Support NeoGAF

[PeteBull]

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.

In 5 years xbox might be just 3rd party so by then u will need to get pc rather

 

[Thirty7ven]

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.

Each deal is unique I imagine, it will depend on relationships between companies that will be informed by work on previous projects, the value of the IP in the market it’s aiming for, how much it will do for brand awareness, who are doing it etc

Obviously Wolverine is so much bigger than Blade that Disney will have been a whole lot more protective of the character. So I can only imagine Sony paid more, but Disney will have been delighted that Insomniac was going to do it due to Spider-Man’s success at all levels. So how much upfront vs backend will depend on a lot of factors.

 

[Godot25]

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.

I'm sorry, but this is just bunch of gibberish to try to sound smart without talking about substance.

Somehow Wolverine is nowadays big character on level of Spider-Man despite fact that last Wolverine movie was released 6 years ago

For Disney it is easy. Take the money for the license that Microsoft offers, give them character and don't give a fuck about platforms released, because having money from licensing + game that will promote their character is net positive even if you exclude PlayStation and Switch. Or don't take a money. Try to offer Blade to someone else and pray that they will be competent enough that they will manage AAA production.

You don't even have a clue how Microsoft and Disney amended Indiana Jones contract yet you are spreading bullshit about "50 million down the drain." You don't even have a clue how previous contract were structured (if Bethesda paid for license upfront of they agreed on dollars per copy sold) and yet you are pretending that you know that.

And again. If Microsoft had to pay for "skipping" PlayStation, and Swich, I guess Sony had also pay for skipping Xbox, PC a and Switch. Because I really doubt that big corpo like Disney cares (especially now) and selectively gives Sony better deal just because they are nice.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

So how much upfront vs backend will depend on a lot of factors.

So it could be all up front and no backend then?

 

[Thirty7ven]

So it could be all up front and no backend then?

That could happen to the writer of a relatively unknown series of books that accepted a bad deal.

If what you want to argue everything is possible then there’s no point saying anything.

 

[Portugeezer]

Marvel probably gonna force it to release on Playstation when they see Microsoft still struggling to hit 50 million console sales by the time this comes out 2028.

Depends on the deal they made. First and foremost, MS probably paid a pretty penny to offset any potential PlayStation sales for exclusivity, but maybe there is a clause that it has to hit a certain number of sales/"engagement"?

Either way, don't expect it to go to any other console.

 

[Frwrd]

Why everyone worried this game going to be ass

 

[Mr Reasonable]

That could happen to the writer of a relatively unknown series of books that accepted a bad deal.

If what you want to argue everything is possible then there’s no point saying anything.

If you accept that there are many moving parts in contract negotiations, it should be possible to imagine the negotiation of a single payment. These are not crazy unprecedented things. They happen every day.

For Marvel a single payment wouldn't be taking advantage of them. It would simply mean they could push for a higher figure that could equate to sales across multiple platforms.

At this point Marvel have had revenue from videogames for long enough to know what successful use of a license is worth to them. Saying they would insist that fee has to be earnt through individual purchase royalties rather than the publisher simply fronting the full amount doesn't make sense. The game could flop, no matter how many platforms it launches on. Marvel would make less. I'd argue that it's entirely possible that a publisher would prefer to give royalties, while Marvel would prefer to get their money guaranteed.

This need not be a deal that attempts to devalue a license, as per your example.

This could explain why Blade has been licensed. It remains to be seen how many formats the game arrives on, but you can bet that Blade, a character that hasn't had a movie in more than a decade is probably worth less than Spiderman, Iron Man, Wolverine - those properties are undoubtedly worth more to all concerned, and perhaps Xbox couldn't justify the license amount for a character of that stature.

 

[Orbital2060]

In 5 years xbox might be just 3rd party so by then u will need to get pc rather

I forgot about Cloud gaming. Thats a lotta devices that can play it as well.

About xbox going 3p, I can see them doing both. As in, publish some games on more platforms but keep the xbox hardware as their own platform. Theyre going to run into issues with BC and all the work they put into that, if they relinquish their hardware presence. Ive got close to 200 x360 games digital, who else are going to make sure those are playable?

 

[PaintTinJr]

I'm sorry, but this is just bunch of gibberish to try to sound smart without talking about substance.

Somehow Wolverine is nowadays big character on level of Spider-Man despite fact that last Wolverine movie was released 6 years ago

For Disney it is easy. Take the money for the license that Microsoft offers, give them character and don't give a fuck about platforms released, because having money from licensing + game that will promote their character is net positive even if you exclude PlayStation and Switch. Or don't take a money. Try to offer Blade to someone else and pray that they will be competent enough that they will manage AAA production.

You don't even have a clue how Microsoft and Disney amended Indiana Jones contract yet you are spreading bullshit about "50 million down the drain." You don't even have a clue how previous contract were structured (if Bethesda paid for license upfront of they agreed on dollars per copy sold) and yet you are pretending that you know that.

And again. If Microsoft had to pay for "skipping" PlayStation, and Swich, I guess Sony had also pay for skipping Xbox, PC a and Switch. Because I really doubt that big corpo like Disney cares (especially now) and selectively gives Sony better deal just because they are nice.

The gibberish part is that a banger Indiana jones game would sell at least internal xbox projected Starfield numbers on PlayStation 5, if not more given how mainstream Indiana is, so the loss is 70% of somewhere between £35 and £100 for the game for a minimum of 10m lost sales. So unless Disney are getting £350m for exclusivity, which they aren't, we can assume they don't think the game is a banger at the very least, whether they are minimum of 25-50 staff at 5-7years averaging $50K-100K per year in lost funding, if they were the publisher.