By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Jim Sterling about Marvels Avengers

Dropped below 70 now.
At this point I'm probably not going to play it unless it drops into Game Pass (which is very likely).

Btw. I did a little comparison on TrueAchievements (biggest Xbox fanbase) with this game and THPS1+2 which both released on the same day.
Avengers has 16.8k owners, THPS has 19.4k owners.
Remakes of 20-year-old games of a pretty much dead franchise did better than a big budget title of one of the biggest franchises in media.



Around the Network
Barozi said:
Dropped below 70 now.
At this point I'm probably not going to play it unless it drops into Game Pass (which is very likely).

Btw. I did a little comparison on TrueAchievements (biggest Xbox fanbase) with this game and THPS1+2 which both released on the same day.
Avengers has 16.8k owners, THPS has 19.4k owners.
Remakes of 20-year-old games of a pretty much dead franchise did better than a big budget title of one of the biggest franchises in media.

Same. I think this will eventually go to Gamepass. Their purpose is to hopefully get people engaged so they'll spend on microtransaction. So, they'll be more than willing to forego the 20 dollar price this thing will have in six months to try and get people into the ecosystem. And at that point I'll probably check out the campaign, which by most accounts is decent. 



Xbone version is a 59, yikes.



So, you need a SquareEnix account to play online. Because of course you do. Here are the perks that registering for an account confers on the player:

- Artificial barrier to online play removed.
- Allow the ghouls at SquareEnix to collect your personal data so they can sell it to their cockroach friends.

What a compelling deal.

I wasn't going to be buying it, but now I will never play it, even if it ends up on PS+.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Game is below 1k players on PC and now they’ve had to come out and assure people that there will soon be more content, on GAF people are saying even console has trouble getting full teams. Delighted to see shitty anti-consumer GaaS titles fail miserably. Hopefully this reduces the chances of future games making these mistakes.



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed said:
Game is below 1k players on PC and now they’ve had to come out and assure people that there will soon be more content, on GAF people are saying even console has trouble getting full teams. Delighted to see shitty anti-consumer GaaS titles fail miserably. Hopefully this reduces the chances of future games making these mistakes.

Sounds like that ship is well below the water-line now. No amount of extra checklist content is going to save that Gaas fragmented trash. 

Hoping SE learn next time not to make a hamster wheel of a game, and pull exclusivity crap with characters either, such a dumb ass move. 



Chazore said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Game is below 1k players on PC and now they’ve had to come out and assure people that there will soon be more content, on GAF people are saying even console has trouble getting full teams. Delighted to see shitty anti-consumer GaaS titles fail miserably. Hopefully this reduces the chances of future games making these mistakes.

Sounds like that ship is well below the water-line now. No amount of extra checklist content is going to save that Gaas fragmented trash. 

Hoping SE learn next time not to make a hamster wheel of a game, and pull exclusivity crap with characters either, such a dumb ass move. 

The response given by Scot Amos at Crystal Dynamics was particularly bad, "For those players who absolutely want to play as Spider-Man, you have the option to do so on PlayStation."  Classy.  Tell your potential customer base that if they want to play as one of the most popular characters from the property the game is based on, they should plunk down $300 for a system about to be replaced.  Their reasoning is even more boneheaded, "Because of Sony’s unique relationship with Marvel and PlayStation, specifically, that gives us an affordance with Spider-Man that we wouldn’t have otherwise."  Sony doesn't have exclusive right to Spider-Man as far as video games are concerned (unless specifically made by a Sony studio).  Marvel sold Spider-Man's film rights to Sony in 1998.  Since then, there has been no issue with Spider-Man appearing in multiplatform games.  Just to name a few:

Spider-Man (N64, Dreamcast, PlayStation, PC) 2000
Spider-Man (Gamecube, XBox, PS2, PC) 2002
Spider-Man 2 (Gamecube, XBox, PS2, PC) 2004
Ultimate Spider-Man (Gamecube, XBox, PS2, PC) 2005
Marvel:  Ultimate Alliance (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2006
Spider-Man 3 (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2007
Spider-Man:  Web of Shadows  (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2007
Marvel:  Ultimate Alliance 2 (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2009
Spider-Man:  Shattered Dimensions  (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2010
Spider-Man:  Edge of Time  (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2011
The Amazing Spider-Man  (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Wii U, XBox One, PS4, PC) 2014

And, Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix went out of their way to defend the off-putting looks of the Avengers characters by stating they were trying to leverage the connection to the comic book characters, not the movie versions.  But then, they turn around and paywall lock one of the characters using a movie license as the excuse?  They could have very simply given XBox an exclusive top tier character, and the same for PC, but that would have made too much sense.

Last edited by Mandalore76 - on 13 October 2020

Mandalore76 said:

The response given by Scot Amos at Crystal Dynamics was particularly bad, "For those players who absolutely want to play as Spider-Man, you have the option to do so on PlayStation."  Classy.  Tell your potential customer base that if they want to play as one of the most popular characters from the property the game is based on, they should plunk down $300 for a system about to be replaced.  Their reasoning is even more boneheaded, "Because of Sony’s unique relationship with Marvel and PlayStation, specifically, that gives us an affordance with Spider-Man that we wouldn’t have otherwise."  Sony doesn't have exclusive right to Spider-Man as far as video games are concerned (unless specifically made by a Sony studio).  Marvel sold Spider-Man's film rights to Sony in 1998.  Since then, there has been no issue with Spider-Man appearing in multiplatform games.  Just to name a few:

Spider-Man (N64, Dreamcast, PlayStation, PC) 2000
Spider-Man (Gamecube, XBox, PS2, PC) 2002
Spider-Man 2 (Gamecube, XBox, PS2, PC) 2004
Ultimate Spider-Man (Gamecube, XBox, PS2, PC) 2005
Marvel:  Ultimate Alliance (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2006
Spider-Man 3 (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2007
Spider-Man:  Web of Shadows  (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2007
Marvel:  Ultimate Alliance (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2009
Spider-Man:  Shattered Dimensions  (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2010
Spider-Man:  Edge of Time  (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2011
The Amazing Spider-Man  (Wii, 360, PS3, PC) 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Wii U, XBox One, PS4, PC) 2014

And, Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix went out of their way to defend the off-putting looks of the Avengers characters by stating they were trying to leverage the connection to the comic book characters, not the movie versions.  But then, they turn around and paywall lock one of the characters using a movie license as the excuse?  They could have very simply given XBox an exclusive top tier character, and the same for PC, but that would have made too much sense.

It also doesn't help that SE/CD didn't make a deal in which the other platforms get their own respective characters for their platforms, so this makes the entire point of getting the game as moot, because it's clear Sony systems are getting the better deal here, which makes for bad business for a multiplat, GaaS game. 

Also yeah, lol, their excuse on not making the characters look the way they should is entirely laughable, because they hardly even resemble the comic book looks either. I think a primary reason they will never tell you, is because SE doesn't ever want to pay out of their pocket, for actor likeness, because if Iron Man looked like the movie version, then chances are they would have to pay royalties to Robert Downey. They could have just said they were too tight with paying A list actors money. I know they won't, but they should if that's their main concern.

Remember when there was a Bomberman game some yrs back?, they released an exclusive character for Switch first, then when it came to the other 3 platforms they made exclusive characters for all 3 (xbox got chief, PC got Portal and PS got sackboy). 

Last edited by Chazore - on 13 October 2020