Support NeoGAF

[Gavon West]

It did?

Should've been more clear. My bad. I meant the game itself. Splash screen is Bethesda. That's it.

 

[midnightAI]

Should've been more clear. My bad. I meant the game itself. Splash screen is Bethesda. That's it.

Ah, right, maybe

 

[PaintTinJr]

Well, look at that ….. turns out Disney feels the Xbox platform is broad enough assuming it is exclusive. Citing Indian jones exclusivity.



That kills off some of the theories people have come up with here….. it really is in MS/ Bethesda hands.Disney are cool with it….. anybody else gotta any other dumb theories they wanna throw around?


I’m sticking to my original reasoning….. Xbox exclusives clearly get people talking….. this is easy marketing for them.



We still got people holding in hope for a port of starfield on PlayStation. And yet here I am….. not giving a shit that I’ll never play Spider-Man or wolverine on my Xbox….. why is it so hard for them to get over it and do the same?

I'm not sure, but doesn't that say Indiana is only exclusive because they bought the development studio from Disney? If that was the case, it is no surprise it is exclusive because it reads like the alternative was the game was getting cancelled because the studio was in trouble. Disney getting back their money for a probable studio closure and still to make money off the game sales was a clear victory from the jaws of defeat situation by the sounds of things IMO, especially as Indiana isn't an IP Sony would wish to license when it competes with their Uncharted IP.

Unless Disney were already making the Blade game and selling off another studio I'm not sure how this is a similar setup for Xbox to gain similar leverage in this negotiation.

 

[Gavon West]

I'm not sure, but doesn't that say Indiana is only exclusive because they bought the development studio from Disney? If that was the case, it is no surprise it is exclusive because it reads like the alternative was the game was getting cancelled because the studio was in trouble. Disney getting back their money for a probable studio closure and still to make money off the game sales was a clear victory from the jaws of defeat situation by the sounds of things IMO, especially as Indiana isn't an IP Sony would wish to license when it competes with their Uncharted IP.

Unless Disney were already making the Blade game and selling off another studio I'm not sure how this is a similar setup for Xbox to gain similar leverage in this negotiation.

They didnt say the studio was bought from Disney. They were talking about Microsoft I believe.

 

[PaintTinJr]

They didnt say the studio was bought from Disney. They were talking about Microsoft I believe.

the quote is the renegotiation happened "after Microsoft bought its development studio", which suggests Disney were the publisher at a minimum for that negotiation to be possible, So whom they bought it from seems moot when a publisher typically funds the entire studio in situations like this, even if they don't own it, so the costs were almost certainly all Disney at that point, and would then still align with my analysis of how the rights of exclusivity were leveraged for Indiana vs cancellation, closure and lost funding of the developer by Disney.

 

[Gavon West]

the quote is the renegotiation happened "after Microsoft bought its development studio", which suggests Disney were the publisher at a minimum for that negotiation to be possible, So whom they bought it from seems moot when a publisher typically funds the entire studio in situations like this, even if they don't own it, so the costs were almost certainly all Disney at that point, and would then still align with my analysis of how the rights of exclusivity were leveraged for Indiana vs cancellation, closure and lost funding of the developer by Disney.

They're talking about after the Microsoft/Zenimaz acquisition.

 

[PaintTinJr]

They're talking about after the Microsoft/Zenimaz acquisition.

And how does that alter anything from the analysis I suggested? Games using strong IPs that are looking like bangers don't get sold out before the multiplatform game goes to market, unless they have development and/or financial troubles as a result of development issues hindering milestone publisher payments to keep development rolling.

 

[Ozzie666]

Blade is such a minor character in the scope of the comic world. It might turn out to be a cool game and I did enjoy the first 2 movies too (TV show too). It's not Spider-man or Batman thats for sure. If Microsoft wants to release it on Xbox, and PC as exclusives, who cares? It's up to them if they want to lose/burn money or not and ignore stronger user bases on Switch and Playstation. It makes no sense, just like Starfield, but it's their money to burn and they supposedly have unlimited resources.

Maybe they get people subbing for 1 month to rip through the game. With the upcoming movie, it's more a diservice to Marvel to not reach the larger user bases of the competition. Spider-man enjoys 20M+ sales and Sony treats it as royalty in terms of marketing, release dates, developer and it's backed by continued movies. Wolverine is exclusive, but I suspect it won't come close to Spider-man numbers, or am I wrong here.

Microsoft has none of those things currently going for them and no control over the Marvel movie hype/timing. Indiana Jones will suffer the same fate, until Xbox improves its market and mind share.

 

[Gavon West]

And how does that alter anything from the analysis I suggested? Games using strong IPs that are looking like bangers don't get sold out before the multiplatform game goes to market, unless they have development and/or financial troubles as a result of development issues hindering milestone publisher payments to keep development rolling.

I'm not trying to "alter" anything. Just correcting which studio they were speaking on. Relax.

As far as the rest of your post, I can't rightfully say. I don't work in that industry nor know the in's and out's thereof. Sorry.

TO ADD: I don't think Disney was going to foot the bill or ever had plans to. They didn't with any other Marvel IP as far as I understand it. Usually, it's going to be the publisher (Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft) who foots the bill for development with one of their studios. Disney makes money from the sales %s, but they aren't putting money towards the actual development. I can see such a scenario if Disney decided they wanted an independent developer to make a certain game. Not the other way around. Just my humble opinion.

Bethesda approached Disney with a pitch for Indy and Blade, in which case all parties (including Microsoft) loved it. Thus, they were given the IPs to develop the games.

 

[Gavon West]

Blade is such a minor character in the scope of the comic world. It might turn out to be a cool game and I did enjoy the first 2 movies too (TV show too). It's not Spider-man or Batman thats for sure. If Microsoft wants to release it on Xbox, and PC as exclusives, who cares? It's up to them if they want to lose/burn money or not and ignore stronger user bases on Switch and Playstation. It makes no sense, just like Starfield, but it's their money to burn and they supposedly have unlimited resources.

Maybe they get people subbing for 1 month to rip through the game. With the upcoming movie, it's more a diservice to Marvel to not reach the larger user bases of the competition. Spider-man enjoys 20M+ sales and Sony treats it as royalty in terms of marketing, release dates, developer and it's backed by continued movies. Wolverine is exclusive, but I suspect it won't come close to Spider-man numbers, or am I wrong here.

Microsoft has none of those things currently going for them and no control over the Marvel movie hype/timing. Indiana Jones will suffer the same fate, until Xbox improves its market and mind share.

Ummm....the Xbox platform includes consoles, digital devices (phones, iPads) PC and cloud? That's beyond Sony consoles and then some.

Aside from that, Disney already stated that Microsoft has a large marketplace for such an IP. it's literally in the tweet I just posted. Meaning they see Xbox as the platform it is, not just consoles. That is why the agreed to an Indiana Jones and Blade game as exclusives.

What're you even talking about here???

 

[Ozzie666]

Ummm....the Xbox platform includes consoles, digital devices (phones, iPads) PC and cloud? That's beyond Sony consoles and then some.

Aside from that, Disney already stated that Microsoft has a large marketplace for such an IP. it's literally in the tweet I just posted. Meaning they see Xbox as the platform it is, not just consoles. That is why the agreed to an Indiana Jones and Blade game as exclusives.

What're you even talking about here???

Maybe I'm too old school, but playing an action game on the cloud, not something I consider as viable . Any type of streaming apps to a mobile phone is also not an option. What I am talking about is actual 'boxed' sales at 'full price' for the game. Leaving Switch and Sony out, is a fair chunk of change and profits. But if you think they can recoup that on the cloud, goodluck. Because I have my doubts, especially after Starfield.

 

[Gavon West]

Maybe I'm too old school, but playing an action game on the cloud, not something I consider as viable . Any type of streaming apps to a mobile phone is also not an option. What I am talking about is actual 'boxed' sales at 'full price' for the game. Leaving Switch and Sony out, is a fair chunk of change and profits. But if you think they can recoup that on the cloud, goodluck. Because I have my doubts, especially after Starfield.

As you said, you're old school. I can respect that but the game has changed from merely box sales and consoles. I hardly play on Cloud myself but it is an option for me and so is my smartphone and tablets. Not everyone's experience with Cloud gaming is your experience.

That said, there's also PC and Steam. Xbox as a platform is well beyond the reach of just consoles. They virtually can hit any device at this point. Starfield sold great by the way. Award or no....

 

[Fredrik]

Revenue. GP is losing money not making it. 35M players is very misleading especially when most of those are GP subscriber's who'll try out a game and not play it again.

Xbox is losing so much relevance and games can't afford to miss playstation. Personally I don't think Marvel is retarded and this will Indeed come to playstation.

You’re pulling stuff from your ass now but big titles on GP is a way to pull people into the ecosystem. Even if 35M would all be GP players trying a game out it means that 35M can also keep playing if they think it’s fun, it’s a huge userbase and low entry point, it’s awesome. And Marvel will get licensing and GP money from MS for an IP nobody else would’ve likely done anything with.
On PS people need to buy a game to see if it’s their thing, means review scores must be high and marketing must be good and talk on social media must be positive and nothing bigger can come out at the same time. It’s always a risky investment.

 

[Kerotan]

You’re pulling stuff from your ass now but big titles on GP is a way to pull people into the ecosystem. Even if 35M would all be GP players trying a game out it means that 35M can also keep playing if they think it’s fun, it’s a huge userbase and low entry point, it’s awesome. And Marvel will get licensing and GP money from MS for an IP nobody else would’ve likely done anything with.
On PS people need to buy a game to see if it’s their thing, means review scores must be high and marketing must be good and talk on social media must be positive and nothing bigger can come out at the same time. It’s always a risky investment.

On ps premium you can get a trial up to 5 hours but on playstation it's going to generate way more revenue because millions more players will pay full price to play the game.

I'm guessing Marvel are not idiots and they'll want that playstation revenue/relevance. This on playstation aswell it could be big and have longevity. Without playstation there's a chance this game is a one and done and won't get sequels.

You just can't compete when you barely have a console presence in Europe and Asia and are even third in your home market. So my guess is they'll have insisted a playstation port.

 

[crackajack]

Blade is going to be third person this was already announced. Wolverine is a much more popular character than Blade. At the end of the day though all that will matter is if they game is good. Good thing is Wolverine game is rated R.

Oh, so some comparisons might be really appropriate then.
He might be generally more popular, I still look more forward to what they do with Blade. The movies had some cheesy moments, but so did Logan as a whole. Either way comic fans often act like the movies do not justice to the source material, so my expectations could be totally off due to me only knowing the movies.
From Marvel's pov, I guess exclusivity for the character presumably with more pull on the leading platform is no huge risk in losing sales on the other platform. Plus Sony's recent track record with Spiderman. But allowing exclusivity for the less well regarded character on the smaller platform, even though PC exists of course in MS's world, is kinda two risk factors. Forcing/demanding MS to be multiplatform would make sense imho as long as MS does not really achieve some hits in a row and earn trust. You kinda risk your IP getting used in a exclusivity war without a benefit beyond some money. A bad game is damaging anyway, but if it is decent enough to push a movie and the IP getting no/little public awareness just because it is on the wrong platform, might also not be ideal for your IP. They work on a new movie and want as many people as possible to be invested.
If I would decide I would even force them to do a Switch version. Warner did the right thing with Hogwarts imho. Going the extra mile to demake the entire game until it fits onto that device. Or at least the Switch 2 which might be a reality once the Blade game and new movie come along and should be considered. Even though r rated games are not necessarilly Nintendo's forte and age bracket they go for.

 

[Sw0pDiller]

Bethesda in charge of a new action-franchise that will go up against Wolverine that is being made by Insomniac. This is going to be a bloodbath.

 

[TGO]

I wonder what type of game it'll be, I mean Dante is basically Blade

 

[DragonNCM]

Waste of potential of big profit if it is only on Xbox & PC....give it GP users day one & charge PS gamers 100$

 

[deriks]

So it's fair to say that doesn't mean shit

They didn't told, and most because of a business decision. They'll probably gets more money if is not exclusive, and hey, a slap in the face of Sony

Still, what bothers me the most is that we don't have a clue on what the game will be like. And chances are that even the devs are still messing around how the gameplay will be. This is bullshit

 

[RickMasters]

I'm not sure, but doesn't that say Indiana is only exclusive because they bought the development studio from Disney? If that was the case, it is no surprise it is exclusive because it reads like the alternative was the game was getting cancelled because the studio was in trouble. Disney getting back their money for a probable studio closure and still to make money off the game sales was a clear victory from the jaws of defeat situation by the sounds of things IMO, especially as Indiana isn't an IP Sony would wish to license when it competes with their Uncharted IP.

Unless Disney were already making the Blade game and selling off another studio I'm not sure how this is a similar setup for Xbox to gain similar leverage in this negotiation.

Machine games are working Indy. They are one of Bethesda’s studios…… not sure where you get your info from about buying a dev team from Disney….. when was the last time Disney themselves, made a game?



Blade was clearly picked during MS ownership and they have Aroane working on that one….. where are you getting this idea that Disney have been working on games themselves? They don’t have a single dev studio yet here you are talking like they had their own devs working games based on their IPs….and MS bought them? . what marvel alternate reality is this? Last time I checked machine games and Arkane have always been part of Bethesda.


Here’s the facts…. Two MS owned studios are working in two Disney owned IPs. These studios are part of Xbox under bethesdas umbrella as per MS awuisionnof Bethesda . Now that you have that very real beacon of perspective…. figure out the rest from there…..

 

[Thirty7ven]

We're still going on this one? No one knows.

Why not just wait until one of the involved parties says something? Until then, everybody will keep saying something they can't back up.

There are only 3 likely scenarios to be at play here:

1. Xbox and Marvel haven't negotiated exclusivity yet. (If so, it is most stupid to announce the game at this point. This is the least likely option).
2. It is an exclusive, and Xbox is being coy. Hype up PlayStation fans by making them believe that the game is coming to PS. Then before launch, announce it as a full exclusive. So the hyped PS fans either (1) be disappointed or (2) think of buying an Xbox.
3. Marvel ensured the game is multiplatform. Xbox is afraid to say it at this point to avoid backlash and to deflate the Holiday hardware sales amidst all the "third-party" talk.

Better to wait for official sources before claiming the exclusivity status one way or the other.

You think Bethesda believes Starfield crashing is because of Xbox Tax?

That would be insane considering the game got a Bethesda/Xbox tax rebate. The game is about ten points too high on MC.

 

[RickMasters]

Bethesda in charge of a new action-franchise that will go up against Wolverine that is being made by Insomniac. This is going to be a bloodbath.

Good for the consumer. Also good to have a few more superhero games out there.


Maybe Nintendo should get one or two marvel exclusives aswell. Or maybe get a teen titans license. That would suit Nintendo.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Still, what bothers me the most is that we don't have a clue on what the game will be like. And chances are that even the devs are still messing around how the gameplay will be. This is bullshit

You know people are saying this game might be 5 years away?

I think maybe expect some details to emerge a bit down the line.

 

[Gavon West]

On ps premium you can get a trial up to 5 hours but on playstation it's going to generate way more revenue because millions more players will pay full price to play the game.

I'm guessing Marvel are not idiots and they'll want that playstation revenue/relevance. This on playstation aswell it could be big and have longevity. Without playstation there's a chance this game is a one and done and won't get sequels.

You just can't compete when you barely have a console presence in Europe and Asia and are even third in your home market. So my guess is they'll have insisted a playstation port.

Pretty sure a Tweet was just posted that completely debunks this post of excessive delusion?? Why is it that people think Microsoft can't make money without Sony. It's laughable at this point.

Regardless, Playstation doesnt get every game. Just get an Xbox my boy!

 

[Godot25]

I find it truly hilarious. People bitched and moaned for years about Xbox not having exclusives and not having a reasons to enter their ecosystem (through consoles or PC).
And now when we are finally starting to see fruits of all money invested people are calling them "stupid" for leaving money on the table? You can't be serious right?

Point of Indiana Jones/Blade/Starfield/Hellblade 2/Avowed/Gears 6 exclusivity is to either buy an Xbox or subscribe into Game Pass through console, PC or cloud. Sooner people get a grip about that the better.
Want to play Spider-Man? Buy PlayStation. Want to play Indiana Jones or Blade? Buy Xbox. Simple as that.

But it's funny to talk about Xbox first-party being bad followed by port begging. I don't know why people are begging for ports when those games are bad.
Also mindset of PlayStation users who thinks that they are entitled to have every game on THEIR platform is pretty hilarious.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I'm not trying to "alter" anything. Just correcting which studio they were speaking on. Relax.

As far as the rest of your post, I can't rightfully say. I don't work in that industry nor know the in's and out's thereof. Sorry.

TO ADD: I don't think Disney was going to foot the bill or ever had plans to. They didn't with any other Marvel IP as far as I understand it. Usually, it's going to be the publisher (Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft) who foots the bill for development with one of their studios. Disney makes money from the sales %s, but they aren't putting money towards the actual development. I can see such a scenario if Disney decided they wanted an independent developer to make a certain game. Not the other way around. Just my humble opinion.

Bethesda approached Disney with a pitch for Indy and Blade, in which case all parties (including Microsoft) loved it. Thus, they were given the IPs to develop the games.

I don't think that's consistent with how games get pitched and made, especially when the current IP holder was the acquirer of the IPs with along with a successful game publishing arm and multi studio owner. It seems far more likely that Disney sought out a publisher to develop games with their IPs, at their expense, and a deal was brokered for two multiplatform games (namely Indy and Blade). Absent Microsoft acquiring Zenimax, Disney would have cancelled the games based on the Indy game still being MIA 2years on, after the buyout, and probably already over 5years development costs, probably with $50m invested. Microsoft entering the deal via the Zenimax acquisition and removing Disney's risk on the Indy game, getting a substitute for Tomb Raider exclusivity to directly compete with PlayStation's UC and under better optics as a new IP without a userbase history, and keeping a dev team working that was part of an acquisition costing 100x more than the Indy dev costs Disney were getting back all just makes sense IMO.

The Blade IP is probably still multiplatform with a timed exclusive, unless Microsoft go back and throw a bag of money at Disney. Their coyness might be them trying to gauge the splash size of the announcement to see determine if it is worth the bag of money to keep it off PlayStation fully or rinse and repeat of the deal they had with Tomb raider. The relative install sizes of high paying consumers on Xbox vs PlayStation is a day and night situation going by current reporting info in Xbox markets like the UK, and the overlap of Xbox console gamers having gamepass and the full splits between Xbox and PlayStation game sales -even with digital - suggest that Disney would either made a huge miscalculation for Blade and Indy to be missing PlayStation on the cheap if not a risk of losing $50M, or will be getting paid a lot more than the games will make back to make them full exclusives.

I still think Microsoft have covered Disney's losses on the Bethesda Developer that was missing milestones on the Indy game, and were going to cancel it, to get it exclusive, and I think Blade is in the Tomb Raider timed exclusive situation with Microsoft paying big, and needing to pay way more for total exclusivity.

 

[SaucyJack]

We're still going on this one? No one knows.

Why not just wait until one of the involved parties says something? Until then, everybody will keep saying something they can't back up.

There are only 3 likely scenarios to be at play here:

1. Xbox and Marvel haven't negotiated exclusivity yet. (If so, it is most stupid to announce the game at this point. This is the least likely option).
2. It is an exclusive, and Xbox is being coy. Hype up PlayStation fans by making them believe that the game is coming to PS. Then before launch, announce it as a full exclusive. So the hyped PS fans either (1) be disappointed or (2) think of buying an Xbox.
3. Marvel ensured the game is multiplatform. Xbox is afraid to say it at this point to avoid backlash and to deflate the Holiday hardware sales amidst all the "third-party" talk.

Better to wait for official sources before claiming the exclusivity status one way or the other.

As you say Option 1 has to be the least likely, that would be breath-taking incompetence to announce without that having been determined,

Option 3 has to be the most likely as although Option 2 is possible it would in reality be a pretty dumb strategy.

 

[Godot25]

As you say Option 1 has to be the least likely, that would be breath-taking incompetence to announce without that having been determined,

Option 3 has to be the most likely as although Option 2 is possible it would in reality be a pretty dumb strategy.

Option 4 - Microsoft knows if game will be exclusive, but there is no point to talk about it since they are still going through FTC trial and giving them arguments isn't smart. Especially since game is few years from release
Option 5 - Since game is so far away it is possible that it will be cross-gen with next Xbox console, so announcing platforms today is literally pointless.

 

[midnightAI]

As you say Option 1 has to be the least likely, that would be breath-taking incompetence to announce without that having been determined,

Option 3 has to be the most likely as although Option 2 is possible it would in reality be a pretty dumb strategy.

Especially if the game turns out bad, and even if its good you know what will happen to the Metacritic scores (that may happen anyway, warriors will warrior, but leaving it until the last minute would cause a blood rave)

 

[SaucyJack]

Option 4 - Microsoft knows if game will be exclusive, but there is no point to talk about it since they are still going through FTC trial and giving them arguments isn't smart. Especially since game is few years from release
Option 5 - Since game is so far away it is possible that it will be cross-gen with next Xbox console, so announcing platforms today is literally pointless.

Option 4 - irrelevant. MS disingenuity in relation to exclusivity of Zenimax games is already well established and baked in to the FTC case in relation to Activision
Option 5 - nah, that's a real stretch. This does not remotely stop them announcing it as being exclusive to Xbox

 

[Godot25]

Option 4 - irrelevant. MS disingenuity in relation to exclusivity of Zenimax games is already well established and baked in to the FTC case in relation to Activision

But it's still more ammo to the FTC. Which is not smart.

Funny that people moan about Blade not having platforms announced when Indiana Jones also don't have any platforms announced officially and that game will be out way sooner then Blade. Only reason why we know it is exclusive is because of FTC trial.

It's almost like Bethesda has a history with announcing games without announcing platforms. It's not like they already did it with Starfield, GhostWire: Tokyo, Deathloop, TES VI and Indiana Jones, right?

 

[Thirty7ven]

I don't think that's consistent with how games get pitched and made, especially when the current IP holder was the acquirer of the IPs with along with a successful game publishing arm and multi studio owner. It seems far more likely that Disney sought out a publisher to develop games with their IPs, at their expense, and a deal was brokered for two multiplatform games (namely Indy and Blade). Absent Microsoft acquiring Zenimax, Disney would have cancelled the games based on the Indy game still being MIA 2years on, after the buyout, and probably already over 5years development costs, probably with $50m invested. Microsoft entering the deal via the Zenimax acquisition and removing Disney's risk on the Indy game, getting a substitute for Tomb Raider exclusivity to directly compete with PlayStation's UC and under better optics as a new IP without a userbase history, and keeping a dev team working that was part of an acquisition costing 100x more than the Indy dev costs Disney were getting back all just makes sense IMO.

The Blade IP is probably still multiplatform with a timed exclusive, unless Microsoft go back and throw a bag of money at Disney. Their coyness might be them trying to gauge the splash size of the announcement to see determine if it is worth the bag of money to keep it off PlayStation fully or rinse and repeat of the deal they had with Tomb raider. The relative install sizes of high paying consumers on Xbox vs PlayStation is a day and night situation going by current reporting info in Xbox markets like the UK, and the overlap of Xbox console gamers having gamepass and the full splits between Xbox and PlayStation game sales -even with digital - suggest that Disney would either made a huge miscalculation for Blade and Indy to be missing PlayStation on the cheap if not a risk of losing $50M, or will be getting paid a lot more than the games will make back to make them full exclusives.

I still think Microsoft have covered Disney's losses on the Bethesda Developer that was missing milestones on the Indy game, and were going to cancel it, to get it exclusive, and I think Blade is in the Tomb Raider timed exclusive situation with Microsoft paying big, and needing to pay way more for total exclusivity.

I don’t think this is likely at all, and yes it’s very odd that Blade has no brand attached to it but it’s Blade… just how many publishers do you think were even thinking about bidding for it? It’s a really small franchise and if anything Xbox will do more for it than the other way around.

Even in terms of attracting talent to work on a Blade game will be hard.

 

[RickMasters]

then you are not following their own mixed messaging.

No I dont "follow their mixed messaging"....And I figured that seeing as we are used to this with them...its par for course. aint you guys always saying how phil lies and cant be taken at face value? phil also said the other day that he dont care about putting gamepass on nintendo or PS. was the message mixed, then? phil was also exposed as wanting to be far more aggressive with exclusives going forward as per the revelations that came out during the ABK aquisitions...was that not clear, what he thinks behind all that fluffy kum by yah talk?.....that same phil?...





I mean... was just a few pages ago people were asserting that its up to disney...until disney confirmed its up to MS/bethesda.....so, now what? more dumb "bu-buh-but phil said play anywhere" remixed takes? Maybe thats the real problem with their mixed messaging...people know it and still run with it....and maybe the fact that its got chins wagging is all they need for this game until a proper gameplay reveal. will they?...wont they?...its working clearly. as it did with starfield (regardless of how poeple feel about the game it was one of the most talked about games all year) ...as it did with indiana jones.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

No I dont "follow their mixed messaging"....

are you sure? are you not even aware of it? Xbox fans/influencers are pretty damn aware of it and they even point it out.

And I figured that seeing as we are used to this with them...its par for course.

who are 'we'?. Because a prominent xbox influencer was pretty fucking pissed about it. and in xbox podcasts was a talking point, trying to clarify, damage control the exclusivity uncertainty of this game.

aint you guys always saying how phil lies and cant be taken at face value?

phil also said the other day that he dont care about putting gamepass on nintendo or PS. was the message mixed, then?

phil was also exposed as wanting to be far more aggressive with exclusives going forward as per the revelations that came out during the ABK aquisitions...was that not clear, what he thinks behind all that fluffy kum by yah talk?.....that same phil?...

Phil is not the only clown running the show. the mixed messaging is not coming out from ONE individual; MS/Xbox's messaging is mixed, there is not unity. one clown says one thing, other clown says another thing.

I mean... was just a few pages ago people were asserting that its up to disney...until disney confirmed its up to MS/bethesda.....so, now what?

Look at your own statement, confusing as fuck. what are you even trying to say?. If Microsoft were clear in its messaging, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

more dumb "bu-buh-but phil said play anywhere" remixed takes? Maybe thats the real problem with their mixed messaging...people know it and still run with it....and maybe the fact that its got chins wagging is all they need for this game until a proper gameplay reveal. will they?...wont they?...its working clearly.

as it did with starfield (regardless of how poeple feel about the game it was one of the most talked about games all year) ...as it did with indiana jones.

Oh the engagement metric.

yes its one of the most talked game of the year.....because is a massive disappointment. I don't think that is helping xbox at all, in fact; it hurts the brand and the game itself.

 

[RickMasters]

are you sure? are you not even aware of it?

I’m aware of it…. I just don’t follow it. Is that hard to comprehend or are you deliberately trying to be this dumb?


I don’t really follow game influencers…. They are for the younger generation of gamers. You seem to take what they say more seriously than I do. But then I’m the one who don’t even know their names and watches their posts…. You do. I just wait for word from MS/Xbox/Bethesda.



“who are 'we'?”

The GAF….. we are on the gaf…. I’m talking specifically about the commentary in this thread. I don’t need to scout the I the rent for a topic I’m talking about here….

 

[PaintTinJr]

I don’t think this is likely at all, and yes it’s very odd that Blade has no brand attached to it but it’s Blade… just how many publishers do you think were even thinking about bidding for it? It’s a really small franchise and if anything Xbox will do more for it than the other way around.

Even in terms of attracting talent to work on a Blade game will be hard.

What circumstances do you believe led Disney to end up with Xbox ,of all platforms, trying to exclusively revive the gaming importance of a respected IP like Indiana - in context of it constantly being usurped by Uncharted and Tomb Raider game releases - unless they had already lost big money in development for a game that missed quality milestones, and Microsoft's new involvement saved them from that loss?

In a straight out negotiation with an Indiana game already in development and looking like a banger, I see no situation in which Microsoft could offer terms to Disney to have the game skip PlayStation, and even Switch if it would down-port. Only desperation for Disney with a game they would have cancelled could have led to skipping all those world regions that PlayStation reaches IMO. The exclusive association with Xbox in its current value destructive state potentially does more damage to Indy than the timed exclusive deal they did with Tomb Raider on the Xbox One IMHO, and I just don't see them doing that when the age of the actor leading the film side already compromises them heavily for exploiting the IP more in film/TV.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

In a straight out negotiation with an Indiana game already in development and looking like a banger, I see no situation in which Microsoft could offer terms to Disney to have the game skip PlayStation, and even Switch if it would down-port. Only desperation for Disney with a game they would have cancelled could have led to skipping all those world regions that PlayStation reaches

Everyone assumes Disney get paid based on how many copies of the game are sold.

I think there's a good chance that Disney are paid a fee before development begins and that's the end of it.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Everyone assumes Disney get paid based on how many copies of the game are sold.

I think there's a good chance that Disney are paid a fee before development begins and that's the end of it.

But that doesn't serve the IP and its place in the world it is held in by Lucas/Spielberg fans that far out number all console/PC gamers.

The IP needed a banger game and to be on PlayStation, and preferably Switch for Disney, even if it skipped Xbox and PC, which it is ironically saddled with, now, so that screams desperation - of saving lost development money on Indy- IMO, when Disney fully understand how gaming IPs work, having been a major publisher before and after the Lucas film/arts acquisition, as for Blade, money alone would do it, but Microsoft will be spending more than they can make back IMO, for it to be exclusive too.

 

[Godot25]

But that doesn't serve the IP and its place in the world it is held in by Lucas/Spielberg fans that far out number all console/PC gamers.

The IP needed a banger game and to be on PlayStation, and preferably Switch for Disney, even if it skipped Xbox and PC, which it is ironically saddled with, now, so that screams desperation - of saving lost development money on Indy- IMO, when Disney fully understand how gaming IPs work, having been a major publisher before and after the Lucas film/arts acquisition, as for Blade, money alone would do it, but Microsoft will be spending more than they can make back IMO, for it to be exclusive too.

Lol
So Sony ignoring 130 million Switch owners, 25 million Xbox Series owners and 300+ million PC gamers with Spider-Man 2 is somehow fine
But Microsoft ignoring 130 million Switch owners and 50 million PS5 owners is somehow bad?

????

 

[PaintTinJr]

Lol
So Sony ignoring 130 million Switch owners, 25 million Xbox Series owners and 300+ million PC gamers with Spider-Man 2 is somehow fine
But Microsoft ignoring 130 million Switch owners and 50 million PS5 owners is somehow bad?

????

Spider-man needs no revival in film or gaming. Indy is a IP that is beloved for its 3 original films and old games. It has been replaced by Tomb Raider and uncharted in gaming, and the actor - that is the iconic face of Indy - is not a young enough actor to reach the high notes of the first three films again.

Sales of the game are possibly less important to Disney than breathing new life into the IP while they strategize how to recast/reboot in film and TV. Xbox and PC exclusivity ties their fortunes(publicity/returns) to UK/US centric Xbox for a globally appealing IP, that needs revived globally. Why would they risk backing such a potential loser situation unless from desperation, is my question to support my view?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

But that doesn't serve the IP and its place in the world it is held in by Lucas/Spielberg fans that far out number all console/PC gamers.

The IP needed a banger game and to be on PlayStation, and preferably Switch for Disney, even if it skipped Xbox and PC, which it is ironically saddled with, now, so that screams desperation - of saving lost development money on Indy- IMO, when Disney fully understand how gaming IPs work, having been a major publisher before and after the Lucas film/arts acquisition, as for Blade, money alone would do it, but Microsoft will be spending more than they can make back IMO, for it to be exclusive too.

Maybe it will be a banger game (?) on Xbox.

 

[PeteBull]

Guys, game is easily at least 5 years out, aka it means its gonna launch earliest in next gen's launch year, if no delays, trailer was just full cgi concept one, lets worry first if its good game/gameplay is good before we worry about any kind of exclusivity =D

Edit:
Think of that blade trailer as this one from hellblade 2, which was put exactly 4 years ago, and game is sheduled for 2024 sometime

 

[PaintTinJr]

Maybe it will be a banger game (?) on Xbox.

Which we all hope, but would then suggest it was desperation that led to those circumstances because it would have been a massive missed opportunity for the IP on PlayStation and Switch that Disney really needed.

 

[Godot25]

Spider-man needs no revival in film or gaming. Indy is a IP that is beloved for its 3 original films and old games. It has been replaced by Tomb Raider and uncharted in gaming, and the actor - that is the iconic face of Indy - is not a young enough actor to reach the high notes of the first three films again.

Sales of the game are possibly less important to Disney than breathing new life into the IP while they strategize how to recast/reboot in film and TV. Xbox and PC exclusivity ties their fortunes(publicity/returns) to UK/US centric Xbox for a globally appealing IP, that needs revived globally. Why would they risk backing such a potential loser situation unless from desperation, is my question to support my view?

I guess Wolverine is on same level of popularity as Spider Man since it will be also exclusive on PlayStation 5. Or KOTOR remake (if game is still in development), since OG game was Xbox exclusive

Or more probable theory is that you are just pushing narrative that suits your stupid idea that Microsoft would agree to put Blade on PlayStation when they amended Indiana Jones contract to make that game exclusive.
But it's really hilarious how PlayStation players are suddenly in port begging mode and they are trying to twist reality to suit their wish.

Argument about Xbox being US/UK-centric is just stupid, because countries that are not familiar/popular with Xbox are usually big on PC gaming (Germany, Poland, France, countries in Asia etc.)

It's not that hard to understand. Blade will be used to push Xbox consoles/Game Pass. Same as Indiana Jones. Same as Wolverine/Spider-Man are used to push PlayStation consoles. Fact that Microsoft is using Blade IP is good for them since announcement has 4 million views on Marvel YT channel already which is exactly what Microsoft wants - push their ecosystem through established characters which will make marketing easier for them. It would be immensely stupid to make that game multiplatform and while I agree that it would be better for Disney to have their IP in form of multiplatform games, that argument goes both ways and you can't ignore it even if PlayStation is leading platform.

Disney VP said "It's Bethesda's decision." So it basically means it's Microsoft decision. Game will be exclusive.

 

[Thirty7ven]

What circumstances do you believe led Disney to end up with Xbox ,of all platforms, trying to exclusively revive the gaming importance of a respected IP like Indiana - in context of it constantly being usurped by Uncharted and Tomb Raider game releases - unless they had already lost big money in development for a game that missed quality milestones, and Microsoft's new involvement saved them from that loss?

In a straight out negotiation with an Indiana game already in development and looking like a banger, I see no situation in which Microsoft could offer terms to Disney to have the game skip PlayStation, and even Switch if it would down-port. Only desperation for Disney with a game they would have cancelled could have led to skipping all those world regions that PlayStation reaches IMO. The exclusive association with Xbox in its current value destructive state potentially does more damage to Indy than the timed exclusive deal they did with Tomb Raider on the Xbox One IMHO, and I just don't see them doing that when the age of the actor leading the film side already compromises them heavily for exploiting the IP more in film/TV.

Regarding Indiana Jones you could speculate that given the fact the deal was originally multiplatform, now it’s only PC/Xbox with a main focus on GP and Disney gets upfront and then cents on the dollar for each sale, that MS had to renegotiate the terms of the contract and that’s that. Disney got what they wanted on contract and now it’s up to the game to not be mid af, and there’s a very high degree of probability that will happen because we are talking about a studio that creates stories with the degree of sensibility of a 14 year old, and are known for linear frantic shooters, which is a very odd pick for a franchise that needs a lot of care as it’s basically a dead franchise right now and all its success is owed to the one two punch of Spielberg and Harrison Ford. There’s a reason why Disney didn’t want to replace Ford, because without him it’s just a guy in a hat with a wip in hand. How many publishers were bidding for a high budget game in a genre defined by Tomb Raider and Uncharted? It’s an uphill fight.

Regarding Blade, again, we have a franchise that not even Marvel knows what to do with aside from casting Ali, who almost quit the project recently because the script somehow ended up with Blade being a peripheral character to teenage girls. The character’s popularity still lives and dies mostly based on what Norrington and Wesley Snipes achieved with the original Blade. So we are talking about a franchise that is really a blip, tiny compared to Indiana Jones, that would’ve had a lot of trouble finding a suitor willing to put talent and big money on it. So MS and Disney could easily reach a deal that benefits both parties. Obviously Arkane Lyon’s pitch would’ve had to convince Disney, which it did.

To be honest you would think Arkane Lyon to be above Blade, so Disney should feel real happy that the Xbox fanbase has small dick syndrome and they have been begging Phil Spencer to get a comic book character because big mean PlayStation is rocking with two of the biggest characters in comic book history. But which characters were being asked for? From what I’ve witnessed since Spider-Man released, it has been all about Superman, Batman, and Black Panther. They got Blade.

I just don’t see what you see, and I believe Disney is pretty happy about Blade being taken to the dance by somebody who drives a Bugatti.

 

[PaintTinJr]

...

Disney VP said "It's Bethesda's decision." So it basically means it's Microsoft decision. Game will be exclusive.

That is surely just code for: "show me the money!", no? meaning it is currently in development for both and Microsoft have been told what it will cost them to skip PlayStation.

Indy is a completely different animal, because PC isn't a target demographic for young kids with the IP. so missing PlayStation and Switch limits the upside for Disney to fractions of the exposure it could hit with a banger Indy game on all platforms, versus just xbox overlapping the key youth demographic, which again is very odd because the IP is important to their theme parks and the IPs desirability and prominence in film/TV for cinema and their TV sub service.

I stand by my point that it was desperation of +$50m down the drain that lead Disney to agree to those terms for Indy with Xbox.

As for Wolverine, yes he is a massive IP, like Spider-man he's a strong enough IP to carry his own films, and the tie-in with PlayStation and Sony Pictures/Epic for all the asset scanning will have massive indirect advantages for marvel/Disney. You only need look at the cgi in any Marvel film on Spider-man to see Sony Pictures bring a lot of expensive talent/tech to the equation which saves Disney money and makes their IP look better for it. Wolverine getting all of Sony involved in an exclusive game is probably offsetting maximum returns versus mitigating risks.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Everyone assumes Disney get paid based on how many copies of the game are sold.

I think there's a good chance that Disney are paid a fee before development begins and that's the end of it.

Absolutely not. They get paid upfront and then cents on dollar, that’s how all these licensing agreements work.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Regarding Indiana Jones you could speculate that given the fact the deal was originally multiplatform, now it’s only PC/Xbox with a main focus on GP and Disney gets upfront and then cents on the dollar for each sale, that MS had to renegotiate the terms of the contract and that’s that. Disney got what they wanted on contract and now it’s up to the game to not be mid af, and there’s a very high degree of probability that will happen because we are talking about a studio that creates stories with the degree of sensibility of a 14 year old, and are known for linear frantic shooters, which is a very odd pick for a franchise that needs a lot of care as it’s basically a dead franchise right now and all its success is owed to the one two punch of Spielberg and Harrison Ford. There’s a reason why Disney didn’t want to replace Ford, because without him it’s just a guy in a hat with a wip in hand. How many publishers were bidding for a high budget game in a genre defined by Tomb Raider and Uncharted? It’s an uphill fight.

Regarding Blade, again, we have a franchise that not even Marvel knows what to do with aside from casting Ali, who almost quit the project recently because the script somehow ended up with Blade being a peripheral character to teenage girls. The character’s popularity still lives and dies mostly based on what Norrington and Wesley Snipes achieved with the original Blade. So we are talking about a franchise that is really a blip, tiny compared to Indiana Jones, that would’ve had a lot of trouble finding a suitor willing to put talent and big money on it. So MS and Disney could easily reach a deal that benefits both parties. Obviously Arkane Lyon’s pitch would’ve had to convince Disney, which it did.

To be honest you would think Arkane Lyon to be above Blade, so Disney should feel real happy that the Xbox fanbase has small dick syndrome and they have been begging Phil Spencer to get a comic book character because big mean PlayStation is rocking with two of the biggest characters in comic book history. But which characters were being asked for? From what I’ve witnessed since Spider-Man released, it has been all about Superman, Batman, and Black Panther. They got Blade.

I just don’t see what you see, and I believe Disney is pretty happy about Blade being taken to the dance by somebody who drives a Bugatti.

I think the only thing you and I disagree on at a fundamental level is who was driving the projects at day one. I think Bethesda pitched because Disney invited them to do it, with Disney taking all the returns and paying for all the dev/publishing, as a work for hire, like any other independent AA dev/pub would to keep work flowing to cover employing highly expensive staff and needing to balance risks and internal projects that can be slightly offset by external projects with zero internal risk.

 

[Orbital2060]

They can do whatever they want to with the
announcements and game, there are no rules to this. Maybe they just havent decided yet. I figure some games from Xbox will be on PlayStation, too. Maybe this will. I dont think so, but why not?

Its coming to Xbox and PC 100 %, everyone without any of those will have to be patient and see. Worst case: get an xbox. Dreadful thought, I know.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Absolutely not. They get paid upfront and then cents on dollar, that’s how all these licensing agreements work.

I wonder how many more cents on the dollar Sony pay to have exclusivity on Wolverine? Presumably they'd pay fewer if the game was headed for Switch, PC and Xbox.

EDIT: Also curious as to how you know these details, not doubting you, just wondered where they'd been revealed?