• 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.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

tmlDan

Member
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 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
 
Last edited:

Darsxx82

Member
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.
Yes, there are others, another thing is that you only want to see one...
 

Dick Jones

Banned
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 game
They wanted better quality of Marvel IP games and expected first party would be better quality
 

feynoob

Banned
$$$$ rules at the end of the day.
Marvel could have refused Sony option for making spiderman exclusive, same for Disney with Indiana Jones.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
Hahaha, 1000 pages of discussion about crazy COD exclusivity theories wiped out with a single email from Jim Ryan

Really? That's what you got out of today?

Sylvester Stallone Facepalm GIF
 

Three

Member
I didn't get that. What was said?
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.
 

devilNprada

Member
Why would Sony negotiate with Marvel for the Spider-Man IP to make Insomniac's Spider-Man?

Why would Disney have to buy back the rights to their streaming service?
I am not giving you are hard time here.. please just show me where it has been established that Sony did not own those rights?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
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).

If this is the case, then I'm 99.9% sure Sony will release a PS5 Pro in a couple of years.
 

Dick Jones

Banned
And Disney could have refused MS offer for exclusivity.

These are companies who care about $$$.
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
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
I didn't get that. What was said?
Sarah Bond was being questioned and as part of the questioning she was asked about AAA games and what constitutes an AAA game.

Following this she was asked if smaller scale games could still thrive, alongside questions about M$'s Game Pass and First Party portfolio (simple question, just about the breadth of content).

She then was asked to give some examples of smaller games thriving, which is where she said Epic were a small indie dev before Fortnite released. She listed it alongside games such as Vampire Survivors.

Nothing scandalous. Just a hilarious insight in to her knowledge considering Gears of War and Unreal Engine.
 

feynoob

Banned
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
It doesn't matter who went to who.
What matters is both companies own the IPs and they have the final decision.
Disney could have simply said no, make the game multiplatform. They didn't.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom