rofif
Can’t Git Gud
It might not matter to you but it ruins it for me
-
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.
[LEAK] Licensing Terms between Sony and Marvel for Wolverine exclusivity
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
ManaByte
Gold Member
No. They are. They’ve maintained their variety since the PS3 era. ND just makes TLOU now. Insomniac does the Marvel stuff but they haven’t forgot Ratchet. You also can’t dismiss their VR experience with some of the best VR games made that Sony really should harness for PSVR2
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's because he has all those wonderful toys. And he's a billionaire playboy without super powers, so he resonates with the average male.
Thirty7ven
Banned
It's because you have the habit of making the wrong questions. Comic books have worked like that since forever, and comic books have their own rules and logic.
Like, how can Superman be buffed? How can Batman not be on steroids? How would Tony Stark not die in a collision? How does Captain America's shield bounce around if it absorbs kinetic energy? Wouldn't it make sense if Frank Castle used a mask as The Punisher?
Just don't.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
Neither did Iron-Man or Captain America. All it takes is great writers to do the characters justice. A really good X-Men game could definitely do around 20 million, if not more.
Not even so much the quality (I mean, MS has put out good games like HiFi Rush, Pentiment, Forza Horizon 5 & Flight Simulator) but the selling power. Marvel can tell that MS's games simply don't do big numbers, and once-reliable sellers like Halo have completely fallen off.
All of that negatively hurts Microsoft's chances to net licensing for IP like X-Men, especially exclusive licensing, when the licensors are interested in maximizing B2P sales and brand awareness. It's a miracle they got Blade, though the film's in dev hell so Marvel probably don't have a lot of faith in it and are more willing to risk an underperforming game all the same.
Which really sucks in itself because Blade and Mahershala Ali deserve way better IMHO. Disney/Marvel can't get out of their own way with how they've been handling the MCU post-Phase 4.
Yeah in a way it is. I can only hope they take some really creative chances with these games, and maybe they'll sprinkle in hints for a new IP or R&C as Easter eggs in them.
It doesn't matter, they wouldn't get it. They'd run into the same issues with WB that they have with Marvel: they have no proven track record with superhero IP in the gaming space.
Why would WB give Microsoft exclusivity to Batman to risk them releasing a Crackdown 4 with a Batman skin? Microsoft's reputation for output in gaming doesn't escape these companies, it's why Marvel is more willing to give Sony/SIE exclusivity to Xmen than Microsoft (the deal with Spiderman between both companies also helps, to be fair).
Also by "track record" I mean in large part, making superhero games that do big numbers. Quality is a part of it as well, but companies like Disney/Marvel are mainly looking at what revenue the games can generate alongside reputation for quality. Microsoft have no 1P teams with experience making superhero games; the closest such style of games they've made in the past 10 years are probably Quantum Break (Remedy, an independent 3P developer), Sunset Overdrive (Insomniac, now owned by Sony), and Crackdown 3 (1P IP, disastrous launch, reviews, and sales).
None of that helps Microsoft get exclusive licensing rights to massive IP like Batman. Moneybags won't help there, either.
Topher
Gold Member
I think this is a matter of people who grew up reading the comics versus those who only saw the movies and can't make the translation.
graywolf323
Member
yeah but to be fair we now know that their non-Sony published games netted them <$1 million (FUSE, Sunset Overdrive, etc.), then they came back to make R&C 2016 and Spider-Man 1 which netted them $60+ million
sure seems like they agreed to sell to PlayStation because they realized that’s where they were best situated to make money & be solid for their employees
who knows how rough things were for Insomniac for those few years they struck out on their own
From the leaks:
- i20 - Spider-Man 1 PS4
- i21 - Edge of Nowhere
- i23 - Song of the Deep
- i29 - Ratchet and Clank RF
- i30 - Spider-Man 2 Codename Popsicle and/or Spider-Man Remastered
- i31 - Spider-Man MM
- i32 - Scrapped Spider man Online Standalone Title (Likely Spider-Man The Great Web)
- i33 - Wolverine
- i34 - Spider-Man 3
- i35 - X-men
- i36 - New IP
- i37 - Ratchet and Clank Spinoffs
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
X-Men and Spider-Man are the biggest Marvel licenses. The reason why Marvel made an Iron Man movie is because they didn’t own X-Men or Spider-Man as those were sold off in the bankruptcy sale in the 90s. No one wanted Avengers or Captain America, which is why Marvel still owned them.
RedC
Member
I don't necessarily disagree with you, however, it would still be subjective based on the arbitrary metrics you use to justify it.
I think there's a far stronger argument from a business perspective that Naughty Dog is by far Sony's best studio and completely changed the trajectory of PlayStation studios altogether in commercial success, for better or worse.
Naughty Dog essentially created the blueprint other Sony studios use to attain their greatest commercial success in big-budget, high-production, cinematic, third-person, action-adventure games.
Not to mention, Naughty Dog doesn't need to rely on licensed IP and creates original IP franchises that have consistently transcended video games for Sony.
Naughty Dog is primarily responsible for growing the appetite and audience for these types of games and setting the stage for other Sony studios to benefit from their similar style games including Insomniac with the Marvel license.
Now for people who are not a fan of these types of games, it's understandable why they may think it's been for the worse.
X men used to be in the 90s, but since marvel got into movies they basically sabotaged xmen
splattered
Member
This is actually gross and i feel bad for Sony and especially Insomniac. Terrible fucking terms and they're locked in through 2038? I mean i guess they can pass dev responsibilities to a different dev than Insomniac at some point, but who? The occasional licensed game can be fun but why the hell would you hedge your bets and devote your resources to the point of being held captive like this? I know they sell fairly well, but wtf... i wonder how awful Microsoft's terms are for their Disney/Marvel crap they got going on.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
We're saying the same thing.
Insomniac was anything but consistent and efficient prior to their Marvel pairing.
And let's be real.
If 2015 Insomniac gets the Spiderman liscense, they're going to do fine.
If 2018 Insomniac didn't get the Spiderman liscense, they'd still be struggling with or without Sony.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Why again? So that they aren't in physical stores and get less foot print? And you think that's good?
Good thing they do sell a heck of a lot more then.
I agreed with everything you said until you got to the "I'm starting to see why Microsoft turned Marvel down" part. If the break even point is 3.5 to 4 million units sold.....then how is this a bad deal for Sony? The Spiderman games all seem to sell over 10 million units so far. Overall the Spiderman games have sold over 38 MILLION units (counting the remasters). Even at an average price of $40, that's $1.5 BILLION dollars on three games! If this is the game MS is playing and don't want that level of success, then I see why they are failing.
VulcanRaven
Member
Microsoft had a chance to get Spider-Man before Sony:
Xbox ‘turned Marvel down’, leading to Spider-Man on PS4, exec reveals | VGC
An interview with a Marvel exec reveals that Microsoft passed on the chance for exclusivity…
www.videogameschronicle.com
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
They are great terms if you know how to make great games out of the IP. Only FUD would make someone think these are bad terms.
Brands sell, there's nothing stopping Sony or and other companies from doing a bootleg version of said character.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
You're joking, right?
Bernoulli
M2 slut
xbox wants all the profit
like you said kinda dumb not being in stores and normal people don't see your games
Shut0wen
Member
Also square dumping a shitload into avengers both companys are fucking retarded, especially considering marvel shit will die off in the next 10 years
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
I am not
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
I wonder if Sony could ever renegotiate the deal because I feel it was made during the end of Phase 3 and when Phase 4 still had a bright future. There is no way Marvel would be able to command these types of percentages if the deal were made today, when the MCU is itself struggling to stay afloat.
If anything, Sony better make sure Disney/Marvel don't fuk up the X-Men movie, because that would negatively impact reception towards the game. Make sure they don't try pushing too much crap into the next Spiderman movie, either. I'd like to think there's a stipulation for Sony where they can exit the deal if Disney/Marvel don't pull their own weight and consistently make great films that do big box office numbers.
Otherwise these just seems kind of one-sided and if I were Sony, not something I'd want to stay a part of. Or at least, try and make Disney/Marvel more competitive by also working with Warner Bros/DC.
IKR? Sony better have a clause where they can easily terminate the contract if Disney/Marvel mess things up on their end. As of right now I have little faith in them to revitalize the MCU and make it a major box office draw again.
Honestly, Wolverine isn't my favorite X-Men. I do like his character, but not to the point I don't care about the others. Gambit, Rogue, Storm, Nightcrawler, Cyclops, Bishop, Cable...if we're sticking to heroes. I dig all of them.
And yes that's mainly based off the cartoon because it was my first exposure to X-Men. I hope '97 doesn't screw it up.
Is that what it would cost for Sony to exit the contract? If the payments for licensing are done at specific periods (not all paid upfront), I guess that actually isn't too bad. They'd just need a legitimate reason to exit the deal.
Disney/Marvel continuing to underperform with the MCU would be a valid excuse.
True. They gotta justify their reason for existing as a studio and that comes down to what money they can generate for SIE. It's a business.
I do wish there were some new original IP coming from them soon instead of 10 years from now, but I understand why they've shifted to superhero games the way they have.
Naughty Dog are in a weird place right now though where I'd say they simply haven't been as proficient as they were in the past. And I think everything with Factions 2 is the big reason why.
Now that it's been cancelled, the question is...what do they have now? When are they going to reveal one of those other games they've been working on? When is it going to release? What's the new IP? What's it going to do different from games like TLOU and Uncharted?
They still have a lot of cache of course but hey, at one point Bethesda did, too. Then Fallout '76 happened. Then Starfield happened. Naughty Dog may've cancelled their Fallout '76 (Factions 2), but can their next game avoid being their Starfield? I definitely hope so, and think there's a high probability they'll avoid that type of situation.
But you never know :/
Microsoft had a chance to get Spider-Man before Sony:
Xbox ‘turned Marvel down’, leading to Spider-Man on PS4, exec reveals | VGC
An interview with a Marvel exec reveals that Microsoft passed on the chance for exclusivity…
Yeah, I remember that. But that was probably before Disney/Marvel realized the selling potential of games based on their IP. Plus I think at the time Microsoft had that offer, the MCU was still a bit shy from its zeitgeist phase.
The films were quite popular, but not at Infinity War/Civil War/Endgame levels quite yet. And the deal was for Spiderman specifically, which didn't have a majorly successful film since the Sam Raimi trilogy. Spiderman: Homecoming was still a few years away.
Last edited:
Mr.Phoenix
Member
I get its cool to hate big corpo these days, but what were people expecting? Those licensing fees are fair.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Maybe the licensing fees would be fair 10 years ago.
Marvel is not as popular nowadays as i was in avengers days.
Obviously it is somewhat popular but not that much
Mr.Phoenix
Member
It doesn't matter how popular they are as a company or even who the company is. What matters is how popular the IP is. Eg.. I am sure it costs Sony more to license Spiderman than it would to license Blade. And its not just a publishing license, it's an exclusive license too.
10-20% on game sales and less than 15% on console sales is a LOT better than the 30% Sony takes as royalties off every game sold on their platform.
Its not just fair, it's even lower than I thought it would be.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Royalty fees are fair. They both agreed to it.
Its not like Sony's entire gaming division relies on superhero movie games for survival where Marvel or DC strongarm Sony into life or death deals.
You can tell Sony is a-ok with it since they got over a decades worth of Marvel games planned leading into PS7 territory with Xmen3 planned for 2033.
Its not like Sony's entire gaming division relies on superhero movie games for survival where Marvel or DC strongarm Sony into life or death deals.
You can tell Sony is a-ok with it since they got over a decades worth of Marvel games planned leading into PS7 territory with Xmen3 planned for 2033.
RedC
Member
They just released The Last of Us Part 1 in a low-risk/high-reward move to commercial success and The Last of Us Part 2 Remastered is close to releasing with a high likelihood similar outcome.
That's the gift and curse of creating massively popular IPs. It's incredibly difficult to create any new IP that's critically acclaimed, let alone commercially successful, yet it's another to have both but it's massively successful. From a business perspective, it makes it difficult for Sony to justify completely abandoning Uncharted and The Last of US franchises with new games, which is why we will likely continue to get new games made whether by a team in Naughty Dog or outsourced to another studio and overseen by Naughty Dog.
Now Neil Druckmann has already announced he's working on a New IP. Naughty Dog has rightfully earned grace from Sony and will let them pursue their creative endeavors, no matter how high risk it is, but if one of them flops, then it's likely Naughty Dog will be relegated to only pumping out the Uncharted and The Last of US games.
Bethesda still has a lot of cache. There will always be ebbs and flows in industries in general, but especially in creative industries. Despite the way it launched, Fallout 76, which was released in 2018, is a success and is still being supported today. Starfield, which likely didn't meet the initial high expectations during the launch period, is likely still a success and will be supported for years to come with expansions, patches, and community mods. Not to mention, they strengthen the overall catalog, which will continue to grow, of PC and console Game Pass's appeal in maintaining current subscribers and attracting new ones.
Fredrik
Member
It’s just depressing. All of it. The cost, the sales numbers on PC, the exclusivity limitations and length, the Insomniac release plan, the leaked Wolverine concept. And I realize that I’ll play the next Ratchet when I’m 56, on PS7 or whatever, unless it’s delayed or my body or head is failing me. Idk it’s just a bad day really. Some things are best left unseen.
Mibu no ookami
Member
The reason there is a breakup fee is because Marvel can't get the time back. They have exclusivity in place with Sony, so they can't enter into agreement with another firm to create a game and if Sony were to back out, it would take Marvel time to find a new partner and start up development from scratch.
The 9 million dollar breakup fee is actually pretty minimal. It should probably be closer to 25-50 million.
Sony has 3 games locked in, including Wolverine, with the option of doing a 4th if they can release it in time. That's a massive deal for them.
X-Men is going to be much bigger than Wolverine, so they've addressed scaling pretty well here. Spider-Man 3 has a much bigger problem. You've done the sinister six and kingpin already in the first game, you've done venom and kraven in the second game, it sounds like they're doing carnage in the venom game, there really isn't much left in spider-man's rogues gallery to escalate to in Spider-Man 3. They're still leaving things open for the Green Goblin I suppose.
Spider-verse is handling things much better imo.
The 9 million dollar breakup fee is actually pretty minimal. It should probably be closer to 25-50 million.
Sony has 3 games locked in, including Wolverine, with the option of doing a 4th if they can release it in time. That's a massive deal for them.
X-Men is going to be much bigger than Wolverine, so they've addressed scaling pretty well here. Spider-Man 3 has a much bigger problem. You've done the sinister six and kingpin already in the first game, you've done venom and kraven in the second game, it sounds like they're doing carnage in the venom game, there really isn't much left in spider-man's rogues gallery to escalate to in Spider-Man 3. They're still leaving things open for the Green Goblin I suppose.
Spider-verse is handling things much better imo.
graywolf323
Member
I mean Green Goblin is quite possibly Spidey’s most famous rogue, not like they don’t have anything but small fries left like Spot
Spot (Dr. Johnathon Ohnn) Powers, Enemies, History | Marvel
Bonded with elements of the dimension of darkness, a brilliant scientist becomes the teleporting Super Villain known as the Spot.
Mibu no ookami
Member
I wouldn't even call it relegation. You have two strong franchises to prop up your business. A third if they can generate success with a Jak and Daxter movie. If they can create any level of success with a 4th franchise, that would put them in entirely rare circumstances.
Not many studios that size that have 2+ major franchises. You're talking CDPR, Bethesda level value there, but Naughty Dog is ahead of both of them when it comes to transmedia. Bethesda tried for their 3rd franchise, and I don't think we'll see them maintain all 3 long term.
Santa Monica is going to work on their 2nd franchise and Insomniac's IP comes at a high cost. Guerrilla Games may have to drop Horizon depending on if the show can bring new fandom in.
There is no doubt that Naughty Dog remains the crown jewel within Sony right now.
ManaByte
Gold Member
It wasn't Spider-Man specifically. It was an exclusive Marvel game. MS turned them down, so they went to Sony who suggested Insomniac and they chose Spider-Man. It was basically ANY Marvel character as an exclusive game.
Games of Today
Member
Just imagine that much money being set toward one or two Sony first party titles like Killzone or SOCOM. lol
Mibu no ookami
Member
I mean Green Goblin is quite possibly Spidey’s most famous rogue, not like they don’t have anything but small fries left like Spot
Spot (Dr. Johnathon Ohnn) Powers, Enemies, History | Marvel
Bonded with elements of the dimension of darkness, a brilliant scientist becomes the teleporting Super Villain known as the Spot.www.marvel.com
Green Goblin is the #1 but he's been overdone so heavily and he's a step down from Venom and Carnage. I think they jumped the gun going with Venom for Spider-Man 2.
Spider-verse is doing an amazing job with Spot, just brilliant actually. Kingpin, Doc Ock Scorpion, and Prowler for the first movie. Spot and the twist of the Spider-Man 2077 in the second movie, plus the new prowler... genius setup for the 3rd movie.
It seems they wanted to keep Carnage for Venom because Venom has shit for antagonists by himself. I wonder if they're setting up Yuri to be the next Venom.
ManaByte
Gold Member
You need to play all of the side quests in Spider-Man 2.
Mibu no ookami
Member
I did and I'm fully aware of the setup.
The original thinking was that Carnage would be in Spider-Man 3, but from these leaks, it looks like he'll be in Venom instead.
Fbh
Member
While there's a superhero fatigue and the MCU is definitely going through a bad moment, I think certain Marvel characters like Spider-Man are still very popular and have a massive pull.
Like yeah I wouldn't pay those royalties to make a Shang-Chi, Ant Man or Falcon game.
But Wolverine? I think it's worth it. He has consistently been one of the most liked and popular characters by both comics enthusiasts and more casual audiences. If they give it the Spiderman/Akrham treatment (in terms of quality and production values) it will sell millions on name alone.
How are net sales calculated?
My guess would be that since the retailer also gets a cut, Marvel wants a bigger percentage from physical games to offset that (in theory 9% from a digital copy where Sony gets 100% of the money should be higher than 9% from a physical copy where a part of it goes to the retailer)
NonPhixion
Member
Yeah pushing a lot of money into less popular ips would be disastrous. “lol” is right.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Microsoft had a chance to get Spider-Man before Sony:
Xbox ‘turned Marvel down’, leading to Spider-Man on PS4, exec reveals | VGC
An interview with a Marvel exec reveals that Microsoft passed on the chance for exclusivity…
Hmm I see that idea spread around but:
“Ong said Marvel Games then went to both Xbox and PlayStation to see if either of them would be interested in forming an exclusive partnership, asking them: “We don’t have any big console deals with anyone right now, what would you like to do?”.”
So… where does MS got the chance to get Spider-Man before Sony come from?
Mibu no ookami
Member
I think it would be more accurate to say that Microsoft potentially could have gotten Spider-Man had they pushed for it irrespective of Sony. And that it wasn't Microsoft's decision that lead directly or even indirectly to Sony getting Spider-Man, except for the fact that they were in talks with Microsoft and Microsoft wasn't interested.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Thank you for debunking that dumb talking point that gets brought up so frequently.
RedC
Member
In what way does it put it in a different light?
CrimsonSquall
Member
Precisely.
To summarize, the benefit to Sony is not the potential sales of XX Marvel game, it’s the fact that it is the sole platform for all these Marvel characters which will naturally influence more consoles sold and build a bigger ecosystem.
Goalus
Member
I like it.
The utter boredom that is the entire Marvel catalog can and should stay on Playstation.
Wulfer
Member
What's funny is all these sales are banking on the Marvel films to push the awareness of these games. Yet, Disney has put Avengers on ice, Star Wars can't seem to figure out where the magic went on the big screen and Pixar is MIA. This is the same Disney that's suppose to make X-men popular? Disney's wiser move would be to first, look how to get people back to the big screen. Then start making real scripts for big releases again and stop fooling around with Disney+. Then maybe it'll be time to release X-men on the big screen. Until then don't bother...
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
$229 million vs $69 billion.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked