Support NeoGAF

[Clear]

That's your guess. The most likely possibility is that MS promised Disney to increase the size and production values of the game compared to what would be only with the funds of Zenimax and that would be more interesting.

If they could afford the license then they had money for a AAA budget.

If they changed the deal Disney would have been well compensated for it either/or up-front or via back-end points.

Make no mistake losing the incumbent market-leading console paltform is going to cut their sales by millions. And no doubt the day-1 GamePass treatment will cut sales even lower, especially at retail.

It might make MS more money by cutting out the competition, but all things being equal its not nearly so beneficial to anyone else.
So yeah, they got paid more or similar concessions were made. Like for instance it maybe becoming a one-game deal instead of a multi-game one. Because lets face it, just like MLB publishing The Show on Xbox... The IP holder sets the rules.

 

[adamsapple]

zzzzzzzz

I understand they're asking this for the benefit of people who don't know how these things work but still.

 

[Heisenberg007]

bro why is the FTC just asking the most basic questions. I have no idea what they are aiming to accomplish this with. Is this the part they try to say gamepass users = cloud users? I don’t know what else they can be arguing.

That's what they were getting at.

They are finally here now

 

[GHG]

bro why is the FTC just asking the most basic questions. I have no idea what they are aiming to accomplish this with. Is this the part they try to say gamepass users = cloud users? I don’t know what else they can be arguing.

It's to make sure anything they are due to talk about subsequently is clearly defined. That way the judge will be able to have clarity on all the terms being used (both now and in review) and so that there is no element of ambiguity.

It's a normal process in most court cases where the subject matter can be seen to be technical in nature.

 

[Interfectum]

Sounds like people barely even use xcloud. Dat streaming future.

 

[vj27]

using xcloud to a try a game is literally how I use it lol. Not surprised that’s how majority uses it, unless your one do those streaming fortnite to your phone. I remember that being slightly popular.

 

[NickFire]

How many times has someone at CMA blurted out Wanker today?

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Epic was a small indie studio before Fortnite!? What!? XD

 

[Nothing1234]

Epic being called a small indie studio before Fortnite. LMAO

 

[Iced Arcade]

epic was a small indie team lol

 

[Interfectum]

Epic wasn't a small indie team but they were forever transformed by Fortnite. Similar to what World of Warcraft did to Blizzard. They both increased exponentially in size.

Also, I like Sarah Bond. She seems to know her shit... seems more genuine than Phil anyway.

 

[adamsapple]

lol

Your post was better before the edit

 

[DeepEnigma]

Epic was a small indie studio before Fortnite!? What!? XD

Bethesda / Epic, etc, all comparing themselves to MS, but not actual reality of said words.

 

[tmlDan]

On the contrary, the business does not work in only one way. For Disney it can be perfectly more interesting an Indiana Jones game with more budget, production values and means financed by MS than a multiplatform game with lower production values and that devalue the IP and that passes without pain or glory in sales. In fact, that was Pete Hinnes' response at the end of his speech. Therefore, only bet on your part.

This is gonna be my last response because your sentences barely make sense.

When these deals are made there is a monetary split in revenue based on sales, Disney will either license out the IP or, in this case since they proposed it to be on all platforms, there is likely a revenue split as well.

In order to change that, MS has to go back and offer some sort of benefit, the monetary proposal could mean:

An increase in production value/marketing put out by MS and a side of a certain amount of money to bridge the gap for it not being on Sony PS. The production/marketing dollars, as you seem to like making up, will not match the monetary compensation of sales on PS, the amount is too big if an IP like Indiana Jones makes a great game that sells 10 mill. Especially if you consider the game is gonna be on GP and PC where sales are eaten up by GP.

The only possible way they do this is giving them a lump sum, there is no other logical reason.

 

[Interfectum]

Your post was better before the edit

Fixed, had to clean up my shit.

 

[Banjo64]

Epic was a small indie studio prior to Fortnite?

They are independent but they own unreal engine you daft cow

 

[Topher]

breaking for lunch

 

[DeepEnigma]

breaking for lunch

 

[Three]

Indie I can understand but small?

 

[Thirty7ven]

When does Kotick show up and says “We are a mid sized independent publisher but we hope that with MS will start making really big games that are only possible once you reduce multiple platforms to just two”

 

[jm89]

Booty must be pacing back and forth. Hoping one of the others does worse then him.

 

[Topher]

Indie I can understand but small?

I didn't get that. What was said?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I didn't get that. What was said?

"Epic was a small indie studio before Fortnite."

Obfuscating the truth.

And Pete Hines said, "Bethesda was a small independent publisher" prior.

 

[BoxFresh123]

breaking for lunch

"Pete Hines chose a tuna baguette"

Internet: Clearly regretting the acquisition.......

 

[graywolf323]

Epic was a small indie studio prior to Fortnite?

They are independent but they own unreal engine you daft cow

that’s hilarious, who claimed Epic was indie? (I’m at work so I’m just following things here on GAF)

 

[Banjo64]

that’s hilarious, who claimed Epic was indie? (I’m at work so I’m just following things here on GAF)

Sarah Bond described them as a small indie studio prior to Fortnite.

 

[azertydu91]

Sarah Bond described them as a small indie studio prior to Fortnite.

Of course it would be her....The bullshit seems pretty onesided so far.

 

[GHG]

Now that there's a break, who was it in this thread that kept on parroting "but they never announced Starfield for Playstation so therefore there's no evidence there was ever a Playstation version" or words to that effect?

Because I'm seeing a lot of "duh" in that other thread and I'm like nope.

 

[FritzJ92]

It absolutely does.

IMO, there is no way Disney did not get significant compensation for the lost opportunity on PS. Putting aside potential lost revenue from game sales, they just neutered the chances that the game will increase the value of the general IP. Games can create interest in movies too. It's not a one way street where movies create interest in games anymore.

How so, this is what kills me about some peoples perspective. Why is it Sony was able to increase Spidermans popularity by making a really good game, and why is it that Microsoft can't make such a good Indiana Jones games that it increases the popularity? I mean they are available on PC and Console so that the majority of "high performance gamers".

So what only Sony exclusive deals can increase interest in a movie? Seriously a real question.

 

[Interfectum]

Epic had around 900 employees when Fortnite launched. They are over 5,000 now.

 

[Banjo64]

Now that there's a break, who was it in this thread that kept on parroting "but they never announced Starfield for Playstation so therefore there's no evidence there was ever a Playstation version" or words to that effect?

Because I'm seeing a lot of "duh" in that other thread and I'm like nope.

Who?

Try all of the bots who just parrot what they’re told like good boys.

 

[DJ12]

that’s hilarious, who claimed Epic was indie? (I’m at work so I’m just following things here on GAF)

There always two sides to a court case, but it's hard to see how MS can counter this information that's come directly from their own employees.

 

[Gone]

It’s almost as if Microsoft don’t really want to ‘grow the industry’ at all.

I guess Sony will do the same with Haven and all the studios they bought?

 

[Dick Jones]

There always two sides to a court case, but it's hard to see how MS can counter this information that's come directly from their own employees.

Maybe they are contractors?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Now that there's a break, who was it in this thread that kept on parroting "but they never announced Starfield for Playstation so therefore there's no evidence there was ever a Playstation version" or words to that effect?

Because I'm seeing a lot of "duh" in that other thread and I'm like nope.

Don't forget when he mentioned MS kept approaching them for exclusive deals on their games prior to deciding to outright purchasing them as a whole. Those evil moneyhatting Sony's!

 

[GHG]

Who?

Try all of the bots who just parrot what they’re told like good boys.

Oh, judging by what's been said in that thread it must be yet another case of the classic old amnesia then. There's an endemic.

 

[Banjo64]

I guess Sony will do the same with Haven and all the studios they bought?

I’m sorry, I don’t speak to eejits.

 

[Topher]

I guess Sony will do the same with Haven and all the studios they bought?

Perhaps, but they also never made any bullshit claims about wanting to grow anything other than Sony's bank account.

 

[adamsapple]

Alright I'm gonna bow out for the rest of the show, will check the tweets for summaries.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Alright I'm gonna bow out for the rest of the show, will check the tweets for summaries.

 

[graywolf323]

Alright I'm gonna bow out for the rest of the show, will check the tweets for summaries.

your shift ending? too bad you can’t put in some overtime

 

[FritzJ92]

I love how these so called professionals are so quick to defend Xbox and Microsoft; they don’t want to lose their privileges:



When did PlayStation cancel the Xbox version of Spider-Man?

How do you know Sony didn't negotiate a no xbox version of the Spiderman IP? We only found this out about Indiana Jones because fo the trial.

 

[Darsxx82]

If they could afford the license then they had money for a AAA budget.

If they changed the deal Disney would have been well compensated for it either/or up-front or via back-end points.

Make no mistake losing the incumbent market-leading console paltform is going to cut their sales by millions. And no doubt the day-1 GamePass treatment will cut sales even lower, especially at retail.

It might make MS more money by cutting out the competition, but all things being equal its not nearly so beneficial to anyone else.
So yeah, they got paid more or similar concessions were made. Like for instance it maybe becoming a one-game deal instead of a multi-game one. Because lets face it, just like MLB publishing The Show on Xbox... The IP holder sets the rules.

The owner of the IP sets the rules, yes... and can also dedicate himself to just choosing between several proposals. The proposal of having an Indiana Jones game with a lot more budget and production values may be perfectly sufficient. Going out on PS5, sorry, does not assure you to sell millions more and that the game is a success. It will always depend on the final quality of the game and the means and budget are always important. The game is also released on PC, that is, it will have a wide base of players.

That the launch on day one in Gamepass will affect sales? Sure, that's why Disney will charge compensation just like all · Rd party that release their games on Gamepass.

 

[NickFire]

How so, this is what kills me about some peoples perspective. Why is it Sony was able to increase Spidermans popularity by making a really good game, and why is it that Microsoft can't make such a good Indiana Jones games that it increases the popularity? I mean they are available on PC and Console so that the majority of "high performance gamers".

So what only Sony exclusive deals can increase interest in a movie? Seriously a real question.

Literally today, MS claimed to hold 16% marketshare in console. So the game's potential audience just dwindled form 100% of console marketshare to 16% of it. That will be a huge damper on how many people it reaches.

I think you misread my post. I said they neutered the chances of increased popularity. I did not say they completely killed the chances.

 

[graywolf323]

How do you know Sony didn't negotiate a no xbox version of the Spiderman IP? We only found this out about Indiana Jones because fo the trial.

because the game didn’t exist from a publisher they bought out

 

[adamsapple]

your shift ending? too bad you can’t put in some overtime

At least 2 of you care

 

[feynoob]

How do you know Sony didn't negotiate a no xbox version of the Spiderman IP? We only found this out about Indiana Jones because fo the trial.

That is how it works. These companies negotiate exclusives for their devices and pay the fee for that.

 

[Banjo64]

Alright I'm gonna bow out for the rest of the show, will check the tweets for summaries.

Yeah, just try not to get your info from Hoeg and Robert mate.

 

[Topher]

How do you know Sony didn't negotiate a no xbox version of the Spiderman IP? We only found this out about Indiana Jones because fo the trial.

Spider-man wasn't a game that came to Sony because of an acquisition.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Epic had around 900 employees when Fortnite launched. They are over 5,000 now.

Mid size triple AAA teams are 100 to 200 tops, and big studios like Naught Dog and Insomniac Games have around 400 - 500 employees. Still not sure why Sarah Bond would consider Epic Games prior to Fortnite release a small studio.