Support NeoGAF

[Cyber_hunter026]

Im more curious how the success of Spiderman has influenced further negotiations. We know Wolverine is coming but I wonder if Sony has other projects lined up as well.

There's a distinct possibility. it depends on if any of their first party studios outside of insomniac is willing to or has ideas for a potential project/title. while I don't see naughty dog working on a licensed title. Neil did express interest in either doing a game based on the punisher or ghost rider. so there is always that possibility but I do wonder many titles would marvel agree to be exclusive on Playstation?

 

[kiphalfton]

I'm glad. Disney Marvel is garbage.

Even the "best" Marvel stuff that came out recently, is still not that great.

Spider-Man No Way Home for instance wasted the old villains and reduced them to cheap laughs. Even Daredevil, which was a nice surprise, was wasted with a relatively pointless cameo scene...

And that's the problem, is Marvel doesn't lean on their strong characters, and instead relies on crappy characters to keep the movies rolling out.

Lots of wasted potential. Can only imagine Fantastic Four and X-Men (or whatever stupid name they'll rename them, since that's not politically correct) turn out.

 

[Camreezie]

So wheres the IP they chose to focus on instead?

 

[JTCx]

So wheres the IP they chose to focus on instead?

Oreos

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So wheres the IP they chose to focus on instead?

Ask yourself which studio would have done it and which game did they work on in the last 6 years?

 

[Camreezie]

Ask yourself which studio would have done it and which game did they work on in the last 6 years?

The Coalition maybe? Gears 5 and thats it?

 

[Warablo]

So wheres the IP they chose to focus on instead?

Sunset Overdrive

 

[Camreezie]

Sunset Overdrive

Sunset overdrive launched 2014 and the conversation they had with xbox was in 2014. Game would have been basically finished

 

[Mibu no ookami]

100% True. Instead Microsoft should have approached the team that delivered the Xbox exclusive Sunset Overdrive.

Partnering with Insomniac on Sunset Overdrive made sense. The scope of the game is entirely different from Spider-Man. It's original IP so the margin is going to be more favorable to Microsoft than Spider-Man and you're building your own fanbase as opposed to one that would immediately jump ship due to attachment to the brand already.

If things went well, they probably would have tried to buy Insomniac or at least worked on subsequent games with them.

But Spider-Man is a highly risky proposition.

 

[Clintizzle]

But Spider-Man is a highly risky proposition.

Based on what I've seen even pre - PS4 Spiderman, this is not true at all.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Im more curious how the success of Spiderman has influenced further negotiations. We know Wolverine is coming but I wonder if Sony has other projects lined up as well.

I'm sure Sony wants to be careful about becoming a Marvel factory. That's extremely risky.

There's a reason why Sony abandoned Crash and Spyro rather than continue to pay Universal money to license the characters on PS2.

They probably want to see how far they can take things with Wolverine, but there are a lot of risks involved with that game as well. They actually already made a deal for Marvel's Iron Man VR, which obviously didn't sell that well.

I think they will see if Wolverine does well and then try to make an X-Men and Wolverine 2 (if Wolverine does well), but my guess is probably that's as far as it'll ever go in terms of IP they work on.

 

[ungalo]

True. I guess it shows how important the developer is. If you have a good dev with a good IP you can produce something really good.

When it comes to Spiderman it's a shame that there were so many chappy games. Happy that Insomniac did a good job with it.

It's not a shame, nobody gave a shit back then and i think it shows how gaming decayed since, creatively.

They only put a good studio on it because the commercial opportunity was there. 15 years ago it would have been a random studio with a shitty budget and that was perfectly fine for me.

And not only the opportunity is there but there isn't much space for everything else, just remake, old IPs, safe bet and some new generic stuff.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The Coalition maybe? Gears 5 and thats it?

They were actually working on Gears 4 at the time and subsequently Gears 5.

And obviously, Gears was more important to Microsoft at the time than taking a chance on Spider-Man.

Probably their biggest franchise apart from Halo.

 

[bender]

Partnering with Insomniac on Sunset Overdrive made sense. The scope of the game is entirely different from Spider-Man. It's original IP so the margin is going to be more favorable to Microsoft than Spider-Man and you're building your own fanbase as opposed to one that would immediately jump ship due to attachment to the brand already.

If things went well, they probably would have tried to buy Insomniac or at least worked on subsequent games with them.

But Spider-Man is a highly risky proposition.

The point is that Insomniac's relationship with Sony had deteriorated at the end of the PS3 generation and into the PS4 generation. It's why Fuse was multi-platform and published by EA and they signed a deal with Gamestop publishing for Song of the Deep. And that's before creating an Xbox exclusive. Microsoft could have easily signed a deal with Marvel and engaged Insomniac. Microsoft was shortsighted.

 

[Deerock71]

Considering how games based off the Marvel universe goes...it probably wasn't a bad decision.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The point is that Insomniac's relationship with Sony had deteriorated at the end of the PS3 generation and into the PS4 generation. It's why Fuse was multi-platform and published by EA and they signed a deal with Gamestop publishing for Song of the Deep. And that's before creating an Xbox exclusive. Microsoft could have easily signed a deal with Marvel and engaged Insomniac. Microsoft was shortsighted.

I think it's saying a lot to suggest it had deteriorated.

Insomniac wanted to see if they could make more money being multiplatform. They then struggled to find a publisher who would let them own the IP for sunset, but Microsoft said yes.

Again, Microsoft didn't have much a relationship with Insomniac, and it would have been a really big deal for them to basically fund the studio for 5 years and then maybe turn around and put out the sequel with Sony. There's a huge reason why Sony bought Insomniac right away after Spider-Man came out. They wanted to lock them in forever. Anyone could have bought them including Marvel.

 

[Duchess]

There's a huge reason why Sony bought Insomniac right away after Spider-Man came out. They wanted to lock them in forever.

Aye. Otherwise Sony would've had that Beyonce song going around and around in their heads for the remainder of all time.

 

[DarkMage619]

someone also made the comment similar to if Sony hadn't co-funded/developed SF5, we'd have had to wait a lot longer etc. I personally don't count these contexts as a moneyhat to begin with, more a co-development.

I disagree that Sony was responsible for Street Fighter 5 and Final Fantasy 7 remake's creation. It's not like either was new IP. While business is business it's still a moneyhat.

Makes sense to me as it’s better to use your own ip versus someone else’s.

Having said that Microsoft didn’t have an Insomniac to hand a Marvel game off to. These days they have more internal studios that could produce something great, but back then?
Even then outside of Spiderman the other Marvel games haven’t been big hits.

There seems to be this idea that MS passed on a finished Spiderman game when that wasn't true at all. As you've indicated having access to IP doesn't guarantee a success game. It also ignores that MS used the Pirates of the Caribbean IP which clearly shows MS isn't unwilling to work with Disney. This is a nothing story.

 

[gothmog]

There's this really weird assumption that Marvel games sell bad. Avengers didn't do well, but that was more of SE fucking up what should have been an easy slam dunk. GotG was collateral damage which was a shame since it was well done. Most of the Marvel games before Spider-Man that weren't quick cash grab movie tie ins sell well like Ultimate Alliance and MvC.

I could understand why someone like Microsoft might not be interested but to pretend that all Marvel games were bad before Insomniac got their hands on Spider-Man is disingenuous at best.

 

[kiphalfton]

I'm sure Sony wants to be careful about becoming a Marvel factory. That's extremely risky.

There's a reason why Sony abandoned Crash and Spyro rather than continue to pay Universal money to license the characters on PS2.

They probably want to see how far they can take things with Wolverine, but there are a lot of risks involved with that game as well. They actually already made a deal for Marvel's Iron Man VR, which obviously didn't sell that well.

I think they will see if Wolverine does well and then try to make an X-Men and Wolverine 2 (if Wolverine does well), but my guess is probably that's as far as it'll ever go in terms of IP they work on.

Yeah, Sony was smart to pick up THE two most popular characters/franchises. Spider-Man and Wolverine/X-Men.

After those two though, it drops from S-tier to A-tier Marvel characters/franchises, and although not the most risky bet in the world to work on something else Marvel related it probably isn't worth it.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Yeah, Sony was smart to pick up THE two most popular characters/franchises. Spider-Man and Wolverine/X-Men.

After those two though, it drops from S-tier to A-tier Marvel characters/franchises, and although not the most risky bet in the world to work on something else Marvel related it probably isn't worth it.

They're also the characters that lend themselves best to video games.

At this point, any Thor game is going to be compared aggressively to God of War.

Iron Man is up there, but the mechanics for characters that fly the majority of the time can be tricky.

Daredevil is up there, but doesn't translate well to a video game. Would be a poor man's Arkham for sure. Probably better as a side character.

Hulk like Superman is just too OP. Better in an Avengers type game.

Silver Surfer has a lot of potential and he's also probably gotten way more games than are warranted for the popularity of his character.

Captain America is hard to do. Better in an Avengers type game.

Next brings us the Fantastic Four, which are probably better as side characters at this point.

Not saying that no one can make these games, but yes as you said, there is a big drop off.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

The sad thing is that as long as Sony and Disney continue their partnership, the less likeliness is that we won't see an infamous come back. I just hope Sony doesn't eventually become the Marvel company and end up making tonnes of Marvel games.

 

[Gojiira]

There's a distinct possibility. it depends on if any of their first party studios outside of insomniac is willing to or has ideas for a potential project/title. while I don't see naughty dog working on a licensed title. Neil did express interest in either doing a game based on the punisher or ghost rider. so there is always that possibility but I do wonder many titles would marvel agree to be exclusive on Playstation?

Well it seems Marvel are more concerned with quality over quantity in regards to games anyway so I wouldnt be surprised if negotiations with Sony continued after Spidermans success.
I think Punisher/Ghost Rider would be a great fit for Sony though, darker tone, more mature. If Sony wants their own Arkham series maybe Daredevil could be a good choice.
I dont see there being loads of exclusive games but I defo don’t think Wolverine is being built as a ‘one and done’, Idk Sony just always eye franchises so I can see a Venom game eventually, Spiderman 3 I think is a given tbh, and it would be amazing if Wolverine spun off into Deadpool and Xmen games.

 

[Cyber_hunter026]

Well it seems Marvel are more concerned with quality over quantity in regards to games anyway so I wouldnt be surprised if negotiations with Sony continued after Spidermans success.
I think Punisher/Ghost Rider would be a great fit for Sony though, darker tone, more mature. If Sony wants their own Arkham series maybe Daredevil could be a good choice.
I dont see there being loads of exclusive games but I defo don’t think Wolverine is being built as a ‘one and done’, Idk Sony just always eye franchises so I can see a Venom game eventually, Spiderman 3 I think is a given tbh, and it would be amazing if Wolverine spun off into Deadpool and Xmen games.

I think venom is a definite if not a possible spin off title. given insomniac games history in creating spin off/side games for the ratchet and clank franchise. I can see venom getting his own stand alone game somewhere down the line. punisher seems like a good fit for naughty dog imo. but I wouldn't be against them doing ghost rider either. Daredevil as a franchise is a long time coming. whether it's by sony's first party or by studios like EA motive or Amy henning's studio, it's definitely coming.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Considering how games based off the Marvel universe goes...it probably wasn't a bad decision.

Pretty much my reaction, given hindsight, the post launch revitalisation and Gamepass success showed plenty of support and turnover these titles warranted. They're well-made and fun but not something I'd spend AUD$100 on a one-time experience with.

 

[Beechos]

Im ok they passed. God knows how much those licenses must cost. Unless the game is super successful like spiderman with an average dev budget. The risk/reward just isnt worth it. Isnt that avengers game with decent sales crippling square enix?

 

[EverydayBeast]

There's a few good super hero games (Batman, SONY's Spiderman) the door for good super hero games has been open developers are just realizing that, with upgrade systems, tree upgrades. Wolverine seems like a AAA game.

 

[SuperSaiyanWithDreads]

Who would they have had develop it? I wouldn't trust pretty much any of their studios to make a decent superhero game. Not a knock against Microsoft, even Sony had to pick up a developer to make Spiderman. I suppose Xbox could have done the same, but I think Sony was the better outcome just given their ability to make great narrative games to begin with,

I think Coalition could of made a decent Punisher game

 

[SuperSaiyanWithDreads]

It’s not really that absurd. Marvel games were usually pretty shit before Sony’s Spider-Man. Even Avengers and GotG flopped recently.

Tell me you haven’t played Marvel Ultimate Alliance, X-Men Legends & rise of apo, hulk ultimate destruction, web of shadows, ultimate spiderman, shattered dimensions etc without saying it

 

[SuperSaiyanWithDreads]

Im ok they passed. God knows how much those licenses must cost. Unless the game is super successful like spiderman with an average dev budget. The risk/reward just isnt worth it. Isnt that avengers game with decent sales crippling square enix?

This ideology is a problem. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and Xbox has billions but you as a consumer is concerned about the cost? They’re in a business to SERVE US. They SUPPOSE to spend MONEY on games to please us and then in return we keep them in business!

 

[A.Romero]

I think it was the right decision for Microsoft. Getting into bed with Disney must have a lot of implications and Microsoft needs freedom and ability to adapt. They are navigating unknown waters with Gamepass.

However, I think there is a lot of potential in Marvel characters. I mean, Disney was capable of making decent shows out of Scarlet witch and Loki. They just need to put their head into it (and they probably have).

I hope they make a fighting game like children of the atom together with arcsys at some point, for example.

They could revive X-Men legends too.

I'm sure with all the people they have working for them they can come up with a hundred better ideas than me.

 

[Beechos]

This ideology is a problem. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and Xbox has billions but you as a consumer is concerned about the cost? They’re in a business to SERVE US. They SUPPOSE to spend MONEY on games to please us and then in return we keep them in business!

Yes just because they are a trillion dollar company doesnt mean their devs/dept/management within the company do not have budgets. When was the last time you worked?

Your idealogy is the problem they are not here to serve you. They are here to make MONEY calculate risks/reward in EVERY DECISION THEY MAKE. They obviously calculated that shit and thought it wasnt worth it. Thought they were better off cultivated their own games with the money/time. Whether it was a good idea or not, is up for debate.

They are here to serve us lol, ok cause gaas, comestics, pay to win, season passes is what we want in our games. Oh hey dont forget the pay to play online cause everyone asked for that too.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Tell me you haven’t played Marvel Ultimate Alliance, X-Men Legends & rise of apo, hulk ultimate destruction, web of shadows, ultimate spiderman, shattered dimensions etc without saying it

You also left out a mountain of shit, but whatever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Games

 

[Swipeyowifelike]

You also left out a mountain of shit, but whatever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Games

Founded in 2009 with marvel games going back to the 70s. What is this proving?

 

[thismeinteil]

God, reading the first couple pages of Xbox fans trying to act like this was a good thing, even after seeing the HUGE success that is Spider-Man and Miles Morales, makes you want to...

 

[Iced Arcade]

Chances are they would (and Sony now) make very little money producing the game after licensing/paying Disney.

that being said... It's pretty stupid because the spider-man name alone sells like crazy and would move units. Huge mistake.

 

[Estocolmo]

Good! The world needs less Marvel stuff not more!

 

[SuperSaiyanWithDreads]

Yes just because they are a trillion dollar company doesnt mean their devs/dept/management within the company do not have budgets. When was the last time you worked?

Your idealogy is the problem they are not here to serve you. They are here to make MONEY calculate risks/reward in EVERY DECISION THEY MAKE. They obviously calculated that shit and thought it wasnt worth it. Thought they were better off cultivated their own games with the money/time. Whether it was a good idea or not, is up for debate.

They are here to serve us lol, ok cause gaas, comestics, pay to win, season passes is what we want in our games. Oh hey dont forget the pay to play online cause everyone asked for that too.

Either way you made Microsoft sound like a toxic gaming company that needs to die so you believe in the same thing i do at the end of the day. We don’t question Sony & Nintendo like this we need them don’t need MS

 

[SuperSaiyanWithDreads]

You also left out a mountain of shit, but whatever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Games

i did that because im not vouching for games i havent played genius! Reply that to him not me!

 

[wolffy71]

Super hero games are terrible 99% of the time

 

[GenericUser]

That is very good for me, I hate superhero games.

 

[marquimvfs]

At the time in 2014, Xbox 360 was the winner of the last gen at that time

Off Topic, but I love those revisionism of history. At that time, 360 was already surpassed by PS3, that never was capable of surpassing Wii. 360 was a great platform, but, for almost its entire lifespan, it fought for the second place and, at the mentioned time, it was last place. Sad but true.

 

[DeepEnigma]

"I don't like thing, therefore I'm glad I don't have the option and it doesn't exist."

Will always be the weirdest fanboy flex to me.

 

[alphachino]

This ideology is a problem. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and Xbox has billions but you as a consumer is concerned about the cost? They’re in a business to SERVE US. They SUPPOSE to spend MONEY on games to please us and then in return we keep them in business!

Word.

Unbelievable after the year MS just had that there are some people vouching for them not spending money to acquire or develop more games in a timely fashion.

 

[GHG]

"I don't like thing, therefore I'm glad I don't have the option and it doesn't exist."

Will always be the weirdest fanboy flex to me.

"I'm glad it doesn't exist but then I'll cry about it existing from the perspective of exclusives when it suits my agenda".

 

[DeepEnigma]

"I'm glad it doesn't exist but then I'll cry about it existing from the perspective of exclusives when it suits my agenda".

 

[DarkMage619]

Word.

Unbelievable after the year MS just had that there are some people vouching for them not spending money to acquire or develop more games in a timely fashion.

If MS is not developing the games they have now in a timely fashion according to you how would having access to more expensive IP they don't own get them to make games faster? It was clear at the time the original deal was offered MS didn't have the developers to do anything with the IP. These weren't completed titles just waiting to be released.

 

[alphachino]

If MS is not developing the games they have now in a timely fashion according to you how would having access to more expensive IP they don't own get them to make games faster? It was clear at the time the original deal was offered MS didn't have the developers to do anything with the IP. These weren't completed titles just waiting to be released.

MS wouldn't, and MS couldn't release more games, quicker... but could and should have been better at managing studios considering they own so many of them and make the development resources available to develop games using some outside IP at a time when Marvel was probably the biggest property in media. They could have competed. It's understandable enough if some people are glad they didn't make any Marvel games because they don't like Marvel personally. It's selfish, but they are entitled to that. However, to talk about saving money and the cost of licenses in light of the success of Spider-Man and Miles Morales is baffling to say the least. They could have probably gotten X-Men FFS... Now that's Sony's too. I would have preferred something else original from Insomniac, but whatever. I think David Jaffe is right personally... Phil, MS, Matt Booty are just absolutely shit at managing game studios and are just constantly firing blanks. Sorry to go off-topic, after writing this comment, I realise you're right and MS did do the right thing in passing on Marvel, and we both agree that they would have been incapable of producing a Marvel game, even if the IP were offered to them for free.

 

[Stooky]

I want to know what magical new IP was Microsoft holding out for in 2014.

 

[Gojiira]

Word.

Unbelievable after the year MS just had that there are some people vouching for them not spending money to acquire or develop more games in a timely fashion.

Are you people this dense really? They’ve had several years now of rampant spending with NOTHING to show for it, and fanboys think they should spend more? Look at how many games have had developmental issues or endless delays. What they need to do instead of trying to own the entire market is actually invest in their own studios and the work culture they have.
And lol at anyone thinking they ‘Serve’ us, they serve their shareholders, if they can nickel and dime us they will and they have.