***Literally just released a female thor based on the movie. Have done similar with Hawkeye and the like.***
Again, it's most likely a Marvel thing. They like to tie a lot of stuff to the MCU as to not confuse the mass audience. Even the devs of MvC:I said they had to get rid of planned characters like X-Men characters and shoehorn in MCU based characters because Marvel said so. Again, it ain't Disney, it's Marvel.
It really isn't a Disney thing. They have been very hands off when it comes to Marvel games. It's more of a Marvel thing since they want to tie a lot of content into what's happening in the MCU. Disney hasn't interfered in any major Marvel games projects at all since Marvel broke ties with having 1 company exclusively making games. Did Disney interfere with MvC Infinite? MUA 3? Spider-Man and Mile Morales? The plethora of mobile games based on their IPs? Definitely didn't ...
I think it's cuz Dragon Quest has always been more synonymous with Nintendo and it's always been more popular in Japan than anywhere else. Also, there are probably more Switches sold in Japan than PS5s or Xboxes.
It's not that they won't run on the Switch. It's that they would have to retool the engine to work on ARM architecture which is what the Switch uses. Their engine is already proven to work of x86 architecture. And to my knowledge, there aren't any mainline SMT or Persona games on mobile. Until they can figure out how to make the game run adequately on mobile, we won't see a Switch port soon.
This. It all boils down to how and where they can make the ports the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways possible. Porting to the Switch would take a ton of work they don't have the time for.
Atlus (or SEGA? as they own Atlus) most likely did approach Nintendo and was turned down. It happens. It's widely known that companies shop their games out to the big three all the time for either funding, advertisement, and/or release on their hardware.
@RedDevils
The original yes (which I friggin love) but sadly the PC version doesn't have multiplayer :(. But, Insomniac owns the IP, so future games (if there are going to be any) will be console exclusive to PlayStation.
@Angyobangyo
That's most likely what's going to happen. Paid for cosmetics and a battle pass. It works for Fortnite so why not copy it? Also, they're going to have to pay for server upkeep somehow seeing as how this iteration is more MMO-like and similar to Immortal than any previous games.
Being an opened world game without a linear path doesn't necessarily make a game better. But who knows. This game might still have a great singular, narrative path with the story, but everything just screams Blizzard wanted a Diablo MMO and decided to do the SquareEnix thing and call it Diablo IV.
@darkrider
Because companies feed on those who have no self control.
Being a free to play game doesn't excuse companies from predatory practices.
@TheGreatGazoo30
But there's nothing stopping them from implementing such monetization in Diablo IV later on. Diablo Immortal made back it's budget in less than 24 hours. That just showed them that there are other ways to make money quickly and lots of it. Remember, this isn't the Blizzard of old. It's the Blizzard owned by Activision (owned by Microsoft but apparently Microsoft won't get involved with how Activision runs things) so making as much money as fast as...
Pretty much.
It's the ill-informed people. It's not that hard to go looking on the internet for the correct information.
Correct. Sony has film and joint TV rights (Marvel and Sony can make their own Spidey related tv shows). They also get a certain percentage of toy sales based on whatever Spider-Man related stuff they make. Again, the Spider-Man games are exclusive because that was the deal Marvel made with Sony. They approached Sony to make a Marvel game using any IP. Insomniac chose Spider-Man. Still confounds me as to why people still think that Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man when they never actually d...
I played this for a bit and it just made me want to reinstall Diablo 3 instead. From the few hours I've played, it's basically a mobile, money grubbing version of Diablo 3 with a new story.
Played it since yesterday on mobile and an hour on PC and the whole time was thinking, "Why am I playing this when I can just play the better version Diablo 3?" Game has some ok QOL features but that's about it.
To be honest, most mobiles games are.
Yeah. Really dumb. Could've given him some other form of traversal like jet boots or something. They exist in the DC Universe and would fit the character better than some mystical power.
Lore wise wouldn't work? Superman worked cuz he's weak to magic and most if not all MK characters has some minor to major form of magic to be able to make them deal damage to such powerful characters. And Homelander is basically Superman but not weak to magic?