Because Microsoft was offered the deal first, so they seemed to want an exclusive deal. Not sure why, but maybe because they wanted to be heavily involved. if you recall Marvel were heavily involved in the marketing of the first gameHow 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.
Yes, there are others, another thing is that you only want to see one...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.
Because Marvel went to Xbox for a first party exclusive game and Xbox said no. Sony got the same offer as sloppy seconds. It's a fact.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.
I did forget that part of the deal. Thanks.Because Marvel went to Xbox for a first party exclusive game and Xbox said no. Sony got the same offer as sloppy seconds. It's a fact.
They wanted better quality of Marvel IP games and expected first party would be better qualityBecause Microsoft was offered the deal first, so they seemed to want an exclusive deal. Not sure why, but maybe because they wanted to be heavily involved. if you recall Marvel were heavily involved in the marketing of the first game
Honestly, 2028 feels too soon considering it's already 2023 and we've JUST started leaving the cross-gen window in some prominent releases.
That's a 8-year generation length! And you say too soon?!
Hope Aaron has approved this holiday.Alright I'm gonna bow out for the rest of the show, will check the tweets for summaries.
It's 3 years in and the generation has barely started tho.
Doesn't Sony own the digital rights?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.
Great start too with games already starting to render at 720p. The series S will be rendering 360p by 2028 lol.It's 3 years in and the generation has barely started tho.
The CMA documents noted that both Sony and MS had plans to launch the next generation in 2028. What I believe is that PS5 and Xseries will coexist with PS6 and XBOX NEXT for a long time (even longer than PS4 does now).That's a 8-year generation length! And you say too soon?!
Movie rights only to Spider-Man IPDoesn't Sony own the digital rights?
And Marvel was shopping around exclusivity for it and allegedly approached MS first.because the game didn’t exist from a publisher they bought out![]()
For you
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.
This came up before has it ever been established that their licensing rights only included film!Movie rights only to Spider-Man IP
Very comedic too in a lot of ways.This has been an informative day, I think.
Why would Sony negotiate with Marvel for the Spider-Man IP to make Insomniac's Spider-Man?This came up before has it ever been established that their licensing rights only included film!
All one big creative choice™, a thought experiment™ if you will.This has been an informative day, I think.
You're talking about the licence sony has owned since 1998?
Or something else?
Hahaha, 1000 pages of discussion about crazy COD exclusivity theories wiped out with a single email from Jim Ryan
Sony don't have the games rights for Spider-man, just the movie ones.Why would Sony negotiate with Marvel for the Spider-Man IP to make Insomniac's Spider-Man?
Hahaha, 1000 pages of discussion about crazy COD exclusivity theories wiped out with a single email from Jim Ryan
$$$$ rules at the end of the day.
Marvel could have refused Sony option for making spiderman exclusive, same for Disney with Indiana Jones.
education system failed you, stop using twitter for you pages as newsHahaha, 1000 pages of discussion about crazy COD exclusivity theories wiped out with a single email from Jim Ryan
Hahaha, 1000 pages of discussion about crazy COD exclusivity theories wiped out with a single email from Jim Ryan
Marvel offered it as an exclusive to Sony, like they did Xbox before. Marvel would have gone to a third party if they wanted multiplatform.$$$$ rules at the end of the day.
Marvel could have refused Sony option for making spiderman exclusive, same for Disney with Indiana Jones.
I almost feel sorry for the intellectually stunted.Really? That's what you got out of today?
![]()
That's my point to the reply.Sony don't have the games rights for Spider-man, just the movie ones.
And Disney could have refused MS offer for exclusivity.Marvel offered it as an exclusive to Sony, like they did Xbox before. Marvel would have gone to a third party if they wanted multiplatform.
given how no one has been banned yet today despite the fact we have several users still spreading FUD that seems unlikelyToday was great to at least wash away all the lies, fud and narratives. Should be bannable to even try and push the bs that has been spread for the last three years or more.
Sorry man, I was trying to timestamp it for you but the youtube stream I was watching wasn't a recorded stream and the other spanish stream which was recorded had its audio cut out so it's just the guy asking people to wait; but it was basically what Banjo and Deepenigma said.I didn't get that. What was said?
Hahaha, 1000 pages of discussion about crazy COD exclusivity theories wiped out with a single email from Jim Ryan
Why would Sony negotiate with Marvel for the Spider-Man IP to make Insomniac's Spider-Man?
The CMA documents noted that both Sony and MS had plans to launch the next generation in 2028. What I believe is that PS5 and Xseries will coexist with PS6 and XBOX NEXT for a long time (even longer than PS4 does now).
They own the IP. They can decide what they want with.Why would they go go to Sony to make Spider-Man for Xbox?
They won't lol, seems Disney is completely fine with exclusivity, they just want put their IPs on Gaming again.Why would they go go to Sony to make Spider-Man for Xbox?
Really? That's what you got out of today?
![]()
Disney didn't go to Bethesda, it was the other way round. Bethesda offered multiplatform.And Disney could have refused MS offer for exclusivity.
These are companies who care about $$$.
Sarah Bond was being questioned and as part of the questioning she was asked about AAA games and what constitutes an AAA game.I didn't get that. What was said?
And Disney could have refused MS offer for exclusivity.
These are companies who care about $$$.
It doesn't matter who went to who.Disney didn't go to Bethesda, it was the other way round. Bethesda offered multiplatform.
The two deals are not the same. Marvel offered exclusivity to Sony, Bethesda offered multiplatform