Insomniac's Spider-Man for PS4 releases on September 7th

[Frontier]

From a marketing standpoint, I kind of get it, but it just still seems like a skeevy thing to do to me.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Slightly off-topic, but I do find it ironic that Sony is so clueless about how to handle Spider-Man yet they somehow managed to produce the three best versions of the character outside of the comics (Spectacular Spider-Man, Insomniac's, and ITSV). Talk about a fluke.

[Frontier]

Slightly off-topic, but I do find it ironic that Sony is so clueless about how to handle Spider-Man yet they somehow managed to produce the three best versions of the character outside of the comics (Spectacular Spider-Man, Insomniac's, and ITSV). Talk about a fluke.

No more ironic than Marvel themselves delivering two divisive Spider-Man cartoons and not doing much else with the property compared to Sony.

[CrimsonEchidna]

Slightly off-topic, but I do find it ironic that Sony is so clueless about how to handle Spider-Man yet they somehow managed to produce the three best versions of the character outside of the comics (Spectacular Spider-Man, Insomniac's, and ITSV). Talk about a fluke.

No more ironic than Marvel themselves delivering two divisive Spider-Man cartoons and not doing much else with the property compared to Sony.

I think it's all relative to having the right creative team with a vision. That was the problem with Spider-Man 3 and especially the TASM films. The MCU films have a pretty set vision with their idea of Peter Parker, it's just a YMMV on how much you actually like it lol

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Slightly off-topic, but I do find it ironic that Sony is so clueless about how to handle Spider-Man yet they somehow managed to produce the three best versions of the character outside of the comics (Spectacular Spider-Man, Insomniac's, and ITSV). Talk about a fluke.

Well it's not a fluke. Speaking only of the movies and TV side of things because the game isn't really handled by the same Sony as the movies:

It's often forgotten but the producers behind Sony, while they came off as foolish in emails and other stuff, are actually quite capable. Tom Rothman, who's a boogeyman for Marvel fans (a lot of whom have this idea that f--king up on superhero movies means someone doesn't know their job), was the one who greenlit and backed James Cameron on Titanic and Avatar. He also produced independent movies by Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee. Amy Pascal, yeah she comes off as foot-in-mouth sometimes, but she's consistently been the most powerful female movie executive for decade and she produced Greta Gerwig's Little Women and worked with Steven Spielberg on The Post.

They aren't idiots who drop the ball all the time. Rather they are flawed producers who occasionally hit and miss, like most real people and unlike Kevin Feige, they run and manage a studio that doesn't have the luxury to devote itself full time 24/7 to make action figure toy commercials. Amy Pascal and Tom Rothman have produced far more movies, and many different kinds of them, than Feige has (and likely ever will). I mean a lot of the stuff in the MCU movies that people like were choices made by Sony over Feige's objections. Tom Holland wasn't Feige's first choice (a fact which he knows too well since his contract is with Sony and not Disney, and as such TH continues to be part of Sony productions). It was Amy Pascal who came up with the entire character arc of Vulture, and also Michael Keaton's casting (hence why Sony feel they can shoehorn him in that Morbius movie).

In any case...the Spider-Man PS4 game wasn't overseen by any of the people behind Sony Pictures, it was overseen entirely by Marvel Games, Insomniac Studios and Sony Interactive Entertainment (the vertical in charge of PlayStation). That's an entirely different section than the movies. As far as video games go, Sony actually has kept things together over the last console cycle and they have a reputation for using their deep pockets to throw money at developers providing them creative freedom in exchange for exclusivity. In the PS4 game, Aunt May's death was something Marvel Corporate objected (most likely Quesada himself because as [former] Chief Creative Officer, it was his object to accept/veto adaptations use of the IP and how they portrayed the characters) and the games division, backed by Sony, fought them on Insomniac's behalf.

[Digifiend]

It would be funny if Xbox would got exclusive X-men character, maybe Wolverine, since he is popular X-men, or Beast, who is also known for long time member of the Avengers.

Not sure about PC though, maybe Fantastic Four or street based character or something.

PC would probably have the same exclusive as Xbox, since both Xbox and Windows are Microsoft platforms.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

PC would probably have the same exclusive as Xbox, since both Xbox and Windows are Microsoft platforms.

It's extremely unlikely for that to happen because those platforms do not have the leverage that PlayStation does when it comes to throwing their weight like this. PlayStation can do this because it's the biggest console on the market. PS4 has sold 110 million units, Xbox One has sold 50 million. That's a bloodbath s'what it is, it's more than double its competitor. It was more competitive in the PS3/X360 era where both consoles were neck and neck with more than 85million units sold. I mean Nintento Switch has sold more than Xbox One. More than that, Microsoft have never had chops in first part development support for titles outside HALO. They never cultivated a relationship with IP owners that Sony have. So there's no incentive to hand out a console exclusive to Xbox on the part of Marvel. Like why parcel out X-Men characters to a failing console whose manufacturers never came, hat in hand, to make a pitch to do a first party game out of one of your properties and IPs.

As for PC, that's a case where nobody needs no one, since PC gaming is thriving with PUBG, Fortnite, Minecraft and whatever's there on Steam and PC doesn't need to sell games to sell. PC gaming won't suffer for losing a console exclusive. Xbox One owners...yeah this is a kick in the urethra (as BoJack Horseman would put it) but you guys ought to be used to staring through a window and seeing PS exclusives longingly out of reach, so why is this different from the time people talked up Uncharted, Bloodborne, HZD, God of War? I mean I know I felt that way when I owned an Xbox 360 and that's why I converted to PlayStation and never looked back.

[Immortal Weapon]

Well it's not a fluke. Speaking only of the movies and TV side of things because the game isn't really handled by the same Sony as the movies:

It's often forgotten but the producers behind Sony, while they came off as foolish in emails and other stuff, are actually quite capable. Tom Rothman, who's a boogeyman for Marvel fans (a lot of whom have this idea that f--king up on superhero movies means someone doesn't know their job), was the one who greenlit and backed James Cameron on Titanic and Avatar. He also produced independent movies by Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee. Amy Pascal, yeah she comes off as foot-in-mouth sometimes, but she's consistently been the most powerful female movie executive for decade and she produced Greta Gerwig's Little Women and worked with Steven Spielberg on The Post.

They aren't idiots who drop the ball all the time. Rather they are flawed producers who occasionally hit and miss, like most real people and unlike Kevin Feige, they run and manage a studio that doesn't have the luxury to devote itself full time 24/7 to make action figure toy commercials. Amy Pascal and Tom Rothman have produced far more movies, and many different kinds of them, than Feige has (and likely ever will). I mean a lot of the stuff in the MCU movies that people like were choices made by Sony over Feige's objections. Tom Holland wasn't Feige's first choice (a fact which he knows too well since his contract is with Sony and not Disney, and as such TH continues to be part of Sony productions). It was Amy Pascal who came up with the entire character arc of Vulture, and also Michael Keaton's casting (hence why Sony feel they can shoehorn him in that Morbius movie).

In any case...the Spider-Man PS4 game wasn't overseen by any of the people behind Sony Pictures, it was overseen entirely by Marvel Games, Insomniac Studios and Sony Interactive Entertainment (the vertical in charge of PlayStation). That's an entirely different section than the movies. As far as video games go, Sony actually has kept things together over the last console cycle and they have a reputation for using their deep pockets to throw money at developers providing them creative freedom in exchange for exclusivity. In the PS4 game, Aunt May's death was something Marvel Corporate objected (most likely Quesada himself because as [former] Chief Creative Officer, it was his object to accept/veto adaptations use of the IP and how they portrayed the characters) and the games division, backed by Sony, fought them on Insomniac's behalf.

Rothman is a boogeyman because he clearly doesn't get comic book movies. The man is a genius with when to dramas but he's out of his depth with things like X-Men and Spider-Man. Not to mention he's insanely cheap and looks for ways to cut costs on just about everything.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The man is a genius with when to dramas but he's out of his depth with things like X-Men and Spider-Man. Not to mention he's insanely cheap and looks for ways to cut costs on just about everything.

It's a producer's job to be cheap and cut costs. All producers are like that. Even the good ones. I don't think the problems with Spider-Man movies are entirely Rothman's fault or Pascal's fault or down to Sony Pictures.

Spider-Man 3 wasn't a failure because of Sony, it was let down by Avi Arad who wanted to feature Venom over Raimi's objections, and Raimi for deciding to co-write the script and do stuff like "trying to make Harry Osborn happen" and retconning the origin. It was a failure to collaborate and mistakes on all sides. TASM-1 and TASM-2 can be blamed on Sony Corporate and on Pascal (who was in charge then) but I don't know if it's a case that but for them we'd have great stuff...because the premise of those movies by Marc Webb and the casting was very wrong, and Webb was not a good fit for those movies. But they deserve credit and praise for ITSV and Venom 2018 and also the MCU movies and their deal.

I mean the Sony-Marvel deal where they basically get the MCU to work for them is a pretty genius hustle all things considered. And thanks to the Oscar win, no way is Spider-Man leaving Sony...and honestly I do not want MCU to get total control over Spider-Man. More interesting stuff can be done with Spidey in adaptations in his own corner than inside the MCU.

[AtheistInRed]

EfTys2aWsAEfEEG.jpg Be Yourself

[AtheistInRed]

Here is the screenshot without the water mark

EfTu1KCXYAA__g7.jpg

[Frontier]

The suit looks good. I guess they didn't think they could fix perfection this time around .

[AtheistInRed]

The suit looks good. I guess they didn't think they could fix perfection this time around .

Perfection Indeed.

[SuperiorIronman]

When you swing by Avengers tower Spidey quips about the Avengers currently being in the other coast. Avengers Day happens in San Fran in the Avengers game. Taskmaster is present in the San Fran attack as he's the boss of the tutorial level. If the game's were to share continuity no way he can be in two places at once.

Spider-man PS4 takes place within 2018 to at the very latest early 2019. So Taskmaster going to the West Coast can make sense if we assume Avengers takes place later assuming it's in the year its released.

The issue though will be if it's a completely different Spider-man as Peter to my knowledge hasn't left New York at all aside from Spidergeddon.

[GamerSlyRatchet]

They already confirmed they're NOT doing a shared universe between these games.