If Sony hadn't paid for this, then the only Spiderman games we would get would be the crappy Activision Spiderman games. Well guess what? I'll take a (hopefully) great exclusive over a crappy multiplat any day of the week. If all games were multiplat, but shit, that would be way worse than if all games were exclusive, but great. I'm not saying multiplat games are shit, but Spiderman games, and licensed games in general, rarely get the budget required to actually be good, so I say props to Sony for putting in the money required to make a good game. If a multiplat publisher had wanted to do so, there was nothing stopping them besides them not wanting it enough. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about. This game wouldn't have existed without Sony. Do you expect them to pay to make it, and say "ah fuck it, put it on the Xbox One and PC too"?

They could, sure, but they haven't exactly put in a lot of effort into their past Spiderman efforts. Either way, they let their license expire, they could've renewed it if they wanted and made a high budget Spiderman. I doubt they had any intention to do that though, so I'm glad someone did so, wether it was Sony or someone else.

I've played some good Spider-Man games in the past under Activision on the GBA, PS and Xbox, it's not like every single Spider-Man game was objectively terrible in every single way. I'm not sure how the results would appear if someone else took over the project though, this gen seems to be doom and gloom if someone besides Sony takes on something, at least from a VGC perspective.

Lol, now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said all multiplats are shit or terrible. Heck, I specified "I'm not saying multiplats are shit". Strawman fallacy. You're assigning me opinions that I don't actually have. I didn't say I wanted all games to be exclusive, I just said that if I had to choose between a good exclusive, and a bad multiplat, I'd rather have the exclusive. If I had to choose between a bad exclusive and a good multiplat, I'd pick the multiplat.

Not really no, you made it sound like multiplats are worse fof compared to exclusives, that to me tells me you dislike having exclusive value displaced by value that can be had by more people on different systems. I don't mind either but I certainly don't prefer a limitation to take over what everyone else could have. If you want to shutdown this debate with fallacy callings then by all means do (it seems to be heading that way).

There's nothing stopping other publishers, including MS and Ninty, of doing so. So sure, why not? It's not like those Superheroes are getting used in any good games any way, so it wouldn't take anything away from anyone.

I don't know why it would take anything away from anyone ever at all, I mean if Sony can do it then anyone else could without taking away from anyone in the process, unless of course there are some unwritten rules in place that I'm unaware of that describe as something being taken away when someone else decides to take a Hero under their wing.

Haven't heard of that game but glad we agree.

It's Star Citizen, a game that's still being created like other games that were showcased every few E3's with props given to them, funding and all but hardly much given to Roberts, I only half agree because not all kudos are given a lot of the time where they are due.

I've played some good Spider-Man games in the past under Activision on the GBA, PS and Xbox, it's not like every single Spider-Man game was objectively terrible in every single way.

I'm sure some of the licensed games Activision has made were decent, but they have time in and time out demostrated a lack of interest in making their licensed IPs any more than low-budget games with little time and effort put into them.

I'm not sure how the results would appear if someone else took over the project though, this gen seems to be doom and gloom if someone besides Sony takes on something, at least from a VGC perspective.

What you mean is from "a VGC perspective" doesn't matter in this discussion. I'm not discussing from "a VGC perspective", I'm discussing from my perspective, and I haven't said anything like "this gen seems to be doom and gloom if someone besides Sony takes on something". If you want to discuss about what you feel is the general consensus on VGC is, go ahead, but it doesn't belong in this discussion between us two where we are discussing our own opinions, not VGC's.

Not really no,

Wait, so you are saying that you weren't (aren't) putting words in my mouth? Let's take a look at what I said:

And let's take a look at what you replied back to me [And I'm adding some comments of my own]:

you made it sound like multiplats are worse fof compared to exclusives

Not really, no. I said that I prefer good exclusives over bad multiplats. That's it.

that to me tells me you dislike having exclusive value displaced by value that can be had by more people on different systems.

You're continuing with assigning me opinions that I don't have I see.... moving on

I don't mind either but I certainly don't prefer a limitation to take over what everyone else could have. If you want to shutdown this debate with fallacy callings then by all means do (it seems to be heading that way).

I'm not trying to shut down this debate. But yes, when you are assigning me opinions that I don't have, then I will call you out on it. If you don't want your strawman fallacy to be called out, I suggest you go discuss with someone else.

I don't know why it would take anything away from anyone ever at all, I mean if Sony can do it then anyone else could without taking away from anyone in the process, unless of course there are some unwritten rules in place that I'm unaware of that describe as something being taken away when someone else decides to take a Hero under their wing.

It wouldn't take anything away from anyone, unless either of the big three were to moneyhat Batman Arkham, since that is an established multiplat franchise were WB games has shown that they give it the budget it requires, and don't just half-ass it and give it to a no-name studio (with the unfortunate exception of the PC port, where that was exactly what WB games did). That's why I specified that. No special rules for Sony, if that's what you were implying.

It's Star Citizen, a game that's still being created like other games that were showcased every few E3's with props given to them, funding and all but hardly much given to Roberts, I only half agree because not all kudos are given a lot of the time where they are due.

Oh, I've heard of Star Citizen. Didn't know the studio behind it was called Space Industries and that it was led by Robert though. But yes, kudos to all those that provided funding to such an ambitious project as Star Citizen. I don't see how this means that we disagree on this point though. Unfortunately, not all games and devs get the creds they deserve, but then again, I didn't say that they always did.