MasterCornholio
Member
Majority of Marvel games have been trash. Out sounds like ms made the right call
So why would Xbox have produced a bad Marvel game?
Majority of Marvel games have been trash. Out sounds like ms made the right call
Not necessarily. Remember, Sony doesn't OWN spiderman. Look at what happened with mlb. Mlb games were trash. Sony buys the license and starts making great games that sell very well. Mlb tells them to release it everywhere. Sony has no control over the ip anymore. Same could happen with spiderman when the contract runs up. Which would be a great thing for Xbox and pc owners!That was a matter of timing though. If GotG had released first then it could have been a major hit. As it was, it had the Avengers stink on it. But if you are going to point to past performance then you should include Spider-man selling 20 million followed by Miles Morales selling 6.5 million.
I think you gotta go for it when given the opportunity, but @peter42O makes a good point that there could have been other circumstances that prevented it from happening at the time.
I agree with this. I still haven't touched GotG because of the Avengers game. That was so meh.That was a matter of timing though. If GotG had released first then it could have been a major hit. As it was, it had the Avengers stink on it. But if you are going to point to past performance then you should include Spider-man selling 20 million followed by Miles Morales selling 6.5 million.
Well not necessarily trash. Gotg was very good. It sold like trash though. Ms could make a great Marvel game but they can make great games with the countless ip they own and make more money.So why would Xbox have produced a bad Marvel game?
Well not necessarily trash. Gotg was very good. It sold like trash though. Ms could make a great Marvel game but they can make great games with the countless ip they own and make more money.
These big ips that cost a lot to use usually don't work out for the dev. Gotg, avengers, star wars, etc
Bottom line multiple Final Fantasies and Street Fighter games were on other platforms. Insomniac Spider-Man games have always been on PlayStation. It had nothing to do with a money hat with regards to Marvel.Final Fantasy had always been a console exclusive up until XIII, with the exception of FFXI coming to 360 a year or two after launch.
Sony helped fund SFV. Capcom was im a very different place financially at that time.
Perfectly said. MS in 2014 didn't have a 2nd party studio ready to take this task on. It is revisionist history to believe this could have gone any other way with MS at the time. You can make an argument about MS missing out on GTA3 but this is quite different. MS also has the tendency to make multi-player titles that certainly isn't true of Spider-Man games.In fairness to Microsoft, I would have done the same in 2014. Look at their internal studios at that time. Who would have been able to make Marvel games because I don't see anyone capable of doing them, especially Spider Man.
Should Microsoft go after Marvel/Disney/Lucas IP's now? Absolutely. But back in 2014 and their 6 studios? Nah.
I didn't mean it as not having confidence in said studio, I meant that we don't really know what said studio's obligations were.Sometimes you just need to take a risk. I don’t believe Insomniac has ever worked on a Marvel IP before so there was some risk in letting them make Spider-Man. Unless you take the same risk with someone else you’ll never know if they are capable of making something good or not.
But like I said, if they chose developing a Marvel ip over, for example, avowed, they would have to give a big chunk of that money to Marvel. Now avowed might do millions in sales, maybe similar sales to what a Marvel title would do. So doesn't it make sense for ms to focus on their own ip since they get to keep all the money?Well with Microsoft funding the project I doubt there would be an issue. Plus having more Marvel games included with gamepass wouldn’t be a bad idea. If Sony did it I’m sure Microsoft could as well.
Only XIII and XV came out on Xbox. That's 2 out of 16. The others all were exclusive to either Nintendo or PlayStation. But, I guess two does count as multiple. Not sure what your point is though.Bottom line multiple Final Fantasies and Street Fighter games were on other platforms.
But like I said, if they chose developing a Marvel ip over, for example, avowed, they would have to give a big chunk of that money to Marvel. Now avowed might do millions in sales, maybe similar sales to what a Marvel title would do. So doesn't it make sense for ms to focus on their own ip since they get to keep all the money?
You really think avowed will do anything closer to Spider-Man numbers, specially being on gamepass?But like I said, if they chose developing a Marvel ip over, for example, avowed, they would have to give a big chunk of that money to Marvel. Now avowed might do millions in sales, maybe similar sales to what a Marvel title would do. So doesn't it make sense for ms to focus on their own ip since they get to keep all the money?
But they are already accomplishing the same thing you're asking. Gotg is on game pass. Avengers might be but that's trash so who cares? Just because they're not developing these titles doesn't mean they are not getting popular Marvel ip on game pass.I don’t think money is an issue for Microsoft. Regardless it would definitely help gamepass quite a bit to have popular IPs release on it,
I also believe that it was bad timing. Mojang and Turn 10 are literally Minecraft/Forza Motorsport studios so eliminate them. In 2014, The Coalition was doing the Gears Ultimate Edition and Gears of War 4 and are basically a Gears studio so eliminate them. 343 is strictly a Halo studio so eliminate them. Rare? Nah. No chance. Only Lionhead was left who was doing the eventually cancelled Fable Legends. Internally, there was no studio that could do it and even if they did, would they be able to pull it off as good as Insomniac did in 2018? My answer is no. Externally, deals already didn't work out like Crackdown/Ryse/Quantum Break/Recore so why take the chance?I think you gotta go for it when given the opportunity, but [IMG alt="peter42O"]https://www.neogaf.com/data/avatars/s/471/471617.jpg?1642472146[/IMG] peter42O makes a good point that there could have been other circumstances that prevented it from happening at the time.
Right. So if it took Xbox one till the end of June to get to 13 million. And at the end of April Xbox series is already at 14.5 than they ARENT selling the same. Series is outpacing the one by 20%.Im just saying what I read before:
“The Xbox One reached the milestone for the week ending June 27. The console sold 94,057 units to bring its worldwide lifetime sales to 13,054,203”
People shit on vgcahrts but they have been accurate loads since 2010
Why are you talking about spiderman? Is Sony going to release it on Xbox?You really think avowed will do anything closer to Spider-Man numbers, specially being on gamepass?
Not necessarily. Remember, Sony doesn't OWN spiderman. Look at what happened with mlb. Mlb games were trash. Sony buys the license and starts making great games that sell very well. Mlb tells them to release it everywhere. Sony has no control over the ip anymore. Same could happen with spiderman when the contract runs up. Which would be a great thing for Xbox and pc owners!
I'd like to play those spiderman games!
If ms games they chose to develop over a Marvel game do gangbusters then ms made the right decision.
Owning the ip is usually the better option. Ms agreed!
Agree completely. Way too many issues all around at that time for Microsoft regarding Xbox and adding Spider Man wouldn't have done much. Maybe a little buzz/hype when announced but would anyone really have confidence in it? I wouldn't have had any confidence in it.Perfectly said. MS in 2014 didn't have a 2nd party studio ready to take this task on. It is revisionist history to believe this could have gone any other way with MS at the time. You can make an argument about MS missing out on GTA3 but this is quite different. MS also has the tendency to make multi-player titles that certainly isn't true of Spider-Man games.
To the current situation MS has already worked with Disney on that Sea of Thieves/ Pirates collaboration so it's not like MS is refusing to work with Disney it's just about finding the right opportunity.
But they are already accomplishing the same thing you're asking. Gotg is on game pass. Avengers might be but that's trash so who cares? Just because they're not developing these titles doesn't mean they are not getting popular Marvel ip on game pass.
Wasn't that Bethesda that made that decision prior to the ms acquisition? Not sure that would be happening today.We don't know what Sony "owns" as far as Spider-man (game) is concerned. Just as we don't know who owns the rights for Indiana Jones, but MS doesn't have a problem making that.
Why does that matter if they are exclusive? They're still available for free on game pass. And no, gotg was not a huge boon. The game failed pretty spectacularly on the sales front. Do you think it would have sold materially more if ms developed it and it released day one on game pass?No because they are not day one releases exclusive to the Xbox platform. If Microsoft owned Insomniac and Spider-Man it would be a huge boon to gamepass. Hopefully that makes more sense.
Final Fantasy had always been a console exclusive up until XIII, with the exception of FFXI coming to 360 a year or two after launch.
Sony helped fund SFV. Capcom was im a very different place financially at that time.
Right. So if it took Xbox one till the end of June to get to 13 million. And at the end of April Xbox series is already at 14.5 than they ARENT selling the same. Series is outpacing the one by 20%.
Why does that matter if they are exclusive? They're still available for free on game pass. And no, gotg was not a huge boon. The game failed pretty spectacularly on the sales front. Do you think it would have sold materially more if ms developed it and it released day one on game pass?
Wasn't that Bethesda that made that decision prior to the ms acquisition? Not sure that would be happening today.
Well we can assume that Sony does not own the gaming rights to spiderman in perpetuity. An ip owner would NEVER agree to that.
Source on that? And how do you explain cod of it remains multiplatform? You said exclusive content is very important and yet it looks like cod might not be exclusive. So ms seems to disagree with you! Outriders wasn't exclusive but it being on game pass was a huge boon for the dev. The game sold better because of game pass. But it wasn't exclusive. Countless other examples of this. Exclusivity is not the end all be all.Exclusive content is very important for gamepass if you didn’t notice. It’s why Microsoft is buying all those studios to help fuel it even further. Producing day one Marvel IPs would certainly add even more value to the service. More is always better you know.
Serious negotiations, sure. But again NO ip owner would license their ip in perpetuity. It could be long term or be continually renewed but Sony doesn't own it.No we cannot assume anything considering there was serious negotiations between Marvel and Sony when it came to Spider-man's inclusion in the MCU.
Microsoft also funded Insomniac making Sunset Overdrive and Microsoft never owned that IP. So MS was fine doing that for SSO, but not cool with Spider-man? No way.
My point is an exclusive game made from the bottom up on PlayStation is not the same as paying to prevent an established franchise from coming out on another platform. The Spider-Man game was never an example of a money hat. Sony absolutely moneyhatted Street Fighter and Final Fantasy. Spider-Man is a completely different story.Only XIII and XV came out on Xbox. That's 2 out of 16. The others all were exclusive to either Nintendo or PlayStation. But, I guess two does count as multiple. Not sure what your point is though.
Its no ones fault. Just because Insomniac made a good Spiderman game it doesnt mean MS fucked up.So, it's marvel's fault. for coming to Microsoft, and ask if not attempt to strike a deal. for any potential marvel property to be exclusive to Xbox? and Microsoft turned them down. but it's their fault?
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella announced Spencer's promotion in a companywide email today. Spencer will report to Terry Myerson, executive vice president of the company's Operating Systems Group, which covers Windows, Windows Phone and the Xbox One operating system. According to Nadella, Spencer will continue to work with Yusuf Mehdi, chief marketing and strategy officer for Xbox; George Peckham, head of Xbox third-party relations; and Mike Angiulo, corporate vice president of hardware development for Xbox.
Recently, Microsoft re-organized itself, cutting out former Windows & Devices chief Terry Myerson, while elevating Phil Spencer and the gaming operation to the senior leadership table. Windows itself has now been cannibalized by other divisions, splitting it under a new "Experiences & Devices" unit under Executive Vice President Rajesh Jha and the "Cloud and AI" group under Scott Guthrie. Surface creator Panos Panay is now the company's chief product officer, and since last year, Phil Spencer truly leads the charge for gaming, for the first time.
Serious negotiations, sure. But again NO ip owner would license their ip in perpetuity. It could be long term or be continually renewed but Sony doesn't own it.
You read the op right? Ms said no. They had the chance. They said no. That's the story. No
The Xdudes are so predictably funny. Now watch that dramatic flip flop, when MS annouces a deal to develop a superhero game with either Marvel/DC.This thread has not disappointed. The mental gymnastics on display is incredible.
What studios would make marvel games anyway?
This was unfavorable deal to them, considering they aren't out of halo,Gears, forza.
This was the best outcome for both parties.
Sony with big marvel characters, and 3rd parties for other marvel games.
Meanwhile, Xbox would diversify their IPs outside of gears, forza and halo.
Was barely a week and a half ago when Xbox twitter was in full damage control, talking about how Microsoft "needs" to sign third party, triple-A day-and-date games for Game Pass to mitigate the loss of Redfall and Starfield.The Xdudes are so predictably funny. Now watch that dramatic flip flop, when MS annouces a deal to develop a superhero game with either Marvel/DC.
Yeah thanks. Warriors are annoyingly tyring to turn this into console war crap. I'd be pretty annoyed if 3 or 4 of MS studios were having to make superhero games over other games.I dont really watch any Marvel anymore. Im not sure why its so hard to believe that not everyone wants licensed Marvel games from first party studios.
This thread has not disappointed. The mental gymnastics on display is incredible.
Yeah thanks. Warriors are annoyingly tyring to turn this into console war crap. I'd be pretty annoyed if 3 or 4 of MS studios were having to make superhero games over other games.
Outside of Batman, who i dont even really consider a 'superhero', i couldnt care less, especially with Marvel which imo is a lot more kiddy l.ike compared to DC.
Not hard to figure out, why many more want high quality first party Marvel/DC games. Characters they know well, stories and powers translated to the video games medium, a typical aaa budget, etc.I dont really watch any Marvel anymore. Im not sure why its so hard to believe that not everyone wants licensed Marvel games from first party studios.
Well assuming it was multiple games. Plus other studios often help studios with first party games.
Gotta say.....it is amusing.
How did this become about 3 or 4 MS studios?
I dont think its console war'n as much as it is killing YET ANOTHER dumbass take like this one, trying to push this agendaYeah thanks. Warriors are annoyingly tyring to turn this into console war crap. I'd be pretty annoyed if 3 or 4 of MS studios were having to make superhero games over other games.
Outside of Batman, who i dont even really consider a 'superhero', i couldnt care less, especially with Marvel which imo is a lot more kiddy l.ike compared to DC.
I dont really watch any Marvel anymore. Im not sure why its so hard to believe that not everyone wants licensed Marvel games from first party studios.
This narrative needs to go. Phil Spencer has been in leadership roles since the beginning of Xbox. He has been the general manager of Xbox studios US then worldwide, corporate vice president, and the lead of Xbox in 2014. He has been in positions to greenlight games, create new studios and close some. These are all leadership roles.For people trying to blame this on Phil Spencer, know that Phil Spencer when he took over at Xbox in 2014, he was still heavily handcuffed in many regards and was answering to a Terry Myerson, who it has been suggested literally wanted to get rid of the Xbox division.
And since Phil and the gaming operation finally got to the leadership table at Microsoft what transpired since?
But Xbox has been an entirely different story since Phil truly took control.