Random Gaming News V2

Status
Not open for further replies.
yankeessuck said:
If they pushed them onto Spiderman that would mean development didn't start before they were involved. In that case what is he even revealing here?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this was the case here. The original story was Marvel wanted someone to make a MP game for them.
I'm saying that if Insomniac told the truth and was told they could make any game they wanted I'm going to assume Sony would have still pushed for Spider-Man to tie in with the movie rights they have. It's the IP that makes the most sense from Sony's view.
 
The Wolf King said:
I'm not saying this was the case here. The original story was Marvel wanted someone to make a MP game for them.
I'm saying that if Insomniac told the truth and was told they could make any game they wanted I'm going to assume Sony would have still pushed for Spider-Man to tie in with the movie rights they have. It's the IP that makes the most sense from Sony's view.
Click to expand...
My point is either Pachter is revealing nothing new or he is just wrong if the original tweet is what he said.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DriedMangoes
He's going off what he was supposedly told by Marvel.

Many still seem to think they went to MS first. When the book it came from simply said they spoke to both after taking the IP back from Activision.
 
The Wolf King said:
He's going off what he was supposedly told by Marvel.

Many still seem to think they went to MS first. When the book it came from simply said they spoke to both after taking the IP back from Activision.
Click to expand...
Unless Marvel and Insomniac were lying it doesn't really matter who they went to first because its likely they would have been willing to make deals with both MS and Sony.
 
wshowers said:
I'm skeptical of Pachter due to his outspoken personality but people need to remeber that he's been very correct on the FTC vs MS case and he's a market director at Wedbush Securities and a damn good one at that. He's got some credibility.
Click to expand...
It is just common sense. Marvel/Disney obviously would have wanted it multiplatform. So Sony obviously paid.

Thinking anything else is delusional.
 
We already know what Marvel told him because Marvel also told all of us in the interview the same.

They went to the console platforms to find a partner because they weren't happy with Activision, MS said no, Sony said yes.

Sony/Insomniac were allowed to pick anything they wanted out of all the Marvel franchises, they chose Spiderman and now subsequently Wolverine as that's coming out in 2024 tentatively.

Spiderman was never in talks until after Sony and Marvel reached a deal.
 
The Wolf King said:
Yep. As a prediction guy he has a poor track record. But he has called it every step of the way in the Activision buyout.

I'm also going to guess Sony would be more inclined to try and push Insomniac into working on a spiderman game than any other Marvel project due to the obvious reason.
Click to expand...
This isn't something where he's using his expertise, he's just passing on "what he heard" supposedly from someone at Marvel. He even says that they went to MS and they said no. The original tweet and what he's said since are two very different things. The tweets from Pachter himself that I posted here don't even say what the original tweet you put up said.

If Marvel went to MS and Sony to check on publishing they clearly didn't care about it being multiplatform because neither company at the time was putting out games on the competing console. Minecraft was on PlayStation before MS bought the company and at the time MLB the Show was still only on playstation. If Pachter said that he's probably just misunderstanding what he was told, that or the original tweet was taking something he said and misrepresenting it.
 
Kvally said:
Oh No Fire GIF
Click to expand...
It's playstation, buying exclusive right to games is fine for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kvally
DriedMangoes said:
We already know what Marvel told him because Marvel also told all of us in the interview the same.

They went to the console platforms to find a partner because they weren't happy with Activision, MS said no, Sony said yes.

Sony/Insomniac were allowed to pick anything they wanted out of all the Marvel franchises, they chose Spiderman and now subsequently Wolverine as that's coming out in 2024 tentatively.

Spiderman was never in talks until after Sony and Marvel reached a deal.
Click to expand...
Wait... Sony has the last say in anything Spider-Man when it comes to games no?
 
Swede said:
Wait... Sony has the last say in anything Spider-Man when it comes to games no?
Click to expand...

From what I understand, Sony's are only for the films.

Gaming wise, it's a little bit more unclear but it's definitely not Sony get the last say because we still see the character in other games.

apptrigger.com

Does Sony own the video game rights to Spider-Man?

Who owns the video game rights to Marvel's Spider-Man? You probably heard today the divisive news that Spider-Man is coming to Marvel's Avengers....
apptrigger.com apptrigger.com

To be clear, Sony owns the movie rights for Spider-Man only. It’s a long and complex history that was only further complicated with the character’s introduction into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But make no mistake, despite Spider-Man being a Marvel character, his big-screen rights very much belong to Sony.

As for Spider-Man’s video game rights, well, that’s a little foggier, mostly because there’s been no major public announcement on the topic. Again, there’s a long history of the web-slinger on video games but we’ll start with the 2000s.

From 2000 to 2014, it was Activision who had exclusive rights to publish Spider-Man games. They were responsible for Ultimate Spider-Man (2005; Treyarch/Beenox), Spider-Man 3 (2007; Vicarious Visions/Treyarch/Beenox), Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions (2010; Beenox), Spider-Man: Edge of Time (2011; Beenox) and many more. Because Activision is a publisher and not a platform-holder, these games were released on various game consoles, including Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox. The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012 was the publisher’s last game as the license expired in 2014.

Fast forward to June 2016, E3. Following the first-ever announcement of Marvel’s Spider from Insomniac Games at Sony’s press conference, Marvel Games head Jay Ong had this to say of the company’s new direction for console gaming:

“We’ve had a long history of success with Activision, and we still have a great relationship with them. But the future of the Spider-Man console games is with Sony and Insomniac. We’re delighted about this partnership, and that’s something that’s going to continue forward. With [regard to] other console partners, stay tuned. There’s many more interesting additional things to come. But Activision is in the past, with regards to Spider-Man.”
Click to expand...
As far as we know, it is Marvel who still holds ultimate rights to the character. Ong’s comment in 2016 suggests as much as he called it a “partnership” and also mentioned other console partners.

That’s why we can see Spider-Man appear in mobile games like Marvel Future Fight, multiplatform games like LEGO Marvel Super Heroes 2, and even console-exclusive games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3: The Black Order for the Nintendo Switch. If Sony had owned his video game rights, you can bet he’d only be appearing on PlayStation.
Click to expand...
 
Sony are why spiderman wasn't in the Xbox version of Avengers so they either paid extra or they have the rights.
Licensed IPs as exclusive are a bit messy. And yes that includes Indi.
 
That original tweet that started this thread is clearly trying to make something out of nothing and this thread seems kind of silly. Marvel went to MS and Sony about publishing a game, MS said no and Sony said yes we've known this for a LOOOONG time.

The only way this would have been a multiplatform game is if Sony had said no as well and Marvel moved on to a 3rd party publisher. The fact that Marvel went to Xbox and PlayStation first shows that they didn't care about the title being multiplatform, they just wanted a deal for someone to make a game.

The tweet that this thread was started for is twisting what Pachter said into something completely different. It's once again people trying to fit this spider-man narrative into the whole "taking multiplatform games away from other consoles" because MS will be doing this with Elder Scrolls and likely other Bethesda games. It has never been a valid argument but people are still trying to make it stick. This isn't a continuation of the Activision games.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Agree
  • Hmm
Reactions: Swede, Kvally and DriedMangoes
Swede said:
Wait... Sony has the last say in anything Spider-Man when it comes to games no?
Click to expand...
Nope, otherwise they wouldn’t have paid to get exclusivity for Spider-Man in the avengers game. Why pay for something you already own. That and he continues to appear and will appear in new games that aren’t developed by PlayStation.

They would have say if their interpretations of their Spider-Man game universe characters appeared in others, unless Disney put in some stipulation that they have the final say like “the mlb” did with “the show”. But who knows, none of us were at the table or access to said contract.
 
JinCA said:
That original tweet that started this thread is clearly trying to make something out of nothing and this thread seems kind of silly. Marvel went to MS and Sony about publishing a game, MS said no and Sony said yes we've known this for a LOOOONG time.

The only way this would have been a multiplatform game is if Sony had said no as well and Marvel moved on to a 3rd party publisher. The fact that Marvel went to Xbox and PlayStation first shows that they didn't care about the title being multiplatform or not they just wanted a deal for someone to make a game.

The tweet that this thread was started for is twisting what Pachter said into something completely different. It's once again people trying to fit this spider-man narrative into the whole "taking multiplatform games away from other consoles" because MS will be doing this with Elder Scrolls and likely other Bethesda games. It has never been a valid argument but people are still trying to make it stick. This isn't a continuation of the Activision games.
Click to expand...

Basically.

Twisting Pachter's words , bet it's another Xbox fan. Rift Apart and Spiderman 2 got them riled up.
 
karmakid said:
Nope, otherwise they wouldn’t have paid to get exclusivity for Spider-Man in the avengers game. Why pay for something you already own. That and he continues to appear and will appear in new games that aren’t developed by PlayStation.

They would have say if their interpretations of their Spider-Man game universe characters appeared in others, unless Disney put in some stipulation that they have the final say like “the mlb” did with “the show”. But who knows, none of us were at the table or access to said contract.
Click to expand...
I’m sure the ponies are trying to spin this as much as humanly possible while choking on Jim Ryan’s c***.
 
Wow I can't believe none of us knew Sony must have paid money to Marvel for Spiderman

 
Just like people didn't expect MS to make some games exclusive once they owned them.......
 
yankeessuck said:
Everyone knows that too though
Click to expand...
Clearly not going by the comments in recent months.

But the article tries to make it sound like Marvel/Crystal Dynamic gave Spiderman as a PS exclusive due to the relationship they have.

Not that anyone cared in the end once they played the game.
 
The Wolf King said:
Clearly not going by the comments in recent months.

But the article tries to make it sound like Marvel/Crystal Dynamic gave Spiderman as a PS exclusive due to the relationship they have.

Not that anyone cared in the end once they played the game.
Click to expand...
Seems like goal post moving because this thread is based on something that isn't accurate.
 
www.gamesindustry.biz

Weaker subscription deals have hit indie publishers, says analyst

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox Smaller subscription deals and the underpe…
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz

Smaller subscription deals and the underperformance of certain titles have had a severe impact on Devolver and TinyBuild, says stockbroking firm Goodbody.

Both companies floated at the peak of the games business in 2021 and have seen their share prices plummet over the past two years. Devolver has seen its share price drop 92% since its peak in January 2022, while TinyBuild's has fallen 95%

"The cheques coming from Sony and Microsoft are just not as big as they were. And that creates problems if you're concentrated on that side of the market.

"TinyBuild, of all of them, was most exposed. Devolver was exposed, but not quite as much."

Ultimately, however, O'Donnell feels Devolver is a business that has all it needs to turn things around.

"You have to look at the calibre of Devolver. The track record and quality of their products are almost always good. They have that hit-driven potential, which they've shown multiple times. That will be one of the key factors that will keep institutional investors in Devolver. Ultimately, they're protecting their IP. They did mention they had turned down some big subscription deals. I’m
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DriedMangoes
karmakid said:
www.gamesindustry.biz

Weaker subscription deals have hit indie publishers, says analyst

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox Smaller subscription deals and the underpe…
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz

Smaller subscription deals and the underperformance of certain titles have had a severe impact on Devolver and TinyBuild, says stockbroking firm Goodbody.

Both companies floated at the peak of the games business in 2021 and have seen their share prices plummet over the past two years. Devolver has seen its share price drop 92% since its peak in January 2022, while TinyBuild's has fallen 95%

"The cheques coming from Sony and Microsoft are just not as big as they were. And that creates problems if you're concentrated on that side of the market.

"TinyBuild, of all of them, was most exposed. Devolver was exposed, but not quite as much."

Ultimately, however, O'Donnell feels Devolver is a business that has all it needs to turn things around.

"You have to look at the calibre of Devolver. The track record and quality of their products are almost always good. They have that hit-driven potential, which they've shown multiple times. That will be one of the key factors that will keep institutional investors in Devolver. Ultimately, they're protecting their IP. They did mention they had turned down some big subscription deals. I’m
Click to expand...

So shouldn't rely solely on GP and PS plus to sustain IPs...
 
karmakid said:
www.gamesindustry.biz

Weaker subscription deals have hit indie publishers, says analyst

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox Smaller subscription deals and the underpe…
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz

Smaller subscription deals and the underperformance of certain titles have had a severe impact on Devolver and TinyBuild, says stockbroking firm Goodbody.

Both companies floated at the peak of the games business in 2021 and have seen their share prices plummet over the past two years. Devolver has seen its share price drop 92% since its peak in January 2022, while TinyBuild's has fallen 95%

"The cheques coming from Sony and Microsoft are just not as big as they were. And that creates problems if you're concentrated on that side of the market.

"TinyBuild, of all of them, was most exposed. Devolver was exposed, but not quite as much."

Ultimately, however, O'Donnell feels Devolver is a business that has all it needs to turn things around.

"You have to look at the calibre of Devolver. The track record and quality of their products are almost always good. They have that hit-driven potential, which they've shown multiple times. That will be one of the key factors that will keep institutional investors in Devolver. Ultimately, they're protecting their IP. They did mention they had turned down some big subscription deals. I’m
Click to expand...
When you actually read the whole article the article headline is pretty hyperbolic and misleading.

Devolver's issue is delaying games.
Tinybuild seemed over reliant on a failed IP and made questionable hiring decisions.

Devolver even said they turned down big subscription deals.

But no, no. Lets try and make out it is services instead. Gotta get dem clicks.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: bullzeye, karmakid and The Wolf King
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back