Spiderman Exclusivity lack-of-fallout thread *spawn

[Shortbread]

If so many gamers weren't such 'fanboys' over a piece of silicon... worried about business practices (of making money)... and worrying about the lack of outrage from one camp over the other... then gaming would be so much better. I always wondered why any gamer (true gamer) would limited themselves to one platform, and then bitch about another platform having a game (exclusive or not) they can't have - yet in reality they can.

Personally I haven't purchased the XB1 yet, however when the next Gears is released later this year, I will be purchasing the XB1S on enjoying gaming... not this bandwagon of pity.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

wtf is DCUO?

Precisely. DC Universe Online. A non Sony superhero IP that was platform exclusive for years as it was developed by SOE. No-one cares, so there's no flack or excitement over the availability on XB1.

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

That's a game with expectations that was due to be multiplat and now potentially isn't.

Is that what Sony has done? Was Insomniac's game in the lime light and anticipated by PC and XB gamers only for Sony to swoop it away? No, the Spiderman game is just like Sunset Overdrive, only with a licensed protagonist. That's why there's no outrage.

 

[London Geezer]

Well, a lot of us only really have time and money for one platform. Especially now where each has its own subscription to pay, potential peripherals etc.

One platform is more than enough for most of us, the problem is how they feel the need to justify their purchase. But I think it happens on a lot of other things (phones, cars, clothes, any remotely 'fashionable' thing)

 

[Scott_Arm]

Precisely. DC Universe Online. A non Sony superhero IP that was platform exclusive for years as it was developed by SOE. No-one cares, so there's no flack or excitement over the availability on XB1.
That's a game with expectations that was due to be multiplat and now potentially isn't.

Is that what Sony has done? Was Insomniac's game in the lime light and anticipated by PC and XB gamers only for Sony to swoop it away? No, the Spiderman game is just like Sunset Overdrive, only with a licensed protagonist. That's why there's no outrage.

Your first point is correct. No one cares. This isn't an ethical or logical argument. Gamers were just pissed because tomb raider was a game they wanted. Purely emotional. If it was some kind of ethical thing, or about "doing the right thing", then people would be up in arms even for the games they don't want or care about.

I only posted the Oculus link because it's related to the topic. I honestly don't give a shit whether it's exclusive, time-exclusive, multi-vr or whatever.

 

[London Geezer]

Personally, yes I was a bit annoyed about Tomb Raider cause I enjoyed the last one so much. And so far I care very little about Spiderman - however Insomniac really surprised me with the last R&C so many they can make me love it.

I'd love a new Ryan Reynolds-voiced Deadpool game. I'd never stopped playing that.

 

[Phil]

Gamers were just pissed because tomb raider was a game they wanted.

Yes, because the Tomb Raider was always big on the PlayStation brand. Initial belief was that it was a life-time exclusive and under that premise it made absolutely no sense, especially given how the last games sold on both platforms. It was the same when Nintendo decided to take Resident Evil that was always a PlayStation associated franchise to Nintendo's console exclusively. The second factor that gave the Tomb Raider debate any substance was from a business and economical perspective. RotT kind of bombed on the Xbox and it is still left to be seen if and how many PlayStation fans they have alienated by doing that deal. Will they buy the game when it comes to our platform? Or will they have simply moved on? Or not buy it out of principality? We will see.

 

[London Geezer]

I find it a bit difficult to believe that gamers who would have bought the game on PS4 would be so 'offended' that they won't buy it at the end of the year.

We'll buy it, we'll enjoy it, next!

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes, because the Tomb Raider was always big on the PlayStation brand. Initial belief was that it was a life-time exclusive and under that premise it made absolutely no sense, especially given how the last games sold on both platforms. It was the same when Nintendo decided to take Resident Evil that was always a PlayStation associated franchise to Nintendo's console exclusively. The second factor that gave the Tomb Raider debate any substance was from a business and economical perspective. RotT kind of bombed on the Xbox and it is still left to be seen if and how many PlayStation fans they have alienated by doing that deal. Will they buy the game when it comes to our platform? Or will they have simply moved on? Or not buy it out of principality? We will see.

Ok, why do I care? Buy the game or don't. Rent it, borrow it, wait for the PS4 version. Whatever. People who want to play but refuse out of spite, I think that basically reaffirms my point about entitlement. But whatever. My opinion is no one had a "right" to be upset. They chose to be upset. That's their problem.

 

[Phil]

Ok, why do I care? Buy the game or don't. Rent it, borrow it, wait for the PS4 version. Whatever.

The publisher cares, and ultimately the developers. Tomb Raider has been a huge franchise but lost a lot of its value over the years due to rather bad games. The reboot was off to a very very solid start. A very solid game, one that brought the focus back to how great a Tomb Raider game is. Then the much anticipated sequel gets announced and bam, the megaton is that Microsoft secured some kind of exclusivity deal and that it would be coming to the platform that isn't owned by many of the fans that made the Tomb Raider the franchise it is today - that being the PlayStation and PC userbase. Sure, after a while, when it became apparent that it was only a timed-exclusive, emotions settled down. The outcry however was precisely because it seemed Microsoft had secured a life-time-exclusive.

Alienating your fans is never a good thing. It wasn't good for Capcom when they did it with Resident Evil and I'm quite certain it will not have been good (in the long run) when SquareEnix did it with Tomb Raider. Will people care? Sure they will. Times move on. By the time RotT launches on the PS4, it will no longer be a new and unique game. Expectations will have risen and not everyone will run out to be the first to play a game that has been on the market since a year and played by many already. Some will still buy it - me included - some will not, or will probably be playing other games on the horizon. This equals lost potential sales.

For all intends of purpose launching on PS4 and Xbox1 at the same time > Xbox1 in 2015 and on PS4 a year later with the whole exclusivity fan out lash equals more sales for the former scenario. Easily. Good if you don't care. You might however if studios fail to make the sales they aim for and close or don't produce those games anymore. Lots of developers and games have gone that way. A little bit of foresight and thinking 'outside the box' is appreciated.

 

[DrJay24]

RotTR was not just announced exclusive, it was known to be in development for the PS4. Exclusivity was bought well into development. Oh well last laugh and all that, XB1 games are not selling great, hence Insomniac running back to the PS4.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Gamers never learn

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But whatever. My opinion is no one had a "right" to be upset.

Upset is an emotion not tied to rights. If you are invested in something, it can upset you. If Wales beat England 3-0 tomorrow and you're a Wales fan, you'll be happy. If an avid England supporter, you'll be devastated*. If neither, it'll have no emotional impact.

* if you expect England to fail because they can be very crap, it'll be less emotional.

If you want something and don't get it, you generally get upset unless you have a very accepting philosophy (Bhuddism taking that to the extreme). People who played TR on PS3 and wanted a sequel and expected to get it on PS4 were upset because the expectation was not met. It doesn't matter about rights or wrongs or ethics; it's just how human beings are and where emotional energy exists to drive actions in an attempt to cause positive outcomes, only in a not-very-controlled-or-well-managed way.

No-one was wanting or expecting a Spiderman game on XB1 so this being platform exclusive on PS4 doesn't generate an emotional response. Nor does it particularly generate excitement for the PS4 userbase! People had every reason to expect TR on PS4 which is why it did generate a response.

 

[chris1515]

http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/16/j...-return-to-blockbuster-games-with-spider-man/

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-06-15-spider-man-leads-marvels-epic-new-console-strategy



It seems something has change and silent Buddha anger was justified and it is worse it is not for only one title. Spiderman is for the foreseeable future a Sony and Insomniac exclusivity. Not only for this episode.

The future of the Spider-Man console games is with Sony and Insomniac

 

[chris1515]

Summary:

• Jay's team is specifically focused on console-style games for Marvel. The mobile and social stuff is already hitting it out of the park, so his group is dedicated to making their console games great again.
• Insomniac/Sony's Spider-Man series will be the only console Spider-Man series going forward. They want to find excellent teams and then dedicate the IPs to them so they can focus on quality. That's not to say Spider-Man can't be in a cross-over game, but you won't see something like Activision console Spider-Man games coming out alongside these. Jay explicitly says "The future of the Spider-Man console games is with Sony and Insomniac."
• Movie tie-in games are over for Marvel. This is the same as their mobile strategy. All games will be given lengthy development cycles with all the budget they need and have no concerns about hitting a specific date tied to a movie/comic book/whatever. Marvel is very clear that developers cannot be rushed or underfunded if they're going to make great games.
• That said, Jay notes that on the mobile side, the games tend to have tie-in events when films or certain initiatives like Women of Marvel launch. He doesn't explicitly commit to this happening on the console side, since it probably varies a lot per game, but don't be super shocked if you have downloadable skins or DLC for a game when a movie or comic book initiative comes out, especially if it's a living product.
• When asked about whether Marvel's console games will have cross-overs and cameos like the films do, he states "The world's full of surprises. You never know."
• Jay notes that in the past, they used to take about 30% of console game opportunities that are presented to them. These days it's more like 10%.
• He's also clear that Marvel will only work with developers who they think will make excellent, top tier titles instead of just "good" games. So far their two publicly announced partners are Insomniac and Telltale. He speaks very fondly of the LEGO games, but IIRC that's run out of the mobile licensing division.
• Marvel will also only work with developers who are clearly very excited about the IP itself instead of just the IP's money making potential. He notes that he can usually tell within the first 30 seconds if someone is actually passionate about the IP in question.
• There's an implication that the publishing partner is also important to them. I imagine this is especially true for retail games.
• Jay mentions that the success of the films and the success of their top mobile games, along with the break away from the movie game model, has resulted in way more developers being interested in working with them. He mentions that developers have even gotten more open to the idea during his two year tenure as titles like Marvel: Contest of Champions have crossed $200 million.
• As for working with Insomniac specifically, Jay mentions that they're only 10 minutes away from the studio and 10 minutes away from Sony as well, so that they're in contact every day, which they think is very helpful for getting their new initiative going well. They also openly admit that Spider-Man is the most commercially successful superhero so they're more than happy to start with him.
• Jay notes they have several other console games in development that will be revealed over the upcoming years. I probably wouldn't expect an immediate impending announcement (beyond perhaps unveiling Telltale's game) since he wasn't teasing any more reveals soon.

No more movie tie in for Marvel Property and they will choose a developer and work with the developer on a character serie.

 

[DrJay24]

http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/16/j...-return-to-blockbuster-games-with-spider-man/

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-06-15-spider-man-leads-marvels-epic-new-console-strategy



It seems something has change and silent Buddha anger was justified and it is worse it is not for only one title. Spiderman is for the foreseeable future a Sony and Insomniac exclusivity. Not only for this episode.

It could be part of the deal. Sony gave movie control back to Marvel, they might get games in return.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[DrJay24]

Where is the outrage thread about the moneyhat exclusivity for Dead Rising 4?

Hypocrites!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's quite significant if true. How far could this go? Game Of Thrones exclusive to one platform, Star Wars exclusive to another? Although Spiderman games aren't major sellers, the idea of buying exclusivity of existing IPs is pretty distasteful. Exclusives should be home-grown.

I guess next step will be no Minecraft on Sony consoles.

 

[Shortbread]

It could be part of the deal. Sony gave movie control back to Marvel, they might get games in return.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Very much possible. Disney/Marvel can generate maybe 300m-1B (depending on how good the movie is) in worldwide ticket sales, another 60-100 million in DVD/Blu-ray sales and whatever millions in merchandising. And we're just talking one Spider-Man movie...

So, I'm pretty sure Sony (and counsel) and Disney/Marvel (and counsel) did the math or evaluation on trading/releasing/given-and-take on what would be more suitable and profitable within their respective camps. Disney/Marvel make a boatload on the Spider-Man movie franchise and Sony makes a boatload of cash on whatever Marvel characters Disney/Marvel swapped in return for Sony gaming needs. But yes, anything is possible...

 

[London Geezer]

I'd actually be very surprised if that conversation didn't happen!

Marvel were pretty desperate to take back Spider-Man and have him in the MCU.

If I were Sony, OF COURSE I'd have asked for anything I could ask for, including games. It would be completely retarded if they hadn't done that.

Now, does that mean that Marvel did buckle under the pressure? We'll know eventually. But to think that Sony didn't explore that possibility is extremely naive.

 

[Shortbread]

the idea of buying exclusivity of existing IPs is pretty distasteful.

This is business... and sometimes business practices suck. This is why being tied to one camp (one system) and fighting passionately about it is stupid. Gamer's miss-out on so much being pig headed because of nonsense...

Exclusives should be home-grown.

Does that include 2nd and 3rd party IPs that were purchased afterwards?

I guess next step will be no Minecraft on Sony consoles.

I would think that would hurt Microsoft more than Sony at this point in the game...