-
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.
Xbox passed on deal to make Marvel games to focus on their own IP - Head of Marvel Games
- Thread starter 3liteDragon
- Start date
Lucifers Beard
Member
Good for PlayStation because Spider Man looks good and it looks like future games are going to be good. However, Marvel is one of the most oversaturated areas in entertainment (as well as Star Wars), so I just do not have any interest in them, even though the games look kind of fun.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
GoTG was great!
There are probably a good many studios that could do great Marvel Games. Sucker Punch of InFamous fame could have knocked a street-level hero game outta the park.
I would bet good money that the Coalition would have aced a Marvel game. They do good work with third-person action games with a narrative focus. An X-Men game from them would have been excellent, I'm sure. Especially, because their weakest area, i.e. story, is resolved by the wealth of excellent pre-existing source material to pull from.
GHG
Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Were they a mess back then? Not at all, in fact.
At that time, PS4 was outselling Xbox One at a ratio of just 1.4. PS5 is currently outselling Xbox Series X|S at a ratio of 1.4. In terms of market share, they were in a very similar position back then as they are now.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
I share his concerns.
Although I would argue that I don't see the likelihood of an all-subscription future as a possibility unless all the big third party publishers get gobbled up by subscription service providers.
Jaybe
Member
Decided to look Fries up and see what he’s doing. Interesting career. He left Xbox in 2004. I found this notable as how Microsoft saw the Xbox business back then as the roots of what they have evolved to today with Gamepass. It’s always been about reoccurring revenue.
https://venturebeat.com/2021/11/28/...nal-xbox-to-investing-in-gaming-startups/amp/
Bo_Hazem
Banned
Sony is smart enough, and they're healthy doing that with their Sony Pictures as well. Selling their movies for the theatres, then afterwards strike more deals from different streaming services. Only having their own streaming platform tied to their own TV's and smartphones (Bravia Core), and only using their own movies/series after they run their course. I see similarities with PS+ here.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Yes, I think this is the right way to do subscription services.
Sell games from launch exclusively, and once they've run down their cost curve, list them on subscription services. That lets low-income gamers enjoy and explore older games and thus directs their purchases toward sequels of the subscription service games they enjoyed.
Unlike TV and Films, games also get to generate more revenue after the initial purchase with MTXs and season/battle passes for titles that follow the GaaS model.
Bo_Hazem
Banned
I honestly wished that Ghost of Tsushima had more MTX that would've kept it going for seasons as most games that currently have seasons don't even dream to have a fraction of GOT's extremely satisfying melee gameplay. If MTX done right, I think gamers and devs win.
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I think MS would have gone this route if they weren't trying to launch the service in a vacuum and were in a stronger position in the console space. I would be surprised if they don't walk it back in some way, they already kinda did with Forza Horizon 5, if only by a week.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Selfishly I'm happy MS isn't 'wasting time's on things I don't care about. Financially though it was a shit decision.
kyliethicc
Member
Wanna make a game that will sell millions and win awards?
Nah.
lol he’s a genius
Nah.
lol he’s a genius
Last edited:
Last edited:
Bo_Hazem
Banned
Can't see what you've posted. Is it porn? Because explicit content is blocked by the internet provider.
Also what misinformation? The man gives an insight about the mentality inside Xbox finance and vision towards their projects/games and how they nurture them, fits perfectly to what's in the OP.
Music industry revenue in the U.S. 2023 | Statista
Data on recorded music industry revenue in the United States from 2009 to 2023 shows steady growth from 2015 onwards.
www.statista.com
I guess it's the Imgur host. Here's the link. Music Revenues have increased not decreased.
MasterCornholio
Member
No one wants a service of old content. It be like Netflix with out original content and just old movies and tv shows. If they did ps now wouldn't of tanked on the largest platform out there.
GHG
Member
Bo_Hazem
Banned
Music industry revenue in the U.S. 2023 | Statista
Data on recorded music industry revenue in the United States from 2009 to 2023 shows steady growth from 2015 onwards.
I guess it's the Imgur host. Here's the link. Music Revenues have increased not decreased.
Increased? Yes, and that's revenue. Such services help the untalented contributors to share with the talented ones. Also revenues and profits aren't linear.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The worry is that an equivalent shift to what happened with Spotify and music will be seen as being manageable "decline" by the big corporate players.
By which I mean that the effect is disproportionately felt by smaller creatives especially those looking to break through into the big leagues. With music you could see this in the way established, touring acts could sail on through the changes without much concern because they didn't rely so much on the uplift of hit singles and whatnot. With games the equivalent being big tentpole franchises which already have marquee value from their name alone and an inbuilt guarantee of technical quality because of their budgets.
Making such titles part of subscription offerings basically removes the friction of buy-in cost and puts them on-par in terms of accessibility with literally everything else under the same service umbrella big or small. They are going to get a lot of downloads and likely time-spent playing them. In this landscape an indie title is really up against it. Sure more people can easily take a look, but by the same token there's going to be far more distraction and/or temptation to move onto the next thing on the a-la carte menu.
If its a short game, its value is going to get burnt through quickly leaving little life beyond its time on the service. If its a longer, but less immediately impressive or interesting option, its got a lot more mindshare competition to make its mark before it gets discarded. The concern is that people might like such things fine, but they don't really "stick". They just become nice diversions with little forward movement for the IP or their creators in terms of establishing profile.
With both MS and now Sony doing this, indies I fear are going to find themselves stuck in a sort of ghetto of low expectations and low performance. With the only way upward being if a platform holder decides to play kingmaker and market the hell out of it.... The problem being that they'll only do this out of self-interest - say a tentpole release slips and they find themselves with a hole to fill in their calendar.
I dunno... I just find it kinda unhealthy.
Last edited:
Now that I can't really say. But the current structure of paying artists based on the number of plays of a song makes sense to me. The more popular songs/artists get the most money.
Now that I'm thinking about it I can see how this would hurt lessor known indie artists though. They aren't getting that full $1 for a song purchased. They are only getting paid by how popular they are.
He spoke about Revenue in that interview. And I can see how this would hurt indie artists as stated above. Game Pass pays indie developers pretty well though. Games get paid up front to be on the service so it's not analogous to Spotify at all now that I think about it.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It's doesn't have to be old content, a couple of weeks of 'early access' would probably do it.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
I mention it many times before, but it is my working theory that how games are paid for, is critical to how games are made and designed.
Back when people pay games in quarters, where they need to pay again if they lose, games were difficult. Not because studios try to target hardcore gamers, but because players seeing Game Over was a critical part of how money gets made.
Then came the consoles. People buy the game once. The entire expected profit of the game came from the initial sale. The game stops trying to create game-overs, because developers realize they don't get paid for that anymore. Instead it was about making sure the customer felt they got their money's worth. This means games now need to have a minimum length. People don't want to pay full price for a 10 minute game. (Yoko Taro complained about that. He wanted shorter games but was forced to have Nier Automata loop several times to pad it out.)
Game developers also decide they want people to finish their games, because why create all the content of later levels if no one sees them? And that's why gaming "life" and limited continues stopped.
Then arrived Microtransactions. Suddenly a popular game can last years and keep earning money. Games that focus on microtransactions exclusively were making big bucks, but only a few of them. Because part of the feature is that the game needs to take up your time. And you can't really play too many of them at all. So you get a LOT of GaaS games die spectacularly in the last few years.
And now we come to subscription.
Technically paying for multiplayer is subscription, but that is console only and single players are free from it. Subscription for a library of games is interesting... But it would be a lie to claim it would not have any impact on what games that comes out on it.
The impact would not be immediate. After all, console games behaved like arcade games for the entire NES era. The change takes time. But we can see how streaming changed Netflix.
Netflix stopped caring about complete shows with a good ending, because all they wanted was new subscribers. So Netflix is stuck with dozens of shows that were popular but died 3 seasons later with no ending. Imagine Half Life 3 not happening but repeating over and over again. Fans complain but netflix didn't care as long as they stay subscribed. As a subscriber you have no power over the streaming service because there is no gradient of money you could give them. You either give the full amount or no money at all. And that means as long as you subscribe, your complaints are meaningless.
Gamepass is not exactly like Netflix in that it still has microtransactions. However most GaaS games are free to begin with, so why the hell are you paying Gamepass for them? Frankly i am not saying Gamepass would kill gaming or anything. I am just saying Gamepass will affect the games that are made for it, because that was the way it worked since gaming was born. Changing the Monetisation will change the game. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it WILL be a THING.,
Back when people pay games in quarters, where they need to pay again if they lose, games were difficult. Not because studios try to target hardcore gamers, but because players seeing Game Over was a critical part of how money gets made.
Then came the consoles. People buy the game once. The entire expected profit of the game came from the initial sale. The game stops trying to create game-overs, because developers realize they don't get paid for that anymore. Instead it was about making sure the customer felt they got their money's worth. This means games now need to have a minimum length. People don't want to pay full price for a 10 minute game. (Yoko Taro complained about that. He wanted shorter games but was forced to have Nier Automata loop several times to pad it out.)
Game developers also decide they want people to finish their games, because why create all the content of later levels if no one sees them? And that's why gaming "life" and limited continues stopped.
Then arrived Microtransactions. Suddenly a popular game can last years and keep earning money. Games that focus on microtransactions exclusively were making big bucks, but only a few of them. Because part of the feature is that the game needs to take up your time. And you can't really play too many of them at all. So you get a LOT of GaaS games die spectacularly in the last few years.
And now we come to subscription.
Technically paying for multiplayer is subscription, but that is console only and single players are free from it. Subscription for a library of games is interesting... But it would be a lie to claim it would not have any impact on what games that comes out on it.
The impact would not be immediate. After all, console games behaved like arcade games for the entire NES era. The change takes time. But we can see how streaming changed Netflix.
Netflix stopped caring about complete shows with a good ending, because all they wanted was new subscribers. So Netflix is stuck with dozens of shows that were popular but died 3 seasons later with no ending. Imagine Half Life 3 not happening but repeating over and over again. Fans complain but netflix didn't care as long as they stay subscribed. As a subscriber you have no power over the streaming service because there is no gradient of money you could give them. You either give the full amount or no money at all. And that means as long as you subscribe, your complaints are meaningless.
Gamepass is not exactly like Netflix in that it still has microtransactions. However most GaaS games are free to begin with, so why the hell are you paying Gamepass for them? Frankly i am not saying Gamepass would kill gaming or anything. I am just saying Gamepass will affect the games that are made for it, because that was the way it worked since gaming was born. Changing the Monetisation will change the game. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it WILL be a THING.,
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Yup they certainly missed put on some franchises early on although Resident Evil was a thing on PlayStation before Xbox even came out and I'm pretty sure Resident Evil games are on Xbox. I don't really see Yakuza moving the needle much either and that whole series is also on Xbox. GTA3 was really the biggest miss in that entire listing and that eventually hit Xbox too.If GTA wasn't enough, your hero company also turned down Resident Evil 4 exclusivity and the Yakuza series, that's why they end up on PlayStation.
All these legendary series are now associated with Playstation and evil Sony didn't have to do anything. Truth hurts.
GTA, Spider-Man, Resident Evil, Yakuza. Damn!
Microsoft's mistake made Resident Evil 4 a GameCube exclusive
Resident Evil 4 was very briefly a GameCube exclusive, but had Microsoft been better equipped, it might have been a long-term Xbox exclusive instead.www.nintendo.destructoid.com
Yakuza Was Rejected By Nintendo And Microsoft At First, Series Producer Reveals
Yakuza's Executive Director Toshihiro Nagoshi reveals- among other things- how the games were made to appeal to the Japanese male audience.www.gamingbolt.com
Spider-Man is really the only missing title and it's a first party PlayStation game so Xbox fans might as well cry about not having The Last of Us on Xbox. At least Sony was nice enough to put MLB The Show on Game pass. Sony is obviously the real hero!
Zok310
Banned
50 million by 2023? They gonna be around 38-40 million. For them to hit 50 they would have to sell over 30 million PS5 in the next year and a half.
Kerotan
Member
If they can't get more ps5 out there then not Very many. At least initially!
Zok310
Banned
Ed's main point was that the gaming industry is more fragile than the film and music industry and prolly won't survive this subscription service shift like music/films did.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Yeah imgur is really weird sometimes it doesn't show anything and I have no idea why...Your post showed though.Music industry revenue in the U.S. 2023 | Statista
Data on recorded music industry revenue in the United States from 2009 to 2023 shows steady growth from 2015 onwards.
I guess it's the Imgur host. Here's the link. Music Revenues have increased not decreased.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
I'm not familiar with movie or music industry but how much crash have they been through?Because video games have been through one and apparently almost 2 in that 16bit thread is to be believed (is to believe?)
yazenov
Member
Give the IP to a competent developer such as Sony's 1st party devs and they'll make a great game. Game quality depends on the devs and not the IP. Shit developer = shit games.
Bombolone
Gold Member
Platinumed both single and mutli.
I honestly wished that Ghost of Tsushima had more MTX that would've kept it going for seasons as most games that currently have season don't even dream to have a fraction of GOT's extremely satisfying melee gameplay. If MTX done right, I think gamers and devs win.
If Ghosts had a GaaS/mtx model, i would still be playing it today--- and wear out another controller.
nikos
Member
Here's one with 361 million views, which is also the most viewed video game trailer on YouTube. By your logic, it must be the best game ever made.
I played Spier-Man and enjoyed it. You said it yourself, even without any sort of Marvel branding it would've still been a good game. I don't have anything against Marvel, I just don't like most of their content. Shouldn't be hard to believe.
Lucifers Beard
Member
I agree and I’m not saying that they are shit games at all. I’m just saying that since Marvel as a franchise is so overly saturated at the moment, I have absolutely no interest in any of the games, regardless of the developer.
Jaybe
Member
Let’s not let MS off the hook so easily here. Insomniac was independent at the time MS was approached by Marvel and working on Sunset Overdrive for MS. Insomniac was contracted for Spider-man, something MS could have done as well. Insomniac wasn’t acquired by Sony until late-2019.
MasterCornholio
Member
Could Microsoft have bought Insomniac?
Lucifers Beard
Member
I’m not sure I follow here. Sony own the rights to Spider Man (if I remember correctly) so insomniac couldn’t have made Spider Man under MS.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
While i like marvel games, i think this is a good move. Marvel like Disney and Star Wars can be limiting. Ive read several stories on how just changing one NPC character design required DICE EA to submit it to Lucas Art for approval. Maybe Marvel isnt like that, but in the age of games taking forever to make, any kind of roadblock is one too many.
And as much as I like Spiderman, I have seen what Disney and Marvel want out of their movies, and these guys want the most generic family friendly bs ever. Wolverine is supposed to be more mature in tone, but i bet it wont be rated Mature.
I think the only reason MS is getting criticized for this is because of their underwhelming first party output over the last few years. I dont think a marvel Guardians of the Galaxy game by 343 or a good avengers game by Coalition fixes that. Microsoft need more than just two AAA studios producing games and those games wouldve come at the expense of a Halo and Gears game.
And as much as I like Spiderman, I have seen what Disney and Marvel want out of their movies, and these guys want the most generic family friendly bs ever. Wolverine is supposed to be more mature in tone, but i bet it wont be rated Mature.
I think the only reason MS is getting criticized for this is because of their underwhelming first party output over the last few years. I dont think a marvel Guardians of the Galaxy game by 343 or a good avengers game by Coalition fixes that. Microsoft need more than just two AAA studios producing games and those games wouldve come at the expense of a Halo and Gears game.
MasterCornholio
Member
I think there’s confusion of what type of rights they own. It’s possible to own the movie rights and not the game rights.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Sony owns the rights to Spiderman movies. not spiderman games. Marvel owns those rights. Thats why Activision had been making spiderman games for almost two decades.
Jaybe
Member
Sony only owns the film rights. This goes into it more. And while Spider-Man was the ultimate choice, Marvel was open to other IP of theirs being used.
https://apptrigger.com/2020/08/03/spider-man-video-games/amp/
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
They will sell around 40M until April next year. If Spider-Man comes out during the fall, 50M is actually a safe bet.
Jaybe
Member
Man, they will sell every unit they produce…. Hope production keeps up (for all console manufacturers).
yurinka
Member
I think the synergy created between the Spider-Man movies and game worked so well that it should be one of the key reasons of why PS is bringing some of their PS IPs to movies and tv shows, to create similar synergies.
fallingdove
Member
If 70% of AAA titles are available for free as part of a subscription, all third party publishers won’t need to be gobbled up. They will be forced to take a hair cut and list their games on these subscription services.
The only scenario I see accommodating both subscription and traditional gaming is one where the HD twins are full subscription and Nintendo maintains course. Nintendo IPs are strong enough and high enough quality that they could live outside of a subscription ecosystem.
On topic, Microsoft may not even need to take on Marvel projects. We could see a MLB, the Show situation where Sony is forced to develop for Xbox or risk loosing rights to Spiderman/Wolverine, etc.
nikolino840
Member
So If Microsoft want to do a spiderman game they Need to Ask at Marvel/Disney?
There's no reason for Marvel/Disney to deny some millions Just for console war...for them more companies pay the rights Is Better
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I think the deal with Sony/Marvel was for it (and now Wolverine) to be exclusive, so that probably can't and won't happen.
nikolino840
Member
So sony own spiderman for movies and games?
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
It's Marvel's license to give. If they really wanted to, they could force Sony to port Spiderman to the Xbox just like MLB did with MLB The Show.
The new Sony would gladly port it to Xbox and let them make it a gamepass exclusive while they do all the dev work.
The fact that they havent done that yet is likely because Marvel is ok with Spiderman being exclusive. They have sold far more units than Guardians and Avengers combined despite them being multiplatform so maybe Marvel looked at that and said to themselves that maybe relying on these third party publishers is not a good idea.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
We are talking contracts, not license. Sony probably has a deal with Marvel where they can be the only ones to make Spider-Man AAA games. And now Wolverine (and whatever else they are cooking up).
You guys keep repeating this wrong information.
Similar threads
- Locked