by ntnon » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:40 pm
I wonder how the various non-Disney Marvel film properties will be handled, too. Although Disney owns Marvel outright, and hence all characters, the contracts with Fox and Sony pre-date the deal, and have tied Spider-man and X-Men (maybe F4, Deadpool, Daredevil, Blade and Ghost Rider, too) to NOT-Disney as film properties.
That ought not to affect things here, excepting that most film contracts these days include sub-licensing deals for videogames, so there's the outside possibility of legal oddities over some characters. Slim possibility, but still.
That's one reason I suspect there will be a pointed differentiation between the three strands - bear in mind also that Fox retains some portion of Star Wars: A New Hope, which news reports talking about the LucasFilm deal made clear was going to have to be subject to separate future collaboratihve negotiations between the studios.
The second, possibly unimportant reason, is that - just as there are people here baulking at the idea of three separate entities - there may well be resistence from some SWars or Marvel fans over buying a "Disney" game... In addition, the Disney-made comments about brand separation within DI (i.e. no playset crossover) really strongly implies that crossover between three distinct entities may be undesirable.
For every person who doesn't want to buy three separate games, there are bound to be people who don't like the idea of being lumbered with one or more theoretical games that they have no interest in (and are technically paying for - surely a triple game will cost more than each separate one alone). Moreover, the colletor mentality - evidenced here, and moreso from comics fans - might make having a triple game too much temptation for some buyers, who wuld therefore prefer just one set.
Perhaps the best option to make EVERYONE happy would be mix-and-match options: multiple launch sets in various combinations. However, that would confuse the marketplace. Marvel Infinity, Disney Infinity and Star Wars Infnity is not confusing. If you want one, you can get it. If you want all three... get all three. If you can't afford them all, then sadly, that's tough. If there's "only one playset" you want to play, then personally I can only suggest that the game is not for you!
The idea that there aren't enough characters to sustain a Solo Star Wars game is unlikely. Just focusing on the main trilogy, one could easily imagine a dozen characters with wide name recognition, maybe twenty secondary characters and character-types (Jawa). Include the other trilogy, and you add a couple of dozen more and you haven't even touched on the TV series' new characters, the likely hoardes in the upcoming trilogy and then the expanded universe of comics and novels and prior videogames. There are as many SWars characters as Marvel ones, give or take. And a whole separate fanbase to buy them all.
In addition to the size of the game in all three were to be combined - and bear in mind that we are expecting innovations in DI2 (water, etc.) - there's the future pitfalls of updates to playsets/characters that would need to be forced on people who not only don't have them, but have no interest in them. There WILL be people who only want Disney OR Marvel OR Star Wars, who wouldn't need all the cross-polination. There's staffing issues - there will be separate teams working on all three strands, trying to re-combine everything could be a horrendous headache; Disney already run Marvel (and probably LucasFilm) as a semi-separate entity, it makes sense that the games will be, too.
It may be that the base(s) are indentical and interchangeable, but I could see that being confusing IF the games are separate - already we have Cars who cannot do everything the human characters can, how more confusing would it be if there were whole series' of characters that couldn't be used at various points. Much easier to make it obvious by shape which items can be used in which game. IF, as I suspect (and tacitly hope) the games are different.