General Gaming Update: RIP in Peace, Marvel's Avengers

[crispy4000]

Microsoft should just buy exclusivity for to another Marvel superhero (for this game) and keep them off PS5.  Go grab Wolverine.

 

That’s the way this industry works now.  It’s the terms of engagement that Sony and Microsoft have written themselves.  We’re still seeing timed exclusivity deals galore in 2020.  This latest stunt is no surprise.

 

But hey, at least Nintendo doesn’t care about poaching anything significant.  So they get to stay out of the fray.

[Keyser_Soze]

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Microsoft should just buy exclusivity for to another Marvel superhero (for this game) and keep them off PS5.  Go grab Wolverine.

 

They'll never put Wolverine in the game because the modern Avengers (movie universe) doesn't have him in it. Although if you got anyone other than an X-Man I don't think it would entice anyone else to get the Microsoft version.

 

Mockingbird would be a cool exclusive though.

[eggydoo]

23 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Microsoft should just buy exclusivity for to another Marvel superhero (for this game) and keep them off PS5.  Go grab Wolverine.

they wouldn't be able to affords Disney asking price for Wolverine.

[JPDunks4]

5 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

 

Yeah but you've bought every game over the last 10 years so no one believes you're not gonna get it

You right

[JPDunks4]

9 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Microsoft should just buy exclusivity for to another Marvel superhero (for this game) and keep them off PS5.  Go grab Wolverine.

 

That’s the way this industry works now.  It’s the terms of engagement that Sony and Microsoft have written themselves.  We’re still seeing timed exclusivity deals galore in 2020.  This latest stunt is no surprise.

 

But hey, at least Nintendo doesn’t care about poaching anything significant.  So they get to stay out of the fray.

 

Didn't Bungie say the fact Activision made them do exclusive content for one platform over the others was a big reason they wanted to kill that deal and start operating independently.  And that was all timed exclusivity, not straight up locking other platforms out of content permanently for the same product.

 

I doubt Crystal Dynamics wants to do this shit, but Square Enix and Sony have been tight for years.  They better hope this game nails the gameplay, cause otherwise I can see this game dying quick cause 2 of the 3 platforms already have a bad taste in their mouth for it.

[crispy4000]

21 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

They'll never put Wolverine in the game because the modern Avengers (movie universe) doesn't have him in it. Although if you got anyone other than an X-Man I don't think it would entice anyone else to get the Microsoft version.

If the point was to stick to movie likenesses, they’ve already failed.

[Keyser_Soze]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

If the point was to stick to movie likenesses, they’ve already failed.

 

Other than Kamala Khan it seems pretty much like the movies.

[crispy4000]

14 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

Didn't Bungie say the fact Activision made them do exclusive content for one platform over the others was a big reason they wanted to kill that deal and start operating independently.  And that was all timed exclusivity, not straight up locking other platforms out of content permanently for the same product.

 

I doubt Crystal Dynamics wants to do this shit, but Square Enix and Sony have been tight for years.  They better hope this game nails the gameplay, cause otherwise I can see this game dying quick cause 2 of the 3 platforms already have a bad taste in their mouth for it.

Money talks.  Especially with licensed IP.  
 

Microsoft just needs to front the development and secure it timed, like they did with GTA4 DLC ages ago.  Permanent DLC exclusivity isn’t worth paying for.

[crispy4000]

1 minute ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Other than Kamala Khan it seems pretty much like the movies.

It wouldn’t be the game it is now if it intended to be like the movies.

[crispy4000]

24 minutes ago, eggydoo said:

they wouldn't be able to affords Disney asking price for Wolverine.

I suppose that means he’ll stay a Nintendo exclusive.

[skillzdadirecta]

50 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

They'll never put Wolverine in the game because the modern Avengers (movie universe) doesn't have him in it. Although if you got anyone other than an X-Man I don't think it would entice anyone else to get the Microsoft version.

 

Mockingbird would be a cool exclusive though.

This game isn't based in the movie universe though... Mutant characters are entirely possible.

[Keyser_Soze]

31 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

It wouldn’t be the game it is now if it intended to be like the movies.

 

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

This game isn't based in the movie universe though... Mutant characters are entirely possible.

 

I didn't say it is in the movie universe or it is supposed to be like an avengers movie. However, the look of the game, the characters they have now and lined up all adhere to the MCU avengers movies.

 

Not to echo Max but if they did something off the bat like Marvel Ultimate Alliance and had a striking art style and showed a whole slew of characters that weren't in the movies off the bat (like Iron Fist, Deadpool, Lockjaw) then I would say they aren't adhering to the movie aesthetic / universe characters and anything goes.

[Mercury33]

10 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Why am I a fool now?

 

15 hours ago, number305 said:

So they are announcing today even more content including cosmetic things like outfits and emotes - plus some challenges that will be timed exclusives for PlayStation.  Its kind of comical at this point.  Why not just make the game a timed exclusive for PlayStation.  That would make more sense.  Only fools would pay the same $60 for this on Xbox knowing they are getting a gimped game compared to the other console.

Apparently this is why 

[Brian]

 

[XxEvil AshxX]

10 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Money talks.  Especially with licensed IP.  
 

Microsoft just needs to front the development and secure it timed, like they did with GTA4 DLC ages ago.  Permanent DLC exclusivity isn’t worth paying for.

 

Phil Spencer distanced MS away from DLC exclusivity a long time ago, stating he felt it was anti-consumer and he didn't like it. Sony took it as an opportunity to double down.

 

Besides, if it came down to MS offering Squeenix extra cash, it would be to get Avengers on Game Pass instead of some extra dlc.

[JPDunks4]

Quote

But Marvel’s Avengers’ most glaring issue, at least during the beta is its gear system. The real draw to get people to grind these endless war zones is the chance to loot something great, and so far, I haven’t cared about a single thing that’s dropped for me. First off, none of it changes the actual look or feel of your character. Every item is an invisible piece that just counts up to an overall gear score. You may find a pair of gloves that slightly improve your normal attacks, but most of these just offer elemental bonuses and are almost invisible in the actual gameplay. When your gear screen has a button you can press to just automatically equip the highest-numbered gear you have, it makes it seem as though there are few meaningful choices to be made. Everything drives to a single power level number, and when so many games have solved this uninteresting way to sort through loot, it’s a tad disappointing to feel like you’ve gone back in time.

 

This quote from the IGN Impressions has be concerned.  Gear and Loot games need interesting loot that both change up the appearance of the character to look more bad ass as you progress, as well as possibly change up your gameplay or abilities.  It sounds like this game has it do neither.

 

[crispy4000]

55 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

 

Phil Spencer distanced MS away from DLC exclusivity a long time ago, stating he felt it was anti-consumer and he didn't like it. Sony took it as an opportunity to double down.

 

Besides, if it came down to MS offering Squeenix extra cash, it would be to get Avengers on Game Pass instead of some extra dlc.

Microsoft is still paying to keep plenty of games, not mere DLC, off Sony consoles for timed exclusivity windows.  What’s pro consumer about that?  Wouldn’t PS5 owners want to play The Medium at launch too?
 

If Games Pass is supposed to alleviate that trend, we haven’t seen it.  They don’t get to claim that they’re the ‘good guy’ in this when they’re still waist deep in the cesspool they helped in equal part to fill.

 

And it's somewhat ironic we’re talking about Crystal Dynamics and SquareEnix here.  Remember Rise of the Tomb Raider’s exclusivity window?

[JPDunks4]

11 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Microsoft is still paying to keep plenty games, not merely DLC, off Sony consoles for timed exclusivity windows.  What’s pro consumer about that?  Wouldn’t PS5 owners want to play The Medium at launch too?
 

If Games Pass is supposed to alleviate that trend, we haven’t seen it.  They don’t get to claim that they’re the ‘good guy’ in this when they’re still waist deep in the cesspool they helped fill.

 

And it's somewhat ironic we’re talking about Crystal Dynamics here.  Remember Rise of the Tomb Raider’s exclusivity window?

 

Is every console exclusive due to a paid deal though?  I personally never believed a lot of the PS4 3rd party games that didn't come to Xbox at launch were due to Sony paying for them to be on PS4.  The developers just developed for the most popular console, and had a good relationship with Sony.  Over time, they also released on Xbox. 

 

I could be wrong on that, but I also feel the same way about certain games coming to Xbox first.  Some smaller devs may prefer to work on one platform specifically first.  And maybe Game Pass is a selling point some devs may want to launch on initially to try to help generate extra hype around a smaller game by having access to that 10-15 million subscriber base.

 

Look at Rocket League releasing on PS+ at the start of the PS4 gen and how that helped push that game to quick popularity.

 

Also, there is a pretty significant difference between paying for a time exclusive, I don't think many gamers give a shit anymore about time exclusives that eventually all platforms will have access to.  This is Sony paying to stop PC and Xbox from permanently having access to a playable character on a multi-platform game that everyone is paying the same $ more.  If Sony want to put up the cash and say the Spiderman character will be Free on Playstation, and make the Xbox and PC players pay for it, then so be it.  But to straight up block content permanently out of a multi-plat game is straight scummy bullshit.  Especially if it possibly is the reason we wont have cross-saves or cross platform play in this game.

[Brian]

The first comment about the game in the EZA video is the reason why I am passing. I don’t want every character to feel the same. 

[XxEvil AshxX]

36 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

The first comment about the game in the EZA video is the reason why I am passing. I don’t want every character to feel the same. 

 

When I heard them mention that, I couldnt help but wonder if it was intentional, since only one person can be a certain character at a time.

 

Imagine if each character played radically different, and two of them were awesome and the other two sucked ass. Or three were awesome and one sucked. In a four player game, somebody would be getting screwed.

 

Also it would limit the possibility of people being absolutely useless because they got stuck with a character they never play.

 

Not saying its a good reason, but a reason nonetheless.

[ARZ]

Waiting to reserve judgement until I play the beta...but am definitely thinking along the lines of @JPDunks4  now and waiting for a price drop. Not happy with all the exclusive stuff...

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

Is every console exclusive due to a paid deal though?  I personally never believed a lot of the PS4 3rd party games that didn't come to Xbox at launch were due to Sony paying for them to be on PS4.  The developers just developed for the most popular console, and had a good relationship with Sony.  Over time, they also released on Xbox. 

 

I could be wrong on that, but I also feel the same way about certain games coming to Xbox first.  Some smaller devs may prefer to work on one platform specifically first.  And maybe Game Pass is a selling point some devs may want to launch on initially to try to help generate extra hype around a smaller game by having access to that 10-15 million subscriber base.

 

Look at Rocket League releasing on PS+ at the start of the PS4 gen and how that helped push that game to quick popularity.

 

I find it extremely hard to believe games like the The Medium, Phantasy Star Online 2, STALKER 2, Tetris Effect Connected and Warhammer Darktide fit that category.  Not to mention that every known Series X game has been announced to have a same-date PC release.

 

In many cases, it's happening for no reason other than moneyhatting to keep it off Sony's consoles for a time.  Best to admit it instead of skirting around it.  Sony is an equal offender.  They’re both playing dirty.

 

1 hour ago, JPDunks4 said:

Also, there is a pretty significant difference between paying for a time exclusive, I don't think many gamers give a shit anymore about time exclusives that eventually all platforms will have access to.  This is Sony paying to stop PC and Xbox from permanently having access to a playable character on a multi-platform game that everyone is paying the same $ more.  If Sony want to put up the cash and say the Spiderman character will be Free on Playstation, and make the Xbox and PC players pay for it, then so be it.  But to straight up block content permanently out of a multi-plat game is straight scummy bullshit.  Especially if it possibly is the reason we wont have cross-saves or cross platform play in this game.

 

We can talk all day about what's less bad, but this is like discussing whether you prefer a dog turd or a cat turd.

 

Timed exclusivity, done for reasons other than development resources and budget constraints, is bullshit.  It's always a loss for us.  That money could be spent on things to improve a platform instead of tearing down others.  The games you're artificially kept from might change, but this keeps happening in perpetuity.  It keeps sucking.

 

Exclusive (timed) DLC and content operates under the same motivations.  The problem remains the rules of engagement.  If a game can be locked away from another platform for a year for no good reason, why should exclusive DLC be considered the one step too far?  Even if you think it is worse, the slippery slope already led to it.

[Duderino]

As far as video game "anti-consumer" practices go, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft keeping their intellectual property exclusive to their platform(s) is quite a tame.  They are all guilty of it, but 99.99% of the time we don't question it.  It is, for the most part, an accepted practice that is easy to rationalize.  Spiderman is a Sony owned IP with broad appeal beyond games.  It's that second part that has people thinking this is somehow different.

[crispy4000]

2 minutes ago, Duderino said:

As far as video game "anti-consumer" practices go, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft keeping their intellectual property exclusive to their platform(s) is quite a tame.  They are all guilty of it, but 99.99% of the time we don't question it.  It is, for the most part, an accepted practice that is easy to rationalize.  Spiderman is a Sony owned IP with broad appeal beyond games.  It's that second part that has people thinking this is somehow different.

Well, that and Marvel Alliance 3.  LEGO Marvel Avengers.  Etc.

[Brian]

Sony only has Spiderman movie rights no? Marvel has the rest of the rights which is supported by the story that Marvel approached Pubs about making Marvel games. If Sony owned Spiderman game rights, they wouldn’t have waited this long to make a game. 

[JPDunks4]

15 minutes ago, Duderino said:

As far as video game "anti-consumer" practices go, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft keeping their intellectual property exclusive to their platform(s) is quite a tame.  They are all guilty of it, but 99.99% of the time we don't question it.  It is, for the most part, an accepted practice that is easy to rationalize.  Spiderman is a Sony owned IP with broad appeal beyond games.  It's that second part that has people thinking this is somehow different.

Spiderman is a Sony owned IP for Films by most reports.  They don't own the IP for games, they just had the deal with Marvel for the Spiderman game.

 

[JPDunks4]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I find it extremely hard to believe games like the The Medium, Phantasy Star Online 2, STALKER 2, Tetris Effect Connected and Warhammer Darktide fit that category.  Not to mention that every known Series X game has been announced to have a same-date PC release.

 

In many cases, it's happening for no reason other than moneyhatting to keep it off Sony's consoles for a time.  Best to admit it instead of skirting around it.  Sony is an equal offender.  They’re both playing dirty.

 

 

We can talk all day about what's less bad, but this is like discussing whether you prefer a dog turd or a cat turd.

 

Timed exclusivity, done for reasons other than development resources and budget constraints, is bullshit.  It's always a loss for us.  That money could be spent on things to improve a platform instead of tearing down others.  The games you're artificially kept from might change, but this keeps happening in perpetuity.  It keeps sucking.

 

Exclusive (timed) DLC and content operates under the same motivations.  The problem remains the rules of engagement.  If a game can be locked away from another platform for a year for no good reason, why should exclusive DLC be considered the one step too far?  Even if you think it is worse, the slippery slope already led to it.

 

I'm not saying that Microsoft is completely innocent of buying timed exclusives for its platform.  When they do it, it's dumb as well.  I am saying that I don't believe that every single console exclusive, be it timed or not, is automatically the case of Microsoft or Sony just paying a perfectly capable and financially stable team to keep the game off other platforms.

Bloober Team is a smaller independent studio, and as far as I know, they didn't have a publisher backing them on Medium.  If Microsoft partnered up with them to fund them and help them make the game they wanted to make, and part of that deal is some timed exclusivity and having it on Game Pass Day 1, most gamers I've seen never have an issue with these arrangements.  Smaller to mid size studios that may need some extra financial help to make a proper game, and therefore giving timed exclusivity, at least for me, is a perfectly fine practice.

 

Double Fine and inXile recently came out and said Wasteland 3 and Psychonauts 2 were being made with chunks of the game being left out due to financial strains of being an smaller studios.  So Sony and Microsoft stepping in to help get these games made properly should be welcomed by most.  Especially since in most cases, it's a Timed arrangement, they aren't fully stopping the development or release on other platforms in the future.

 

In this instance, you have Crystal Dynamics, a fairly large studio with the support of a large publisher, Square Enix.  They are developing content I think most assume they were going to produced no matter what.  Spiderman is one of the most popular Avengers, and was probably going to be in the game regardless as a new character.  Sony is paying to stop it from gong to Microsoft and PC on a multiplat game all owners of the game are paying the same $ for.  If a game is a Timed Exclusive on Microsoft, Sony owners aren't paying for that game and being restricted access to portions of that game.  They are waiting a year to pay for the game and having access to play it.

 

CoD on 360 had Xbox partnerships for DLC.  The partnership as far as I remember, was Xbox got 1 month early access to paid Map Packs.  That is a pretty stark difference to what Square Enix is doing here with Sony.

[Keyser_Soze]

Established in March 2009, the label handles the licensing of Marvel intellectual properties to video game developers and publishers.

 

(Just to pile on to the Sony owns the movie Spider Man but for the games Marvel can do anything they want)

[crispy4000]

36 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

 

I'm not saying that Microsoft is completely innocent of buying timed exclusives for its platform.  When they do it, it's dumb as well.  I am saying that I don't believe that every single console exclusive, be it timed or not, is automatically the case of Microsoft or Sony just paying a perfectly capable and financially stable team to keep the game off other platforms.

Bloober Team is a smaller independent studio, and as far as I know, they didn't have a publisher backing them on Medium.  If Microsoft partnered up with them to fund them and help them make the game they wanted to make, and part of that deal is some timed exclusivity and having it on Game Pass Day 1, most gamers I've seen never have an issue with these arrangements.  Smaller to mid size studios that may need some extra financial help to make a proper game, and therefore giving timed exclusivity, at least for me, is a perfectly fine practice.

 

Double Fine and inXile recently came out and said Wasteland 3 and Psychonauts 2 were being made with chunks of the game being left out due to financial strains of being an smaller studios.  So Sony and Microsoft stepping in to help get these games made properly should be welcomed by most.  Especially since in most cases, it's a Timed arrangement, they aren't fully stopping the development or release on other platforms in the future.

 

In this instance, you have Crystal Dynamics, a fairly large studio with the support of a large publisher, Square Enix.  They are developing content I think most assume they were going to produced now matter what.  Spiderman is one of the most popular Avengers, and was probably going to be in the game regardless as a new character.  Sony is paying to stop it from gong to Microsoft and PC on a multiplat game all owners of the game are paying the same $ for.  If a game is a Timed Exclusive on Microsoft, Sony owners aren't paying for that game and being restricted access to portions of that game.  They are waiting a year to pay for the game and having access to play it.

 

CoD on 360 had Xbox partnerships for DLC.  The partnership as far as I remember, was Xbox got 1 month early access to paid Map Packs.  That is a pretty stark difference to what Square Enix is doing here with Sony.

 

There's a HUGE difference between buying timed exclusivity and buying a studio.  The latter isn't relevant here.  At all.

 

Layers of Fear came out day and date on Playstation 4, Xbox One, PC, Mac OX and Linux.  Switch 5 days later.  Bloober Team has already done simultaneous releases and worked with publishers to that end, and could do it again. They're actually quite prolific as of late.  We probably won't ever know how it went down fully with the Medium, but I'd guess much of the deal was oriented around marketing, including the CG trailer.

 

What's the excuse for the other games I listed?  We agree its not automatic, I never said it was.  But there's clearly some wheeling and dealing happening.  It's how Microsoft and Sony will both try to make up for their 1st party line-up shortcomings.

 

I consider waiting a year for timed exclusivity to end to be a restricted access period.  And taken in the console space a whole, a restricted access norm.  Do enough developers abuse platform specific DLC for it to be worse today?  It's up to debate.

 

But it's still just cat turd vs dog turd when it comes to egregious examples of both.  Crystal Dynamics exemplifies that with both Avengers and Rise of the Tomb Raider.

[JPDunks4]

11 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

There's a HUGE difference between buying timed exclusivity and buying a studio.  The latter isn't relevant here.  At all.

 

Bloober Team's previous release, Layers of Fear, came out day and date on Playstation 4, Xbox One, PC, Mac OX and Linux.  Switch 5 days later.  This is a team that has already done simultaneous releases and worked with publishers to that end, and could do it again. We probably won't ever know how it went down fully with the Medium, but I'd imagine much of the deal was oriented around marketing.

 

 

Layers of Fear 1 and 2 had a Publisher supporting their development.

 

Blair Witch Project was self published, also came to Microsoft 1st and Game Pass day and date.

 

So Bloober Team didn't have to get a publisher to get the extra financing to make Blair Witch.  As far as I can tell, Medium is self published, probably due to the extra resources they attained from Microsoft.  They obviously made the same arrangement this time so it worked out well enough for them last time.  If an Independant Studio being able to self publish a project and having a bigger project for their game is at the cost of a Timed Exclusivity deal, I and I think many gamers would be okay with that.

 

I don't know enough about the other games listed.  I'd assume something like a Warhammer game and Tetris game have sufficient funding on their own.

 

I just personally see a very distinct difference between a Timed Exclusive which I don't spend money on and wait a year for access to, and a game we all buy for the same price and one platform holder paying the developer to block access on other platforms.  Its my personal opinion on it, and based on the outrage online, I think many have the same feelings.

 

I was hoping to get this on PC with cross platform play to play with ARZ and Skillz on Xbox, but hadn't seen any announcements around Cross Platform play.  I'm more upset about the lack of Cross Platform play or saves being announced, and I mainly think its probably because Sony's deal with them.  I maybe wrong, but Destiny didn't have cross save until they got themselves out the bullshit timed exclusive DLC.

[skillzdadirecta]

[crispy4000]

10 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Layers of Fear 1 and 2 had a Publisher supporting their development.

 

Blair Witch Project was self published, also came to Microsoft 1st and Game Pass day and date.

 

So Bloober Team didn't have to sell itself out to a publisher to get the extra financing to make Blair Witch.  As far as I can tell, Medium is self published, probably due to the extra resources they attained from Microsoft.  If an Independant Studio being able to self publish a project and having a bigger project for their game is at the cost of a Timed Exclusivity deal, I and I think many gamers would be okay with that.

 

My bad.  I own Observer, I should have known better.

 

10 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

I just personally see a very distinct difference between a Timed Exclusive which I don't spend money on and wait a year for access to, and a game we all buy for the same price and one platform holder paying the developer to block access on other platforms.  Its my personal opinion on it, and based on the outrage online, I think many have the same feelings.

 

I'd be with you if I viewed timed exclusivity as more of a game by game thing and less as a perpetual cycle.  So for me, I put them side by side.

 

Plenty of people got outraged about Rise of the Tomb Raider too.

[JPDunks4]

8 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

My bad.  I own Observer too, I should have known better.

 

 

I'd be with you if I viewed timed exclusivity as more of a game by game thing and less as a  perpetual pattern.  So for me, I put them side by side.

 

Plenty of people got outraged about Rise of the Tomb Raider too.

 

Yeah, I thought Rise of the Tomb Raider was a pretty dumb thing too, and it was after that deal, and the reaction to that deal, that Phil Spencer said he'd prefer not to do those deals in the futture.

 

That game, being the Tomb Raider IP, is what made the outrage justified.  That is a known IP coming off the big success of the first reboot.  I'm pretty sure it was still being published by Square Enix.  No one believed that game needed Microsoft's help to get made.  So it was a bullshit deal that deserved the outrage, Microsoft paid simply to block it from being on Sony's platform to have an answer for Uncharted 4 most likely.

 

I see a lot of gamers saying Microsoft needs to start doing this deals too to combat Sony's.  I don't care if Microsoft get an exclusive character, that doesn't make me enjoy that character more.  It doesn't make the game play better that it's not on Sony's console.  If they develop other characters, have it be on all platforms and have crossplay and cross save, that's all I want.

 

If Micrsoft choose to buy WB games and get the licenses for Batman and other properties and decide to keep all them exclusive, it's a bit different, but even that I've seen a lot say they hope they'd keep Mortal Kombat and Batman multiplat, but just have it on Game Pass Day 1.  We'll see if that deal ever gets done.

 

Microsoft could also be huge dicks and just pull all future Minecraft content off Playstation, but they don't, even if doing so may help sell more Xbox Hardware.

[Duderino]

1 hour ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

Sony only has Spiderman movie rights no? Marvel has the rest of the rights which is supported by the story that Marvel approached Pubs about making Marvel games. If Sony owned Spiderman game rights, they wouldn’t have waited this long to make a game. 

Was not aware it was just film.  So Marvel + Crystal Dynamics ultimately made the call to accept an exclusivity deal with Playstation?

[JPDunks4]

7 minutes ago, Duderino said:

Was not aware it was just film.  So Marvel + Crystal Dynamics ultimately made the call to accept an exclusivity deal with Playstation?

 

Marvel + *Square Enix

 

Typically in these types of the deals the Publisher make the call, not the Developer.

 

See the Destiny exclusive content on Playstation for a year.  Bungie had openly said they hated doing it, but Activision made those decisions and made the deal with Sony.

 

As soon as Bungie cut ties with Acitvision, they stopped doing the exclusive content.  The developer is the one left trying to defend the decision to do it, and have to explain to angry fans on other platforms why their version of the game they are paying the same money for is gimped.  

 

You can already see it from Crystal Dynamics trying to explain why this deal is in place, and promising no other characters will be released this way.