If one version has less content than another, I should not pay the same price for that lesser version. That's the very definition of entitlement.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Marvel's Avengers Team Addresses Spider-Man's PlayStation Exclusivity (Will Be Only Console Exclusive Character)
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
- News
I kinda feel bad for Crystal Dynamics, this is the second time the have to put up with Squeenix shitty decisions.
You don't need to own an IP to have some soft of exclusivity rights for that property. Licence deals can contain all sorts of agreements.
You've got to be kidding. This is nowhere near the most egregious exclusivity deal in gaming and to believe so is to ignore deals that actually were in order to prop up outrage over what amounts to a DLC side character with no relation to the main story. Your example is o
LOL Big oof.
They said that his small story won't have any impact because of the implications of the DLC.
But you're not getting less content because it's not in the base game. It's DLC. The $60 you're paying for this game is paying for all of the base game, and all of the content coming after that Crystal Dynamics is giving you.
Sony paid Crystal to do this for them, so it's not you getting shorted on what you pay for, it's Sony ponying up extra cash to get their consumers more. There's a big difference.
Spiderverse was 2018.
It's hilarious that we're now pretending that Sony has been bad for Spider-Man as a whole just because of some of y'all being heated over DLC.
You're trying to PR spin people into believing less content isn't less content... do you work for Crystal Dynamics or something?
Same Price + One version gets more content = less content for all other versions and same price.
I thought I read you have to do an initial online check, then about 90% of the game can be played solo. Theres a few missions towards the end along with the incoming raid that cant be done solo.
Its an exclusive character being on one platform being compared to a comment telling people to buy an Xbox 360 if they didn't like the proposed policies of the Xbox One. It seems like it is trying to stir the pot further when it isn't even close to being as serious, its a DLC character coming next year.
I know, this deal is being criticized. People were arguing earlier that Sony potentially had partial ownership of the character.
Hmm big red flag right there
Hopefully those are optional/sidequests and not main campaign - I don't plan to play MP at all with this....
Do you read your own posts? It's clearly not 'all of the content coming after that'.
User Banned (1 Week) Excessive hostility. Previous infractions for hostility.
Like..?
Ah yes the "Spiderman is just a minor side character" strategy, no one really cares about the playing as the most popular marvel character, foolish me. I wonder how those corpo boots taste.
its the first few points here. Its end game content but im not sure if that means it has absolutely no story at all
New details from Marvel's Avengers (Reddit AMA summary)
CD recently did an AMA on reddit for this game, and I thought it would be a good idea to try and summarize everything they talked about. "Few select end game content types" are co-op/online only and can't be played solo/with AI companions Raid like missions won't be there at launch but we'll...
www.resetera.com
Spiderverse was great. Its a good thing everyone was allowed to enjoy it.
its the first few points here. Its end game content but im not sure if that means it has absolutely no story at all
New details from Marvel's Avengers (Reddit AMA summary)
CD recently did an AMA on reddit for this game, and I thought it would be a good idea to try and summarize everything they talked about. "Few select end game content types" are co-op/online only and can't be played solo/with AI companions Raid like missions won't be there at launch but we'll...
Ahh they wouldn't make it mandatory for story hopefully 😂
Look at it from a PC gamer's perspective and you'll understand the similarities. :p
It's colossally bad corporate messaging. Please stop viewing everything through a juvenile console war mentality, it's detrimental to meaningful discussion.
So much corporate bootlicking. Holy shit.
They clearly don't, but they're naive as hell if they thought locking Spidey to one platform wasn't gonna cause an immense shit storm. He's not some irrelevant D-lister.
They clearly don't, but they're naive as hell if they thought locking Spidey to one platform wasn't gonna cause an immense shit storm. He's not some irrelevant D-lister.
"Anyone can wear the mask"....as long as you choose Sony and only Sony.
Yeah this is going to be the last response to you as you seem to not be able to discuss this like an adult without resorting to childish insults. Also, let's not forget MS just recently paid for Yakuza 7 to not appear on PS5 at launch and also paid CD to take a million selling multiplatform series and make the sequel exclusive to Xbox One in Rise of the Tomb Raider, just to name a few. Calling someone a bootlicker though? Yeah, ignored.
Yeah, because the movie and video game industries work exactly the same way.
They weren't planning on including Spider-Man until Sony came along, so yes, as far as content goes that's still true. He's like a bonus character in a fighting game. Y'all really buggin over something sooooo minuscule in the grand scheme of this game.
Maybe I should've said all the content they planned on giving you. Because Spider-Man wasn't even an option until Sony came along.
While those examples are unfortunate, those games both released on other consoles. They're not content locked into one console forever, which this is.
Yakuza 7 - is a timed exclusive so Playstation will get it eventually.
Microsoft paid for some development costs on Rise of the Tomb Raider so its more like a Bayonetta 2 situation. It might not have existed without Microsoft's help.
The closest comparison is Soulcalibur extra characters but everyone received a different character so it seemed fair but nobody cared back then.
Those aren't even remotely in the same ballpark considering both of those games will (and have) made it to every platform, nice attempt though.
If this were true (I've seen nothing to suggest it) then PlayStation players are missing out too, since he'll be there but can't effect the story in any meaningful way.
Pretty revisionist here because they had already announced "untitled Tomb Raider sequel" as a multiplatform game prior to the exclusivity announcement.
This is getting unnecessarily blown out of proportion. For a game who's metrics were were never hot to begin with.
Exclusive deals come in many different forms and for some reason people pick and choose which one they want to get outraged from.
Imagine thinking the most popular Marvel character wasn't gonna be in the game unless Sony paid them.
Quick edits. Yakuza 7 will be playable on PS5 through back compat. Rise of the tomb raider was a timed exclusive, not an eternal exclusive. And PlayStation paid off From to make a Dark Souls 4 be completely and utterly exclusive - a series that has been advertised on multiple E3s for Microsoft. Even Elden Ring was shown off at MS.
I really don't think the ball swings that far into Microsoft's direction in the past 7 years in terms of gross exclusive deals. Even if there were, they were either timed or available on pc later.
I personally think they should lower the price of the steam version and the Xbox versions. That should be the cost of doing this deal. You can't devalue other versions, collect on the Sony deal, and still charge the other platforms the base price. It's a bad look
Same energy
And still people are in here saying "but in the comics, spidey's not really an Avenger". They clearly aren't choosing these characters based on comic canon, and there's zero chance that Spidey wouldn't have been in this game if Sony hadn't pulled out their wallet.
They said so themselves. We've been talking about this since the beginning but it keeps getting washed out in all the fluff.
We've already established that Sony has some control over the IP in gaming, and Crystal came out themselves in that same article and said that they weren't planning on putting him in the game until Sony came along.
Like damn y'all don't read.
Sony better money hat the entire game. I can get with console exclusive games, but console exclusive content sucks. Reminds me of Soul Calibur 2, but at least each console had a unique rep...
So you're agreeing that it is true that it's less content on other platforms, yet still the same price, right?
You can consider it miniscule if you want, that's your opinion.
As for a fighting game, could I convince you that a version of Marvel v Capcom 4 without Spider-Man is just as fine as a Marvel v Capcom 4 with him? And convince you that you should pay the same price? Would you complain about or be like, 'hey, this is totally fine... it's just a character.'
MvC wasn't a AAA GaaS that relies on player engagement over an extended period of time for success. There's no way in hell Spidey wasn't gonna be in this game regardless of whether Sony paid them or not.
This has been a practice since the inception of DLC, and it isn't going away. The only thing that changes is who has "dibs" and who has the close work relationship to the gain them based upon brand power of your platform.
Being on PC doesn't somehow exclude people from missing items, characters, missions, or whatever the exclusive content deal entails. This is why I get every major platform each gen.
Comparing it to Don Mattrick's "shot in the foot" comment is the only thing that makes it a console war statement, especially because it has to do with a platform deal. This is no new sort of partnership unseen in the industry, the fact that they have to "message" it is because of entitled consumers hounding at them.
The only thing that is juvenile is how people are getting.... because it is the sacred Spider-Man being locked to a platform. Take that out of the situation and this is any other deal that we see over and over again for the last 15 years or so.
This is exactly what I think too.
There's no way Sony "owns" part of the entire Spider-Man character. If that were true, why were all the previous Spidey games from Activision multiplat rather than PS3/PS4 exclusives?
The only thing they have is film rights, which they can leverage for some preferential treatment from Marvel/Disney
But it was equally stupid, damaged that brand, and yet they STILL did it.
I can fully see them being dumb enough to have been originally planning to leave Spider-Man out.
I must be so out of touch, did bloodborne come out after dark souls 3? I always thought that it was out before.
Bloodborne is bloodborne, its not a dark souls game.
Well it more and more looks like the only reason Spidey is in the game is cos Sony/Marvel allowed it as DLC only. If CD were able to put Spidey front and centre of the main Avengers roster, why wouldn't they? That's leaving money on the table.