Spiderman Exclusivity lack-of-fallout thread *spawn

[Grall]

Can we break out the SF/TR/Spidey/Bayonetta/Whatever sidetrack and move it to the "are exclusives bad for gaming" thread perhaps, because it's kind of swamping the whole thread in addition to being off-topic and also a discussion which is really BORING.

Seriously. People have been repeating the same 2 arguments for like 50 posts now. Get. Fucking. Over. It. Already!

 

[London Geezer]

Woot! Got its own thread! Now you can all bitch about bias and exclusives, cause we know we have nothing more important to do in the world!

 

[goonergaz]

lol @ thread title!

 

[Phil]

How is this Spiderman game any different than any of the Ratchet & Clank games before it? Company buys/reserves the IP of an idea and game, is the publisher of it and chooses a developer to create it. This dev happens to be independent studio Insomniac. So what? It's not as if I'm particularly hyped about it either. How could I be? Other than knowing it's by Insomniac (that now focuses on 30fps games, ugh), there is no prequel of it, zero expectations, nothing. Don't tell me there are actual Xbox fans already camping outside a store to get this game because......... Sunset overdrive sold so well? RotT sold incredible? They both didn't. My god, and yes, for a long term Veteran, I really did expect more from Silent_Buddha for making a case of it.

And not as if it hasn't already been mentioned; but much of the Tomb Raider talk started because it wasn't clear what kind of exclusivity deal we were looking at. Most of the outrage had to do precisely because we were being sold the impression that it was a life-time-PC-Xbox exclusive deal. If it was known from day one on that it would be limited, the outrage would have been far smaller.

Sorry for stating the obvious.

 

[djskribbles]

Wait, was SF5 announced as a multiplatform and not console exclusive? Iirc it was announced as a console exclusive. If it wasn't, then it is just as bad as RotTR.

SFV was always PS4/PC AFAIK. As pointed out by messyman, Ono went to Sony because at the time MS wasn't open to cross-platform play.

But of course whenever the next exclusive gets announced, someone will bring it up again, along with Spider-Man and we'll have this shit show again.

 

[London Geezer]

1. Sony buys Spiderman for decades - one of the worlds most famous and most recognizable pop-culture icons, popular across all age groups and all demographics
2. Microsoft buys timed-exclusive rights to a single Tomb Raider game

2 is worse than 1 ... wtf?

First of all, I never said that one is worse than the other, so relax honey booboo.

Secondly, yes it is different. Whether you like it or not, whether you think that Sony doesn't get shit for exclusives while poor little MS does - this is also not true, they got a huge backlash for SF5, just not as bit as Tomb Raider because people simply care less about SF as a franchise these days.

Sony has owned the rights for Spiderman movies (and personally I think that has been shit for many years, as they really fucked up the latest ones) for a very long time. Just like Fox owns rights to Xmen and associated mutants etc etc.

That was a decision made eons ago that has affected the whole Marvel movie universe and now that Sony is producing a new movie (thank god, this time with Marvel Studios), they probably kept the rights to make a new game all for themselves.

Insomniac released Sunset Overdrive exclusively for Xbox. Backlash or not, it happened. These things happen.

How do you even quantify the backlash each exclusive gets, apart from anecdotal evidence from this or other forums? Number of fanboys bitching? Average fanboy bitching post per hour?

For the record, I think all third party exclusive are shit deals for the consumer. I can deal with first party, naturally, but so called 'buying' franchises is always a bit rubbish for gamers. However sometimes it's the only way to financially get a game done in the first place (see Bayonetta 2) so who are we to judge?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Why is it a joke post if I expect people to be consistent in their behavior?

Consistency on the internet?

 

[Rangers]

I find it interesting that there isn't the same backlash for Sony doing this as there was for Rise of the Tomb Raider where the exact same things were said. I'm not surprised, of course, double standards and all. But it's certainly quite interesting. Especially when none of the parties involved with the Spiderman game are in such a state that they require outside help in order to finish a Spiderman game.

Yup. Amusing. I always knew the only reason there was an outcry was because Microsoft were doing it. That if Sony had done it, there would be almost no complaints. And this just proves it.

For a franchise that has even more multi-platform history than Tomb Raider. Yup.

Regards,
SB

I thought SFV lack of backlash was a much more egregious case of what you're talking about than this...

Hell, something in my mind just assumed Spiderman games were Sony exclusive because they make the movies. So it didn't register at all. Also could be that while I have like 5% passing interest in Streetfighter games, I have 0% in Spiderman games.

 

[AzBat]

My only problem is people saying Sony owns Spider-Man. They don't. They only have rights to him in the movie. If the game isn't about the next movie & Activision isn't publishing it, then Sony had to buy exclusivity. Sony can't do as they please without approval from Marvel.

Tommy McClain

 

[chris1515]

My only problem is people saying Sony owns Spider-Man. They don't. They only have rights to him in the movie. If the game isn't about the next movie & Activision isn't publishing it, then Sony had to buy exclusivity. Sony can't do as they please without approval from Marvel.

Tommy McClain

It is a deal between Sony and Marvel, it is a compromise on Marvel side linked to the negociation between Sony Pictures and Marvel leading to Spiderman in Civil war and Marvel taking care of rebooting the franchise.

Next year every platform will have an Activision movie tie-in Spiderman game to play.

If Sony did nothing the Insomniac Spiderman game would not exist.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My only problem is people saying Sony owns Spider-Man. They don't. They only have rights to him in the movie. If the game isn't about the next movie & Activision isn't publishing it, then Sony had to buy exclusivity.

Why Activision? They lost rights to Marvel games 2 years ago. Sony don't own the rights to Spiderman games AFAIK but maybe that was part of the movie deal? I guess that's what a lot of people are assuming. If it can be shown Sony have bought exclusivity to make a game, there'd be some cause for minor outrage. That said, who else would make a game if Marvel aren't interested? Sony obviously have the movie tie-in to profit from, but they aren't going to make a cross-platform title. Would any other publisher feel inclined to acquire the gaming rights to the film?

 

[Phil]

If the game isn't about the next movie & Activision isn't publishing it, then Sony had to buy exclusivity.

Who says no one can't buy the rights to make another Spiderman game too? Sony is under no obligation to make their games multiplatform. This particular game is a Sony property, they have the rights to the films and they (I'm assuming) wanted a tie in to a game as well. They got the rights to do so and chose the developer Insomniac who was obviously interested to create this game. Where is the problem? Is there some unwritten rule in the universe that Spiderman belongs to everyone? This is just like Ratchet & Clank before it, with the exception that the character is Spiderman and not Ratchet.

 

[chris1515]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ac...r-man-movie-rights-through-2017/1100-6140524/

Activision has Spiderman game movie tie-in rights until 2017.

Everyone will play a Spiderman game next year PC or Xbox One player too.

 

[chris1515]

The Insomniac spiderman game has nothing to do with the movie at all, they said it to Geoff Keighley.

 

[Scott_Arm]

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?

It's really easy to understand. There was a game that people thought they were going to get, and then they weren't, so they got really mad and went all over the Internet writing bad things about it, even though companies buy up exclusives all the time. I'd call that entitlement. They hadn't paid for the game when it was "taken away" from them. It was still over a year from release. And even after they found out it was a timed exclusive, they still go around acting like it was this horrible horrible thing that happened to them, because they deserved to play it because they liked the first one.

Welcome to the world of business kids. You can't always get what you want. It's not shady, or immoral or unethical. I'd like to play Spiderman. Love the character, grew up with him. Insomniac makes great games. If I want to play it, I can go buy a PS4. That's how it is. I'm not mad or upset. That's how videogames have been forever. If Rise of the Tomb Raider was a true exclusive, fans could have gone out and bought a console to play it, or waited until Xbox One was cheap enough, or rented one, or borrowed one etc etc etc. Boo hoo.

 

[chris1515]

It's really easy to understand. There was a game that people thought they were going to get, and then they weren't, so they got really mad and went all over the Internet writing bad things about it, even though companies buy up exclusives all the time. I'd call that entitlement. They hadn't paid for the game when it was "taken away" from them. It was still over a year from release. And even after they found out it was a timed exclusive, they still go around acting like it was this horrible horrible thing that happened to them, because they deserved to play it because they liked the first one.

Welcome to the world of business kids. You can't always get what you want. It's not shady, or immoral or unethical. I'd like to play Spiderman. Love the character, grew up with him. Insomniac makes great games. If I want to play it, I can go buy a PS4. That's how it is. I'm not mad or upset. That's how videogames have been forever. If Rise of the Tomb Raider was a true exclusive, fans could have gone out and bought a console to play it, or waited until Xbox One was cheap enough, or rented one, or borrowed one etc etc etc. Boo hoo.

Not all Spiderman games are exclusive to PS4... If Sony have done nothing Insomniac spiderman games would not exist.

Next year everyone can play a Spiderman game.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Not all Spiderman games are exclusive to PS4... If Sony have done nothing Insomniac games Spiderman games will not exist.

Next year everyone can play a Spiderman game.

Ok ....

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sounds like a commissioned, independent 2nd party title, just using an 'open' IP then. Making it even less fuss worthy. Doubt anyone would be up in arms if MS commissioned a Marvel or DC hero game, or any other tie in for that matter. It'd be different if Insomniac had announced the game and it had a lot of interest (or more equivalently, was a sequel) and Sony secured the rights, but we're very far from that position.

How much outrage was there when Sony brought DCUO to PS3 in 2011? How much excitement is there now DCUO has come to XB1?

 

[Scott_Arm]

wtf is DCUO?

 

[Scott_Arm]

http://kotaku.com/oculus-rift-exclusivity-debate-heats-up-over-serious-sa-1781994500