Top
730°

Spider-Man’s PS4 Exclusivity In Avengers Is A Bit of A Bad Look

Crystal Dynamics and Square Enix have announced that Spider-Man will be exclusive to the PS4 in Marvel's Avengers. That's bad.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
The story is too old to be commented.
chrisx49d ago

Exclusives will always matter, end of story. PS wouldn't be regarded as the best gaming experience today, without exclusives.

49d ago Replies(6)
Abracadabra48d ago

I don't mind exclusive content... but I always thought a game should be priced accordingly. If I was to purchase the game on PC/Xbox, why should I pay the same price as the PS5 version, when the PS5 version has more content?... this goes for all games with exclusive content.

If a game has extra content on one platform, then it needs to be a bit more expensive on that platform.

ApocalypseShadow48d ago

Why should PS4 gamers have to pay more? Why not ask Crystal for the other versions to cost less like $57.99?

Plus, it's not even built into the game. It's free DLC that will be added free of charge next year.

bouzebbal48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

xbox started this content exclusivity on 360.. Remember GTA4 extra episodes and Tomb Raider.
These extra content sell games, it's plain simple

Abnor_Mal48d ago

Nothing is stopping Microsoft from going to Crystal Dynamics and getting an exclusive character for XBox, if they haven't already.

ssj2748d ago

Your lacking comun sense here boy. This is a dlc most likely made after for sure is releasing after. 2 sony owns th right to spiderman on video games so im sure there is a deal with the companies and its free because I'm sure sony is giving money to be free or something. So the two are getting the same content and sony working deals meaning spending money to give it users a insensitive to buy it on the Playstation. Boy go cry otherwise..
Ps4 has biggest user base

Christopher48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

The content isn't in the base game, it's added in 2021, months after release. The price you pay at release is for the content it comes with.

And arguing the cost of access to a game minus one DLC character versus just access to a game at all seems myopic, IMHO.

Third-party deals suck. But, this is the least of the issue in the overall scheme of things.

Marquinho48d ago

"Spider-Man being used as a tool for villainy."

That was a creative subtitle of the story hehe.

ssj2748d ago

Your lacking comun sense here boy. This is a dlc most likely made after for sure is releasing after. 2 sony owns th right to spiderman on video games so im sure there is a deal with the companies and its free because I'm sure sony is giving money to be free or something. So the two are getting the same content and sony working deals meaning spending money to give it users a insensitive to buy it on the Playstation. Boy go cry otherwise..
Ps4 has biggest user base next gen xbox is aimng to sale like 20 to 30 million in 5 years lol while ps5 is aiming to do 120 to 170 millions huge difference. I may try game pass on the ps6 once Microsoft retires from making hardware haha time to put fanboyim on a side and settle in your mind that you need a ps6 to keep up playing on a console. . Luckily you cab ply with the friends that will be jumping to ps5 meanwhile

itsfunkky48d ago

tell MS to add one of their exclusive characters then.. not sony's fault.

Michiel198948d ago

@ssj2, Sony owns the right to spiderman movies, only certain ones either mcu spiderman movies or non-mcu ones (cant remember which) but i dont think they own the rights to the games, yes they got an exlusive but not the exclsuive rights.

The spiderman movie deal comes from when marvel was doing bad financially and was selling of its properties (they bought most back by now), but i dont think games were included in that.

Army_of_Darkness48d ago

So the best platform to play this game will be on the ps5.

Q2Box48d ago

the silliest excuse I ever heard, if it was exclusive content on xbox and had the same price, you wouldn't mind of course

dumahim48d ago

@Michiel1989
Yes, Sony has the movie rights and have an agreement with Marvel to use him in the Marvel movies, but they may also have an agreement for the rights tied to Insomniac since that's PS exclusive as well. Activision had exclusive rights until 2014, so it's entirely possible Sony or Insomniac (probably Sony) picked up those rights after the Activision deal ended. Sometimes these deals are not disclosed to the public, so we can't say either way, but seeing what we've seen, it seems likely there is some sort of agreement in place.

morganfell48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

If people are upset about this then what are the going to say about SIE Japan licensing Silent Hill from Konami?

What are they going to say about FFXVI being a PS5 timed exclusive?

Babadook748d ago

It’s not a bad look. Sour grapes from the usual crowd. Spider-Man is a Sony IP right now. Like master chief would be. Yikes!

Eonjay47d ago

Sony already paid for PlayStation to get the extra character.

Christopher47d ago

***If a game has extra content on one platform, then it needs to be a bit more expensive on that platform.***

If Sony has a sale on a game for 50% off, then Xbox has to have a sale on the same game for 50% off.

This isn't how it works. Sometimes there are perks to buying a game on one platform over another and price is often a huge factor in that. In this case, Sony is footing the bill for a 2021 DLC.

Your anti-third-party exclusive thing is fine, but your logic on the why and that things should be more expensive makes no sense since price disparity already exists in sales prices and more.

Example: Did you know that NWN MTX coins cost more to buy on PS4 than XBO/PC? You are paying more for the same thing on XBO. Is anyone fighting to get that change or is it a factor of the platform?

Did you know that newly ported games to the Switch cost more than the same ports to PC/PS4/XBO? Why aren't they the same price?

You're arguing price as a factor when that's already a broken system.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 47d ago
gamer780448d ago

Subjective and what you said doesn’t adddress this news topic at all

chrisx48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

It does. This is video game business and you have to be smart in the game which Sony is and why they are always number 1. MS has trillions of dollars which they spend on hype marketing. no one is stopping them to make an exclusive character,or great looking and playing exclusive games for that matter.

48d ago
gamer780448d ago

@chrisx. The article is not saying whether exclusives matter it’s saying it’s a bad look and not prosumer for a multiplatform game, your statement is tangential.

Eonjay47d ago

Sony has the rights. They don't have to share it with Microsoft just because.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 47d ago
deafdani48d ago

I agree with that regarding exclusive games, those are necessary to make game consoles enticing. However, exclusive content for multiplatform games is bullshit, always has been, always will be.

Artemidorus48d ago

This comment shows how Indoctrinated gen z folks are with the wallet and the lack of intelligence.

chrisx48d ago

Truth and facts hurt. Stay mad 😂

Christopher48d ago

Exclusive games that they fund and own the IP to? Fine.

Exclusive content in third-party games? Nah.

Paying to make games timed-exclusive? Nah.

chrisx48d ago

What about if Spiderman was never meant to be in the game, but for Sony's intervention? Fine or nah?

morganfell47d ago

So I guess you aren't going to like the FFXVI announcement...

Christopher47d ago

@chrisx: Regardless of the reasons, I still wish all gamers had access to the content.

@morganfell: Not likely. I'm just not a fan of third-party exclusives. I dislike the Yakuza: Like a Dragon deal XBO has as well as the plethora of timed exclusives. I don't like FFVIIR being timed exclusive. I think both companies have plenty of IP they own that they don't need these other things. But that's just me. I don't tend to run to every post and talk about it, though. I'm here because I do think certain people are making a mountain out of an ant-hill item in comparison to other deals, such as FFXVI.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 47d ago
Gaming4Life198149d ago

I think it is bad im not surprised by this. Spiderman should have never been exclusive to ps. Whats next spiderman will only be in the ps version of marvel vs capcom.

rdgneoz348d ago (Edited 48d ago )

Sony did have contract negotiations with Marvel last year or so to keep Spider-Man in the MCU. So far, Sony has had the PS4 Spider-Man game and soon to be PS5 Miles Morales game. They probably got rights to Spider-Man for various games or at least for a period of time / timed exclusive for multiplats.

If you think this is bad, please look at MS and Rockstar for the Grand Theft Auto 4 DLC that took a while to come out on PS3 (Lost and the Damned came out Feb 2009 on 360, and April 2010 on PS3, and Ballad was Oct 2009 on 360 to April 2010 on PS3) and how they left players up in the air on when it might actually happen.

Gaming4Life198148d ago

That is BS. This is not timed as far as I know even though I think timed deals suck too but both MS and Sony do it. This is Sony taking a character from a game and locking it to their platform, something MS has never done. I know you guys defend everything sony but this is very bad imo and I garuntee if MS was doing this it would be outrage on this biased site.

Lets say MS bought WB and then said that mk, batman, shadow of war, characters etc would only be on their platform from now on no matter what game comes out. MS certainly could have said that all minecraft updates and dlc would be exclusive to their platforms but didnt for example.

I swear MS does something and people so quick to call it out and when sony does something its A ok because its sony and they can do no wrong.

stonecold348d ago

Also ps3 didn’t get to play evil Lara on the tomb raider Game as well as itstayed on 360 to this day

P_Bomb48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

“... This is Sony taking a character from a game and locking it to their platform, something MS has never done.”

MS most assuredly has, to the tune of eight Xbox locked characters in Marvel Ultimate Alliance. See my post way below.

Retailers do this too. Red Hulk was a GameStop exclusive in the 2008 Hulk game.

DigitalHope48d ago

I didn’t see articles or people crying about “Console Launch Exclusive” from the XBox Event or am I missing something?

Gaming4Life198148d ago

This has nothing to do with console launch exclusives which both companies do.

48d ago
IRetrouk48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

Well then whats the problem with exclusive dlc? Both companies do it......

DigitalHope48d ago

Isn’t it tho? Exclusive is exclusive. Pretty much the same thing.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 48d ago
outsider162448d ago

If Sony didn't take Spiderman and make him exclusive, we would still be getting Crappy spiderman games right now..
Thank God for Sony and Insomniac.

If you want spiderman so much then just do what Sony intends you to do. Biy the freakin PS4.

If Superman went Exclusive to Ms and it actually turns out to be an amazing Superman game.. I'd buy an xbox to play it. Thats the way it goes.

Gaming4Life198148d ago (Edited 48d ago )

I own all systems so yea i can easily buy this avengers game on ps but i wont because exclusive games is one thing but exclusive characters on a game like this is crazy.

I own spiderman on ps4 and while i think spiderman should be for all systems im not mad that a first party sony company made the game. To say that spiderman the character can only be on ps versions of games is insane and will not support it.

Im just not going to support the game and i know my 1 sale wont matter but this is very bad business and shady.

Edito48d ago

Spider Man belongs to Sony, Playstation belongs to Sony I don't get what is this thing that you don't understand.

DeadManMMX48d ago

Sony is licensing Spider-Man he doesn’t belong to them at all. Your thinking about the movie rights deal Marvel signed in Desperation during the 90s where as long as they make a Spider-Man movie every couple of years they keep licensing him. Same deal Fox had but lapsed on for Daredevil, Blade and Punisher. The game is a separate licensing agreement with not nearly as favorable terms as the movie one.

BlackRaven85_148d ago

Sony only own some rights to the movie Spider-Man and they share custody of the character. They do not own hundred percent of the rights to him. In video game form they have to license him from Marvel/Disney. That's why every game outside the Sony movie tie-in's still have Marvel mentioned in the copyright.

Because Marvel still own a share of Spider-Man.

itsfunkky48d ago

let's all cry for master chief on playstation... said no playstation owner ever because MS owns him.. and we understand.

wwinterj48d ago

Soulcalibur III had exclusive characters so yeah Microsoft has done this too. This is just from the top of my head. You can't claim exclusive games are fine then cry about exclusive content. If you have a issue with exclusive games then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps Sony even paid to have Spider-Man developed for the game. Whatever the case it's their money, their choice. Clearly you have a hard time understanding how business works and more to the point this content is free content that's added later so while it sucks for none PS gamers this is just how it is and always will be.

Gaming4Life198147d ago

I clearly understand how business works and this is bad business but go ahead and defend it.

SC 2 did have exclusive characters but the difference is the characters were from two completely different universes/games. Spiderman was apart of the avengers so locking him out of a avengers game to put him only on one console is wrong but if you dont care then fine. To alot of people across the gaming world regardless of platform its bulshit and a shady move. Like i said i wont support the game or any game doing shady practices.

Its my opinion but as i have also said this is only seen as ok because playstation is doing it and thats just the hard truth. Ive said enough on the subject and im now done giving this anymore time.

TheLigX48d ago

Sony owns the rights to Spiderman. They aren’t going to share their biggest property with their competition.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 47d ago
IRetrouk49d ago

So exclusive dlc is bad now? Why? It's been happening the last 2 gens atleast, you buy the version you want regardless, wonder if we will see the same energy for timed exclusives🤔

stupidusername48d ago

It's always been bad. Crystal Dynamics don't care about consumers though, as they showed when they made the second Tomb Raider a timed exclusive.

ILostMyMind48d ago

Kid, no company cares about consumers. They care about business.

Imalwaysright48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

Square Enix, not Crystal Dynamics.

RosweeSon48d ago

Same as Microsoft takes two to tango and for a company that’s so consumer friendly buying a series that was quintessentially PlayStation (even if I started it on sega Saturn) and getting it for a year over the rivals was always gonna be a slippery slope. Making modes in Fifa exclusive (legends) deals on cod content consumer friendly 🤦🏻‍♂️🤣 🤣 they just want a bigger piece of the 🥧 and they will do and say anything to get there. With as little spent as possible. The money greasing palms has dried up and so has the content it’s not rocket science unless money’s being spent developers favour the more popular consoles with bigger audiences/potential sales.

All companies are in it for money it’s a business but it’s the way you go about it and some don’t need to throw money about to get content made for their systems

NeoGamer23248d ago

So, just because its been in the last two generations that justifies the practice?

As far as I am concerned any exclusive content is anti-consumer. There is no reason to make people that only have one device, suffer because they may not be able to afford the other devices and therefore the most content full version of the game.

Gamers who play $60 on whatever device to play this game deserve to get the full content. I don't get better content on blu-ray/dvd if I buy a Samsung player. I don't get special content if I buy a CD if it is an LG CD player, etc. Gaming is the only entertainment media that does this practice depending on the device you buy. I don't understand why any gamer would not want another gamer to experience all the content of all the games on another device. That is catering to companies and not to gamers.

LM121348d ago

nobody is suffering. you're welcome to buy the device. if you can't afford a different device, well then you that was your choice to buy the wrong one in the first place. sony has no obligation to cater to people outside their business. console manufacturers are in business to make money. not to make sure everybody is happy with their decision..or be like...no...we can't do that. that's not fair. businesses are to make money. if you don't feel like it's FAIR....welcome to the real world.

IRetrouk48d ago

Suffering? Over a dlc character that's not even in the game yet? Catch a grip man😂

IRetrouk48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

"So, just because its been in the last two generations that justifies the practice?"

Why yes, yes it does, gamers accepted timed dlc and content, even championed it at times, its become the norm because gamers accepted it, just like microtransations and season passes. It's only bad when it's not on your platform of choice.

"As far as I am concerned any exclusive content is anti-consumer. There is no reason to make people that only have one device, suffer because they may not be able to afford the other devices and therefore the most content full version of the game."

Really? Because this comment of yours(there are probably more) says different,
https://ibb.co/r5tG5hQ

"Gamers who play $60 on whatever device to play this game deserve to get the full content. I don't get better content on blu-ray/dvd if I buy a Samsung player. I don't get special content if I buy a CD if it is an LG CD player, etc. Gaming is the only entertainment media that does this practice depending on the device you buy. I don't understand why any gamer would not want another gamer to experience all the content of all the games on another device. That is catering to companies and not to gamers."

See above, but also, you are getting the full game, the character is being added after launch... also I didnt say I didnt want other gamers to experience spiderman, I'm just well aware of and used to the practice in our hobby, and also not a hypocrite.

antarius48d ago

Ok Zoomer! Cry and throw a fit because you can’t get everything you want. This deal caters to Sony and PS4 customers. Blame the “greedy” company all you want but without it you don’t have a game in the first place!

Rude-ro48d ago

It is not free content to be had.
There are contrasts and financial agreements that PAY for the extra content.
Sony is paying to give their consumers a playable character.
We are paying the same price.... Sony just spent more to offer more.
Microsoft is one of the largest monopolizers on the market.
If that is your competition, you have to fight back.
A head lesson learnt from Microsoft’s 360 push last gen. Marketing, exclusive deals, and media bashing is and has been Microsoft’s calling cards since the 80s and has seen their way into the courts more than a few times for said tactics.

They are a bully and they have no cares for who lays in their wake as they try to maintain the digital realm.

Just look at the current environment where Microsoft gets an exclusive contract with the us military... then the president bashed tiktok to plummet its shares... so that Microsoft can buy the company....
That is next level leverage in a cut throat world of consumer information.
^ if that is your competition... seeing people cry about a character over full games due to a lack of effort and not making their own... you fight back.

NeoGamer23248d ago (Edited 48d ago )

It is sad to see gamers not sticking up for other gamers and defending company practices over defending the gaming community as a whole.

This is what makes the world so sad today. People are defending company practices that promote have vs have nots in communities like gaming. It is really sad actually. there is no justification and not a single comment back actually addressed my points about blu-ray/dvd and cd not having the same practices as gaming. Again, just really sad to see what the world has become. Defending company practices, encouraging haves vs have nots, and simply being malign to the state of the planet. I am not an environmentalist, race activist, etc. but I do believe that everyone deserves a decent living wage, should not be treated any less because they bought product a rather then product b, and everyone deserves to be respected as an intelligent human being. People buying into divisive politics, race suppression, company marketing tactics, etc. are just plain sad.

IRetrouk48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

You liked it when xbox was getting the exclusive content, you dont now, your double standards are very easy to see🤦‍♂️

It's an added dlc character coming out after the game launches, you think this is what is ruining gaming? Really?

DVDs, blurays etc never had exclusive anything to begin with, the film makers dont have dvd players to sell, it negates the need for exclusives lol, exclusive games and levels, characters have always been apart of gaming, theres one difference right there.

I answered your comment, like the answer, dont🤷‍♂️ but dont act like a victim, thats whats sad.

NeoGamer23247d ago (Edited 47d ago )

@IRetrouk
Please point me to one of my comments where I explicitly say exclusive content is good.

Oh, and by the way nothing on XB is exclusive anyhow. It all ships on PC.

IRetrouk47d ago (Edited 47d ago )

Dude I already linked a comment where you have no issue at all with timed dlc, you actually mentioned them as part of your reason for xbox having the best holiday lineup by miles....just stop lol

https://ibb.co/r5tG5hQ

You were perfectly fine getting exclusive dlc then, why is it such a big issue for you now??

NeoGamer23246d ago

@IRetrouk
LOL. You took a comment I made 2,148 days ago. Very good.

I think my thoughts have evolved since then.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 46d ago
Kurt Russell48d ago

Exclusive content to cross platform games is bad.
Exclusive titles to consoles I do not have a problem with.

Why I believe this? Exclusive content does nothing but stunt the industry, it's just one corporation waving money around that actively degrades the game experience of other platforms. It doesn't create competitive competition, it is just stunting the competition.

Exclusive titles however has corporations working their arse off to make top tier compelling games in a face off with other platforms. Gamers benefit from this, they do not benefit from the aforementioned.

IRetrouk48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

Exclusives are a given, all the console manufactures have dev teams....that's not the conversation though.

Exclusive dlc, timed exclusives etc have all been the norm for generations now, it's nothing new and only seen as bad when not on that person's choice of console.

Kurt Russell48d ago

@IRetrouk

They have been the norm, but that doesn't make it any less consumer friendly. And obviously the people who are missing out would be the first to notice it is bad. They are the ones missing out.

This isn't competition that creates competitive innovation or advancement. It is the opposite, intended to degrade the competition.

IRetrouk48d ago

It's not exactly consumer unfriendly either, sonys gamers benefit this time, when other console makers do the same thing, their customers benefit, like it or not, the complaints only come when it's not on their platform of choice.

A post launch dlc character, that's probably timed, is not degrading anything.

ApocalypseShadow49d ago

Cry me a river. Better yet, go cry to Disney. Sony is just giving themselves an advantage. Like RE7 with VR. Because Sony differentiates their version from the rest, you won't buy the game and get upset about it. Lame.

Exclusives can be hurtful if you're on the receiving end. Sony was just smarter at making theirs more sought after than being the most powerful version in the world. PC, Xbox and Stadia can claim theirs will look better. Sony can claim they have Spider-Man in their game. Which do you prefer?

It also comes down to respect. Sony earned their position in the console industry for asking for extra content. And because of that success, companies can and do come to them asking if they want exclusive content.

Sony didn't ask for Iron Man VR. Disney and Camouflaj came to them. Sony didn't ask for Spider-Man PS4. Disney came to them. Sony asked Insomniac and Insomniac chose Spider-Man. We don't know the details but maybe Square and Crystal Dynamics asked Sony if they wanted Spider-Man in their version. And not Sony coming to them.

The kicker: Microsoft is worth a TRILLION DOLLARS. Are people saying Microsoft couldn't have thought ahead and paid for ANY...ANY exclusive Avenger for their game? Falcon, Vision, Wanda, Wasp, Quicksilver, ANYBODY? Same with Google. They got hella money to have done the same. They didn't. Not Sony's fault.

The point of a console manufacturer is to sell their console and sell games. And Sony is doing that for themselves and 3rd parties. It's up to the other manufacturers to do the same. And they failed. Simple as that.

Gamehard48d ago

Totally agree. Also, it's possible that Spiderman wasn't even planned to be in this game at all and wouldn't exist in it without Sony pushing for it. Why would Sony push for their property to be on other consoles to benefit the competition?