How is Spider-man on Marvel movies when Sony has the rights?
Deals.
So? If we're to believe they passed on titles like Sunset Overdrive because they don't own the IP, why would they make a Spider-Man game?
Web of Shadows swinging was ace. That game doesn't get the credit it deserves.
Because a SM game would make way more money.
They have literally made tie-ins for every Spider-Man film...If it's a tie-in for a movie (for which Sony owns the IP), I was wondering if Activision's deal would hold?
I don't think we've seen Spiderman movies tie ins from Activision? But I could be mistaken.
If real (long shot), Sucker Punch adapting Infamous to a Spiderman game would be great... potentially.
They do, and it's different since Sunset Overdrive was a brand-new IP, rather than an existing one.I get that but... You're missing my point. They don't fund games that they don't control the IP for.
There was an amazing PS1 game.
Activision still owns the Spider-Man IP for gaming. And it makes no sense for Sony to work on it when they consistently want to own IP's for games they fund.
But, they kinda do.I get that but... You're missing my point. They don't fund games that they don't control the IP for.
I get that but... You're missing my point. They don't fund games that they don't control the IP for.
I think it was an Activision exclusive.Didn't Verendus hint at a Marvel exclusive PS4 game? Maybe i'm misremembering it.
They could be developing it. It's no coincidence that we've heard similar rumblings about Crash.
Between Destiny and now the CoD deal, Sony's relationship with Activision has never been stronger.
Who said this would be?
Street Fighter V.I get that but... You're missing my point. They don't fund games that they don't control the IP for.
At any rate, I hope someone at Marvel and DC wakes up and realizes how they're wasting millions by not making decent games on superheroes (except Batman Arkham). It's almost inexplicable at this point, with comic book movies & TV shows at their height.
Relax dude it is not set in stone that is what they do. Maybe spiderman which is a known quantity is worth it for them to not worry about owning the ip.As I posted in the other thread, Sony doesn't really publish games they don't own the IP for. I'm not sure why they'd do this?
Who said this would be?
I get that but... You're missing my point. They don't fund games that they don't control the IP for.
Eh, I would use Infamous and Infamous 2 as a representation of what they can do. Second Son seemed rushed.Not sure how I feel about Sucker Punch being thrown around as the goto developer for Spidey games. I do agree, inFAMOUS 2nd Son was good in terms of gameplay but the rest was pretty ... boring. The story was okay but the side quests were boring and the map looked nice but every 2nd block looked the same. They'd have to step up their game tenfold if they want to have a good open world environment.
Disney/Marvel owns the Spidey IP for games. Activision has a contract with Sony Pictures that allows them to do movie tie-ins through 2017. The last studio that did Spidey games (Beenox) confirmed they are no longer working on any Spidey titles so could be that Activision called it a day early.
VR probably.
A Spider-man web shooting game using the Wii remote was always being requested back in the day.Considering plenty of VR games seem to use very similar mechanics to Wii games, I could see a first person webslinging experience using move controllers being made.
There was an amazing PS1 game.
It would give it weight for sure.So that's the mystery Activision exclusive.
Agent confirmed.
Platinum or bust.
All this "activision has the rights still"
Where are you guys in the "Crashbandicoot" threads?
Web of Shadows swinging was ace. That game doesn't get the credit it deserves.