-
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.
Jez Corden suggests 'Indiana Jones' wont be exclusive. Contested by Nick, admits old info 'could be wrong'
- Thread starter Maxwell Jacob Friedman
- Start date
- Rumor
Topher
Gold Member
For an Indiana Jones game?
Agree. First person Indiana Jones would be an incredibly bad idea.
Negotiator101
Member
Yeah I was referring to the Bethesda deal in this instance. I would imagine if it was originally going to be multiplatform then Microsoft would honour that but they're obviously not afraid to take games away from the competition, Starfield being the biggest.
Lord Malachite
Member
Not really surprising. Sony has stated future Bungie products would go to Xbox. Generally its not smart to leave money on the table if the title isn't going to drive significant hardware sales, And I can't imagine any significant portion of the market rushing out to buy an Xbox over Indiana Jones of all things.
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Facts! It needs to be 3rd person imo and have some good melee combat using the whip and/or other weapons
kingfey
Banned
Ask marvels game and guardian of galaxy.
Compared to spiderman and miles Morales, 1 was a flop, and the other was below the expectation.
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
Bungie asked for that. Sony had no choice, but to allow that to happen.
We are talking about the same Sony, who paid 2 yearz of timed exclusive for forspoken, just to not allow that game on xbox.
No way, their games would end up on xbox. Even if its the end of the world.
kingfey
Banned
You can't do good jumping with 1st person. That would be bad for the experience.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
That is like saying if Insomniac’s Spider-Man were multiplat it would have sold less.
kingfey
Banned
Insomniac spiderman would have sold alot. The game managed to sold more than 15m on 1 system. It would have had skyrim level of sales, if it was on all platforms. The game was that good.
Square kinda fucked up their marvel, due to their live service direction. Guardian of galaxy suffered from low marketing, which flew under the users radar. These were nobodies. these IPs were kinda big.
MasterCornholio
Member
I think where you messed up is that Spider-Man was given to Insomniac by Sony.
kingfey
Banned
Due to MS declining it. We had discussion about it.
The topic is that Disney is OK with exclusives, if its gives them good games and money.
They let square do multiplatform games, and square fucked up the marvel IP. Disney would not so dumb to pressure for multiplatform, if they can avoid disaster games like what square did.
If MS asks for exclusivity, chances, are they would let them have it. If that means MS paying the money, and producing a good game.
But so far, its just speculation from our part.
And the worst, is that MS might ignore the exclusivity for this game, like they did with marvel games. They are just that dumb.
MasterCornholio
Member
Due to the rumors that said Microsoft declined it. Also still doesn’t change you not admitting that Insomniac was very important for the games success.
Look it would be easier to just admit that Insomniac making a good Spider-Man game helped it sell a lot of copies. If something like that was made by Activision the results could have been a lot worse even if it spanned multiple platforms.
Edit: I got confused with the KOTOR remake rumor. Still even if Microsoft accepted it there’s no guarantee that Insomniac would have been the ones to make the game.
Last edited:
Captain Toad
Banned
Riiight. Only Sony has these deals.
kingfey
Banned
Isnt that why machine games is getting the IP in the first place? Their Wolfenstein games proved their worth.
No one is talking about that. We are talking about Disney here. The one who owns the IP. They saw their worth, and gave them wolverine IP. Or else, insomniac wouldnt have gotten wolverine.
We are not talking about spiderman. I think you got confused here.
The point was Disney making their games multiplatform or exclusive. It has nothing to do with insomniac. Insomniac made a commercial hit spiderman with Sony backing. Disney gave them wolverine as a sign of trust. This one shuts down, Disney wanting their games to be multiplatform.
By giving wolverine to Insomniac, they are saying give us a good game. We dont care which platform gets it.
With that in mind, MS can get Indiana jones IP as exclusive to their console, like wolverine for Sony.
Disney end goal is all about money, and good games. They dont care if you make it exclusive or not. Their multiplatform games so far, have been hit or a miss. Guardians with low marketing and not hitting the milestone. Marvels game being garbage. EA with star wars.
kingfey
Banned
Who is here denying MS not doing these stuff? They did with smaller games, and stalker 2, which isnt even released yet, and medium if we count that as a big game.
Meanwhile, Sony did with
ff7R, deathloop, ghostwire tokyo which happened in span of 3 years.
They are also getting ff16, forespoken, Kotor.
Those are alot of AAA games. Keep in mind, that I havent even mentioned their past timed exclusives or even smaller games.
When a company operates like that, you might want to secure your biggest option for your market. This is just normal business.
Has nothing to do with me. I am just getting both worlds as a pc gamer, so why do I care. Let them do these shits. As long as I am getting those games on steam.
kingfey
Banned
Trust me buddy, It wont happen.
Captain Toad
Banned
That supposed exclusivity deal would be long expired.
kingfey
Banned
It doesnt matter. Release date is what matters. If the release date doesnt happen on your console, you will miss out tons of revenue.
These companies are not running a charity business.
Steam has yet to get money from that game.
MasterCornholio
Member
Wolverine was different though. Whatever deal Bethesda had with Disney that was made before the Microsoft acquisition. Insomniac was already owned by Sony when that happened.
Like I said if Microsoft doesn’t accept Disneys terms the game multiplatform if that was the original plan.
Edgelord79
Gold Member
No you aren’t. But you sure try hard.
Topher
Gold Member
kingfey
Banned
Insomniac being owned by Sony won't change anything. All it does, is show the game being exclusive to Sony platform.
Bethesda being owned by MS allows them to renegotiate with Disney. And because Wolverine is exclusive to Sony, MS cam literally ask for the exclusivity.
If Disney is OK with Wolverine being exclusive to Sony, I don't see them, why they would object that. Both have the same status.
The difference is that Wolverine won't be on PC, while Indiana Jones would land on pc.
The multiplatform nonsense means nothing to Disney. Money is what matters at this point.
Lognor
Banned
We don't know that. If the contract originally stated it needed to release on Xbox and ps that doesn't preclude ms from going back to Disney and reworking the contract to only require an Xbox and pc release. From the rumors we've seen, it sounds like Disney was trying hard to get platform holders to fund games based on their ip.
Maybe we'll know platforms after Microsoft's presentation next month? I think it will release on ps just because of the timing of when the deal was done, but things can change. If ms sees huge potential in this game they could want to keep it off ps.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
And I think it is not a coincidence that Wolverine is developped by Insomniac considering the sales of both Spider man and the relatively low budget they had.
MasterCornholio
Member
Yes I don’t believe it’s a coincidence either. I guess they impressed with Spider-Man and were given another pick beyond a sequel to the game. Now if Spider-Man was made by somebody else and it turned out horrid things might have been different.
Anyways if Machine Games does a great job with Indiana Jones I don’t doubt there will be more Indie games from them in the future. I liked the Wolfenstein games but really have no idea on how they would handle and Indiana Jones games.
MasterCornholio
Member
Actually we do know something and that is the contract was made before Microsoft bought Bethesda. With that said they can always talk to Disney and get things changed but what we do know is that they don’t own the IP. If it’s exclusive it’s because Disney allows it.
The only thing I’m rejecting is that Microsoft can do whatever they want with an IP they don’t own.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
It doesn't stand a chance of being as good as the 3rd person Uncharted series so 1st person might work.For an Indiana Jones game?
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Yuck lol
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
It's up to Disney to agree or disagree to such.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
I'm not as sure as you that if the game is great a sequel is garanteed.I am a huge fan of the 3 (and let's keep it that way only) movies but I don't think the licence will appeal to gamers...
Anecdotal evidences are of course anecdotal but I have nieces and nephews that don't know Indiana jones or even Harrison Ford and older gamer have been burnt by shitty licence games and most of the people I talked about indy games were very skeptical (which may also be due to the ...(let's pretend for a second that they do exist) last 2 movies and don't want the franchise to be soiled again(for the lack of a better word I could find).
So they need to make a good game but more important a very good first showing especially now that Uncharted and Tomb Raider are so prevalent, I think it needs to be different enough but mind blowing too.Because licenced games are still bad (with the exception of insomniac Spidey and batman arkham of course).So let's hope for an amazing game and a great first showing because otherwise I have some doubts about the success of the game.
Lognor
Banned
Right. But like I said, from the thread a week or so ago, Disney went to ms and Sony to get to get games based on their ip funded. So Disney wants more games based on their properties. And after the last two multiplatform games based on their ip bombed they may be open to the idea of renegotiating that contract if ms approached them. I still expect Indiana jones to be multuplatform, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was xbox and pc only.
MasterCornholio
Member
Weird thing is some people might see Indiana Jones as an Uncharted or Tomb Raider clone. I agree that it needs to do something to differentiate itself from those franchises. Hopefully they can do a good job with the game as many other Indiana Jones titles have been quite terrible,
MasterCornholio
Member
I don’t think changing the game to an exclusive will make it more successful. Rather that having the right people make the game will ensure it’s success. At least that’s why I believe some if their IPs have failed because they didn’t have the right developers making the games among other things.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
They talked to Bethesda before MS bought them.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I doubt it. Disney doesn't believe in day one launches on subscriptions. Their own products don't follow that trend either. For example, Doctor Strange Multiverse on Madness is not available on Disney+. There isn't even a date for that.
It'll first complete its run in the cinemas. And after some time, it'll come to Disney+. It's more like the Sony/PS Plus method than Xbox/Gamepass method.
I reckon they'd prefer the same strategy here. Launch the game on retail, sell as many copies as they can, and then bring it to subs when the sales dry down.
Having said that, it'd be relatively much easier for MS to bring it on Gamepass day one than making it a console exclusive.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Exactly. That's why they moved away from Activision (a multi-platform game publisher) and made a deal with Sony (a company that primarily makes console exclusives) for Spider-Man. Because they knew that with Sony's expertise and market share, the game will be an even bigger success, despite being limited to one console only.
And it worked. This is now the best-selling Spider-Man game. Miles Morales also sold very well. They now want to replicate that success with Wolverine.
Fredrik
Member
Jumping Flash?
But who says there will be jumping?
Anyway all I’m saying is that we shouldn’t assume so much. All we know is that Machine Games are making an official Indiana Jones game with an original story. It can be any type of game as I see it. If we go by their history it’ll be first person, but that would be too close to Wolfenstein I guess. Devs can change though, like Guerrilla did, so we’ll see.
I assume nothing until I see something.
Last edited:
Leyasu
Banned
They are treating games the same way as movies? Interesting. You got the source for us to read that confirms that?
Although I do agree that it will be easier to get it on gp rather than exclusive. Certainly a lot cheaper
Mr. Banana
Banned
when PC is there is clearly the superior version of the game. Same will be for future PS5 first party
Last edited:
I don't think that's gonna happen. Wolverine is far away from to the popularity of Spider-Man: https://nerdable.com/who-is-the-most-popular-superhero/
Sony's usual monster marketing will push it over 10 millions for sure, but i don't see it anywhere near 20 million.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Re source: "I reckon they'd prefer the same strategy here. Launch the game on retail, sell as many copies as they can, and then bring it to subs when the sales dry down."
But it's common sense though and fairly safe to assume. If they don't launch one of their products on their own subscription day one, ti is safe to assume -- until proven otherwise -- that they'd prefer not to launch another one of their products on someone else's subscription either. They also haven't yet launched any of their big games on a subscription yet; so there is little evidence to suggest otherwise.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yeah, and I don't think either Sony or Disney has any expectations that Wolverine will match Spider-Man's sales and success.
But I believe they have relatively better expectations. Like the game will sell significantly better than the 2009 X-Men Origins: Wolverine game, just like Spider-Man PS4 performed much better than Activision's Spider-Man games.
Lol, i didn't even know that game existed. Most likely zero marketing and marketing is king.
First party timed exclusives? Can you list them?
Most games from Bethesda in the future will be everywhere? Right now it looks like potentially one game from them will be multiplat, and that's still a big maybe. While Xbox is getting one of the biggest games of the generation from Bethesda as an exclusive along with Redfall next year.... And as far as we know none of their are timed exclusive on PS and only COD has a PS marketing deal.. So pretty much you just made up a bunch of nonsense in your head to make you feel better about the Bethesda and Activision acquisitions. People rightfully made a big deal about these the acquisitions because they're industry changing.
Leyasu
Banned
They launch plenty of their products on their own subscription service. Although they obviously treat films and series differently.
We will see how it launches, but making definitive statements based because you “reckon” doesn’t equal reality
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I mean that literally means it's my guess based on the available evidence so far -- not a definitive statement lol
