Spyro the Dragon: Reignited Trilogy - November 13th, 2018 (PS4, Xbox One)

[Blueknight V2.0]

Okay guys a new rumor has sprung up, this time it regards Crash and Spyro in Smash Bros. Switch. And in the video above, Canadian Guy Eh discusses the validity of that Gamefaqs post.

[Jango]

I think they are trying to give each Gnorc a distinct look instead of kinda just changing their size like in the original. 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

22 minutes ago, Blue Knight/Bluestreak said:

Okay guys a new rumor has sprung up, this time it regards Crash and Spyro in Smash Bros. Switch. And in the video above, Canadian Guy Eh discusses the validity of that Gamefaqs post.

Seriously. Why are people giving one post on Gamefaqs this much attention???

[Graystripe2000]

29 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes said:

Seriously. Why are people giving one post on Gamefaqs this much attention???

Watch the video.

[Jango]

This will sound grumpy,  but I'll be really pissed if either Spyro or Crash or BOTH get into Smash Bros of all things, it's not that I don't want, but because of the whole PlayStation All-Stars situation, it was incredibly depressing. This time I will have to side with the Sony fanboys. 

I wouldn't mind their inclusion to the game IF the PSASBR never existed, or if it actually had them as playable characters... It would be like if Donkey Kong wasn't in Smash, but it was on a PlayStation cross-over.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

25 minutes ago, Jango said:

It would be like if Donkey Kong wasn't in Smash, but it was on a PlayStation cross-over.

No it wouldn't. Because Donkey Kong is actually a Nintendo exclusive character.

25 minutes ago, Jango said:

This will sound grumpy,  but I'll be really pissed if either Spyro or Crash or BOTH get into Smash Bros of all things, it's not that I don't want, but because of the whole PlayStation All-Stars situation, it was incredibly depressing. This time I will have to side with the Sony fanboys. 

So the logic is that people will get pissed over two characters who aren't even Sony exclusive, getting into Smash over Battle Royale, especially when ya'll don't even know if Battle Royale is even alive still?

It's as silly as exclusivity beggers moaning over Cloud getting added to Smash for petty reasons.

I get being disappointed or salty, but outright, detrimentally throwing shade at their inclusion with a crossover run by a company who actually ceased the opportunity over one who didn't, is irrational to say the least.

[Ratcicle King]

27 minutes ago, Jango said:

This will sound grumpy,  but I'll be really pissed if either Spyro or Crash or BOTH get into Smash Bros of all things, it's not that I don't want, but because of the whole PlayStation All-Stars situation, it was incredibly depressing. This time I will have to side with the Sony fanboys. 

I wouldn't mind their inclusion to the game IF the PSASBR never existed, or if it actually had them as playable characters... It would be like if Donkey Kong wasn't in Smash, but it was on a PlayStation cross-over.

PSASBR suffered from the worst possible timing tbh.

These crossover fighters work as advertising for the franchises that take part, and PSASBR  released at a time both franchises had no game coming out so there was nothing to advertise, so there was no real push on the owners of the IPs to have the characters on the games, since outside of a certain amount of royalties money, they'd get nothing out of it.

[Jango]

That's not the point, tho'. I could've used any character, DK was the first to come to my mind. The point is left out 2 heavily important and loved characters from a brand cross-over, but allow them in other brand. Yeah, that'd be fucked up. But knowing Activision... I bet if Nintendo pays well. 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

2 minutes ago, Ratcicle King said:

PSASBR suffered from the worst possible timing tbh.

These crossover fighters work as advertising for the franchises that take part, and PSASBR  released at a time both franchises had no game coming out so there was nothing to advertise, so there was no real push on the owners of the IPs to have the characters on the games, since outside of a certain amount of royalties money, they'd get nothing out of it.

Yeah that's another thing honestly. Characters like Cloud likely got a better deal in Smash considering how badly handled PSASBR was in the first place to boot. If the same happens with Crash and Spyro, good for them honestly.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

9 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes said:

No it wouldn't. Because Donkey Kong is actually a Nintendo exclusive character.

The more accurate comparison here would be Bayonetta - she was on consoles previously before becoming a third-party exclusive/associated character with Nintendo.

That said, I find that silly. PSASBR never had Spyro/Crash period, and I'm sure as hell not going to shed tears because the two finally get into a fighting game of some description. It was a different time/era and Activision's wants and interests were clearly different back then. I think it's still crap we never got the two in PSASBR, but PSASBR also only just got two sets of DLC (DLC 1 - Kat/Emmett, DLC2 - Zeus, Issac). Even a Abe from Oddworld and Dart from Legend of Draagoon DLC was planned with a Gravity Rush stage planned only to get canceled. It died with two DLC packs and even then, DLC2 was literally a DLC to try have players buy advertisements. Issac to try promote Dead Space 3, Zeus for God of War Ascension. Crash and Spyro had far less of a chance to get in especially at their costs that Activision wanted to license them.

That said...we're still fucking treating of the GameFAQs as fact? Really? The GameFAQs post that already got extremely lucky with guesses on online and also completely wrong on several many points? I'd be fine with speculation of "oh well wouldn't crash/spyro be cool? What would they be like?" instead of "oh yeah, this is still totally happening! Absolutely!". 

37 minutes ago, Operationgamer17 said:

Watch the video.

Alright, I watched the video and it's the same exact post that was already discussed and was debunked because there was a crap ton of details incorrect. So why are we still treating a random "GameFAQs post" as true?

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

1 minute ago, Jango said:

The point is left out 2 heavily important and loved characters from a brand cross-over, but allow them in other brand.

Who're you gonna blame for that? There's really no point in the rage at that. And again, How does that even really matter outside of exclusivity begging? They'd be in flipping Smash. That's hands down one of the best honors for video game characters these days.

4 minutes ago, Jango said:

That's not the point, tho'. I could've used any character, DK was the first to come to my mind.

Not really. Cause you're implying that Crash and Spyro are actually even currently Sony exclusives with that statement. I mean, Crash and Spyro weren't even exclusives by the time of the first PSABR. Now, if you're mad at Sony, late as that is, I suppose it makes sense. But otherwise, there's no logical point to the rage of two iconic characters getting into an iconic and historically reveling crossover brawl.

 

4 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

The more accurate comparison here would be Bayonetta - she was on consoles previously before becoming a third-party exclusive/associated character with Nintendo.

Ehhh, not really when it comes to the comparison that Jango's trying to make. Since she's actually exclusive to Nintendo now.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

4 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes said:

Ehhh, not really when it comes to the comparison that Jango's trying to make. Since she's actually exclusive to Nintendo now.

It's more of a reverse situation. Bayonetta was considered third-party and mainly known on all consoles til Nintendo picked her up and she ended up being exclusive to the point of an uproar over it. Crash/Spyro were mainly known and assoicated with Sony/PS1 and technically were exclusives to only go into a third-party agreement. 

So where Crash/Spyro were exclusive and then third-party, Bayonetta was the other way around. The point I'm making is people could arguably be annoyed at Bayo's inclusion to Smash because technically she was a third-party character at one point if we use the same line of logic being used on Crash/Spyro right now. But then I find said argument stupid because it's not some competition to permit characters to your game only and I'm not gonna cry if Crash/Spyro gets into Smash just because PSASBR couldn't pony up the cash to get them in. Having them as a distant possibility in a six year old game isn't enough reason to never let them be in a fighter again.

[Ratcicle King]

9 minutes ago, Jango said:

That's not the point, tho'. I could've used any character, DK was the first to come to my mind. The point is left out 2 heavily important and loved characters from a brand cross-over, but allow them in other brand. Yeah, that'd be fucked up. But knowing Activision... I bet if Nintendo pays well. 

You're seeing this the wrong way, it's not Activision going ''I'm not letting these two go to the Sony Crossover, no, they're going to the Nintendo crossover because Nintendo offered us more.''

It's literally that right now it's a different time compared to 2013, just compare

2013

-Activision had no plans for either franchise outside of Skylanders
-Sony would've probably wanted both in their classic designs, which, for Spyro, would in no way benefit Skylanders as advertisement
-Activision had nothing to gain from this crossover outside of royalties, so they asked for something big

Now let's compare it to 2018

-Both Crash and Spyro have a 5 year plan of both games and merchandising planned
-Their classic styles have been reintroduced into pop culture
-Activision, besides royalties, would get a big bump in advertising by having the two franchises they're trying to push hard appearing on a big crossover.

It's not that ''Nintendo pays better'', it's that literally 5 years ago, both franchises were dead, while today they're selling like water. If there's ever a new PSASBR, you can bet you'll see Crash and/or Spyro in it, unless both franchises die again.

[Jango]

Let me direct my rage at least this time, @Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes, c'mon. I suffered enough during the PS All-Stars development cycle.

I supported both Crash and Spyro remakes in any platforms when they announced it. But a little guy inside me won't let me support these character in Smash :T

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

It's ever abundantly clear as well that Sony themselves had little faith in the project. We've seen very well that when they actually have faith in something, they'll pump the big bucks for it. Sony's mindset couldn't have been farther away from Crash and Spyro at the time, let alone actually giving that much a crap about the roster in the first place.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Just now, Jango said:

Let me direct my rage at least this time, @Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes, c'mon. I suffered enough during the PS All-Stars development cycle.

I supported both Crash and Spyro remakes in any platforms when they announced it. But a little guy inside me won't let me support these character in Smash. 

Dude, there's literally no reason to be enraged. If anything, it's petty and not looking at the actual reasoning of what happened beyond pretending it boils down to "Nintendo got them, Sony didn't!". 

I love Sony, PS is my favourite console and I grew up with it. I also liked PSASBR, but I'm not going to be so bitter over the game that was ruined through balance and laziness and ignore the other reasonings behind it. Crash and Spyro were dead at the time. Sony wasn't willing to shell out money, Activision had no need for advertising because Spyro had taken a backseat in Skylanders and only came back to the forefront with Imaginators and Academy etc. It isn't some insanely petty nonsense that Activision held them in spite incase Nintendo randomly said "btw, secret smash game in development, put these guys in!".

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

5 minutes ago, Jango said:

Let me direct my rage at least this time, @Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes,

Again, I ask. At whom? Raging without a purpose is something best kept to one's self. At least have a point to it.

 

5 minutes ago, Jango said:

I suffered enough during the PS All-Stars development cycle.

And you have Sony to blame for that, so don't raise a stink at Nintendo and Smash for it. It's like if I raged at Disney Magic Kingdoms for being a better proper Disney crossover than Kingdom Hearts. I don't throw shade at whoever does better what the former failed at.

 

5 minutes ago, Jango said:

I supported both Crash and Spyro remakes in any platforms when they announced it. But a little guy inside me won't let me support these character in Smash. 

So essentially the little guy inside you is against these characters' success if it's affiliated with a platform you don't like. Maybe if it were for legitimate reasons, but there's no logical sense to crying foul at something this beneficial for them.

They have the chance to be in a game that has a lot of people's attention and will only help in expanding their brand even further. Again, what you're spouting is essentially exclusivity begging at its core. And its a detrimental methodology to think by.

[Ratcicle King]

4 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes said:

It's ever abundantly clear as well that Sony themselves had little faith in the project. We've seen very well that when they actually have faith in something, they'll pump the big bucks for it. Sony's mindset couldn't have been farther away from Crash and Spyro at the time, let alone actually giving that much a crap about the roster in the first place.

And that does bring into question that quote where they mention Activision asked for a price too big for them. I've been wondering if the price was actually absurd or if Sony was just not willing to pay.

[Jango]

Now you're just claiming whatever you making out of my words, man. When I said I didn't liked any platform here? :V

My reasoning is well enough and rightfully focused on Activision. Sony managed to get permission for PaRappa, for example. Do you see any new PaRappa game? Or Jak? Or Twisted Metal? Nah man, it was just Activision being butts. They openly said Activision asked a shitton of money for Crash. 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

2 minutes ago, Ratcicle King said:

And that does bring into question that quote where they mention Activision asked for a price too big for them. I've been wondering if the price was actually absurd or if Sony was just not willing to pay.

Likely both. It was likely a price absurdly high, typical Activision not having faith in those series themselves, but would've been worth it. The problem being that this is 7th gen Sony at the helm. They weren't the brightest or too keen with what their audiences wanted. ON they were on that stupid train of thinking that audience weren't into those characters and likely passed on it.

Heck, for all we know, the price would've been reasonable but Sony just had that little faith.

[Ratcicle King]

4 minutes ago, Jango said:

Now you're just claiming whatever you making out of my words, man. When I said I didn't liked any platform here? :V

My reasoning is well enough and rightfully focused on Activision. Sony managed to get permission for Pararappa, for example. Do you see any new Pararappa game? Or Jak? Or Twisted Metal? Nah man, it was just Activision being butts. They openly said Activision asked a shitton of money for Crash. 

Those three are published by Sony tho'. They have some level of control over those IPs.

Quote

Heck, for all we know, the price would've been reasonable but Sony just had that little faith.

@Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes That's what I was trying to say with my last post, Sony's lack of faith brings into question if the price was actually absurd, or it was actually reasonable but above what they were willing to pay.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

7 minutes ago, Ratcicle King said:

And that does bring into question that quote where they mention Activision asked for a price too big for them. I've been wondering if the price was actually absurd or if Sony was just not willing to pay.

From what I've seen from my days on the PSASBR forums, it was legitimately high pricing. I can't remember if there was a source given but there was stuff flying about like them wanting a massive price bump compared to other third-parties like Raiden and Dante (who granted - all of those had games to promote) and on top of that, when questioned, there was bullshit reasoning like "crash/spyro is our main third party platformer heads and therefore to get them you have to pay more etc etc). I can't tell you how much is true as it was so long ago and I can't remember what reasonings had sources, but I do believe it was Sony gave them a budget, and they had to work with what they had in said budget, which Crash/Spyro would've murdered.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

14 minutes ago, Jango said:

My reasoning is well enough and rightfully focused on Activision

Debatable. We don't how much at fault they or Sony are in the matter for sure. Furthermore, that's still not a good or legitimate reason to throw shade at the likes of Crash and Spyro getting into Smash.

 

14 minutes ago, Jango said:

Sony managed to get permission for Pararappa, for example. Do you see any new Pararappa game? Or Jak? Or Twisted Metal? Nah man, it was just Activision being butts. They openly said Activision asked a shitton of money for Crash.

As @Ratcicle King has pointed out. Parappa was actually published and licensed under Sony. And had continued to be an actual Sony exclusive up into that point. Compared to having to deal with third party characters like Crash and Spyro from another company was a different story.

11 minutes ago, Ratcicle King said:

Quote

Heck, for all we know, the price would've been reasonable but Sony just had that little faith.

@Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes That's what I was trying to say with my last post, Sony's lack of faith brings into question if the price was actually absurd, or it was actually reasonable but above what they were willing to pay.

Given Sony's mindset at the time. That wouldn't surprise me. The PS3 was kinda like their own Xbox One phase. Not nearly as sorry and dry a state the Xbox ONe X and Xbone are in, but plenty of stupid or money grubbing decisions.

[Ratcicle King]

7 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

From what I've seen from my days on the PSASBR forums, it was legitimately high pricing. I can't remember if there was a source given but there was stuff flying about like them wanting a massive price bump compared to other third-parties like Raiden and Dante (who granted - all of those had games to promote) and on top of that, when questioned, there was bullshit reasoning like "crash/spyro is our main third party platformer heads and therefore to get them you have to pay more etc etc). I can't tell you how much is true as it was so long ago and I can't remember what reasonings had sources, but I do believe it was Sony gave them a budget, and they had to work with what they had in said budget, which Crash/Spyro would've murdered.

Then again, one wonders if Sony was just being a miser and they were just shifting the blame to avoid controversy. I doubt the one year exclusivity deal for the N.Sane Trilogy was any cheaper, and both would've accomplished the same thing, using Crash's popularity to lure people to a Sony console. 

[Ryannumber1gamer]

5 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Sonic Heroes said:

Debatable. We don't how much at fault they or Sony are in the matter for sure. Furthermore, that's still not a good or legitimate reason to be mad at the likes of Crash and Spyro getting into Smash.

There's no point of getting angry at either, period, beyond a discussion of why PSASBR failed, the level of potential it had and how much it fucking sucked Sony had no faith in it, practically letting it go the route of the Vita and dying. PSASBR had a fun combat system and interesting take on Smash's gameplay, integrating it more into a fighting game combo system, and yet it all went belly up because of unbalanced characters, exploits that were never bothered to be fixed which broke the core Risk VS Reward system that held the game up and made it different from Smash, and more. Complaining Crash and Spyro weren't in the game is the least of anybody's worries, especially when it likely would've been Titans!Crash and Skylanders!Spyro we ended up getting if we hypothetically got them in.

I would've loved to see the two in the game, but at this point, PSASBR was so broken and unbalanced that I see no point. It was a totally different time era back then with many different situations to now. Most of which being the duo are actually relevant again. If Activision could've gotten the chance to advertise like they could now, I could most certainly see them lowering said "high price" to let the two in. But they simply didn't have a reason to beyond - as said - royalities. PSASBR's issues are a whole other ball park of problems and Crash/Spyro's non-inclusion is the absolute least of them. I'd legitimately be more annoyed about Abe and Dart which did get in, were iconic PS1 characters, and would've actually been cool but got cancelled due to Sony/Sony Santa Monica.

1 minute ago, Ratcicle King said:

Then again, one wonders if Sony was just being a miser and they were just shifting the blame to avoid controversy. I doubt the one year exclusivity deal for the N.Sane Trilogy was any cheaper, and both would've accomplished the same thing, using Crash's popularity to lure people to a Sony console. 

I mean, it wouldn't surprise me, but then it also raises the question of why they could afford Raiden and Dante as opposed to Crash and Spyro if the pricing wasn't that different. There's just too many different circumstances between then and now to accurately determine if it's a lie or not. Right now, it can go either way, although I lean more towards it being high-pricing because Activision being Activision would likely squeeze as much money as they could get due to not having an advertising stake in the whole thing.