Support NeoGAF

[Nirolak]

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...games-why-they-dont-make-em-like-they-used-to

Highlights:

• Marvel 's Jay Ong starts off by noting that these days, they only sign partners who want to make big hits, and are willing to invest in the projects with lots of money and their high end game development talent.
• Jay proceeds to note that with each new major game they announce, they're able to get better and better partners who are interested in making games with their IPs, as they feel that Marvel is really serious about their initiative and actually delivering results.
• Marvel no longer wants to sign exclusive deals with publishers. They talk about how they signed a 13 year deal with Activision in 2005 where only Activision could release dedicated Spider-Man console games through 2017, and these days, they just do their deals one game at a time. They feel this is better for both sides because everyone wants to continue a successful collaboration, but doesn't want to continue an unsuccessful collaboration, and there's no need to make an exclusive deal to guarantee content gets made.
• Marvel tries to make less games these days, but have them be notably bigger and better. Also, they try to ensure that their titles aren't competing. For example, they don't want to have both Insomniac and some other developer making open world Spider-Man games because they feel that causes customer confusion and also causes their partners to have to compete with each other. Similarly they also wouldn't want two Marvel MOBAs on PC or whatever.
• Marvel prefers to hand licenses out to their entire cast of characters these days (feel free to exclude the X-Men and Fantastic Four from this discussion for a second) because they like to avoid putting limits on what characters their developers can use. A lot of this was driven by their partners' desires, especially on mobile where the business model revolves around collecting characters, and because both Marvel and the developers like to have tie-in events for new movies (i.e. Guardians of the Galaxy content in mobile games recently) and new comic initiatives (i.e. the Women of Marvel content last year). They're still open to doing more focused games if their partners want to however (see Spider-Man).
• 100% of Marvel's development partners want to have significant post launch content and games as a service elements in their games these days. Jay mentioned that no one has come to him in years and years without requesting that. This is self evident for most games, but feel free to write down that a significant DLC plan for Spider-Man was just confirmed. Marvel Games has an entire team dedicated to supporting publishers' plans for games as a service content.
• Separately, Bill Roseman, Jay Ong's boss, mentioned that they also want to use games to build up their lesser known characters, especially given games reach a lot more people than comics do.
• They ended with a variety of comments on Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite which is covered elsewhere, but hit up the link if you're interested.

 

[Spinluck]

Great, now I want a Marvel MOBA.

 

[FelipeMGM]

Hope we get announcements at D23

 

[WetWaffle]

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...games-why-they-dont-make-em-like-they-used-to


[*]Marvel no longer wants to sign exclusive deals with publishers. They talk about how they signed a 13 year deal with Activision in 2005 where only Activision could release dedicated Spider-Man console games through 2017, and these days, they just do their deals one game at a time. They feel this is better for both sides because everyone wants to continue a successful collaboration, but doesn't want to continue an unsuccessful collaboration, and there's no need to make an exclusive deal to guarantee content gets made.

[/LIST]

I thought Spiderman (2018) was the result of an exclusive deal with Sony. Does that mean that if there's a Spiderman 2, it would be multiplatform? Or does Sony have to go to them for the deal again?

 

[sense]

They talk about a ill fated marvel Microsoft mmorpg deal from way back in 2005. Whatever happened to that.

 

[Sad Affleck]

I find their decision to greenlight a Spider-Man game as a PS4 exclusive very strange. If the goal is to make an Arkham-level hit then it really should have been multiplatform. Was there a special condition in place due to the movie rights or did they just like Sony's pitch the best?

 

[Lingitiz]

Here's hoping the Eidos Montreal and Crystal Dynamics Avengers projects are awesome.

Regardless of how you feel about superheros, Marvel and DC have crazy universal appeal right now thanks to the film universes, and they can bring in massive audiences that extend beyond just people who like games.

I find their decision to greenlight a Spider-Man game as a PS4 exclusive very strange. If the goal is to make an Arkham-level hit then it really should have been multiplatform. Was there a special condition in place due to the movie rights or did they just like Sony's pitch the best?

Yeah I was hoping this question would be answerd, since apparently Marvel went to Insomniac through a Sony producer, but apparently did not specify that Spiderman was the property the wanted them to work on. They just wanted Insomniac to make a game. So it's possible Marvel liked the working relationship between Sony and Insomniac and decided to piggyback off of that instead of choose another third party publisher.

 

[Nirolak]

I thought Spiderman (2018) was the result of an exclusive deal with Sony. Does that mean that if there's a Spiderman 2, it would be multiplatform? Or does Sony have to go to them for the deal again?

They sign one game at a time. They plan is to just keep offering Insomniac and Sony Spider-Man games assuming they actually produce good work and Sony and Insomniac want to keep making them.

Basically they're reserving the right to break off licensing agreements if the publisher/developer do a bad job, and similarly are not requiring the publisher/developer to keep making the games if they don't want to for any reason.

 

[Sinatar]

Great, now I want a Marvel MOBA.

There's a mobile one in beta, but being a mobile game it's probably awful.

 

[wwm0nkey]

Use to promote lesser known characters? Give me that Moon Knight game and a good game focused on Arcade's Murder Worlds please!

 

[Primethius]

I thought Spiderman (2018) was the result of an exclusive deal with Sony. Does that mean that if there's a Spiderman 2, it would be multiplatform? Or does Sony have to go to them for the deal again?

If it's successful critically and commercially, it seems like Marvel will go to Insomniac and Sony again.

 

[HStallion]

I find their decision to greenlight a Spider-Man game as a PS4 exclusive very strange. If the goal is to make an Arkham-level hit then it really should have been multiplatform. Was there a special condition in place due to the movie rights or did they just like Sony's pitch the best?

I'm sure that Sony Pictures working together with Marvel on Spiderman films was a part of this whole deal. It wasn't just for the movies but Spiderman as a property in general for Sony.

 

[Nirolak]

Use to promote lesser known characters? Give me that Moon Knight game and a good game focused on Arcade's Murder Worlds please!

So uh, to be clear, the example they gave for this was having a Spider-Man title, and then making Mr. Negative (a villain most people have never heard of, was only created six years ago, and has been in very few comics) the main villain.

You're less likely to get any publishers/developers who want to make a game entirely centered around someone people have never heard about, as that defeats the purpose of paying Marvel lots of money to make a game.

 

[James Scott]

I find their decision to greenlight a Spider-Man game as a PS4 exclusive very strange. If the goal is to make an Arkham-level hit then it really should have been multiplatform. Was there a special condition in place due to the movie rights or did they just like Sony's pitch the best?

What I find strange is that Sony didn't give it to their internal studio that makes super hero sand box games and instead gave it to a 3rd party though I imagine Sucker punch must have been busy

 

[Nete]

Marvel no longer wants to sign exclusive deals with publishers. They talk about how they signed a 13 year deal with Activision in 2005 where only Activision could release dedicated Spider-Man console games through 2017, and these days, they just do their deals one game at a time. They feel this is better for both sides because everyone wants to continue a successful collaboration, but doesn't want to continue an unsuccessful collaboration, and there's no need to make an exclusive deal to guarantee content gets made.

Now we just need Lucasfilm to follow this. EA hoarding the Star Wars rights is terrible, as they only seem interested on AAA games for the IP outside mobile, and even then they can only make that many games at a time.

 

[Nirolak]

I find their decision to greenlight a Spider-Man game as a PS4 exclusive very strange. If the goal is to make an Arkham-level hit then it really should have been multiplatform. Was there a special condition in place due to the movie rights or did they just like Sony's pitch the best?

Sony is one of the only publishers left on earth who actually funds $80+ million development budget cinematic singleplayer (focused) games, so if you want something like that, you've got pretty limited options.

Now we just need Lucasfilm to follow this. EA hoarding the Star Wars rights is terrible, as they only seem interested on AAA games for the IP outside mobile, and even they can only make that many games at a time.

LucasArts did that because almost no one was interested in committing major teams to the IP except EA, and EA would only do it with exclusive (core console gaming) rights.

 

[wwm0nkey]

So uh, to be clear, the example they gave for this was having a Spider-Man title, and then making Mr. Negative (a villain most people have never heard of, was only created six years ago, and has been in very few comics) the main villain.

You're less likely to get any publishers/developers who want to make a game entirely centered around someone people have never heard about, as that defeats the purpose of paying Marvel lots of money to make a game.

I know, I just want to dream :c

Though I also feel like making games around lesser known characters would be good too.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

They sign one game at a time. They plan is to just keep offering Insomniac and Sony Spider-Man games assuming they actually produce good work and Sony and Insomniac want to keep making them.

Basically they're reserving the right to break off licensing agreements if the publisher/developer do a bad job, and similarly are not requiring the publisher/developer to keep making the games if they don't want to for any reason.

So until further notice, Spider-Man and future games are exclusive to Playstation?

 

[Nirolak]

So until further notice, Spider-Man and future games are exclusive to Playstation?

Yes, in the sense of AAA open world action-adventure cinematic titles. You still have games like Spider-Man Unlimited on mobile.

That said, the number of people who would have wanted to make this game otherwise was pretty low, so...

To be clear, Spider-Man can also appear in any other game as long as it isn't "a Spider-Man game" if that makes sense. Like he can be in all the fighting games, Diablo games, mobile games, etc, or even plausibly appear in The Avengers as one of the ensemble cast members.

 

[HStallion]

So until further notice, Spider-Man and future games are exclusive to Playstation?

Unless the game sucks and bombs I wouldn't doubt it.

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

So until further notice, Spider-Man and future games are exclusive to Playstation?

Spider-Man can still pop up in other games this Spider-Man however yes is exclusive until stated otherwise

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Unless the game sucks and bombs I wouldn't doubt it.

It's Insomniac. Who has any doubts about this game? As long as they're developing it then Spider-Man is just gonna stay on Playstation for some time.

 

[ITSMILNER]

So, DLC for Spider-Man eh?

 

[orochi91]

Sony is one of the only publishers left on earth who actually funds $80+ million development budget cinematic singleplayer (focused) games, so if you want something like that, you've got pretty limited options.

This is very true.

 

[Lingitiz]

What I find strange is that Sony didn't give it to their internal studio that makes super hero sand box games and instead gave it to a 3rd party though I imagine Sucker punch must have been busy

But it doesn't sound like that's how the deal went down. Ted Price said their producer from Sony approached them and said, "Hey what do you think about working on a Marvel license?" After they said yes they then gave them free reign to choose which one they wanted to work on the most. So it sounds more like Marvel wanted to work with Sony/Insomniac first, rather than specifically contracting them to make a Spiderman title.

 

[kmfdmpig]

Marvel Ultimate Alliance done well would fit their goals nicely. It both leverages major characters while also giving people a chance to learn about and (hopefully) become interested in some of the more obscure characters.

 

[sense]

What I find strange is that Sony didn't give it to their internal studio that makes super hero sand box games and instead gave it to a 3rd party though I imagine Sucker punch must have been busy

Well, they want their own studio to build something where the money made can be totally for Sony instead of shared with marvel. Plus, if the marvel deal doesn't work out then sucker punch would have to fall back on infamous or something new that could have been established way earlier. This way Sony, marvel and insomniac can shake hands and walk away and no one is affected.

 

[SnowFlakeCake]

So until further notice, Spider-Man and future games are exclusive to Playstation?

This kind of game just fits in with what Sony make, as Nirolak said Sony is one of the big boys happy to spend fuck loads of money on single player games. God of War and Horizon for example just look expensive, it's obviously money was not a concern for those games.

It's clear Sony have a very different mindset compared to 3rd parties and it's pretty clever. Sony know all the big third parties will come to PS4 and no one will ignore them, at present GAAS is the big thing so there's no point in Sony fighting that spot.

Instead, Sony have made it a case to provide a lot of high budget single player stuff, which the 3rd parties simply ain't providing. Their first party complements the 3rd party online games, even looking at Sonys releases it's evident they have made a clear choice, to release their big games first half of the year to fill in the release gaps.

Insomniac was a good choice for Sony. Spiderman will be quality and it will move a lot of consoles, the latter being what they really care about. Sony were not going to waste one of their first parties on a licensed game that could be snapped up at any time, Insomniac are mercenaries in that sense. But really good ones, as in I will play whatever they put out because they are abolute star quality.

 

[Permanently A]

So when is Blizzard getting the license to make a Marvel MMO?

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Can't wait for them to cancel most of the announced games then.

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

So whose making me AAA open world iron man game starting Rdj. Avalanche? No wait I want the game to run well...hmm

 

[MugiwaraCole]

I find their decision to greenlight a Spider-Man game as a PS4 exclusive very strange. If the goal is to make an Arkham-level hit then it really should have been multiplatform. Was there a special condition in place due to the movie rights or did they just like Sony's pitch the best?

It can be an Arkham-level hit without hitting the same sales. I took that to mean they want the game to actually be received well critically. I'm sure Sony's paid them whatever to make up for lost multiplatform sales.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

It can be an Arkham-level hit without hitting the same sales. I took that to mean they want the game to actually be received well critically. I'm sure Sony's paid them whatever to make up for lost multiplatform sales.

Let's not get carried away here.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

This kind of game just fits in with what Sony make, as Nirolak said Sony is one of the big boys happy to spend fuck loads of money on single player games. God of War and Horizon for example just look expensive, it's obviously money was not a concern for those games.

It's clear Sony have a very different mindset compared to 3rd parties and it's pretty clever. Sony know all the big third parties will come to PS4 and no one will ignore them, at present GAAS is the big thing so there's no point in Sony fighting that spot.

Instead, Sony have made it a case to provide a lot of high budget single player stuff, which the 3rd parties simply ain't providing. Their first party complements the 3rd party online games, even looking at Sonys releases it's evident they have made a clear choice, to release their big games first half of the year to fill in the release gaps.

Insomniac was a good choice for Sony. Spiderman will be quality and it will move a lot of consoles, the latter being what they really care about. Sony were not going to waste one of their first parties on a licensed game that could be snapped up at any time, Insomniac are mercenaries in that sense. But really good ones, as in I will play whatever they put out because they are abolute star quality.

This has me worried that every single player AAA Marvel game is gonna be Playstation exclusive. If that's the route Marvel wants to go then, idk, that's not exactly spreading out your franchises.

 

[hipsterpants]

Honestly, that DLC stuff has me worried. Can't help but feel we're going to see some really shitty business practices with some of these games, especially Avengers.

 

[Kurt Angle]

ultimate alliance was cool

 

[Mifune]

But it doesn't sound like that's how the deal went down. Ted Price said their producer from Sony approached them and said, "Hey what do you think about working on a Marvel license?" After they said yes they then gave them free reign to choose which one they wanted to work on the most. So it sounds more like Marvel wanted to work with Sony/Insomniac first, rather than specifically contracting them to make a Spiderman title.

Yep. Marvel approached Sony to make an "Uncharted-quality" Marvel game. Sony wanted Insomniac for the job. All parties agreed. Not sure when Spider-Man became the game but it wasn't like the whole thing was planned out from the beginning by Marvel.

 

[sense]

This has me worried that every single player AAA Marvel game is gonna be Playstation exclusive. If that's the route Marvel wants to go then, idk, that's not exactly spreading out your franchises.

Yea with the buzz this game is getting I can't see how Sony won't reach out to marvel and say they will fund an iron man or hulk game and they find a third party developer to work it.

 

[RSchmitz]

This has me worried that every single player AAA Marvel game is gonna be Playstation exclusive. If that's the route Marvel wants to go then, idk, that's not exactly spreading out your franchises.

I wouldn´t be surprised if Avengers was gaas. Square already said they want in.
Hell, Anthem could be Iron Man skinned and nobody would be shocked.

I just hope Spider-Man is the only one Sony is doing, I like them having their own original ips.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I find their decision to greenlight a Spider-Man game as a PS4 exclusive very strange. If the goal is to make an Arkham-level hit then it really should have been multiplatform. Was there a special condition in place due to the movie rights or did they just like Sony's pitch the best?

The question comes down to how many companies would throw a lot money behind a IP that they don't own .
Sony is also one of the only companies that making big budget SP games.

EDIT i just hope SE gives marvel IP the budget it needs.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

What I find strange is that Sony didn't give it to their internal studio that makes super hero sand box games and instead gave it to a 3rd party though I imagine Sucker punch must have been busy

Sucker Punch is working on a new IP.

 

[jon bones]

Great, now I want a Marvel MOBA.

It sounds like they don't want "competing" games - so once Marvel Heroes dies, a F2P PC online game like that rumored Battlecry MOBA will drop.

So until further notice, Spider-Man and future games are exclusive to Playstation?

That Square Avengers game will def be multiplat. Marvel ain't dumb.

Insomniac might work on Spider-Man for a while, though.

I find their decision to greenlight a Spider-Man game as a PS4 exclusive very strange. If the goal is to make an Arkham-level hit then it really should have been multiplatform. Was there a special condition in place due to the movie rights or did they just like Sony's pitch the best?

Insomniac probably gave the best pitch, the movie departments and gaming licenses are not tethered to each other.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

Let's not get carried away here.

I'm not saying it will or won't. I'm saying it can be, regardless of platform.

But if you wanna take it there, nothing we're seeing would suggest it can't reach the highs of that series.

This has me worried that every single player AAA Marvel game is gonna be Playstation exclusive. If that's the route Marvel wants to go then, idk, that's not exactly spreading out your franchises.

Avengers is literally multiplatform. Confirmed. Guys. Come on. Lol

 

[ITSMILNER]

Could we see Avengers Tower as part of NYC skyline in Sony's Spider-Man game? Or would that not be allowed?

Vice versa, could sony's Spidey (In the white Spider costume) appear im another devs Marvel game as a cameo?

 

[Acquiescence]

Tied to Activision for 13 years?! Poor sonsofabitches. That's a tough break.

 

[Lingitiz]

It sounds like they don't want "competing" games - so once Marvel Heroes dies, a F2P PC online game like that rumored Battlecry MOBA will drop.



That Square Avengers game will def be multiplat. Marvel ain't dumb.

Insomniac might work on Spider-Man for a while, though.



Insomniac probably gave the best pitch, the movie departments and gaming licenses are not tethered to each other.

Mentioning this again, but no, Marvel was the one that wanted Sony+Insomniac together, which they did by approaching them directly, and then allowing them to choose which Marvel franchise they wanted.

 

[Rei no Otaku]

So still no X-men games?

 

[Wereroku]

Could we see Avengers Tower as part of NYC skyline in Sony's Spider-Man game? Or would that not be allowed?

Vice versa, could sony's Spidey (In the white Spider costume) appear im another devs Marvel game as a cameo?

Insomniac's Spiderman is a completely new universe so maybe we don't really know. I am sure they could have the costume be a dlc if they wanted to but I doubt the insomniac version of Spider-Man will be in anything else.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

This has me worried that every single player AAA Marvel game is gonna be Playstation exclusive. If that's the route Marvel wants to go then, idk, that's not exactly spreading out your franchises.

It is also a matter of who is willing to fund those type of games though. If Sony is willing to fund the game, so be it.

I wouldn´t be surprised if Avengers was gaas. Square already said they want in.
Hell, Anthem could be Iron Man skinned and nobody would be shocked.

I just hope Spider-Man is the only one Sony is doing, I like them having their own original ips.

But Insomniac is developing Spider-Man.

 

[orochi91]

Mentioning this again, but no, Marvel was the one that wanted Sony+Insomniac together, which they did by approaching them directly, and then allowing them to choose which Marvel franchise they wanted.

I can see why they went with Spiderman, given his immense popularity, but lowkey I wish they would have gone with Dr. Strange or Thor.

Those two IPs have such unique and exotic lore/mythos to draw from.

Though I suppose they have the Thor angle covered in GoW.