Spider-Man Joins Marvel’s Avengers – Is This Anti-Consumer Or Just Clever Marketing?

The perception is that if you want Spider-Man, you have to buy Sony and that is pretty smart on Sony’s part.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Vengeance113857d ago

Genius marketing, PS4/PS5 version is now THE place to play the game. People complaining can stay mad. Buy a PS4 or deal with playing an inferior version.

ApocalypseShadow57d ago (Edited 57d ago )

Correct. I just posted in another thread that it's not Sony's fault for making their version enticing.
And gamers speculate that it's anti consumer. Nope. Sony is making their console the preferred version against PC, Xbox and Stadia that would have used better graphics as their marketing. Or instant streaming.

Gamers also don't know if Square and Crystal came to Sony and asked if Sony wanted Spider-Man in their game. It was Disney that came to Sony about making a high quality Marvel game. It was Insomniac that chose Spider-Man. It was Disney and Camouflaj that came to Sony with Iron Man VR. Sony didn't ask. Gamers speculate that Sony is locking Spider-Man without thinking that a 3rd party dev came to them. Not the other way around.

Gamers also haven't considered that Google and Microsoft have BILLIONS of dollars. It's their job to make Xbox or Stadia enticing and think ahead. If not Spider-Man, they could have asked and paid for any other Avenger character in their games to differentiate their versions. Falcon, Wanda, Vision, Wasp, Black Panther, etc. Could have asked for Wolverine or something. Nope.

Instead, gamers are crying Sony outmaneuvered their competitors. Or was given the option of the character in their version by Square and Crystal.

Vengeance113857d ago

People also seem to forget how playing as Joker in Batman Arkham Asylum was also PS3 exclusive. Yet nobody really took any issue with it.

Scissorman8257d ago

Exactly. It isn't anti-consumer. It's 1) Sony looking out for its PS4 112 million install base and giving them something extra. 2) Incentivizing others to consider buying a PS4.

ApocalypseShadow57d ago (Edited 57d ago )

Vengeance and Scissor Man, exactly!

We keep hearing this all the time: "Sony did this. Sony did that."

Sony didn't ask Capcom to make RE7 VR. Capcom decided that. Time and time again, companies come to Sony offering an exclusive game or exclusive content. Because there is a better chance of successful sales.

Sony does ask companies if they will add something different for their fan base. But we have no idea if it was Sony asking it or Crystal asked them. And it really wouldn't matter. The other companies should be doing the same thing.

Based on history, companies do come to them. May be so for Spider-Man DLC for The Avengers game. It's going to be the same with exclusive controller content with Dual Sense on PS5. There's features there that won't be duplicated anywhere else.

Sony is just taking care of their base.

Viking_mo56d ago

There's also rumours that they approached Sony again for a new IP. I think troy Baker was hinting it months back. Dont know how credible the source is

SullysCigar56d ago (Edited 56d ago )

Lots of disagrees, but nobody sharing an opinion as to why. That's a bit odd...

The only people missing out are a few Xbox Only people and I've seen some of them claiming they're getting both consoles this generation, because "true gamers, blah", so even they will be fine as they'll just purchase the PS copy.

So all is well, no need for any more arguing. Peace at last.

darthv7256d ago

Vengeance, the joker content wasnt for the main game, it was the bonus levels so it really wasnt that big a deal. As to spiderman, it doesnt bother me because this game is not designed to be very different depending on who you choose. It isnt like the outcome will change radically because you play as him or any of the other characters. He is basically a skin, like in most games where there is post release content of characters being added.

If MS wants... they could probably ask CD to make them an exclusive character as well. Exclusive characters are nothing new. I remember darth vader and yoda in soul calibur but back then they did let you buy the one that wasnt included. Going back to soul calibur 2 though... yeah there were three exclusive characters. One for each version on gc, ps2 and xb.

Link was probably the best fit for the game with spawn being the oddest.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 56d ago
gamer780456d ago

The only thing i care about is crossplay with my pc friends. As long as this doesn’t hinder that I’m fine with it.

anubusgold54d ago

Didnt we learn from Battlefield 5 say dont buy it and we wont lol.

helicoptergirl56d ago

I will buy the game on Playstation, no problems.

toxic-inferno56d ago

Whether we think it's right or not, Spider-man is now a PlayStation mascot, and a big console-selling mascot, at that. PlayStation are relying on Spider-man to move the PlayStation 5 units (most obviously in the form of the Miles Morales version of the character, though they've used Insomniac's game in the marketing of the PS5 already, to show off how it compares to the PS4.

It would seem strange if an iconic PlayStation mascot turned up on other consoles.

porkChop56d ago

Sony doesn't own the Spiderman character, he isn't a mascot. Spiderman was in Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 on Switch last year.

Scissorman8256d ago

While that may be true - perception says otherwise.

neutralgamer199256d ago


Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures announced this morning that Spider-Man will return to the MCU, after the studios reached a new deal to continue their partnership. Fans and investors around the world will rejoice at the news, as it ensures billion dollar business for the wall-crawler for years to come

To marvel their movies is way more important because they make more profit so they don't mind if Sony wants spiderman to be exclusive as long as Sony allows them to use him in their movies

Sony owning the movie rights is huge and gamers don't understand that. Sony actually owns the IP when it comes to movie rights and marvel realizes how popular spiderman is

I think moving forward we will only see spiderman on PlayStation

toxic-inferno56d ago

I'm not sure Sony have to own the character of Spider-man in order for him to be considered their mascot.

He helps sell consoles.

SpineSaw56d ago

"Spider-Man on Switch last year"....
Hmmmm I don't recall any fake outrage over that. No one was crying "Nintendo is being anti-consumer". I think the ones crying out anti-consumer should find out exactly what that means. It is very possible and most likely that the people crying out anti-consumer! Are confused with being pro-consumer which is what the Game Developer and Sony are both being in this Spider Man case. The game Dev wants to sell the video game and Sony wants to take care of their user base..... How can you get more pro-consumer than that?

porkChop56d ago


What are you talking about? Plenty of people were pissed that MUA 3 was a Switch exclusive. Nintendo didn't get a free pass on that. Though in that case Nintendo funded and published the game themselves, because no one else would fund it.

SpineSaw56d ago (Edited 56d ago )

@pork chop
I seen your comment and as I don't recall any fake outrage over the MUA 3 Nintendo exclusive I went and Looked through YouTube to find any videos where content creators were calling out Nintendo as Anti-consumer. I found none so I looked through the comments on several of these videos about MUA 3 to see if the any people that felt the need to make comment about the Video were calling out Nintendo and again I found none. Then I went to Google to find any gaming sites IGN, Game Informer ect. That were calling out Nintendo as anti-consumer and again found nothing. The only thing I found was a Tweeter feed and in that feed there were a few that made comments wishing MUA 3 was on their platform of choice. Then thought it's been awhile since MUA 3 has released so maybe this stuff has been removed so I checked another issue topic that's been over a year since it was top of the gaming news and I again checked both Google and YouTube for the results. The topic was Sony Cross Play with Xbox outrage and I had no trouble finding anything on this topic. So to me it seems if there were people with issues those issues just don't stack up to what we're seeing today. In closing no offense to you or your comment but I felt I needed to give it a look and what I found was Sony for whatever reason is held to a different standard my question is why? Seems Sony can't doing anything without this game outrage from people I doubt even own Sony products. To be clear I'm not asking you to answer to that question it's just something I think about when I see people crying anti-consumer. To me it your doing things to take care of your user base that's as pro-consumer as you can get.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 56d ago
Inverno56d ago

People flippin out over a character, yet no one seems to be having a problem with all the timed exclusives revealed on the Xbox Showcase that were payed for by MS. Or how Cuphead was kept off PlayStation for nearly 3 years, and touted as one of the best Xbox “exclusives”. Let us not start to pretend to give a shite.

porkChop56d ago

Microsoft helped Studio MDHR fund and publish Cuphead. That's a bit different. The other versions also took longer because the dev team is literally two brothers. So if Xbox was helping them then of course they'd prioritize that platform first.

And as for timed exclusives, Sony has been doing those for years. So it's not like Sony is innocent there.

Inverno56d ago

who cares about innocence. they've both done it. Its a character, MS payed to keep Tomb Raider off PS for a year. If we're going to talk about innocence then MS would be the bigger offender

Rude-ro56d ago

It is not about “innocent”, it about why does the media only care when Sony does what their competitor has been doing, not only since the launch of the 360, but also their entire existence.

Ron_Danger56d ago (Edited 56d ago )

It’s business as usual. This is a complete non issue and happens in so many industries (pro sports teams paying for the best players, fast food locking in deals with meatless burger companies, auto makers with exclusives deals with audio makers) but suddenly it’s a massive problem now that the “mountain out of a molehill” gaming journalists can make their money (from clicks) by making up controversy.

Show all comments (45)
The story is too old to be commented.