Yep. Since all those years they invested hundred of millions of dollars in the Spiderman franchise with their movies. I hope we can all agree they at least owned the right to use that font exclusively on their console.
Spiderman Exclusivity lack-of-fallout thread *spawn
- Thread starter Silent_Buddha
- Start date
Tomb Raider wasn't bad because of the exclusivity deal only, it was a bad deal because it was a sequel to a recently released multiplatform game, and it was announced first (at E3) everyone assumed it was a multiplat and then months later they revealed the exclusivity deal.
Think of it as if Insomniac revealed this Spiderman game and said nothing about Ps4 exclusivity, get everyone hyped about it, then months later "Sorry, only Ps4!". Lots of people not getting why the RotTR deal was one of the worst in terms of messaging to consumers, hopefully that helped.
Think of it as if Insomniac revealed this Spiderman game and said nothing about Ps4 exclusivity, get everyone hyped about it, then months later "Sorry, only Ps4!". Lots of people not getting why the RotTR deal was one of the worst in terms of messaging to consumers, hopefully that helped.
It's a big budget superhero game from Insomniac. That alone should be interesting.
Also: It's not a movie tie in at all.
It will be. Sony has the SpiderMan movie in production.
Spiderman isn't a franchise, it's an IP. This is a new game unrelated to any others. Marvel and Sony made a deal and Insomniac is the dev
How us this related to a sequel announced for the PS4 and then later money hatted to delay for a year? MS has plenty of exclusive 2nd party games, including Sunset Overdrive. Why does it matter that it is a Marvel IP or not?
Stop whining and trolling Sony threads, so predictable by now.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
How us this related to a sequel announced for the PS4 and then later money hatted to delay for a year? MS has plenty of exclusive 2nd party games, including Sunset Overdrive. Why does it matter that it is a Marvel IP or not?
Stop whining and trolling Sony threads, so predictable by now.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Sony/Columbia Pictures acquired the FILM rights for Spider-man in 1999, which is not the same as OWNING the property. Marvel still owns the rights for everything outside of movies. Though Activision did secure the exclusive rights to cinematic Spider-man(including TV) through next year. To say that Sony didn't pay for that platform exclusivity is hogwash.
Tommy McClain
trainplane
Newcomer
The Spider-Man deal is just business. That is all. If MS locks in the rights to an Avengers game exclusively or some other IP for 10 years, that's within their rights too. No problems there. This has been going on for ages.
LOL at the notion Sony never gets trashed for bad decisions, they walked the line for much of the PS360 generation they've be criticized from time to time in current generation too namely for not having enough titles out soon enough, too many delays, and some software not being all that good. That said MS rightly received lots of backlash early this time around for frankly shocking decisions but since have re-familiarized themselves with what made the 360 such a great platform. And BTW all the people complaining about the social backlash should consider just how bad XB1 would be if consumers and media hadn't been so vocal early on, it was that feedback which helped MS get back on track, if anything they've benefited from it.
Personally I hope we see MS get some AAA exclusives and pressure Sony to get more of their software out sooner and with better quality. Games like Gears and Halo aren't as common as what we see from Sony first parties but they are good enough to demand a response and I'm confident MS can produce more IPs which are genre defining and help move hardware. Hardware revisions, new IPs will get everyone more engaged more excited but we need both.
Personally I hope we see MS get some AAA exclusives and pressure Sony to get more of their software out sooner and with better quality. Games like Gears and Halo aren't as common as what we see from Sony first parties but they are good enough to demand a response and I'm confident MS can produce more IPs which are genre defining and help move hardware. Hardware revisions, new IPs will get everyone more engaged more excited but we need both.
Insomniac has confirmed that the game is in no way connected to the fiction of the movies. It's as much a movie tie in as Arkham Asylum was.
What entitlement? Tomb Raider was announced back at E3 without any information on exclusivity. How is that not a bad practice? Nobody cares about exclusive third party games, but you have to at least have a deal in place before announcing anything about the game. The reason people were mad about Tomb Raider was because they announced it months before the exclusivity deal. How is that so hard to understand?
Billy Idol
Legend
I wonder why Sony Bend didn't call the game:
The Last of Us: Days Gone
It borrows so much from this, would be much more interesting as a spin-off in the TLoU universe imo.
PS: meh for Sony making Days Gone PS exclusive...them money hatting. See, there is hate for Sony as well.
PPS: seriously, I would prefer that B3D people have a better memory. The comparable to TR case is SF5, and I moaned heavily and said that this is really bad from Sony. There are no double standards here at B3D, just people who drive their own agenda, independent of facts ;-)
The Last of Us: Days Gone
It borrows so much from this, would be much more interesting as a spin-off in the TLoU universe imo.
PS: meh for Sony making Days Gone PS exclusive...them money hatting. See, there is hate for Sony as well.
PPS: seriously, I would prefer that B3D people have a better memory. The comparable to TR case is SF5, and I moaned heavily and said that this is really bad from Sony. There are no double standards here at B3D, just people who drive their own agenda, independent of facts ;-)
Personally, couldn't care less about multiplayer in a game like Days Gone. This is a single player experience first and foremost, like TLoU, UC4 etc.
I think a new thread is required as we've gone OT too much (IMHO).
My 2p - RotTR was only going to be made off the back of the reboot being successful, and (obviously) the PlayStation brand had a lot to do with it's success. Then MS paid for a timed exclusive deal - wording it really badly to try and give the impression it was a full exclusive. Essentially they were desperately trying to combat and slow down the PS4 in any way it could. I think most of the hate was how unclear MS were being over the deal.
For Spiderman we've not had a game for ages, they don't sell overly well (from what I can tell) and Sony own the rights anyway...I am surprised it's exclusive but I don't see the comparison...as stated - apples to oranges.
Back OT, I too love zombies - the footage looked intense but could get tiresome, he seemed to have endless ammo and it seems the zombies were a one-hit kill. Could be interesting though and will likely buy it.
My 2p - RotTR was only going to be made off the back of the reboot being successful, and (obviously) the PlayStation brand had a lot to do with it's success. Then MS paid for a timed exclusive deal - wording it really badly to try and give the impression it was a full exclusive. Essentially they were desperately trying to combat and slow down the PS4 in any way it could. I think most of the hate was how unclear MS were being over the deal.
For Spiderman we've not had a game for ages, they don't sell overly well (from what I can tell) and Sony own the rights anyway...I am surprised it's exclusive but I don't see the comparison...as stated - apples to oranges.
Back OT, I too love zombies - the footage looked intense but could get tiresome, he seemed to have endless ammo and it seems the zombies were a one-hit kill. Could be interesting though and will likely buy it.
It's about expectations, not actions. TR was expected to come to all platforms as a sequel. That was stopped and people, having their expectations ended abruptly, reacted. Spiderman isn't expected - no-one really cares about a new Spiderman game in the same way as a sequel to a game they really liked - so the reaction is muted.
It's not about rational or irrational or fanboyism behaviour, but human psychology and what causes emotional reactions. It's about how people get emotionally involved in some situations and not in others even when they may look similar. Platform/brand can and may be a part of that at times, but it's wrong to attribute all reactions to that singular influence. And platform/brand influenced responses will be based on PR and how that company has managed to maintain a good positive image or not. So if MS does get extra stick for the same sort of actions as others, that'll be based on MS's practices or whatever in the past (or present) generating ill feeling that hasn't passed.
If people really want to make a discussion of this, they ought to open up a thread on brand perception and what events and actions are influencing it in order to gain understand. Although as this thread demonstrates, opinion and discussion would be so polarised it'll unlikely have any value. It's a lot easier to just call the other side crazy.
Is that based on the kid in Civil War? That could be a great SM movie and might make for a good game. SM on PS2 was quite entertaining as I remember.
Similar threads
- Locked
