids saying Sony has the exclusive rights to Spider-Man in video games are so very wrong. He is literally on the cover of Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, and playable along with Venom, for the Nintendo Switch.
The Pleasure
Member
Xbox has stuff?
Hayabusabruh
Member
So How come I can play as the fuck face in Marvel vs Capcom on Xbox?
DarkBatman
Member
I'll never understand people like you.
Counter this shit? You want the problem you're criticising to get worse?
And you know there's nothing to counter, right? MS and Sony are both doing stuff like that.
MS went out publicly and called such exclusive deals "anti-gamer", but:
- Had several studio acquisitions
- Presented several "console launch exclusives", aka bought timed exclusives
- Even bought exclusive next-gen-release rights for YAKUZA 7, a series that was released for PS only for several year. Great that XBox gamers got the chance to play it as well, but MS had to throw more $$$ at them and be like "hey, release the PS4 version at our launch window, but the PS5 versions should release later. Because of MONEY".
So what's your point? What "shit should MS counter"? Their own shit?
Looks like they've been surfing the "stupid exclusive rights" wave pretty hard the last years...
Stilton Disco
Member
Well that would be a git move, but absolutely the right one to make from a licensing and revenue perspective.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
no there is uproar from Sony gamers more than xbox gamers in general
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
Always weird to see people happy about shit like this.
It doesn't add any value to your purchase. You would have gotten to play it regardless. The money they spent getting this deal would have been spent better elsewhere.
It doesn't add any value to your purchase. You would have gotten to play it regardless. The money they spent getting this deal would have been spent better elsewhere.
93xfan
Banned
True. Still disappointing.
FranXico
Member
Well, there are more Sony gamers than Xbox gamers to begin with.
Poor Xbox gamers, ever the oppressed victims, all they have left is to cheer whenever their beloved monopolist corporation buys out studios and publishers left and right, and whine when big bad Sony pays for DLC exclusive deals (often lasting a month or less).
anothertech
Member
Wow, it's true holy shit.
Lol the ppl downplaying the hell out of this game now.
Someone's hot and bothered haha dam
Lol the ppl downplaying the hell out of this game now.
Someone's hot and bothered haha dam
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
They do a lot more than that though
kretos
Banned
Sleepwalker
Member
I hope they add Craig as his replacement on the xbox version
Can you genuinely not see the difference between buying talented developers and funding their games, and paying for exclusivity deals?
One funds titles that wouldn't have been possible. The other adds nothing but a wall for the "others".
Everybody should be against this shit no matter who does it.
kretos
Banned
if you had no interest then how is it less now? how can be there less of something that doesn't exist
kretos
Banned
FranXico
Member
I absolutely agree, this shit is always bad.
I do hope you understand that buyouts have far more ramifications than timed exclusivity deals. In one case, partial content is delayed from release in a competing platform, while in the other, future complete games are entirely removed from the competing platform forever, unless there is a clause in the sale that enforces multiplatform releases - which is most likely what Notch included when he sold Mojang.
I mean, yeah?
In an ideal world everything would be on everything, but I don't see many people arguing Last of Us should be released on Xbox.
The inconvenience of a buyout in that regard is weighed out by the extra funding for that company, and for its presumed future proofing. Double Fine wouldn't have been going back to AAA titles if not for Microsoft buying them out. Not being able to play it on PlayStation is a small price to pay for the benefit of that game even existing.
I don't entirely like it, but the alternative is Double Fine not making AAA games or, worse, disappearing entirely.
Timed exclusivity takes something that everybody was going to have and just stops some people from gaining access. It's a bribe for multi-plat players and fodder for forum dwellers.
Not really the same thing.
FranXico
Member
It's not permanent. Removing a third-party developer is. Permanent impact is worse than temporary impact. There is no argument (like funding for developers that has no bearing to consumers) that trumps this simple fact.
Of course it's not the same thing, aggressive industry consolidation is much, much worse.
Last edited:
Boss Mog
Member
He is in the MCU though and this game is more based on MCU than anything else, they just cheaped out on likenesses is all.
Last edited:
This is such a weak argument. So you'd rather, say, Hellblade 2 just not exist than it be exclusive to one platform?
Game funding somehow doesn't impact consumers despite that being the thing that pays for our games, but industry consolidation... does, and we should be worried about it?
If there's one thing that annoys me about this forum, it's people arguing points they don't really believe in. You can't genuinely believe what you just wrote. You've got a bee in your bonnet about some title not being available on your console of choice and you've created a grand conspiracy to knock it. Just buy both consoles, man.
I'd love to see your posts when Insomniac was bought out. I'm sure you were equally against that?
Or did they already have a long history with Sony, so that's A-okay?
xrnzaaas
Member
FranXico
Member
I was not against Playground or Lionhead being bought before them either. They pretty much always worked with Microsoft before, so gamers were not impacted by those purchases.
So yes, long de-facto exclusive relationship makes it A-ok.
You got me, you think?
Last edited:
MastaKiiLA
Member
Sony controls the rights to the character. They get to decide where and when he gets used. It's as simple as that. It would be like if Master Chef was an exclusive character in an Xbox version of a multiplatform game. Would anyone even be surprised or care? That's how licensing works.
EDIT: I guess they only own the film rights, but I guess with Spiderman's association with the Avengers being through film, there might be some stipulation that requires Sony's approval. Seems a bit murky then.
EDIT: I guess they only own the film rights, but I guess with Spiderman's association with the Avengers being through film, there might be some stipulation that requires Sony's approval. Seems a bit murky then.
Last edited:
FranXico
Member
I hope you mean Warner.
Yes, a Warner buyout that makes third party multiplatform franchises become exclusive to one platform I am very much against. Both Sony or Microsoft.
+1 for not even reading my previous reply in full.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Gold Member
I would imagine that there would be a clause in any contract not allowing this. WB aren't about to lose millions of dollars from unsold games to Playstation owners. Let's not forget, a deal to buy WB games would come with the licence to use DC properties, but the DC IP would firmly remain with WB. They would still call the shots on where their characters are used and how.
Also, the Sony Spider-man deal was inked many, many years ago, at a time when Marvel were in serious financial trouble, and had zero bargaining power. If you want to blame anyone for letting this kind of stupidity happen, blame Stan Lee and the rest of the Marvel executives. The movie rights were given away for just $7 million dollars, and the game rights are also wrapped up in that - although it's all pretty murky on that front. Pretty sure no-one can use Spider-man in a video game without Sony's say so, though.
Last edited:
Fortuneelsewhere
Member
For the Xbox guys you’ll have Spider-Craig... he will basically do everything Spider-Man does but with VRS enabled..
Insert no needtobeupset.gif here..
joking guys. I think this deal will not happen
Last edited:
Yeah, I meant Warner, that's why I wrote Bluepoint.
Here's an Independent studio, the biggest and most respected remake/remaster/port studio, potentially the only of its kind. They've worked mostly with Sony, but their third party work is massively respected, especially Metal Gear.
I can tell from your consistent arguments that you'd be against locking a unique studio like that down so that they couldn't work their magic on future multi-plat titles. Because ultimately, consumers would suffer at such a move.
Right? Have I still got you?
Freeman
Banned
When asked about this Jim Ryan had on thing to say: "Why would anybody have an Xbox?"
Is this a GaaS? Disgusting, maybe that's why it looks so bad. What waste of time.Hey look, marketing rights for a GaaS game. I thought it was Game Pass that was going to push those types of games. Looks like they are being endorsed by Sony. Paging Mr.Freeman
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
or they just dont like it when it doesn't go there way and spit their dummy out more than xbox fans?because most people got PS4 and not an Xbox
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
so because there is more of you its acceptable to whinge about something? funny that how big was the whining over tomb raider?
Last edited:
FranXico
Member
"Mostly"
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluepoint_Games)
These guys are even closer to Sony than Insomniac.
Their last multi-platform title was done 9 years ago. The only Xbox exclusive port they ever worked on was Titanfall for the 360... 6 years ago.
If Sony bought them, it would not be a major loss. No major IPs, and the vast majority of their work has consistently already been done on Playstation.
Just like Playground Games... And again, I think their purchase by Microsoft made a lot of sense.
Last edited:
"Mostly"
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluepoint_Games)
These guys are even closer to Sony than Insomniac.
Their last multi-platform title was done 9 years ago. The only Xbox exclusive port they ever worked on was Titanfall for the 360... 6 years ago.
If Sony bought them, it would not be a major loss. No major IPs, and the vast majority of their work has consistently already been done on Playstation.
Sony okay locking down unique studio for reasons. Microsoft not okay locking down struggling studio for different reasons.
Let's skip a few minutes of you playing dumb. What's your excuse for why Silent Hill is okay to become a PlayStation exclusive?
faisalasif
Member
I was think to buy this game on steam now OP changed my mind , if it is true I'm going to buy for Ps4.
digoutyoursoul
Member
I remember Metro(Game Central) calling out Jim Ryan over this sort of stuff regarding Destiny.
The game looks a bit underwhelming imo , can’t be arsed with all that games as a service shit.
The game looks a bit underwhelming imo , can’t be arsed with all that games as a service shit.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Can't wait to see how dumb he looks going by the other character models. At least he is a man, so they won't have to make him ugly.
TimFL
Member
That‘s only partially true. Sony Pictures owns the movie rights (with them allowing Marvel to use the character in the MCU movies). They lost the rights to the merchandising of the character ages ago and the gaming license was owned by Activision (which has fully returned to Marvel too).Well Spider-Man both in film and video game form are owned by Sony atm so it kinda makes sense.
Let the meltdowns begin
They only ever had access to the movie license for movie tie-in games, which I assume is off the cards for a while now due to Spidey being heavily tied to the MCU.
Insomniac / Sony making the 2018 game was down to Marvel, they wanted a Sony AAA quality title and Sony gave Insomniac free reign over what character they want to adopt (which was Spider-Man).
I think that rumor is fake due to the facts stated above.
Source / disclaimer: I‘m a huge Spider-Man fan and have been following the licensing state for the character over the last 2 decades, hoping they‘d one day return fully to Marvel for MCU greatness.
A quick google should present you with all the easy to digest info you need to verify the info above.
FranXico
Member
There isn't any. I won't buy it.
Just like I didn't buy Street Fighter V.
And note how Sony PR used the same excuse of "game would have never come out" for SFV as MS PR repeatedly uses for buying out "struggling" studios.
They probably wanted an incentive to seduce the FGC and as we all saw, it didn't work.
It's very simple: I vote with my wallet. I didn't buy SFV, I didn't buy Destiny, I never buy COD.
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
It's not based on the MCU at all.
Similar threads
- Poll