For an Indiana Jones game?
Yeah I was referring to the Bethesda deal in this instance. I would imagine if it was originally going to be multiplatform then Microsoft would honour that but they're obviously not afraid to take games away from the competition, Starfield being the biggest.That last part isn't quite right. Spider-man is not an Xbox console exclusive and Microsoft has no control over that. I think what you mean is Microsoft ultimately has the ability to decide if a game is on Xbox or not. If they don't like that a game won't be Xbox exclusive then they can say it won't be on Xbox at all. But I can't think of a situation where that would happen. Most games are multiplat.
Edit: Perhaps you meant MS first party games? That would be true, but in this case Disney also has full control over Indiana Jones.
Facts! It needs to be 3rd person imo and have some good melee combat using the whip and/or other weaponsAgree. First person Indiana Jones would be an incredibly bad idea.
Ask marvels game and guardian of galaxy.What do you mean by "commercial game"? How is a multiplat not a "commercial game"?
Bungie asked for that. Sony had no choice, but to allow that to happen.Not really surprising. Sony has stated future Bungie products would go to Xbox. Generally its not smart to leave money on the table if the title isn't going to drive significant hardware sales, And I can't imagine any significant portion of the market rushing out to buy an Xbox over Indiana Jones of all things.
You can't do good jumping with 1st person. That would be bad for the experience.Facts! It needs to be 3rd person imo and have some good melee combat using the whip and/or other weapons
Ask marvels game and guardian of galaxy.
Compared to spiderman and miles Morales, 1 was a flop, and the other was below the expectation.
Insomniac spiderman would have sold alot. The game managed to sold more than 15m on 1 system. It would have had skyrim level of sales, if it was on all platforms. The game was that good.That is like saying if Insomniac’s Spider-Man were multiplat it would have sold less.
Insomniac spiderman would have sold alot. The game managed to sold more than 15m on 1 system. It would have had skyrim level of sales, if it was on all platforms. The game was that good.
Square kinda fucked up their marvel, due to their live service direction. Guardian of galaxy suffered from low marketing, which flew under the users radar. These were nobodies. these IPs were kinda big.
Due to MS declining it. We had discussion about it.I think where you messed up is that Spider-Man was given to Insomniac by Sony.
Due to MS declining it. We had discussion about it.
The topic is that Disney is OK with exclusives, if its gives them good games and money.
They let square do multiplatform games, and square fucked up the marvel IP. Disney would not so dumb to pressure for multiplatform, if they can avoid disaster games like what square did.
If MS asks for exclusivity, chances, are they would let them have it. If that means MS paying the money, and producing a good game.
But so far, its just speculation from our part.
And the worst, is that MS might ignore the exclusivity for this game, like they did with marvel games. They are just that dumb.
Riiight. Only Sony has these deals.At this point, they are fed up with Sony timed exclusives shenanigans.
Isnt that why machine games is getting the IP in the first place? Their Wolfenstein games proved their worth.Due to the rumors that said Microsoft declined it. Also still doesn’t change you not admitting that Insomniac was very important for the games success.
No one is talking about that. We are talking about Disney here. The one who owns the IP. They saw their worth, and gave them wolverine IP. Or else, insomniac wouldnt have gotten wolverine.Look it would be easier to just admit that Insomniac making a good Spider-Man game helped it sell a lot of copies. If something like that was made by Activision the results could have been a lot worse even if it spanned multiple platforms.
We are not talking about spiderman. I think you got confused here.Edit: I got confused with the KOTOR remake rumor. Still even if Microsoft accepted it there’s no guarantee that Insomniac would have been the ones to make the game.
Riiight. Only Sony has these deals.
Trust me buddy, It wont happen.No one knows for sure though.
That supposed exclusivity deal would be long expired.Sony did with
ff7R
It doesnt matter. Release date is what matters. If the release date doesnt happen on your console, you will miss out tons of revenue.That supposed exclusivity deal would be long expired.
Isnt that why machine games is getting the IP in the first place? Their Wolfenstein games proved their worth.
No one is talking about that. We are talking about Disney here. The one who owns the IP. They saw their worth, and gave them wolverine IP. Or else, insomniac wouldnt have gotten wolverine.
We are not talking about spiderman. I think you got confused here.
The point was Disney making their games multiplatform or exclusive. It has nothing to do with insomniac. Insomniac made a commercial hit spiderman with Sony backing. Disney gave them wolverine as a sign of trust. This one shuts down, Disney wanting their games to be multiplatform.
By giving wolverine to Insomniac, they are saying give us a good game. We dont care which platform gets it.
With that in mind, MS can get Indiana jones IP as exclusive to their console, like wolverine for Sony.
Disney end goal is all about money, and good games. They dont care if you make it exclusive or not. Their multiplatform games so far, have been hit or a miss. Guardians with low marketing and not hitting the milestone. Marvels game being garbage. EA with star wars.
No you aren’t. But you sure try hard.Well yes I'm a random user in a message board. Am I supposed to write "imo" after every post? Lmao
Insomniac being owned by Sony won't change anything. All it does, is show the game being exclusive to Sony platform.Wolverine was different though. Whatever deal Bethesda had with Disney that was made before the Microsoft acquisition. Insomniac was already owned by Sony when that happened.
Like I said if Microsoft doesn’t accept Disneys terms the game multiplatform if that was the original plan.
We don't know that. If the contract originally stated it needed to release on Xbox and ps that doesn't preclude ms from going back to Disney and reworking the contract to only require an Xbox and pc release. From the rumors we've seen, it sounds like Disney was trying hard to get platform holders to fund games based on their ip.Wolverine was different though. Whatever deal Bethesda had with Disney that was made before the Microsoft acquisition. Insomniac was already owned by Sony when that happened.
Like I said if Microsoft doesn’t accept Disneys terms the game multiplatform if that was the original plan.
And I think it is not a coincidence that Wolverine is developped by Insomniac considering the sales of both Spider man and the relatively low budget they had.Wolverine was different though. Whatever deal Bethesda had with Disney that was made before the Microsoft acquisition. Insomniac was already owned by Sony when that happened.
Like I said if Microsoft doesn’t accept Disneys terms the game multiplatform if that was the original plan.
And I think it is not a coincidence that Wolverine is developped by Insomniac considering the sales of both Spider man and the relatively low budget they had.
We don't know that. If the contract originally stated it needed to release on Xbox and ps that doesn't preclude ms from going back to Disney and reworking the contract to only require an Xbox and pc release. From the rumors we've seen, it sounds like Disney was trying hard to get platform holders to fund games based on their ip.
Maybe we'll know platforms after Microsoft's presentation next month? I think it will release on ps just because of the timing of when the deal was done, but things can change. If ms sees huge potential in this game they could want to keep it off ps.
It doesn't stand a chance of being as good as the 3rd person Uncharted series so 1st person might work.For an Indiana Jones game?
Yuck lolIt doesn't stand a chance of being as good as the 3rd person Uncharted series so 1st person might work.
It's up to Disney to agree or disagree to such.We don't know that. If the contract originally stated it needed to release on Xbox and ps that doesn't preclude ms from going back to Disney and reworking the contract to only require an Xbox and pc release. From the rumors we've seen, it sounds like Disney was trying hard to get platform holders to fund games based on their ip.
Maybe we'll know platforms after Microsoft's presentation next month? I think it will release on ps just because of the timing of when the deal was done, but things can change. If ms sees huge potential in this game they could want to keep it off ps.
I'm not as sure as you that if the game is great a sequel is garanteed.I am a huge fan of the 3 (and let's keep it that way only) movies but I don't think the licence will appeal to gamers...Yes I don’t believe it’s a coincidence either. I guess they impressed with Spider-Man and were given another pick beyond a sequel to the game. Now if Spider-Man was made by somebody else and it turned out horrid things might have been different.
Anyways if Machine Games does a great job with Indiana Jones I don’t doubt there will be more Indie games from them in the future. I liked the Wolfenstein games but really have no idea on how they would handle and Indiana Jones games.
Right. But like I said, from the thread a week or so ago, Disney went to ms and Sony to get to get games based on their ip funded. So Disney wants more games based on their properties. And after the last two multiplatform games based on their ip bombed they may be open to the idea of renegotiating that contract if ms approached them. I still expect Indiana jones to be multuplatform, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was xbox and pc only.It's up to Disney to agree or disagree to such.
I'm not as sure as you that if the game is great a sequel is garanteed.I am a huge fan of the 3 (and let's keep it that way only) movies but I don't think the licence will appeal to gamers...
Anecdotal evidences are of course anecdotal but I have nieces and nephews that don't know Indiana jones or even Harrison Ford and older gamer have been burnt by shitty licence games and most of the people I talked about indy games were very skeptical (which may also be due to the ...(let's pretend for a second that they do exist) last 2 movies and don't want the franchise to be soiled again(for the lack of a better word I could find).
So they need to make a good game but more important a very good first showing especially now that Uncharted and Tomb Raider are so prevalent, I think it needs to be different enough but mind blowing too.Because licenced games are still bad (with the exception of insomniac Spidey and batman arkham of course).So let's hope for an amazing game and a great first showing because otherwise I have some doubts about the success of the game.
Right. But like I said, from the thread a week or so ago, Disney went to ms and Sony to get to get games based on their ip funded. So Disney wants more games based on their properties. And after the last two multiplatform games based on their ip bombed they may be open to the idea of renegotiating that contract if ms approached them. I still expect Indiana jones to be multuplatform, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was xbox and pc only.
They talked to Bethesda before MS bought them.Right. But like I said, from the thread a week or so ago, Disney went to ms and Sony to get to get games based on their ip funded. So Disney wants more games based on their properties. And after the last two multiplatform games based on their ip bombed they may be open to the idea of renegotiating that contract if ms approached them. I still expect Indiana jones to be multuplatform, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was xbox and pc only.
I doubt it. Disney doesn't believe in day one launches on subscriptions. Their own products don't follow that trend either. For example, Doctor Strange Multiverse on Madness is not available on Disney+. There isn't even a date for that.If Disney is indeed funding this, then I would imagine that they wouldn't say no to a nice guaranteed chunk of the dev costs back from Microsoft for putting it on Gamepass day one. It wouldn't be going on there for free.
Exactly. That's why they moved away from Activision (a multi-platform game publisher) and made a deal with Sony (a company that primarily makes console exclusives) for Spider-Man. Because they knew that with Sony's expertise and market share, the game will be an even bigger success, despite being limited to one console only.I don’t think changing the game to an exclusive will make it more successful. Rather that having the right people make the game will ensure it’s success. At least that’s why I believe some if their IPs have failed because they didn’t have the right developers making the games among other things.
Jumping Flash?You can't do good jumping with 1st person. That would be bad for the experience.
They are treating games the same way as movies? Interesting. You got the source for us to read that confirms that?I doubt it. Disney doesn't believe in day one launches on subscriptions. Their own products don't follow that trend either. For example, Doctor Strange Multiverse on Madness is not available on Disney+. There isn't even a date for that.
It'll first complete its run in the cinemas. And after some time, it'll come to Disney+. It's more like the Sony/PS Plus method than Xbox/Gamepass method.
I reckon they'd prefer the same strategy here. Launch the game on retail, sell as many copies as they can, and then bring it to subs when the sales dry down.
Having said that, it'd be relatively much easier for MS to bring it on Gamepass day one than making it a console exclusive.
when PC is there is clearly the superior version of the game. Same will be for future PS5 first partyI'm looking forward to being able to choose whether to buy this for PC or PS5 depending on the type of game it is, e.g. more platforming or shooting.
I also wonder if they will implement specific DualSense features.
I don't think that's gonna happen. Wolverine is far away from to the popularity of Spider-Man: https://nerdable.com/who-is-the-most-popular-superhero/They now want to replicate that success with Wolverine.
Re source: "I reckon they'd prefer the same strategy here. Launch the game on retail, sell as many copies as they can, and then bring it to subs when the sales dry down."They are treating games the same way as movies? Interesting. You got the source for us to read that confirms that?
Although I do agree that it will be easier to get it on gp rather than exclusive. Certainly a lot cheaper
Yeah, and I don't think either Sony or Disney has any expectations that Wolverine will match Spider-Man's sales and success.I don't think that's gonna happen. Wolverine is far away from to the popularity of Spider-Man: https://nerdable.com/who-is-the-most-popular-superhero/
Sony's usual monster marketing will push it over 10 millions for sure, but i don't see it anywhere near 20 million.
Lol, i didn't even know that game existed. Most likely zero marketing and marketing is king.Yeah, and I don't think either Sony or Disney has any expectations that Wolverine will match Spider-Man's sales and success.
But I believe they have relatively better expectations. Like the game will sell significantly better than the 2009 X-Men Origins: Wolverine game, just like Spider-Man PS4 performed much better than Activision's Spider-Man games.
First party timed exclusives? Can you list them?Yes, there have been multiple timed exclusives in the past by both MS and Sony and they don't always give all the details upfront.
Most games from Bethesda in the future will be everywhere? Right now it looks like potentially one game from them will be multiplat, and that's still a big maybe. While Xbox is getting one of the biggest games of the generation from Bethesda as an exclusive along with Redfall next year.... And as far as we know none of their are timed exclusive on PS and only COD has a PS marketing deal.. So pretty much you just made up a bunch of nonsense in your head to make you feel better about the Bethesda and Activision acquisitions. People rightfully made a big deal about these the acquisitions because they're industry changing.It's interesting to witness how most games from both Bethesda and Activision in the future will be everywhere anyway and some are timed exclusive on PlayStation or at least their marketing deals are there.
The outrageous responses for these two acquisitions were so overblown in hindsight...
MS won't take full advantage of both of these publishers before 2025 at this point...I mean, we're even getting rumors of a call of duty exclusively on VR2...
They launch plenty of their products on their own subscription service. Although they obviously treat films and series differently.Re source: "I reckon they'd prefer the same strategy here. Launch the game on retail, sell as many copies as they can, and then bring it to subs when the sales dry down."
But it's common sense though and fairly safe to assume. If they don't launch one of their products on their own subscription day one, ti is safe to assume -- until proven otherwise -- that they'd prefer not to launch another one of their products on someone else's subscription either. They also haven't yet launched any of their big games on a subscription yet; so there is little evidence to suggest otherwise.
I mean that literally means it's my guess based on the available evidence so far -- not a definitive statement lolThey launch plenty of their products on their own subscription service. Although they obviously treat films and series differently.
We will see how it launches, but making definitive statements based because you “reckon” doesn’t equal reality
Yes please!And we don’t even know what kind of game it is, could be afirst person shooter, metroidvania, RPG, point and click adventure,puzzle game.
I’d love a AAA Indiana Jones metroidvania!Yes please!
It's an Uncharted.