Marvel's Avengers will have Spiderman as part of future update. BBBUUUTTTTT.....

[SilentPony]

People like money, too; is robbing banks a "smart" move? Is embezzlement a "smart" move? How about insider trading; "smart" move?

Again, I really couldn't care less, but calling moves like this anything other than shrewd and opportunistic is being too gracious. Besides, I highly doubt this kind of "nickle and dime" exclusivity moves consoles, i.e.: I doubt anyone is buying a PS for Spider-Man in a single game, so why the bother? Why the intentional segmentation of a fan base, even if it is a timed deal? Were I a publisher, I would want my game disseminated as widely as possible, and exclusive content that might deter a buyer of a non-preferred console is just a missed opportunity and senselessly divisive of the larger gaming community (hence this thread.)

Paying money is what most adults do to get something they want. Hence there has to be a both a need for that thing, and an ability to buy it.

Is selling a car smart? Should cars be free, so other don't feel left out?

and every single console has been exclusive since oh about 40 years ago. Was it fair for Nintendo to have Mario on their games while Atari did not? Was is anti-consumer for Metroid to come out on only 1 console(2 counting the Japanese exclusive Nintendo console). Was it intentional segmentation of a fan base that Pokemon Snap came out on the N64 instead of the Playstation, whose owners liked Pokemon?
At this point its complaining about something thats not only the new normal, it was never not the normal. Its been this way since games existed.

 

[SupahEwok]

Paying money is what most adults do to get something they want. Hence there has to be a both a need for that thing, and an ability to buy it.

Is selling a car smart? Should cars be free, so other don't feel left out?

and every single console has been exclusive since oh about 40 years ago. Was it fair for Nintendo to have Mario on their games while Atari did not? Was is anti-consumer for Metroid to come out on only 1 console(2 counting the Japanese exclusive Nintendo console). Was it intentional segmentation of a fan base that Pokemon Snap came out on the N64 instead of the Playstation, whose owners liked Pokemon?
At this point its complaining about something thats not only the new normal, it was never not the normal. Its been this way since games existed.

Sony's never gonna love you back, man, stop sending those late night drunk texts and move on.

 

[SilentPony]

Sony's never gonna love you back, man, stop sending those late night drunk texts and move on.

Pretty sure the drunk texts are those complaining about the 40 year old system as if the 50 year old MILF is still listening. Im not in Sony's camp. Im not going to get a PS5, or the Avengers game. But I don't draw arbitrary lines in the sand and pretend its long held morality.
If you want to say Sony having Spider Man is anti consumer, sure. I expect the post about how every single other character in every game that is console exclusive is equally, if not worse, than what the Avengers game is doing now.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Did people complain this much about console exclusive fighting game characters?

Remember when Souls Caliber 2 had either Link, Heihachi, or Spawn depending on which console you got it for back in 2002?

 

[SilentPony]

Did people complain this much about console exclusive fighting game characters?

Remember when Souls Caliber 2 had either Link, Heihachi, or Spawn depending on which console you got it for back in 2002?

And it was just as silly then as it was now? And every other game had exclusives and no one complained that Master Chief wasn't in Smash Bros, or that Tony Hawk wasn't in NBA Smash Jam Hang Time X075.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Paying money is what most adults do to get something they want. Hence there has to be a both a need for that thing, and an ability to buy it.

Is selling a car smart? Should cars be free, so other don't feel left out?

and every single console has been exclusive since oh about 40 years ago. Was it fair for Nintendo to have Mario on their games while Atari did not? Was is anti-consumer for Metroid to come out on only 1 console(2 counting the Japanese exclusive Nintendo console). Was it intentional segmentation of a fan base that Pokemon Snap came out on the N64 instead of the Playstation, whose owners liked Pokemon?
At this point its complaining about something thats not only the new normal, it was never not the normal. Its been this way since games existed.

I'm not talking about nor taking issue with console exclusive titles; I'm talking about console exclusive content for multi-platform titles; not sure which of my posts implied otherwise...

 

[Xprimentyl]

Or I can shun 50 of them out of ever having the game ever at all. DLC or not. Exclusive means i can keep the game to just my platform and everyone else can eat a dick.

Doing it this way, allows all 100 people to get the game. Then those 50 on my exclusive platform get new content 6 months later.

I don't understand why the problem. You get the game, and you miss one update 6 months down the line. Which frankly banks pretty heavily on people actually giving a fuck about the game that long.

This rebuttal means absolutely nothing. You've basically said "Yeah, so what?" and agreed with me. That's what I've said save I've said how content exclusive to a single platform (not exclusive titles, exclusive content,) does little more than ostracize a segment of your potential patronage who, if there're any f*cks left to give months down the line, might buy a game at a discount whereas had they been afforded the full breadth of the launch title, they might have paid full retail.

 

[happyninja42]

They never did give up the comic publishing right, so they've still got that, and probably novels too if they actually wanted to do that (I can't recall actual comic novelizations since DC did DEath of Superman and Knightfall in that format).

There is, perhaps ironically given the subject, a Spider-Man novel, written by Jim Butcher, that was published in 2006. Not sure about any other novels, as I only found that one since I'm a fan of Jim Butcher.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

No I don't see how this is a problem because it is highly likely that other platforms will get DLC characters as well.

Just because they haven't been announced yet doesn't mean they wont happen. And like most console exclusive content, it is likely temporary.

If Spider-Man doesn't come to other platforms it is because Sony OWNS Spider-man and there ain't shit anyone can do about it. So be upset about it if you want, or just play the game on PC because it's as complete as it can be on a Non-Sony platform.

Again, if you were interested and excited for the Avengers game before Spider-Man's announcement, then you are still getting the game you expected because you were excited before you even knew Spider-man would or could be a thing. Since the game isn't out yet, your claim that a new character is a drastic upgrade is not provable. We have no idea the effect another character would have on a game not out yet, and Spider-man being exclusive doesn't mean other characters wont also come out. What if PC gets Wolverine? Or Deadpool?

Or you could just buy it on PS4 since you said you have one.

Frankly the fact that this is a live service game at all is a big turn of for me personally because live service games are fucking money-grubbing bullshit 99% of the time.

Plus doesn’t this game apparently have a crappy combat system anyways? Sounds like just another licensed IP cash-in.

I actually hated Jim's point on this. Because he never once mentions that it's POST launch DLC. Meaning that the version everyone buys will be the same on launch. But that doesn't mean that each version will remain that way. In fact I'll just quote myself.

"Isn't it the right of a business to try and make their product the best looking product on the market? I don't understand the viewpoint of how exclusivity is a bad thing? Companies use exclusivity to bring you to their platform. Is Bloodborne a shady practice because it's only on Playstation? Is McDonald's a bastard for hogging all the Big Macs? Like this is such a non issue thing that is basically meaningless.

They aren't devaluing the rest of the Avengers releases just because Spider-man is sony only. They are just offering MORE on Playstation. Did Tomb Raider have this issue when they offered a VR mode exclusively to Playstation? Since Xbox doesn't have VR does that mean the value of Tomb Raider was less on Xbox? Technically....yeah, but it didn't matter. You are still getting the full game on any platform. This feels like such a non-issue."

Frankly the game is adding a lot of DLC for free anyway, which asks the question. If these extra characters are so important and so valuable, then why aren't they going to be there at launch? Is this just going to be another AAA-game that releases a half-finished game and hop the updates fix it later? Because if you make the characters as content argument, then nobody is getting the complete experience at launch because the game will be missing a bunch of characters in the first place.

And considering again that Spider-man isn't going to be added for like 6 months AFTER release, he can't possibly be that important.

So I ask again? What's the big fucking deal here?

It actually reminds me of when Kratos was a DLC character in MK9. People on XBOX were pissed sure, but again in both cases these are Sony-owned characters, albeit less overtly known in Spider-Man’s case but still.

 

[happyninja42]

Did people complain this much about console exclusive fighting game characters?

Remember when Souls Caliber 2 had either Link, Heihachi, or Spawn depending on which console you got it for back in 2002?

1. That game was published 18 years ago, so whether or not people were pissed to the same level is debatable, as social networking wasn't anywhere near as huge back then.
2. It's freaking Souls Caliber, not Spider-Man. Quite possibly the single most globaly recognizable, beloved, desired by fans, and marketable character in modern entertainment, on par with things like santa, mario, darth vader and jesus.
3. A metric ton of more people play video games, and are wired into the MCU than 18 years ago, seeing as it didn't even exist.
4. People are far more aware of the predatory business practices of these companies than they were 18 years ago, and far more fed up with being subjected to those said business practices.

So no, people didn't complain about a niche fighter game that most people probably couldn't name a single character of if you showed them a picture. But yes, millions (possibly billions?) of people, globally, have far more invested in Spider-Man.

 

[CriticalGaming]

So no, people didn't complain about a niche fighter game that most people probably couldn't name a single character of if you showed them a picture. But yes, millions (possibly billions?) of people, globally, have far more invested in Spider-Man.

Soul Caliber had exclusive Star Wars characters. Are you saying Spider-man is more relevant than STAR WARS? I dunno. It's probably pretty close.

At the end of the day. People will likely not even remember this game. Reviews and impressions of the Beta have not been great, so all of this is probably gonna be a wash.

 

[happyninja42]

Soul Caliber had exclusive Star Wars characters. Are you saying Spider-man is more relevant than STAR WARS? I dunno. It's probably pretty close.

But if you held up a picture of those star wars characters, nobody would go "OOH! Souls Caliber!!" The fact that they bought some of them to put in their game doesn't make them souls caliber characters.

At the end of the day. People will likely not even remember this game. Reviews and impressions of the Beta have not been great, so all of this is probably gonna be a wash.

Probably yes. My own reaction so far has been "meh". But the companies selling it don't really care if everyone stops playing it 1 month later. If they can hype it where everyone buys it on launch, and all go for the super, ultra gold, deluxe premium, digital season pass edition, well they've milked the public for what they wanted didn't they?

 

[Xprimentyl]

At the end of the day. People will likely not even remember this game. Reviews and impressions of the Beta have not been great, so all of this is probably gonna be a wash.

So why offer [arguably] the best the game has to offer to only a subset of buyers? That's been my point...

 

[CriticalGaming]

So why offer [arguably] the best the game has to offer to only a subset of buyers? That's been my point...

How can it be anywhere close to the best the game has to offer if they aren't dropping it for 6 months after the game came out? Spider-Man might be popular as a character but that's all personal preference. Some people love Hulk and Ironman and whomever else.

Also the game isn't out yet, and people can still just buy it on the PS if they really want Spider man and ONLY Spiderman. Or just not support it.

The best way to tell a company to go fuck themselves is to not give the company money.

 

[Xprimentyl]

How can it be anywhere close to the best the game has to offer if they aren't dropping it for 6 months after the game came out? Spider-Man might be popular as a character but that's all personal preference. Some people love Hulk and Ironman and whomever else.

Also the game isn't out yet, and people can still just buy it on the PS if they really want Spider man and ONLY Spiderman. Or just not support it.

The best way to tell a company to go fuck themselves is to not give the company money.

No argument here. But with selling Spider-Man as an "exclusive," they're intrinsically placing SOME value on him above and beyond the base title, so why [potentially] exclude non-PS owners?

If I cared any less, I'd be dead, so I'm not debating from the side of what any company should be doing or that any gamers are being "wronged," just pointing out the savvy isn't as such as the exclusivity might suggest when they're limiting their availability to a select few expecting the rest to catch up months down the line.

 

[CriticalGaming]

No argument here. But with selling Spider-Man as an "exclusive," they're intrinsically placing SOME value on him above and beyond the base title, so why [potentially] exclude non-PS owners?

If I cared any less, I'd be dead, so I'm not debating from the side of what any company should be doing or that any gamers are being "wronged," just pointing out the savvy isn't as such as the exclusivity might suggest when they're limiting their availability to a select few expecting the rest to catch up months down the line.

I really have a hard time calling Spider-man "value" because he is a free update.

I will say that if they sell Spider Man to the other versions later, that would be bullshit.

But i find it hard to be upset that I'm not getting a thing that other people are getting for free. Again the easy answer around this is buy it on Playstation (effectively making the game semi- exclusive to playstation which is what they want) or don't buy the game at all.

If you are upset about this genuinely, and you buy the game on xbox or pc. Then you can't possibly be THAT upset and clearly the base game has more "value" to you than the outrage over Spiderman.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I really have a hard time calling Spider-man "value" because he is a free update.

I will say that if they sell Spider Man to the other versions later, that would be bullshit.

But i find it hard to be upset that I'm not getting a thing that other people are getting for free. Again the easy answer around this is buy it on Playstation (effectively making the game semi- exclusive to playstation which is what they want) or don't buy the game at all.

If you are upset about this genuinely, and you buy the game on xbox or pc. Then you can't possibly be THAT upset and clearly the base game has more "value" to you than the outrage over Spiderman.

As I've qualified in basically every post I've made in this thread, I'm not upset; I don't give two doo-doos about this game or whether or not Spider-Man is in it, beside it, on top of it, under it or defying the laws of physics by occupying the exact same space AS it; I'm simply pointing out the pointlessness of content exclusivity and how it'd actually be MORE savvy to offer him across all platforms seeing as it's a multi-platform title. Same thoughts go for ALL multi-platform titles that offer content exclusivity based on where you buy them or which system you buy them on. It's always been dumb; it will always be dumb.

 

[BrawlMan]

Here's Woolie and Pat's view more or less lining up with mine and people against this.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

1. That game was published 18 years ago, so whether or not people were pissed to the same level is debatable, as social networking wasn't anywhere near as huge back then.
2. It's freaking Souls Caliber, not Spider-Man. Quite possibly the single most globaly recognizable, beloved, desired by fans, and marketable character in modern entertainment, on par with things like santa, mario, darth vader and jesus.
3. A metric ton of more people play video games, and are wired into the MCU than 18 years ago, seeing as it didn't even exist.
4. People are far more aware of the predatory business practices of these companies than they were 18 years ago, and far more fed up with being subjected to those said business practices.

So no, people didn't complain about a niche fighter game that most people probably couldn't name a single character of if you showed them a picture. But yes, millions (possibly billions?) of people, globally, have far more invested in Spider-Man.

I picked Soul Caliber 2 specifically because it's an old game to show that this has been going on forever. It's not a new thing, and I don't remember people being this mad about it before.

Hell, Soul Caliber 3 (or was it 4) had Darth Vader as a guest character if you bought it for the playstation. DARTH FUCKING VADER.

 

[BrawlMan]

I picked Soul Caliber 2 specifically because it's an old game to show that this has been going on forever. It's not a new thing, and I don't remember people being this mad about it before.

Hell, Soul Caliber 3 (or was it 4) had Darth Vader as a guest character if you bought it for the playstation. DARTH FUCKING VADER.

SCIV had Darth Vader for PS3 & Yoda for X360. Just because it's nothing new, does not make it right. If anything, it's worst. At least with SC II's HD version, Hieachi & Spawn were kept in. With SCIV, it was just one character for one, and two, the rest of the normal cast was the same. Though fighting games have new issue with "Seasons". At it's worse right now is Blaze Blue Cross Tag Battle. Where they're charging you money for old sprite/character assets from games you most likely played and owned. Fuck you on that one, Arc System! There is sale for the ultimate edition of BBCTB $29.99, but I don't think I want it.