Back in 2014, Marvel's video game department was shopping around for potential developers to properly capitalize on its IP, following a disappointing period with Activision. Xbox was one of those options, but the company turned down the chance, according to excerpts from a newly published book.
'The Ultimate History of Video Games, Volume 2' was released last year, and according to a ResetEra forum post, it contains discussions about Marvel games, and how they ended up in the hands of PlayStation's Insomniac Games.
What he needed was a publishing partner who hadn't adopted the "crappy licensed games" mentality. He needed a company with an eye for long-term investments, one with a vested interest that would benefit from building a franchise. That partner would need to have a deep pool of talent, commitment to quality, and inexhaustibly deep pockets. There were three companies that fit that description. One of them, Nintendo, mostly developed games based on its own intellectual properties.
Being from console first-party in my past, I pinged both sides, both Xbox and PlayStation, and said, "We don't have any big console deals with anyone right now. What would you like to do?" Microsoft's strategy was to focus on their own IP. They passed.
I sat down with these two execs from PlayStation third-party, Adam Boyes and John Drake, in August 2014, in a conference room in Burbank. I said, "We have a dream that this is possible, that we could beat Arkham and have one game at least and maybe multiple games that could drive adoption of your platform.
What came from that dream, eventually, was Marvel's Spider-Man from Insomniac, along with its follow-up Miles Morales and the upcoming Wolverine game. Marvel will no-doubt be pleased with the switch to Sony, but we can't help but think 'what if Xbox took that opportunity?'
In the end, it didn't and we'll never know what might have been. It is interesting though, that at the time, Sony handed things over to Insomniac who were independent at the time and had just worked with Microsoft on the brilliant Sunset Overdrive.
What Xbox developer would you have liked to see work on Marvel games? Let us know down below.
Please note that some external links on this page are affiliate links, which means if you click them and make a purchase we may receive a small percentage of the sale. Please read our FTC Disclosure for more information.
[source resetera.com]
Comments 35
Definitely was a missed opportunity. MS didn’t have as many IPs as it does today (through acquisition). And no matter what, Spider-Man is a big name. Maybe MS could have developed a strong relationship with Insomniac and eventually bought them like Sony did.
I don't think this was "a bad decision" as many will jump to assume. Spiderman is not an amazing game because of Spiderman, its an amazing game because of Insomniac, that already had proven to be great at making these super hero esque games with Sunset Overdrive.
That aside, I would LOVE to see a Punisher or a Deadpool game by the Coalition.
Personally glad Insomniac got Spider-man, they made a great game, two in fact, that may not have been as good elsewhere. Though this was a loss for Xbox.
EDIT @Tharsman Agreed. We said similar things at the same time. There have been over 30 Spider-man games over the years and while i've enjoyed a few none came close to what Insomniac did. Great shout on Sunset Overdrive, the acrobatic movement in that game was brilliant.
It's about matching the right studio to an IP. Punisher/Deadpool by The Coalition could be great.
@Tharsman Hmmm...a new Punisher game made by Coalition?!🤔🤔🤔 I would love that!
Yeah, I'm glad Insomniac got it, but 2014 was when the MCU was in full swing during Phase 2. It laid the ground work for introducing individual characters and then teaming them up in a super movie. And it was really popular with adults and families. The MCU template was set and proven, and it was just begging to be translated in to a game universe. And they said "no"?.
That a massive lack of vision (no pun).
just put this on the pile on dumb@ss decisions Microsoft has made in regards to the Xbox platform lol. God help them...
I don't think MS would have been in a 'decent' enough position to have made a Marvel game in 2014. This after the 'bad' start to the XB1 era and lack of Studio's, it would have had to be made by 3rd Party commissioned by Xbox - and with Hardware 'sales' not looking strong (don't forget, Kinect was still bundled in for the first 5 or so months of 2014), it could have been a Financial disaster - A LOT of money to make with not enough Console gamers to buy enough copies ofthe game to break even...
2014 was the year Mojang joined 343, Coalition, Turn 10 and Rare. Therefore it would be difficult to see where Marvel could of fitted in so it makes sense that MS took the decision to decline. It was another 4yrs before MS acquired more studio's with Compulsion, Double Fine, Ninja Theory & Undead Labs being announced at E3 2018. Game Pass too and that 'integration' of Xbox into Microsoft as its entire Gaming division (not some small separate side project console only thing it was) hadn't yet happened at MS so 'Xbox' was a very different thing in 2014.
I think if that option arose today, they'd be in a much better position to take up that option. They have more Studios now that could make a great Marvel game and a much larger target audience too with PC and Game Pass reach. Hindsight is a great thing, but sometimes, its also just not the 'right' time...
@BAMozzy 100%this. MS didn’t have anyone that could have made that game in 2014.
@GunValkyrian The console is more necessary than ever for Microsoft, if not for the end user. Either you own a console, or they host one in their data centers, but the consoles are an essential part of their business.
MS is not just a software company, its also a hardware company. Don't forget these days they make their own line of Surface devices (laptops, desktops and even an android phone.)
These days calling Microsoft a software company is like calling Sony an audio hardware company.
May have been a good decision, or a bad one considering how few big Marvel games we've really had since then. One and a half Spider Man games, a disappointing Avengers game, and Guardians of the Galaxy.
Would MS have been any better at not just doing the same low effort titles that Activision did? I'm happier having titles being cross platform anyway.
"Woulda, coulda, shoulda"
But who knows if ms said yes, that they would tap insomniac to create an xb spiderman game, and would it have been any good, etc. The way it played out, we have an excellent spiderman game now. If ms/xb wants that comic book money get a contract with image and spawn, try to get xmen for the xbox, etc. If not, make great games AND release them in a timely manner.
@Tharsman Sony tape decks are the best, tho. White noise reduction, soft auto-rewind, auto-side switching, song-skip... Woof!
@GunValkyrian @NahImgood Xbox was always intended as a Windows box in the living room. Doesn't really matter if it's an "Xbox" a "Windows machine" or a Surface set up to stream under the TV, the whole point was always the environment to run software (games) on. And, yeah, the focus was always 3rd party, not first party, since the whole point of it was because devs were dumping the DirectX API (that locked games to Windows) as PS rose to mass success.
Why would a "console" matter? The console is just a platform to play games on. If the console changes shape, it's still a platform to play games on. If PS dropped consoles and moved onto a renovated Xperia line that docked and competed with Switch, but still exclusively had Uncharted and GoW, would it not be PS anymore? Even Hiroshi Yamauchi described the NES/Famicom as "A box to play Mario on."
The console doesn't matter. It never mattered. All the "console" companies are just software companies. They just make consoles to sell software on. If something better exists to sell software on, that's where they'll sell it. Sony published games before they made consoles. MS was a software company from the start. And Nintendo made arcade machines before they made Game and Watch. Miyamoto got his start coming up with the game (Donkey Kong) to make use of the failed Radar Scope cabinets in North America.
All 3 are software companies. Consoles are just a delivery mechanism relevant to the 80s and 90's, and for now ,today.
I don't think they're anywhere close to abandoning license sales for streaming though. GP or not, remember GP is mostly a jacked up rental service. Its primary driver is still to encourage sales, and by their accounts, GP subscribers purchase more software. It's safe to say they're 80% of the way to being an all-digital platform without physical retail sales. But I don't think it's fair to say subscription replaced license sales. The subs are used to encourage license sales.
But they're Windows first. Of course they are. And PC gaming has as storied, if not more storied a history than consoles at this point. That's as "real" gaming (many might argue it's more "real gaming") as consoles. Xbox was always supposed to be a Windows box. It's the whole point of it...
I always look kind of sideways when people talk about the glory days of Xbox as a console..... like nobody was there for the announcements and unveiling of Xbox, and that time they got caught at CES with an empty Xbox plastic shell and cables running under the table to a dual-Xeon NT4 box running the games....
Spiderman game was a slight dissapointment for me, I didn't think it held a candle to the Arkham games...hoping that number 2 and Wolverine will be better
P.s Spiderman is still good just i was expecting more
@Royalblues If that was true they should have learned from turning GTA 3 down.
@NahImgood they would have made a Spider-Man game, it would have been AMAZING, but it only would have sold a million copies, so it would have never gotten a sequel lol, plus it would have gotten delayed 11 times, the online wouldn't have worked....
@NahImgood Xbox stopped being just the console, just this small 'console focused' Gaming side Project at Microsoft to being the WHOLE Microsoft Gaming brand name in 2016 (or thereabouts). Before then, NO Xbox made game released Day and Date on PC - although some did come to PC.
Xbox Consoles are just one 'option' into the Xbox Gaming brand. Just like Microsoft Surface offers a Windows based PC, its not the ONLY option for Windows. You do not 'NEED' an Xbox Console to play Xbox Games Day1 - its a Consumer choice to suit your budget, circumstance and/or preference.
Hardware is Costly, often sold at a Loss to get you in to their 'ecosystem' to spend time and money enjoying Software and its the success of your 'ecosystem' (the player base and willingness to 'spend' in your ecosystem) that offsets the loss on Hardware. If you don't 'need' to make 100m units and each loses you $100 (inc R&D, SDKs, Distribution costs etc) that's a LOT of Software sales needed to recover that loss. You can make 30m units and still reach 100m people but now don't lose as much overall on Hardware...
@Royalblues totally agree , even if they don't releases aaa's this year it's not a Biggie for me I've got lots of games I've purchased and hopefully lots of gamepass surprises between now and when they do
@NahImgood Okay, just answer me some questions:
If sony is so right about their exclusive console titles and Microsoft Xbox everywhere services strategy is all because they lost market for sony then why:
A: Sony is releasing their exclusives titles like Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War on PC.
B: Sony has just remodeled PS Plus to be more Game Pass- like, including their streaming service PS Now, that allow people, yes, stream PS titles everywhere.
I don't see how think Sony has destroyed Xbox when they just following Microsoft steps
@NahImgood Xbox was never ever about Microsoft wanting to have "console" that was exactly like Nintendo and Sega's box-focused consumer electronics. Ever. It was always about a delivery mechanism for Windows games developed in DirectX to make it to the living room, and retain MS's dominance, previously seen as a total lock, over Windows-focused developers as they were losing that dominance to emerging PS development. Nothing more, nothing less. If anything the 360 era was weird when it became briefly a PPC-based machine that worked more like a GameCube than a Windows PC. That was weird, and really derailed them from the original mission.
MS was very deep into gaming already, and Windows gaming was a massive driver of Windows sales for them (and hardware Intel.) DirectX kept a lock on games being made for Windows-only. It was slipping. Xbox was built to reach the new-ish living room gaming market that was starting to steal developers from their grasp.
None of that changed. Xbox consoles, Windows PCs, streaming sticks, Windows Store, retail boxes, Subscription, all of it is delivering those Windows games from those same developers to the living room, under the Microsoft umbrella, with Microsoft produced peripherals, controls, and accessories under Microsoft's publishing umbrella. It looks like the same Microsoft that was in Windows gaming in the 90's (but much improved), and the same Microsoft that launched the Xbox in 2000. They're still making the mini-PC to play the games on called a console....Maybe they always will. Maybe someday they won't. Windows always got the Xbox games (Mass Effect, Jade Empire, Crimson Skies, etc.) just not at launch during the first gen. Then a weird total-exclusive period in the Vista era and 360.
You're lamenting that they're "ignoring their console base" but...how? Just because of the delays on games? Yeah it sucks that it's all delayed, but it's not like we don't know a ton of games they're making for the consoles. Sucks that it's late, but it is what it is. Is it because it's console + PC? Because Sony's doing that now, too, and even the Nintendo 3rd party exclusives not using Nintendo IP go to PC now too....
Is it just "I don't like that it's not 2004 anymore"? Because honestly, if it's that, I'm right there with you....
If Microsoft had taken the deal, we would have just gotten the first game this year.
It would be released to mediocre reception and countless articles talking about how it was plagued by mismanagement
@Kooky_Daisuke was it a poor decision tho
Maybe they realize they wouldn't be able to make a good spider-man game and would eventually squander the ip like EA did with Star Wars so they let Sony have it and not damage their own reputation even more. And that is if they'd even expect one of their studios to be able to actually plan their way around finishing a game for once.
@Cherip-the-Ripper Hey, Fallen Order is actually good! It only took 15 years or so!
@NahImgood "I can kind of see why the company is disliked for that reason alone." Its disliked by biased fanboys. Everyone else and the devs applaud gamepass for what it offers to gamers.
@NahImgood same, can't wait for next month's showcase to inevitably announce hella games for 2024 onwards or sooner even only to delay those at a later date. With a 'surprise' forza motorsport reveal tucked in at the end.
@NahImgood one must be biased to NJ ot be a fan of gamepass with everything it offers
Being a subscription service doesn't mean anything. Netflix is a subscription service but that didn't stop 200 million to subscribe.
I think that’s ok. I don’t think MS had the studios that would have done spiderman justice.
[s]Insomniac’s infamous series is pretty much a spider man type game with different powers but similar gameplay and feel. Skating on power lines and electro web slinging felt pretty familiar.[/s] Anybody know how to make strike through text here?
Edit: apparently I thought infamous and sunset overdrive were made by the same dev. I didn’t mention SO because I thought infamous was the stronger example. However apparently I should have ran with that. However my point still stands. Insomniac made a game that felt more like spidey already. So it wasn’t a reach for them to do the real thing. MS didn’t have a studio like that in house/contracted with them at the time and with the movie license also being with sony they were better positioned. Multiplat gamers got two great games out of that with I believe a third on the way. Just wish someone knew how to make an into the spiderverse game.
Kind of selfish but I am so bored of marvel movies and games. The whole super hero thing has been done to death at this point and is just boring now
@mousieone They didn't need to have anyone internally to work on it. They could have done exactly what Sony did and partner with Insomniac.
The IP was not the magic - there had been Spiderman games before and they had not been particularly successful.
Insomniac were the magic that made these IP's games people wanted to play, so I don't blame MS for passing the IP by, they were not to know what could be done with it.
As some have alluded to, Spider-Man is a great game because of Insomniac and we've had plenty of mediocre Spider-Man games over the years. MS made the right decision as I doubt the place they were in at the time would have made a game anywhere near as good. I mean here we are 8 years down the line and they're still struggling to get games out of the door
@Ryu_Niiyama Infamous is from Sucker Punch and not Insomniac but I do agree with your point overall
I love xbox but if this means spiderman wouldnt have been an insomniac game then the world is better off MS missed out.
@__jamiie Like Platinum? Hmm on second thought…
@carlos82 whoops. Thought sunset overdrive which imo mimics infamous were all the same studio. But I remembered infamous more strongly so I ran with that as my example. I edited my comment. Thanks!
At that time, Microsoft was considering shutting down Xbox. It’s no wonder they didn’t make any Marvel games.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...