Magic Carpet
Gold Member
After reading what Disney is getting for the Sony exclusivity I think Disney got everything they wanted from Microsoft here.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Disney says Indiana Jones Xbox exclusivity deal ‘made financial and strategic sense' and leaving out PlayStation didn’t feel “overly exclusionary”
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- News Business Platform
Astray
Member
Bro that franchise is all Harrison Ford, without him it fucking dies so hard.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's why the new movie shit the bed hard when they shit on Indy.
MAX PAYMENT
Member
Disney game exclusivity is such BS.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
It is surprising if that is accurate. Wouldn't be shocked by anything at this point with how steep their payout is on PS.
Manwithoutfear
Member
But it's ok to exclude xbox players from x-men, spiderman, wolverine, venom, and so on.
graywolf323
Member
I mean the key difference is Sony negotiated those games as exclusives from the start
Indiana Jones was originally multi platform, we learned from the FTC trial that Microsoft renegotiated the deal after acquiring Zenimax so they could cancel the PS5 version (just like how they canceled PS5 versions of other games that were in development after making acquisitions despite having said differently before the acquisition closed)
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
It’s currently dead because of their insistence on keeping him. They should’ve passed the torch imo. Not that anyone can fill his shoes, but you’ve got to try.
Or go full CGI young Harrison Ford.
At least with a videogame they can just go with Indy in his prime.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
So you didn't read through this thread.
MS didn't want Spider-Man.
Manwithoutfear
Member
indiana jones was never publicly announced as coming to ps5. do you know for a fact that sony has never worked to make a game exclusive that was originally planned (behind closed doors) to be multi platform?
Thirty7ven
Banned
It’s possible that it really doesn’t matter. They will have a sales target, they will get their royalties, and if in the end the game doesn’t reach a sales target Disney can break the agreement and get the rights back if they want. I say if they want because the game could be great and not sell as much as intended, but if Disney is happy with the quality of the game they might stick around for another.
Last edited:
Mr Moose
Member
B-but they never announced it!
We know it was, it was renegotiated.
They also cancelled Bethesda games that were also going to be multiplat, even though they weren't announced either.
And this is in the OP: The head of Disney-owned Marvel Games has previously claimed that Xbox turned down an opportunity to make licensed games, shortly before Sony struck a deal to make Spider-Man for PS4.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
So you aren't paying attention?
Who cares if they publicly announced it coming to PS5...
It was coming before MS stopped it.
graywolf323
Member
oh I’m sure Disney doesn’t really care because Microsoft obviously paid them a LOT in order to renegotiate the contract, my point is more that this is not the same thing as the Marvel games from Insomniac, but of course we have suspiciously low post count accounts popping up to try to SonyToo™ anything that could be construed as ‘bad’ for Microsoft
we’ve had that going on here on GAF for well over a decade now after all, I remember when all the fanboys were claiming that the DRM for Xbox One was okay because Sony was obviously going to do it as well with the PS4 (then E3 happened and it broke their brains)
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They're getting money from both vendors for different licenses. They're probably happy taking competing deals and exclusivity rights.
Astray
Member
I saw that film in theaters, was one of the most boring things I ever sat through, the only positive was Mads Mikkelsen.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Thank you for your sacrifice.
Astray
Member
CGI Young Harrison sounds awful.
I just think Tomb Raider, National Treasure and Uncharted have moved the subgenre on and Indy just can't compete anymore.
I have a bad history with that subgenre of films tbh, I think I slept through the latest Tomb Raider film too, film wasn't bad from the little I've seen of it but I was pretty tired that night lol.
So then it meant they didn't want Venom, Wolverine and all 34 X-men? Next you will tell me they also didn't want iron man, thanos, thor, captain america, dr strange, etc
You fans have the most twisted logic. Its amazing.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Spitfire098
Member
Jigsaah
Gold Member
Just my opinion, but I'm having a hard time seeing how Indiana Jones can translate to a good game. Nothing to do with Xbox or anything...it's just the IP itself doesn't seem popular enough to warrant exclusivity. As for Disney's comments, I suppose if you count PC then the market could be comparable to Sony...but still...this game is likely going to need pull from as many markets as possible to be profitable. Just my opinion.
Sushi_Combo
Member
So is taking developed games away from Ps5 players when Bethesda was bought out.
Salty Popsicle
Banned
What difference does it make? Microsoft came in and changed the outcome of all these decisions and people are just salty these games are not coming to their favorite box. Each side gets their own exclusives, isn't that what everyone wanted?
MAX PAYMENT
Member
U
But is less of an issue with seemingly every major marvel character being sony exclusive.
Mmm... yes. That is obviously also correct.
But is less of an issue with seemingly every major marvel character being sony exclusive.
Have you ever played uncharted? Those games were literally Indiana Jones games. And they are great and sell very well.
Mr Moose
Member
My comment was because of their first comment, I don't really care if Blade/Indiana Jones are "exclusive", I have a PC.
And their follow-up was "They were never announced as multiplat! and Sony do that too!"
MS originally didn't want to do Marvel stuff, so that's on them.
HeWhoWalks
Member
Boohoo. Plenty of folks are going to be excluded from Bethesda's games, for example. Name of today's game!
SportsFan581
Member
That's the whole point. If they didn't have the two companies working against each other, there wouldn't be any deals at all.
JackMcGunns
Member
Does anyone ready anymore?
Disney says Indiana Jones Xbox exclusivity deal ‘made financial and strategic sense' and leaving out PlayStation didn’t feel “overly exclusionary”
1. Facts over feelings
2. Still exclusionary. Overly is not clearly defined.
Disney says Indiana Jones Xbox exclusivity deal ‘made financial and strategic sense' and leaving out PlayStation didn’t feel “overly exclusionary”
1. Facts over feelings
2. Still exclusionary. Overly is not clearly defined.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I think people ready just fine.
Jigsaah
Gold Member
Sure I can see the comparison. But where as Uncharted was a new IP, Indiana Jones is a known entity...and tired at that.
Completely agree the movies are tired and in my mind ended at 3. But a game with the voice talent of Harrison ford if he agrees to do it could be awesome. He can actually move around properly and not like a 80 year old man.
Seems like a great extension of a IP without having to worry about a physically aging actor. But who knows, maybe it will be shit.
Jigsaah
Gold Member
I mean I hope they figure it out...but like I said previously I'm having a hard time imagining a game that's not instantly compared to Uncharted as you mentioned. With that, it's either "this is an Uncharted rip off" or "they should have gone the Uncharted route" will be the most likely of narratives. Who's making this anyways, Machine Games?
JackMcGunns
Member
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
Absolutely. Every game has that potential to be great, meh, or terrible. This IP in particular aligns nicely with a style of game that we know people like. Let's see what they do with it.
I don't group books and video games into the same category as films/TV when it comes to long running IP (unless it is something animated), just because the books and video games have that ability to freeze time at the peak of a franchise and keep telling stories from there, where with films you have the actors aging etc. Which either completely changes the dynamics or causes the need for reboots etc.
Yes they are making it.
It’s pretty ironic because when uncharted first came out they said it was an Indiana jones rip off. It’s coming full circle! Lol
Definitely. I’m excited for it. Machine Games make cool stuff!
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Not really. Lol
People forget that it's the same franchise, yes. But the media platform is significantly different. Games can do more than movies creatively, and there's things movies can do that games can't. It's the change in media platforms, and the possibilities that make bringing IJ to gamers enticing. All these comparisons to the success of the movies are bizarre. That will hold little weight in relation to the actual game and it's success..
With Disney's cut of all these games, it really doesnt matter. It's easy bank for them. It's actually pretty disgusting. Does Disney contribute at all to the costs? or do they wear no risk at all? I get why Sony uses it to push boxes, but I guess Microsoft is going to use Blade or Indiana to push subscriptions. Current state of affairs isn't pretty, but in 4-5 years it might be better. But licensing is the devil, own your own shit as much as possible.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
When the money is big enough, just about anyone will bend.
It''s no different than my industry (in a different way). Since my company doesn't deal with licensed characters much, deals are still out there.
For example, a retailer will give us some cost concessions or freebies if we make them an exclusive sku. So for any of you buying shit at Walmart or grocery stores and wonder why that variant isn't sold anywhere else even though it should logically make sense given the price and size of it, it could be an exclusive sku just for them. And then other stores might get their own secret sku.
It''s no different than my industry (in a different way). Since my company doesn't deal with licensed characters much, deals are still out there.
For example, a retailer will give us some cost concessions or freebies if we make them an exclusive sku. So for any of you buying shit at Walmart or grocery stores and wonder why that variant isn't sold anywhere else even though it should logically make sense given the price and size of it, it could be an exclusive sku just for them. And then other stores might get their own secret sku.
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
What… what are people even arguing about in this thread?
Disney signed an exclusive agreement with Sony.
Disney signed an exclusive agreement with MS.
Both companies agreed to terms that Disney thought were in their favour.
Don’t like it? Go boycott Disney.
Now… whether those deals will work out *well* for Disney is a different question, but we won’t know that without knowing the terms. We know that the terms stipulated a multi-year deal for Sony that Disney can pull out of if Sony don’t meet sales targets. It’s reasonable to assume the same for MS. So, if the game does poorly due to a smaller potential Audience, it’ll eventually get ported to PS (or its sequels will at the very least). If that doesn’t happen, then it will indicate that Disney is happy with how the deal played out.
But… Jeez! Companies make decisions that are in their interests, not yours. Always have, always will. Why are people *still* surprised by this fact?
Disney signed an exclusive agreement with Sony.
Disney signed an exclusive agreement with MS.
Both companies agreed to terms that Disney thought were in their favour.
Don’t like it? Go boycott Disney.
Now… whether those deals will work out *well* for Disney is a different question, but we won’t know that without knowing the terms. We know that the terms stipulated a multi-year deal for Sony that Disney can pull out of if Sony don’t meet sales targets. It’s reasonable to assume the same for MS. So, if the game does poorly due to a smaller potential Audience, it’ll eventually get ported to PS (or its sequels will at the very least). If that doesn’t happen, then it will indicate that Disney is happy with how the deal played out.
But… Jeez! Companies make decisions that are in their interests, not yours. Always have, always will. Why are people *still* surprised by this fact?
Drizzlehell
Banned
It's more about the movie being trash and surrounded by the usual stink of corporate wokeism.
There's still huge love and nostalgia for the old Indy movies.
Ar¢tos
Member
How can Disney assess the success of the game if it's going straight to GP, sales will be low, and the only measurement is "Engagement"?
The game can flop even on GP and MS tells Disney it had an engagement of 1265% gigatups that increased at a rate of 337 trolibops per month, so they can trust them with more IPs?
The game can flop even on GP and MS tells Disney it had an engagement of 1265% gigatups that increased at a rate of 337 trolibops per month, so they can trust them with more IPs?
daninthemix
Member
Thirty7ven
Banned
For all we know Disney could’ve negotiated royalties on GP sub from everyone who plays the game. What we now know and what I had claimed before in this thread, is that they are going to get paid those royalties and if there ain’t enough of them they will just activate the break clause.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked