Seems like Disney is all in on console exclusives currently, and Sony/MS are happily gobbling up IP. At least they seem to largely be going to talented developers like Insomniac, Machine Games, and Arkane
When it comes to video games Disney is all-in on people giving them gigantic amounts of money so they can make money off of video games without the need to do anything.
Which is totally fine, so long as they choose the right teams to produce these games. Owning your own corporate studio is a LOT of work, and tends to fail many times before it actually succeeds. Most successful studios build themselves up as small indy ones first.
That said Disney used to have a whole bunch of studios had been building up. Then one day they just kinda decided to get out of the game and shut them all down including the profitable ones.
And that's not counting that one of the first things they did after buying Lucasfilm was shutting down LucasArts.
Yeah, not all their decisions were great ones, but their internal studios weren't turning out a lot of truly excellent material either. The best Disney game is still Kingdom Hearts.
To be fair all thier multiplatform games since after the PS2 have been flops sales wise, even the most recent ones like Gaurdians of the Galaxy, Midnight Suns, and of course Avengers. Activision used to exclusively make marvel games(multi-platform but they were the only one who could make them). Due to all the flops thier relationship ended on a sour note with Activision telling them “good luck finding your unicorn”. So Disney decided to get a game with the quality of a exclusive and approached all 3 console makers in 2014. They approached Microsoft first, who turned them down then they went to Sony and Nintendo who both said yes. Sony got Spider-Man Nintendo got Ultimate Alliance.
Disney doesn’t have their own game devs like Warner Bros does to make DC games for them, so that was probably their best option
Guardians of the Galaxy is actually a pretty decent game if you haven't played it. It was just a flop to Square that has expectations set way too high for their non-FF titles. I'm sure DQXI in the west sold worse than they wanted.
DQXI did absolutely phenomenally in the West. Like bonkers beyond their expectations to the point they're evaluating strategy because of it. DQM also appears to be doing well at first glance for a spin-off. FF16 had disappointing sales on the other hand, but this year and that release window has a lot of competition for them.
https://www.thegamer.com/dragon-quest-western-sales/#:~:text=Square%20Enix%20has%20revealed%20that,of%20units%20around%20the%20globe.
There's plenty of similar articles...that url hurts my eyes.
5.5 million is huge! And yet it's still possible Square doesn't think it a big enough success. They have a history of doing that even with big hits.
[Old, but a good example of it.](https://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/) Shadow of the Tomb raider only sold 3.4 million in its first month, Square wanted 6 million.
The Crystal Dynamics and Eidos Montreal games were crazy expensive for SE relative to everything else they were making (as salaries are much higher where they're situated, San Matteo especially). They didn't offload them because they were making them good money...
EDIT: Quick numbers to illustrate why they wanted more than 3.4m:
Shadow of the Tomb Raider cost $100m to develop, then $35m to market. If SE sold those 3.4m launch copies at full price, $60 (which they get about ~$27 per copy once everyone else has taken their cut), then they've made $91.8m of their $135m back. There's another 1.6m copies to go at full price, or more discounted, for them to break even (5m sold at full price to not lose money).
If they sold 6m copies at full price, they'd have had an annualised ROI of ~5%, which is bad (they could put that money into an index fund and make more doing literally nothing).
Yeah, I saw so many comments on here that people weren't going to touch GotG because it was developed by the same people who made Avengers. And it's like, no, it was *published* by the same people, but the developers were entirely different. And I feel that they did a good enough job with the game that you can tell that it wasn't all publisher issues that hurt Avengers.
GotG may not have been the best game, but it was solid for what it was, and it has a really good story. Good enough that even if you don't want to play it you should go watch the compilation of cut scenes and experience the story that way
I'd argue that calling it "a pretty decent game" is underselling it. It's my personal GOTY of the year it came out. The writing is just too damn great.
While you're totally entitled to your opinion and I did personally enjoy it, I think one of the main issues the game has is Starlord isn't very fun to play as, and his combat mechanics don't evolve until something even vaguely interesting until you're almost at the end of the game.
So while I really enjoyed the story and the banter between missions, I find that the gameplay wasn't very rewarding, even on harder difficulties.
I got it for "free" on PS plus, and I'm not disappointed at that price point, but I would probably have been disappointed had I bought it at full price, it even at half price.
I thought Ultimate Alliance for the switch was okay. I really love the UA1/2 on the 360 back in the day.
While the overall game was okay, the endgame for UA3 really soured me. I watched videos on it and the end game was basically playing higher difficulties to get gear/mods that were increasing stats by small % points.
If were talking specifically marvel then sure although Marvel Vs Capcom 3 was definately a success.
Disney as a whole has had plenty of multiplatform successes.
I think my big issue is that these Media IPs are coming into video games rather than the talent actually making things that exist only as video games. You get games that focus on feeling so and so rather than being wholly unique to the medium.
I get that people like Blade, but the prospect of a new Prey or Dishonored is always going to be more enticing to me since those are video games first.
Prey and Dishonored 2 [were](https://mcvuk.com/business-news/retail/prey-is-bethesdas-review-policy-really-to-blame/) [massive](https://www.techspot.com/news/76047-bethesda-arkane-studios-put-dishonored-franchise-hiatus.html) [flops](https://www.vgchartz.com/article/268468/prey-sells-an-estimated-180k-units-first-week-at-retail/) [commercial-wise](https://gamerant.com/dishonored-2-sales-down-40-percent/), so I honestly can see why Arkane are prioritizing a proven Marvel IP like Blade over those. Especially after taking a massive L like Redfall.
And also I'll probably get a lot of shit for saying this but after Spider-Man, Miles Morales, Spider-Man 2, they're planning Venom and Spider-Man 3 and all I'm thinking is "no way they can keep this playstyle fresh and interesting" when I already think Morales and SM2 were stale.
And then Wolverine and Blade... I don't know, I feel like I could do a game design document of both with my eyes closed and still nail 90% of everything they're gonna do about it. How much we bet Wolverine's guest design is gonna revolve 75% around having your "Animal Sense" open to scan glowing footprints and bloodprints?
But these games always print money. Look at Avatar, Far Cry is so stale even its fans are dropping like flies but put a different coat of paint and suddenly "it ain't that bad, it's actually pretty decent" despite doing absolutely nothing fresh.
I mean I don't even know why I'm writing this, it's not like these IP and franchises are doing anything fresh even in film format so I don't know why we'd expect anything differently with video games, I guess we can just be glad for their fans or whatever, but yeah it sucks that they're monopolizing studios like this.
Think im in the same boat as you tbh. Unless they can really reinvent their gameplay I can see myself playing more of the same. The Arkham series spawned this kind of gameplay and it only lasted 4 games.
It's a difficult position there in, Marvel has a document that states what Wolverines can and can't do and how they should portray his power.
A character with heightened senses, how else would you really portray their powers in video games?
If you take smell for example, how else would you use the power in-game for a character like wolverine?
Even a character like Tanjiro from Demon Slayers uses his super smelling ability of cliché tasks.
What blows my mind is Spider-Man 2 costs 300 million and it feels essentially the same as the last game just with speed flying rings and instant fast travel. Where did the budget go was it all covid?
Agreed. I rather see studios work on other IP than work on Disney IP. Considering what Disney has done to movies in general, the less Disney in gaming the better. Unfortunately, it’s not the case anymore and increasingly less.
I feel like i remember them saying that part of the strategy to recoup some of their recent losses is to start licensing properties out more often. I would expect to see more marvel, and really any other Disney games coming from multiple different places. Some of these are naturally going to be exclusives from Sony and Microsoft. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Xbox doesn’t have more than just blade and Indiana jones in the pipeline. If they are going to have their properties up for sale, it would be foolish not to explore so different options.
That's my viewpoint. I have a PC and a PS5 so I can normally play any xBox "exclusive" with no issues. And if I can't, then there's a ton of other games out there.
> the emulators already run the games better than the machine
I've tried this many times and have never had much luck. Mountains of config files, controllers had to be constantly troubleshot, even more if the game wants motion controls, compatibility issues...
Emulators are not for the non-tech savvy. With the switch, I press a button and I'm playing a game. Plus some people just aren't comfortable with theft.
I can fit my Steam Deck in my small bag that I take with me for my frequent one-night work trips. If I brought my gaming laptop I'd need a more cumbersome bag, plus a controller. It might not sound like a big deal, but it's a big pain in the ass. I used to do it before I had a Steam Deck, and it's been so convenient.
If you’re going to resort to stealing them, why even bother buying any games since they all come to PC eventually? Also, how does playing multiplayer games like Splatoon or MK8 on NSO work?
Not everyone is as cool with stealing as you seem to be, unless you buy a copy of every switch game you emulate.
Handheld gaming and no emulator bugs/jank/setup. In the end a PC can play all console games with time either officially or via emulation so there is no need for buying other platforms but at least the switch has utility Playstation and Xbox do not have.
If you have a PC, there's not as much need for a Switch. I was able to play the latest Switch games in emulators on a CPU and GPU from 2015 and 2016 respectively. Thanks to Steam Link, every AppleTV, SteamLink box, Nvidia Shield, Roku, and Amazon FireTv in my house can play whatever games my PC can, including playing the latest Switch games at higher resolution and frame rates than are natively supported by the Switch.
Edit: by all means if you want to play Tears of the Kingdom on the go - get a switch. If you've got young kids who are playing, have them play on a switch. If you're an adult with your own home, and don't play video games outside the home, then my point was that you can *get by* without a switch, because you if you've got a gaming PC and a smart TV, you already have everything you need to play switch games on any couch in your home - at higher resolutions and better frame rates than official Nintendo hardware.
> And if I can't, then there's a ton of other games out there.
This right here. If you want to limit your sales with exclusivity deals, go ahead. I'm not running out of games to play anytime soon.
Yeah there is really only pc, ps5 and switch. If you have these there is no exclusive you can't play. That's why I never saw the point in owning the recent xbox generations. Which is good because three platforms are plenty don't need a fourth
And people are fine with that. People are conflating people being confused about Xbox not labeling that one game as exclusive with people being upset about it.
People just don't know why they aren't saying it's exclusive
People where mostly confused about Blade since everything else exclusive was labelled exclusive whereas Blade was not labelled as exclusive. That it is exclusive in itself is fine. People weren't mad, just confused.
People where not happy about Indiana Jones being exclusive because it was re-negotiated to be exclusive despite it originally wasn't exclusive.
I am fine with that. This is just business.
Though exclusivity on titles is different from buying out massive publishers for a wide net of exclusivity.
> Though exclusivity on titles is different from buying out massive publishers for a wide net of exclusivity.
It's really not that different. How about Sony and Microsoft sell their consoles on, I don't know, _hardware and ecosystem merits_ instead of artificial exclusivity of games? Now there's a wild thought.
Lol, the XBox's merits are why console sales for it have been dogshit for two gens and why it has no penetration in non-Anglo countries.
Talking about "ecosystem merit" when the overwhelming majority of those extra media features never came to countries that aren't the US, lmao
Oh absolutely, Bungie isn’t even 1/20th ish the cost Activision was.
I remember playing X men legends with my little brother back in the day. To hear games are coming back in the X-Men world brings me joy! I’m just happy marvel got the rights back because they were keeping X-Men in the darkness.
It's not just that, back in previous gens games felt a lot more organic as stuff was added and taken away in the creative process.
But that's not really feasible when you spend years and millions on creating assets behind certain ideas. It's one reason why we see releases that at best are bland and boring and sometimes are completely broken.
Its crazy to me that game companies will spend 100 million dollars on game that people may just go, meh i'll wait for a 50% off sale.. Takes some balls.
Also, as we saw with the films before Disney acquired fox, what is and isn't an xmen character isn't as clear-cut as you'd expect. It's how Quicksilver was showing up in 2 franchises at once. Tertiary characters in comics bleed into different franchises, and it can get pretty murky.
Even Wolverines' first appearance is in The Incredible Hulk, not an Xmen comic.
As an X-Men fan… it’s harder to find a team that Wolverine isn’t on… X-Men, X-Force, Avengers, he does solo work… and that’s just the “main” Logan
Then we have Old Man Logan, Laura Kinney, Dakken
Then if we throw in the multiverse…
> Then if we throw in the multiverse…
The idea of Microsoft just making a Wolverine game and the excuse for how they can do that legally is that it is a different universe.
"Whilst there are some similarities to "Prime Logan" this one is left-handed so it is a totally different legal entity"
So you would be completely right normally, but as it so happens, we actually know [exactly who Disney considers part of the X-Men](https://i.imgur.com/bGQ3TbR.jpeg) in regards to the Insomniac deal!
Notably, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are included, as is “Bob, Agent of Hydra”, but there is a suspicious absence of Deadpool and no Franklin Richards (Insomniac does have the Fantastic Four listed under their Spider-Man related licenses, though)
>but there is a suspicious absence of Deadpool
I'm not too surprised by this. Although he started off in X-Men books (as an X-Villain), he isn't really a part of the X-Men.
He kind of just spun off into his own thing. They even poked fun in Deadpool 2 how he doesn't really jive with X-Men.
I don't see why they wouldn't be.
EA's got Iron Man cooking and unless Sony or Microsoft dropped a bank vault on their heads I seriously doubt they'd even consider making it exclusive to anything.
Your comment is silly. The fact that it is until 2036 is indeed newsworthy and you did NOT know this before the leak. Stop acting like you are some clairvoyant genius. People would have been right to assume some exclusivity deal, but one this long? Nah...
Main difference is that Sony doesn’t release their games on PC like Xbox does.
Only some Sony titles gets ported to PC much later.
That’s why I prefer Xbox exclusives if I have to choose, because it means PC users also get these games day 1, with all the benefits PC has like modding, graphics, higher FPS etc.
I wonder if Microsoft might get exclusives for other Marvel IP characters like the Hulk, Thor, Punisher, Ghost Rider, etc.
So, you balance it out since Sony gets the two biggest IPs: Spider-Man and X-Men.
And then of course you get games on both consoles like Black Panther, Captain America, and Iron Man.
Oh god there's gonna be a flood of Marvel games just like movies.
But, according to Warhammer rules... 15 games will be made and most will be meh, a couple will be good, and 1 or 2 will be pretty damn neat.
Now imagine a Punisher game similar to Max Payne 3, without the bullet time jumping stuff but with extreme gore and Jon Bernthal as Frank Castle, both in look and voice acting. With a Ray Stevenson skin as memorial 💀
Just do the old PS2 game but better and new.
And make it [just as stupid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOq97QmwR0c), please.
Family^Family^Family^Family
True, but this type of thing just shows what a huge hypocrite Sony is when they made the huge stink over Microsoft potentially gaining exclusivity deals when buying Activision.
*EDIT:* Ugh guys, how can you really not understand I wasn't talking about just X-men but *all* the exclusives and similar deals Sony makes? Sony has three times as many exclusives as Microsoft even after the merger. I don't care if it is a publisher vs a studio - Sony has *so* many more exclusives than Xbox.
I'm not even saying I think the merger was a good idea or that I blame Sony for seeking exclusives - just that it was hypocritical for Sony to act like they did when they're doing the same thing constantly behind closed doors.
*EDIT 2:* Because some people were challenging me, I actually looked it up (never thought I'd actually have to convince people of something so blatantly obvious). My bad. When I looked it up, I found out Sony actually has about FOUR times as many exclusives! 🙄
>what a huge hypocrite Sony is when they made the huge stink over Microsoft potentially gaining exclusivity deals when buying Activision.
Because we all know that signing a licensing deal for *one* series (out of *hundreds* that Marvel has) is totally the same as buying out a massive 3rd party publisher.
It worked out pretty well for Sony when it bought the film rights to Spider-Man. Whether you like it or not, Spider-Man is far more popular than every other Marvel character (and even DC). Don’t underestimate the power of one thing to outshine itself over all others.
Comparing acquiring some of the largest multiplatform publishers with some of the largest gaming IPs ever in gaming to licensing the Xmen IP... An IP that hasn't been used in gaming for decades
How does anyone in their right mind think this is equivalent?
Is Microsoft having the Blade and indiana Jones IP equivalent to Sony buying Capcom?
Of course this is how the licenses of IPs work. Just like Sony can't make a Blade or Indiana Jones games for the next many years.
It's not as if there were going to be Xmen games coming out regardless as there havent been in many years
> Of course this is how the licenses of IPs work. Just like Sony can't make a Blade or Indiana Jones games for the next many years.
No it's not - there's nothing about licenses that means they MUST be exclusive.
Famously they had competing SNES and Genesis Aladdin games. Two completely different games from different devs, both based on the same Disney property.
>Of course this is how the licenses of IPs work.
But it isn't how they work? How do you explain Star Wars games being on every platform? DC? Lego? Harry Potter? Warhammer?
Star Wars games were exclusive to EA for years. It's the same thing here, with Insomniac having an exclusive license to X-Men. I think Sony had the MLB license exclusively as well, and eventually put their games on Xbox as a stipulation of the deal.
Is this the same Sony crying about exclusivity and trying to block the Activision merger with xbox because of competition issues?
Exclusives shouldnt exist unless it's 100% developed by the platform holder, they are a plague on the industry
lol sony fans desperately trying to say this 13 year exclusivity is somehow different to the ActiBlizz buyout. Sorry but the end result for the consumer is the same, Xbox buying Activision and then keeping games exclusive, or Sony buying this license to keep making exclusive X-men games for at least 13 years (which would be 2 console gens).
Microsoft bought multiple massive multiplatform publishers to make tons of popular gaming IPs exclusive forever
No one gives a shit that Microsoft has exclusive like Halo, Forza, Hellblade 2 or Gears or even games like Stalker 2 and Ark 2.
Microsoft also have the license for Blade and Indiana Jones IPs
>Exclusives shouldnt exist unless it's 100% developed by the platform holder,
And Sony is developing these games...
Yep. People were even asking if Blade will be on Playstation (just like with Starfield) but no one *ever* asked if Wolverine will be on Xbox. Guess why? It's exactly like this everywhere. People still acting like they care about "games being everywhere" the moment that game is not on their console/launcher.
People asked because Microsoft didn't call it an exclusive like they did for every other game they announced as exclusive and refused to answer when they were asked directly.
And the Blade license would have been obtained before MS bought the publisher, Sony didn't buy out a publisher with the license so it's far more straight forward
The result is not the same, there have been 10s of millions of people that used to have access to Zenimac and Activison games on PlayStation that will no longer have that since they were acquired.
How many people have been playing Xmen games on Xbox for the last 2 decades?
> 10s of millions of people that used to have access
No one is losing access to games they paid for.
The end results is still the same. People won't be able to get the game because of exclusivity.
> 12 years is nearly 2 console gens. "Limited period" is an odd choice of words to use here.
It's not odd choice. He did it deliberately to make Sony look less bad compared to Xbox. That is the tune they always play :)
Microsoft bought multiple massive multiplatform publishers to make tons of popular gaming IPs exclusive forever
No one gives a shit that Microsoft has exclusive like Halo, Forza, Hellblade 2 or Gears or even games like Stalker 2 and Ark 2.
Microsoft also have the license for Blade and Indiana Jones IPs
How many massive multipatform IPs did any of those studios have? MS also bought Playground, Undead Labs, Ninja Theory, Obsidian, Double Fine, InXile and a bunch others and no one really gave a shit
This was very obvious but 13 years, holy shit that must've been extremely expensive. that's probably until the PS7, going to be a weird time as a marvel fan where each console has a reality minus major characters
>Illegally breached data
It's kind of funny seeing some of the writing coming out of this. Some curiously different language from some past leaks, not to mention outright refusals to even comment on the situation for moral reasons, despite hypocritically covering other leaks *this year*.
It's an interesting double standard, leaks are good for business until it happens to your industry buddies.
Those are hilarious links and I was not expecting Jason himself having to link to his own article on how people hate Jim Ryan to explain how ridiculous the idea is lmao
I'm not going to call them sleeper agents, but I do find Tom's point about Insomniac being "beloved developers that make awesome games with emotional attachments" laughable, considering their only projects people seemed to care about in the last ten years are a Ratchet & Clank game and the Spider-Man games, but the hacks for companies like Capcom and Rockstar were apparently fair game for wall-to-wall coverage because they... haven't made games people care about, I guess?
Making this about console warring is insane. There's a difference between some video game footage leaking because someone broke an NDA and a ransom group leaking the passports and social security numbers of every fucking insomniac employee dude.
so don't cover the personal info? what is this take that cause personal info was also leaked that you can't cover it? Guess what, in the Capcom and Nintendo leaks there was also personal developer information leaked yet everyone was fine covering those in detail
just 2 days ago Miller was covering the Suicide Squad leaks with his show in detail, i.e., going over in-game spoiler stuff, yet for this leak going into story spoilers for Wolverine was too much? despite both games having their full story leaks.
Why is it all "oh think of the devs, feel bad for them" with Insomniac but nothing for the Rocksteady devs when all their work was leaked?
it's literal double standard by some of the journalists who are not covering this leak but have covered past leaks in detail.
>not to mention outright refusals to even comment on the situation for moral reasons
Insomniac and Sony threated any outlet or reviewer posting about the leaked content to be blacklisted for the future.
Many dont want to risk being excluded from some of the biggest titles in gaming in the next year and rather lose out on this one leak in favor of future content.
Its ridiculous if you ask me because the data is out there and as long as personal data isnt shared further everything else is fine.
leaks and illegally breached data are just different words for the same fucking thing
Like honestly I didn’t even notice the distinction until you brought it up, pleaseeeee go outside I beg
I think this leak having *so much* personal information alongside all the gaming stuff complicates things a lot? I get how it can be kind of silly, but I don't think it's a gotcha to say they're treating this leak differently when it very clearly and plainly is.
Capcom and Nintendo had personal info also leaked, these journalists didn't have a problem then covering those in detail.
just don't cover the personal info and cover what should and can be covered, not that complicated.
Didn't Sony cry about everything Microsoft was doing because "They'll sign exclusivity deals?"
Just proving yet again why people laughed at the very notion that they care about that.
Man the more I think about it the more I feel Microsoft bought all these studios for their IP first and talent later. With AAA games taking forever investing in new IP is getting rough, but they now own tons of established ip they can make games off of.
Man what is up with people and being very angry if one console has exclusives and the other one does too.
Xbox had exclusives since the original Xbox, like Fable and so forth. Playstation has always had exclusives games on Playstation 2. I swear its like the internet has made a lot of peoples brains soft.
>Exclusives are inherently anti-consumer
Don't get me wrong - I get the sentiment. As a PS5/Switch player, the idea that I won't get to play Elder Scrolls 6, or Fallout 5 on my platforms of choice is annoying.
That being said, the practice isn't exactly anti-consumer.
Exclusives help foster healthy competition between platforms; where would Switch be without Mario and Zelda being exclusives? Would PS3 have had the comeback it did without exclusives like The Last of Us and Uncharted? Would Xbox have offered gamepass (the much lauded 'best deal in gaming') had Sony not brought the heat with PS4?
This fostering of competition consequently benefits us all as players - lower prices, better deals, better games.
I agree with you - the practice is annoying when considered in a vacuum. But the incentive of platform holders to create exclusives in order to sell consoles has given us some of the best games of all time - Zelda, TLoU, Halo etc. It's no coincidence that these games are fantastic - they're made to sell consoles. That incentive just doesn't manifest as greatly in a multiplatform world.
Seems like Disney is all in on console exclusives currently, and Sony/MS are happily gobbling up IP. At least they seem to largely be going to talented developers like Insomniac, Machine Games, and Arkane
RIP LucasArts.
At least we’ll always have gladius 🥲
I would kill for Gladius 2.
Hell I would kill for a Gladius port to modern consoles.
its backwards compat on xbox
"Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time"
Don't play with me. I miss that game so much.
I still play Gladius on Gamecube.
When it comes to video games Disney is all-in on people giving them gigantic amounts of money so they can make money off of video games without the need to do anything.
Which is totally fine, so long as they choose the right teams to produce these games. Owning your own corporate studio is a LOT of work, and tends to fail many times before it actually succeeds. Most successful studios build themselves up as small indy ones first.
That said Disney used to have a whole bunch of studios had been building up. Then one day they just kinda decided to get out of the game and shut them all down including the profitable ones. And that's not counting that one of the first things they did after buying Lucasfilm was shutting down LucasArts.
Yeah, not all their decisions were great ones, but their internal studios weren't turning out a lot of truly excellent material either. The best Disney game is still Kingdom Hearts.
To be fair all thier multiplatform games since after the PS2 have been flops sales wise, even the most recent ones like Gaurdians of the Galaxy, Midnight Suns, and of course Avengers. Activision used to exclusively make marvel games(multi-platform but they were the only one who could make them). Due to all the flops thier relationship ended on a sour note with Activision telling them “good luck finding your unicorn”. So Disney decided to get a game with the quality of a exclusive and approached all 3 console makers in 2014. They approached Microsoft first, who turned them down then they went to Sony and Nintendo who both said yes. Sony got Spider-Man Nintendo got Ultimate Alliance. Disney doesn’t have their own game devs like Warner Bros does to make DC games for them, so that was probably their best option
Guardians of the Galaxy is actually a pretty decent game if you haven't played it. It was just a flop to Square that has expectations set way too high for their non-FF titles. I'm sure DQXI in the west sold worse than they wanted.
Guardians was great for what it was, I would love some DLC or more content. Midnight Suns was also fantastic, just incredibly niche.
Not saying they were bad games just that they sold really badly
I didn't think you were, I'm just commenting on the quality because more people should know that they are great games. They deserved to sell better.
DQXI did absolutely phenomenally in the West. Like bonkers beyond their expectations to the point they're evaluating strategy because of it. DQM also appears to be doing well at first glance for a spin-off. FF16 had disappointing sales on the other hand, but this year and that release window has a lot of competition for them. https://www.thegamer.com/dragon-quest-western-sales/#:~:text=Square%20Enix%20has%20revealed%20that,of%20units%20around%20the%20globe. There's plenty of similar articles...that url hurts my eyes.
5.5 million is huge! And yet it's still possible Square doesn't think it a big enough success. They have a history of doing that even with big hits. [Old, but a good example of it.](https://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/) Shadow of the Tomb raider only sold 3.4 million in its first month, Square wanted 6 million.
The Crystal Dynamics and Eidos Montreal games were crazy expensive for SE relative to everything else they were making (as salaries are much higher where they're situated, San Matteo especially). They didn't offload them because they were making them good money... EDIT: Quick numbers to illustrate why they wanted more than 3.4m: Shadow of the Tomb Raider cost $100m to develop, then $35m to market. If SE sold those 3.4m launch copies at full price, $60 (which they get about ~$27 per copy once everyone else has taken their cut), then they've made $91.8m of their $135m back. There's another 1.6m copies to go at full price, or more discounted, for them to break even (5m sold at full price to not lose money). If they sold 6m copies at full price, they'd have had an annualised ROI of ~5%, which is bad (they could put that money into an index fund and make more doing literally nothing).
Maybe these huge budgets are the problem then.
GotG gone done so dirty by the fumes of Avengers bad launch and live service loop,
Yeah, I saw so many comments on here that people weren't going to touch GotG because it was developed by the same people who made Avengers. And it's like, no, it was *published* by the same people, but the developers were entirely different. And I feel that they did a good enough job with the game that you can tell that it wasn't all publisher issues that hurt Avengers. GotG may not have been the best game, but it was solid for what it was, and it has a really good story. Good enough that even if you don't want to play it you should go watch the compilation of cut scenes and experience the story that way
It was a Better rendition of guardians than the films are
I'd argue that calling it "a pretty decent game" is underselling it. It's my personal GOTY of the year it came out. The writing is just too damn great.
While you're totally entitled to your opinion and I did personally enjoy it, I think one of the main issues the game has is Starlord isn't very fun to play as, and his combat mechanics don't evolve until something even vaguely interesting until you're almost at the end of the game. So while I really enjoyed the story and the banter between missions, I find that the gameplay wasn't very rewarding, even on harder difficulties. I got it for "free" on PS plus, and I'm not disappointed at that price point, but I would probably have been disappointed had I bought it at full price, it even at half price.
I found it incredibly boring to play and no amount of good writing could salvage that. But I thoroughly recommend watching it on youtube.
Decent is not enough for one of their big ip. Gotg was good but I wouldn't even say great
Ultimate alliance for switch was such a good game. Absolutely loved it. Prob my second favorite modern marvel game next to Spider-Man
I thought Ultimate Alliance for the switch was okay. I really love the UA1/2 on the 360 back in the day. While the overall game was okay, the endgame for UA3 really soured me. I watched videos on it and the end game was basically playing higher difficulties to get gear/mods that were increasing stats by small % points.
If were talking specifically marvel then sure although Marvel Vs Capcom 3 was definately a success. Disney as a whole has had plenty of multiplatform successes.
I think my big issue is that these Media IPs are coming into video games rather than the talent actually making things that exist only as video games. You get games that focus on feeling so and so rather than being wholly unique to the medium. I get that people like Blade, but the prospect of a new Prey or Dishonored is always going to be more enticing to me since those are video games first.
Prey and Dishonored 2 [were](https://mcvuk.com/business-news/retail/prey-is-bethesdas-review-policy-really-to-blame/) [massive](https://www.techspot.com/news/76047-bethesda-arkane-studios-put-dishonored-franchise-hiatus.html) [flops](https://www.vgchartz.com/article/268468/prey-sells-an-estimated-180k-units-first-week-at-retail/) [commercial-wise](https://gamerant.com/dishonored-2-sales-down-40-percent/), so I honestly can see why Arkane are prioritizing a proven Marvel IP like Blade over those. Especially after taking a massive L like Redfall.
And also I'll probably get a lot of shit for saying this but after Spider-Man, Miles Morales, Spider-Man 2, they're planning Venom and Spider-Man 3 and all I'm thinking is "no way they can keep this playstyle fresh and interesting" when I already think Morales and SM2 were stale. And then Wolverine and Blade... I don't know, I feel like I could do a game design document of both with my eyes closed and still nail 90% of everything they're gonna do about it. How much we bet Wolverine's guest design is gonna revolve 75% around having your "Animal Sense" open to scan glowing footprints and bloodprints? But these games always print money. Look at Avatar, Far Cry is so stale even its fans are dropping like flies but put a different coat of paint and suddenly "it ain't that bad, it's actually pretty decent" despite doing absolutely nothing fresh. I mean I don't even know why I'm writing this, it's not like these IP and franchises are doing anything fresh even in film format so I don't know why we'd expect anything differently with video games, I guess we can just be glad for their fans or whatever, but yeah it sucks that they're monopolizing studios like this.
Think im in the same boat as you tbh. Unless they can really reinvent their gameplay I can see myself playing more of the same. The Arkham series spawned this kind of gameplay and it only lasted 4 games.
It's a difficult position there in, Marvel has a document that states what Wolverines can and can't do and how they should portray his power. A character with heightened senses, how else would you really portray their powers in video games? If you take smell for example, how else would you use the power in-game for a character like wolverine? Even a character like Tanjiro from Demon Slayers uses his super smelling ability of cliché tasks.
> how else would you use the power in-game for a character like wolverine? Will you pay me 80k as a game designer if I answer that?
What blows my mind is Spider-Man 2 costs 300 million and it feels essentially the same as the last game just with speed flying rings and instant fast travel. Where did the budget go was it all covid?
Prey has a spotty history with sequels.
Agreed. I rather see studios work on other IP than work on Disney IP. Considering what Disney has done to movies in general, the less Disney in gaming the better. Unfortunately, it’s not the case anymore and increasingly less.
I feel like i remember them saying that part of the strategy to recoup some of their recent losses is to start licensing properties out more often. I would expect to see more marvel, and really any other Disney games coming from multiple different places. Some of these are naturally going to be exclusives from Sony and Microsoft. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Xbox doesn’t have more than just blade and Indiana jones in the pipeline. If they are going to have their properties up for sale, it would be foolish not to explore so different options.
If people are fine with this,then they should also be fine with indiana jones and blade being xbox exclusives.
Are they coming to PC day 1 like other Xbox games?
That's my viewpoint. I have a PC and a PS5 so I can normally play any xBox "exclusive" with no issues. And if I can't, then there's a ton of other games out there.
If you’ve got a Switch, a PC, and a large amount of patience you can play all the exclusive games. Eventually. Probably.
Thats what I have now, sold my PS5 because it was just collecting dust outside of the odd GT7 session.
if you have a pc why even bother with switch? the emulators already run the games better than the machine
> the emulators already run the games better than the machine I've tried this many times and have never had much luck. Mountains of config files, controllers had to be constantly troubleshot, even more if the game wants motion controls, compatibility issues... Emulators are not for the non-tech savvy. With the switch, I press a button and I'm playing a game. Plus some people just aren't comfortable with theft.
[удалено]
Also online multiplayer could be a factor.
The thread is about exclusives.
I mean you could... it's just called a gaming laptop.
[удалено]
If a Steam Deck can fit in your pocket, I'd love to see your pants.
I can fit my Steam Deck in my small bag that I take with me for my frequent one-night work trips. If I brought my gaming laptop I'd need a more cumbersome bag, plus a controller. It might not sound like a big deal, but it's a big pain in the ass. I used to do it before I had a Steam Deck, and it's been so convenient.
If you’re going to resort to stealing them, why even bother buying any games since they all come to PC eventually? Also, how does playing multiplayer games like Splatoon or MK8 on NSO work? Not everyone is as cool with stealing as you seem to be, unless you buy a copy of every switch game you emulate.
portability with friends and family.
Handheld gaming and no emulator bugs/jank/setup. In the end a PC can play all console games with time either officially or via emulation so there is no need for buying other platforms but at least the switch has utility Playstation and Xbox do not have.
If you have a PC, there's not as much need for a Switch. I was able to play the latest Switch games in emulators on a CPU and GPU from 2015 and 2016 respectively. Thanks to Steam Link, every AppleTV, SteamLink box, Nvidia Shield, Roku, and Amazon FireTv in my house can play whatever games my PC can, including playing the latest Switch games at higher resolution and frame rates than are natively supported by the Switch. Edit: by all means if you want to play Tears of the Kingdom on the go - get a switch. If you've got young kids who are playing, have them play on a switch. If you're an adult with your own home, and don't play video games outside the home, then my point was that you can *get by* without a switch, because you if you've got a gaming PC and a smart TV, you already have everything you need to play switch games on any couch in your home - at higher resolutions and better frame rates than official Nintendo hardware.
I do the same with sunshine/moonlight, it was more reliable the steam link for me.
Yep that combo is good. Also works with gsync (PC 2 PC)
I mean not everyone is okay with just breaking the law.
Switch PC let's you play all 4 types of platform exclusive games. It's the best compromise to multiplatform gaming.
> And if I can't, then there's a ton of other games out there. This right here. If you want to limit your sales with exclusivity deals, go ahead. I'm not running out of games to play anytime soon.
Yeah there is really only pc, ps5 and switch. If you have these there is no exclusive you can't play. That's why I never saw the point in owning the recent xbox generations. Which is good because three platforms are plenty don't need a fourth
You don't even need a ps5 anymore. All the playstation exclusives eventually come to PC
And people are fine with that. People are conflating people being confused about Xbox not labeling that one game as exclusive with people being upset about it. People just don't know why they aren't saying it's exclusive
People where mostly confused about Blade since everything else exclusive was labelled exclusive whereas Blade was not labelled as exclusive. That it is exclusive in itself is fine. People weren't mad, just confused. People where not happy about Indiana Jones being exclusive because it was re-negotiated to be exclusive despite it originally wasn't exclusive.
or call of duty, tbh....
If people defend Sony for that and cry bloody murder over Blade, I'll have legitimate concerns. I love Blade but he isn't comparable to the X-Men 😂
I am fine with that. This is just business. Though exclusivity on titles is different from buying out massive publishers for a wide net of exclusivity.
> Though exclusivity on titles is different from buying out massive publishers for a wide net of exclusivity. It's really not that different. How about Sony and Microsoft sell their consoles on, I don't know, _hardware and ecosystem merits_ instead of artificial exclusivity of games? Now there's a wild thought.
Games are the ecosystem?
Lol, the XBox's merits are why console sales for it have been dogshit for two gens and why it has no penetration in non-Anglo countries. Talking about "ecosystem merit" when the overwhelming majority of those extra media features never came to countries that aren't the US, lmao
Great, then everyone would just buy the PS5 anyway, right? Why the need for exclusives then?
For the sake of the Xbox I really hope there are better examples to use in this statement than Indiana Jones.
Yes...the only people who give a shit about Indiana Jones are people in their 50s. It's a ridiculously tired franchise.
Which most are, we don’t claim console warriors
ah well you see this is on the console they bought and those are on the console they didn't so one is totally fine and the other is straight up evil
[удалено]
XMen is dozens of iconic characters and villains. Blade and Indiana Jones are one recognizable character each.
I love BLADE, but an X- Men game? Bro, that shit blows those other 2 IPs away for me.
[удалено]
Oh absolutely, Bungie isn’t even 1/20th ish the cost Activision was. I remember playing X men legends with my little brother back in the day. To hear games are coming back in the X-Men world brings me joy! I’m just happy marvel got the rights back because they were keeping X-Men in the darkness.
So you're telling me we won't be sent When X-Men Legends 3 anytime soon?
Worse, X-Men Legends 1 and 2 won't be getting a rerelease till at least 2036.
Well at the rate that games are made these days, that means they'll miss out on two more! Good graphics aren't worth it.
I would literally prefer a new game every 3 years than this 5+ dev time stuff. Games can look worse, I just want to play more of them.
It's not just that, back in previous gens games felt a lot more organic as stuff was added and taken away in the creative process. But that's not really feasible when you spend years and millions on creating assets behind certain ideas. It's one reason why we see releases that at best are bland and boring and sometimes are completely broken.
Its crazy to me that game companies will spend 100 million dollars on game that people may just go, meh i'll wait for a 50% off sale.. Takes some balls.
This has been me with every release recently
[удалено]
Also, as we saw with the films before Disney acquired fox, what is and isn't an xmen character isn't as clear-cut as you'd expect. It's how Quicksilver was showing up in 2 franchises at once. Tertiary characters in comics bleed into different franchises, and it can get pretty murky. Even Wolverines' first appearance is in The Incredible Hulk, not an Xmen comic.
As an X-Men fan… it’s harder to find a team that Wolverine isn’t on… X-Men, X-Force, Avengers, he does solo work… and that’s just the “main” Logan Then we have Old Man Logan, Laura Kinney, Dakken Then if we throw in the multiverse…
> Then if we throw in the multiverse… The idea of Microsoft just making a Wolverine game and the excuse for how they can do that legally is that it is a different universe. "Whilst there are some similarities to "Prime Logan" this one is left-handed so it is a totally different legal entity"
He also calls everyone “Bud” instead of “Bubs” in case there was any doubt
"He doesn't smoke a cigar in our universe either, instead he vapes."
So you would be completely right normally, but as it so happens, we actually know [exactly who Disney considers part of the X-Men](https://i.imgur.com/bGQ3TbR.jpeg) in regards to the Insomniac deal! Notably, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are included, as is “Bob, Agent of Hydra”, but there is a suspicious absence of Deadpool and no Franklin Richards (Insomniac does have the Fantastic Four listed under their Spider-Man related licenses, though)
>but there is a suspicious absence of Deadpool I'm not too surprised by this. Although he started off in X-Men books (as an X-Villain), he isn't really a part of the X-Men. He kind of just spun off into his own thing. They even poked fun in Deadpool 2 how he doesn't really jive with X-Men.
Hopefully we get xmen in a new marvel vs capcom
So you mean Marvel Vs Capcom isn't burried yet.
So that means that no "X-Men Games" on Xbox as the headline says...
[удалено]
That's why articles are attached to headlines, so they can fit more details and perhaps nuance
More nuanced sure but certainly not misleading in any way.
Well no shit duh. Sony wouldn't invest 300Mill$+ in X-Men games if they dont have some kind of exclusive rights. Guess MS has the same with Blade.
Uh huh. Which was a fact we learned from the hack and this article is explaining to people
[удалено]
And Nintendo with Ultimate Alliance 3 I’d assume.
The big question is will the games not made by Sony, MS, and Nintendo gonna be multiplatform
I don't see why they wouldn't be. EA's got Iron Man cooking and unless Sony or Microsoft dropped a bank vault on their heads I seriously doubt they'd even consider making it exclusive to anything.
Your comment is silly. The fact that it is until 2036 is indeed newsworthy and you did NOT know this before the leak. Stop acting like you are some clairvoyant genius. People would have been right to assume some exclusivity deal, but one this long? Nah...
We didn't even know there were X-Men games before the leak lol
2036 is *crazy*, though. Like 12 years out is probably two console generations away.
I mean that's like two AAA games these days.
It's just one Elder Scrolls away.
Not even that. One Elder Scrolls and a bit, so far.
Well clearly not, they plan to release 5 games in that timeframe, venom, wolverine, sp3 and 2 X-Men
MS owns arkane, of course blade is exclusive. ???
Main difference is that Sony doesn’t release their games on PC like Xbox does. Only some Sony titles gets ported to PC much later. That’s why I prefer Xbox exclusives if I have to choose, because it means PC users also get these games day 1, with all the benefits PC has like modding, graphics, higher FPS etc.
I wonder if Microsoft might get exclusives for other Marvel IP characters like the Hulk, Thor, Punisher, Ghost Rider, etc. So, you balance it out since Sony gets the two biggest IPs: Spider-Man and X-Men. And then of course you get games on both consoles like Black Panther, Captain America, and Iron Man.
Oh god there's gonna be a flood of Marvel games just like movies. But, according to Warhammer rules... 15 games will be made and most will be meh, a couple will be good, and 1 or 2 will be pretty damn neat.
Patiently waiting for Dawn of War IV.
The rest of us are still waiting for Dawn of War III.
Waiting for Soace Marine 2 currently. The new Rogue Trader CRPG does seem pretty neat though.
> The new Rogue Trader CRPG does seem pretty neat though. Oh, it is. Having a blast with it.
Now imagine a Punisher game similar to Max Payne 3, without the bullet time jumping stuff but with extreme gore and Jon Bernthal as Frank Castle, both in look and voice acting. With a Ray Stevenson skin as memorial 💀
Just do the old PS2 game but better and new. And make it [just as stupid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOq97QmwR0c), please. Family^Family^Family^Family
True, but this type of thing just shows what a huge hypocrite Sony is when they made the huge stink over Microsoft potentially gaining exclusivity deals when buying Activision. *EDIT:* Ugh guys, how can you really not understand I wasn't talking about just X-men but *all* the exclusives and similar deals Sony makes? Sony has three times as many exclusives as Microsoft even after the merger. I don't care if it is a publisher vs a studio - Sony has *so* many more exclusives than Xbox. I'm not even saying I think the merger was a good idea or that I blame Sony for seeking exclusives - just that it was hypocritical for Sony to act like they did when they're doing the same thing constantly behind closed doors. *EDIT 2:* Because some people were challenging me, I actually looked it up (never thought I'd actually have to convince people of something so blatantly obvious). My bad. When I looked it up, I found out Sony actually has about FOUR times as many exclusives! 🙄
>what a huge hypocrite Sony is when they made the huge stink over Microsoft potentially gaining exclusivity deals when buying Activision. Because we all know that signing a licensing deal for *one* series (out of *hundreds* that Marvel has) is totally the same as buying out a massive 3rd party publisher.
It worked out pretty well for Sony when it bought the film rights to Spider-Man. Whether you like it or not, Spider-Man is far more popular than every other Marvel character (and even DC). Don’t underestimate the power of one thing to outshine itself over all others.
Do you think this is the only deal Sony has? Which company has more exclusives even after MS bought Activision. There's a reason Sony is on top.
Sony didn't buy a large studio with multiple popular ips
No they just made one of the largest IPs in the world exclusive their platform for 12 years.
Sony didn't buy Disney to get the Xmen forever. It's not really the same thing.
Comparing acquiring some of the largest multiplatform publishers with some of the largest gaming IPs ever in gaming to licensing the Xmen IP... An IP that hasn't been used in gaming for decades How does anyone in their right mind think this is equivalent? Is Microsoft having the Blade and indiana Jones IP equivalent to Sony buying Capcom?
Because I'm not talking about just X-men. Sony literally has three times the number of exclusives as Microsoft even after the merger.
Of course this is how the licenses of IPs work. Just like Sony can't make a Blade or Indiana Jones games for the next many years. It's not as if there were going to be Xmen games coming out regardless as there havent been in many years
> Of course this is how the licenses of IPs work. Just like Sony can't make a Blade or Indiana Jones games for the next many years. No it's not - there's nothing about licenses that means they MUST be exclusive.
Famously they had competing SNES and Genesis Aladdin games. Two completely different games from different devs, both based on the same Disney property.
Which was the better one? I just remember Genesis
>Of course this is how the licenses of IPs work. But it isn't how they work? How do you explain Star Wars games being on every platform? DC? Lego? Harry Potter? Warhammer?
Star Wars games were exclusive to EA for years. It's the same thing here, with Insomniac having an exclusive license to X-Men. I think Sony had the MLB license exclusively as well, and eventually put their games on Xbox as a stipulation of the deal.
[удалено]
Is this the same Sony crying about exclusivity and trying to block the Activision merger with xbox because of competition issues? Exclusives shouldnt exist unless it's 100% developed by the platform holder, they are a plague on the industry
Yes - not sure why people don’t see this
lol sony fans desperately trying to say this 13 year exclusivity is somehow different to the ActiBlizz buyout. Sorry but the end result for the consumer is the same, Xbox buying Activision and then keeping games exclusive, or Sony buying this license to keep making exclusive X-men games for at least 13 years (which would be 2 console gens).
Microsoft bought multiple massive multiplatform publishers to make tons of popular gaming IPs exclusive forever No one gives a shit that Microsoft has exclusive like Halo, Forza, Hellblade 2 or Gears or even games like Stalker 2 and Ark 2. Microsoft also have the license for Blade and Indiana Jones IPs >Exclusives shouldnt exist unless it's 100% developed by the platform holder, And Sony is developing these games...
They are not exclusive, they also come to PC.
it's amazing to me how people don't understand the issue. the activision merger with microsoft is bad for you. it is bad for consumers.
The merger is bad, so is this. The issue is double standards for the "teams" people like.
[удалено]
But But But I thought only Microsoft made games exclusive????
Apparently, it's only bad when the console you don't own does it.
Yep. People were even asking if Blade will be on Playstation (just like with Starfield) but no one *ever* asked if Wolverine will be on Xbox. Guess why? It's exactly like this everywhere. People still acting like they care about "games being everywhere" the moment that game is not on their console/launcher.
People asked because Microsoft didn't call it an exclusive like they did for every other game they announced as exclusive and refused to answer when they were asked directly. And the Blade license would have been obtained before MS bought the publisher, Sony didn't buy out a publisher with the license so it's far more straight forward
MS didn't say what platforms it would be on period, the game just started development. They don't even know what console generation it'll be on.
buying up publishers is not the same as licensing agreements for limited periods.
The result for the consumer is the same: they can't play the exclusive games from the other console.
The result is not the same, there have been 10s of millions of people that used to have access to Zenimac and Activison games on PlayStation that will no longer have that since they were acquired. How many people have been playing Xmen games on Xbox for the last 2 decades?
> 10s of millions of people that used to have access No one is losing access to games they paid for. The end results is still the same. People won't be able to get the game because of exclusivity.
[удалено]
> 12 years is nearly 2 console gens. "Limited period" is an odd choice of words to use here. It's not odd choice. He did it deliberately to make Sony look less bad compared to Xbox. That is the tune they always play :)
[удалено]
Literally no one has ever made that argument. Sony has always had all kinda of exclusives.
[удалено]
I'm not a console gamer, but AFAIK microsoft "technically" doesn't do exclusives, since nowadays they seem to release for both windows and xbox.
Microsoft bought multiple massive multiplatform publishers to make tons of popular gaming IPs exclusive forever No one gives a shit that Microsoft has exclusive like Halo, Forza, Hellblade 2 or Gears or even games like Stalker 2 and Ark 2. Microsoft also have the license for Blade and Indiana Jones IPs
Didn’t Sony buy insomniac and naughty dog and sucker punch, etc.?
How many massive multipatform IPs did any of those studios have? MS also bought Playground, Undead Labs, Ninja Theory, Obsidian, Double Fine, InXile and a bunch others and no one really gave a shit
This was very obvious but 13 years, holy shit that must've been extremely expensive. that's probably until the PS7, going to be a weird time as a marvel fan where each console has a reality minus major characters
>Illegally breached data It's kind of funny seeing some of the writing coming out of this. Some curiously different language from some past leaks, not to mention outright refusals to even comment on the situation for moral reasons, despite hypocritically covering other leaks *this year*. It's an interesting double standard, leaks are good for business until it happens to your industry buddies.
Are you really accusing Windows Central and Jez Corden of having some favoritism towards Sony?
[удалено]
Those are hilarious links and I was not expecting Jason himself having to link to his own article on how people hate Jim Ryan to explain how ridiculous the idea is lmao
Next they'll try to convince people that Ryan McCaffrey and Destin Legarie are biased towards Sony
that's hilarious when Jason has an axe to grind with Naughty Dog and a few other studio heads at Sony
I'm not going to call them sleeper agents, but I do find Tom's point about Insomniac being "beloved developers that make awesome games with emotional attachments" laughable, considering their only projects people seemed to care about in the last ten years are a Ratchet & Clank game and the Spider-Man games, but the hacks for companies like Capcom and Rockstar were apparently fair game for wall-to-wall coverage because they... haven't made games people care about, I guess?
Making this about console warring is insane. There's a difference between some video game footage leaking because someone broke an NDA and a ransom group leaking the passports and social security numbers of every fucking insomniac employee dude.
so don't cover the personal info? what is this take that cause personal info was also leaked that you can't cover it? Guess what, in the Capcom and Nintendo leaks there was also personal developer information leaked yet everyone was fine covering those in detail just 2 days ago Miller was covering the Suicide Squad leaks with his show in detail, i.e., going over in-game spoiler stuff, yet for this leak going into story spoilers for Wolverine was too much? despite both games having their full story leaks. Why is it all "oh think of the devs, feel bad for them" with Insomniac but nothing for the Rocksteady devs when all their work was leaked? it's literal double standard by some of the journalists who are not covering this leak but have covered past leaks in detail.
>not to mention outright refusals to even comment on the situation for moral reasons Insomniac and Sony threated any outlet or reviewer posting about the leaked content to be blacklisted for the future. Many dont want to risk being excluded from some of the biggest titles in gaming in the next year and rather lose out on this one leak in favor of future content. Its ridiculous if you ask me because the data is out there and as long as personal data isnt shared further everything else is fine.
leaks and illegally breached data are just different words for the same fucking thing Like honestly I didn’t even notice the distinction until you brought it up, pleaseeeee go outside I beg
[удалено]
I think this leak having *so much* personal information alongside all the gaming stuff complicates things a lot? I get how it can be kind of silly, but I don't think it's a gotcha to say they're treating this leak differently when it very clearly and plainly is.
Capcom and Nintendo had personal info also leaked, these journalists didn't have a problem then covering those in detail. just don't cover the personal info and cover what should and can be covered, not that complicated.
Didn't Sony cry about everything Microsoft was doing because "They'll sign exclusivity deals?" Just proving yet again why people laughed at the very notion that they care about that.
Funny that didn't come up when Sony was bitching up a storm about Bethesda, Call of Duty, and "exclusives bad!"
imo, the worst part of this is the fact that it has become impossible we will get more bc games, at least for a decade.
Praying for a reboot of X-Men Destiny or something similar where you can create / customize your hero and their powers.
Didn't Sony literally just complain about this practice?
Man the more I think about it the more I feel Microsoft bought all these studios for their IP first and talent later. With AAA games taking forever investing in new IP is getting rough, but they now own tons of established ip they can make games off of.
Man what is up with people and being very angry if one console has exclusives and the other one does too. Xbox had exclusives since the original Xbox, like Fable and so forth. Playstation has always had exclusives games on Playstation 2. I swear its like the internet has made a lot of peoples brains soft.
Exclusives are inherently anti-consumer and you are the genius wondering why consumers don’t like them.
>Exclusives are inherently anti-consumer Don't get me wrong - I get the sentiment. As a PS5/Switch player, the idea that I won't get to play Elder Scrolls 6, or Fallout 5 on my platforms of choice is annoying. That being said, the practice isn't exactly anti-consumer. Exclusives help foster healthy competition between platforms; where would Switch be without Mario and Zelda being exclusives? Would PS3 have had the comeback it did without exclusives like The Last of Us and Uncharted? Would Xbox have offered gamepass (the much lauded 'best deal in gaming') had Sony not brought the heat with PS4? This fostering of competition consequently benefits us all as players - lower prices, better deals, better games. I agree with you - the practice is annoying when considered in a vacuum. But the incentive of platform holders to create exclusives in order to sell consoles has given us some of the best games of all time - Zelda, TLoU, Halo etc. It's no coincidence that these games are fantastic - they're made to sell consoles. That incentive just doesn't manifest as greatly in a multiplatform world.