Has it REALLY been confirmed for the Captain Marvel?

I haven’t heard any official word from anyone that says the new CM is in fact a new champ. The only evidence is her hair, slightly updated costume and persistent charges. It could technically be a complete revamp of CM like people were asking, including a costume change for marketing purposes. I don’t think they would make a whole new champ, just improve the one they already had.

So is that plausible or has it legitimately been confirmed as a new playable champ?

Kabam feel free to chime in

Comments

hiddenblizzard

No it's not been confirmed but it's datamined and it has evidence from the kabam video Released 4 years ago

unknown

This content has been removed.

RiderofHell

On that note

KamalaWantsToPlayToo

https://www.marvel.com/articles/games/captain-marvel-takes-fight-to-marvel-games

MrsGondola420

"Lastly, kick the Contest up a notch with the addition of Captain Marvel on March 7 and the one and only Nick Fury on March 21."

https://www.marvel.com/articles/games/captain-marvel-takes-fight-to-marvel-games

SarcasticTaurus

Demonzfyre

Jestress wrote: »

I'm pretty bummed that they chose to make an entirely new character instead of buffing the old one(s). There's already two useless versions of this champion.

Isn't KK part of that group too?

KamalaWantsToPlayToo

Jestress wrote: »

I'm pretty bummed that they chose to make an entirely new character instead of buffing the old one(s). There's already two useless versions of this champion.

Have to agree with you there. It’s just plain lazy. If they are going to do this kind of stuff at least shut the older versions down at 4* level or something and let the new version move on to 5/6*.

Colinwhitworth69

Jestress wrote: »

I'm pretty bummed that they chose to make an entirely new character instead of buffing the old one(s). There's already two useless versions of this champion.

I agree that a buff would have been better, but Captain Marvel is anything but useless as she is now in the game.

SarcasticTaurus

KamalaWantsToPlayToo wrote: »

Jestress wrote: »

I'm pretty bummed that they chose to make an entirely new character instead of buffing the old one(s). There's already two useless versions of this champion.

Have to agree with you there. It’s just plain lazy. If they are going to do this kind of stuff at least shut the older versions down at 4* level or something and let the new version move on to 5/6*.

Creating a whole new champion is "plain lazy" ???????

KamalaWantsToPlayToo

@SarcasticTaurus than going back and updating 3 others? Yes it is

SarcasticTaurus

KamalaWantsToPlayToo wrote: »

@SarcasticTaurus than going back and updating 3 others? Yes it is

Maybe you know exactly how much money and time is actually put into each character. I'm sorry!!

Anyway....

The_One

Said it before, I'll say it again

Champion buffs don't sell crystals, new champions do

DNA3000

Hammerbro_64 wrote: »

I don’t think they would make a whole new champ, just improve the one they already had.

Cross promotion for a new Marvel movie is precisely when you'd make a whole new champ, in a game that is primarily about collecting new champs, and the primary product you create is new champs.

It is so obvious I doubt if Kabam or Marvel even had a discussion about whether to make a new version of CM or update an existing one, as that would be like starting a discussion about whether to add Aquaman to the game.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Hammerbro_64

Well I guess it is more or less confirmed then. At least NF is gonna be sick

unknown

This content has been removed.

Fhfjghhggggjfhfjg

Only upside is nick fury being added

Rikurema

Honestly, I wish they would update the old one instead, but why update a champ that most people have? lol

Magrailothos

I don't have a problem with new versions of champs (BPCW, IMIW, CAIW, now Captain Marvel). They sell crystals; keep the money moving, and keep the game alive. And as DNA said, a movie is clearly a good time to do so.

However, it would be nice if Kabam worked out a way to monetize more buffs for old champs; or if we worked it out for them. As @The_One said:

The_One wrote: »

Champion buffs don't sell crystals, new champions do

Also:

Rikurema wrote: »

I wish they would update the old one instead, but why update a champ that most people have?

Is there a way for that to change?

Anyone?

It can't be unworkable to make developing buffs for old champions at least have some pay-off for Kabam (besides just making the player community a bit happier).

I just want to spark the discussion to see if there is any way of changing the current financial model of continuous releases of increasingly powerful but increasingly obscure Marvel champions.

Ultimately, if we want champions to be re-worked rather than to simply be made obselete by newer versions, there needs to be a way to make it pay for Kabam. So... how does that happen?

@DNA3000, @Jestress, @KamalaWantsToPlayToo

Magrailothos

How's this for an idea?

It may be terrible...

Suppose there was a Featured 'Upgrade' crystal for, say, Hulkbuster, whom you have at 3/30 for arena grinding. However, if you pulled the 'new' HB, rather than getting him as a new champion at level one, you get your already 3/30-ranked Hulkbuster upgraded to the new version.

Hypothetically, how would this balance in the game? I can see the appeal of upgrading my obselete Hulkbuster; and might even be persuaded to buy a crystal to do so. Those who were totally happy with 'classic' Hulkbuster could keep him that way.

Would it sell crystals? The same volume of crystals? Would it sell more?

The would be definite benefits to the players; as those rank-up materials already used wouldn't have been wasted; whilst rank-up materials short of T5B aren't a major revenue stream for Kabam, so little cost to them. On the other hand it wouldn't expand your roster; even though it would (hopefully) strengthen it.

If needs be, for balance, there could be a cost to upgrading, like losing a rank, losing Sig levels or becoming Unawakened.

As an alternative, could getting your Hulkbuster upgraded be dependent on achieving some kind of milestone? like completing a special Event; completing beginner to Master EQ 100%; or winning a Legend run or something?

I'm just throwing this out there as an idea; and I'm more than happy to be shot down in flames as long as I get to hear other people's ideas. One of them could be a winner...

Mirage_Turtle

I suppose I don't understand the gripe in this case when the precedent has already been set numerous times.

Spider-man, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and Hulk were already in the game, yet movie versions of these champs came out to promote their respective movies and I don't remember people making a big issue out of it.

Why is this one different?

To be clear, I'd have loved to have Captain Marvel possibly Ms. Marvel re-vamped. I just don't understand the outrage for this release when we've had numerous others in the same vein.

Mirage_Turtle

Demonzfyre wrote: »

Jestress wrote: »

I'm pretty bummed that they chose to make an entirely new character instead of buffing the old one(s). There's already two useless versions of this champion.

Isn't KK part of that group too?

Personally, I wouldn't.

Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel, and Captain Marvel (Movie) are all Carol Danvers and their power set tends to include energy projection and manipulation.

Kamala Khan is a different character from a different background with a completely different and unrelated set of powers. The only thing they really have in common is the word "Marvel" in their names.

Kamala is no more the same champ as Captain Marvel than Miles Morales is the same as Spider-man (Classic) or X-23 is the same as Wolverine.

Though I do agree with your sentiment. In her current form, Kamala Khan is pretty useless in this game.

skullduggery72

I was really hoping for a buff and new animation for the current captain marvel especially considering she and Ms marvel are carbon copies of each other, even worse than IM and sup IM who were at least different classes

DNA3000

Magrailothos wrote: »

Ultimately, if we want champions to be re-worked rather than to simply be made obselete by newer versions, there needs to be a way to make it pay for Kabam. So... how does that happen?

I don't really want it to happen.

The fact is, Kabam does in fact update older champions, just not as fast as many players would like, for balance and other reasons. But trying to encourage Kabam to do something we want them to do by dreaming up monetization mechanisms for it makes two presumptions, one that I think is undoubtedly false, and the other that is extremely likely to be false. The first assumption is that Kabam would jump at any chance to make more money. That's not true. Anyone who thinks making money is the only thing companies are interested in doing has never actually worked for a company before. Companies have a purpose and a business model and a culture, and all these things curate what kinds of things a company can try to do to be profitable. Pizza Hut might make more money in theory if they sold shoes in their stores, but they are never going to do that, because they aren't a shoe store. It doesn't matter how profitable shoes might be. It diverts their attention into areas that are simply not relevant to the kind of company they are. On a more subtle, more narrow level, businesses tend to have very specific revenue models that can't just be tweaked in any random way, even if it seems "close" to what they currently do. So the idea that if we come up with a way for it to make money Kabam is any more likely to do it isn't really consistent with how companies work in reality.

The second assumption is that this is even a good idea in general. Games like this are not about selling as much stuff as possible. It should be about selling as *little* stuff as possible. Every thing you sell dilutes the value of actual gameplay. In a perfect world you wouldn't sell *anything* and everything everyone had was the result of gameplay. The problem is that games cost money to make, and businesses need to make money to make it worth their while to do anything at all. So everything you sell is problematic, but you have to sell stuff to stay in business. So you try to sell the minimum amount of stuff for the maximum amount of money so you can be profitable while injecting the least amount of stuff not earned through gameplay into the game.

It is actually bad when F2P game operators try to monetize everything. Players notice when everything is for sale. In fact, a game where everything is *cheap* is often seen by the players as worse than a game where everything is expensive, because a game where everything is expensive is a game where the majority of players don't spend much, and everyone is competing against each other mostly on gameplay. A game where everything is cheap is a game where most people spend, and not spending causes you to fall behind the majority of other players, and spending becomes almost mandatory.

That's why I'm opposed to most players' attempts to make monetization in this game "better." Almost every kind of "better" I read actually makes the game worse in my opinion. And adding more avenues for monetization is something I would only consider a good idea if they didn't increase the pressure to spend. In this case, either the monetization avenue just adds another way to chase after the new champion in which case it is likely redundant, or it provides a vastly superior way to get the new champion in which case it becomes a forcing monetization mechanism. I can't think of an obvious happy middle ground in this case, especially one that doesn't interfere with the purpose of adding new champions in general and adding them coincident with joint cross promotion programs in particular.

CyberShredder

MrsGondola420 wrote: »

"Lastly, kick the Contest up a notch with the addition of Captain Marvel on March 7 and the one and only Nick Fury on March 21."

https://www.marvel.com/articles/games/captain-marvel-takes-fight-to-marvel-games

...pretty sure there was another Nick Fury...

mum_m2

KamalaWantsToPlayToo wrote: »

Jestress wrote: »

I'm pretty bummed that they chose to make an entirely new character instead of buffing the old one(s). There's already two useless versions of this champion.

Have to agree with you there. It’s just plain lazy. If they are going to do this kind of stuff at least shut the older versions down at 4* level or something and let the new version move on to 5/6*.

it's not plain lazy, it's *BUSINESS*

why put your resources in a place to revamp an old champion that will generate you $0 vs a shiny new champion that will generate you $s.

have to realize that there has to be BAD champs to balance out the GOOD champs. Now it doesn't have to be this way yes, but that's the structure of this game as I see it.

KamalaWantsToPlayToo

@Magrailothos I get why they release a new champ for promotion. I just wish they would have picked some other champ. Don’t know who that would be in the CM movie/comic realm and don’t really care to be honest.

People can argue it’s not a duplicate champ, but to me it doesn’t matter what they name her. It’s the same one. There’s just not a lot of fun factor in that for me.

CM hasn’t been released as a 6* I don’t think. If she’s good people would still want her and pay to get her if they had to. Treat her 6* version as brand new for all I care with unit sales, FGMC sales, $$ sales. Just don’t slap a new name on her and say she’s brand new when I’m staring at my roster and saying she’s not.

For what it’s worth though after watching the video I’m interested to see her in action. Liked the animations.

Magrailothos

DNA3000 wrote: »

Magrailothos wrote: »

Ultimately, if we want champions to be re-worked rather than to simply be made obselete by newer versions, there needs to be a way to make it pay for Kabam. So... how does that happen?

I don't really want it to happen.

The fact is, Kabam does in fact update older champions, just not as fast as many players would like, for balance and other reasons. But trying to encourage Kabam to do something we want them to do by dreaming up monetization mechanisms for it makes two presumptions, one that I think is undoubtedly false, and the other that is extremely likely to be false. The first assumption is that Kabam would jump at any chance to make more money. That's not true. Anyone who thinks making money is the only thing companies are interested in doing has never actually worked for a company before. Companies have a purpose and a business model and a culture, and all these things curate what kinds of things a company can try to do to be profitable. Pizza Hut might make more money in theory if they sold shoes in their stores, but they are never going to do that, because they aren't a shoe store. It doesn't matter how profitable shoes might be. It diverts their attention into areas that are simply not relevant to the kind of company they are. On a more subtle, more narrow level, businesses tend to have very specific revenue models that can't just be tweaked in any random way, even if it seems "close" to what they currently do. So the idea that if we come up with a way for it to make money Kabam is any more likely to do it isn't really consistent with how companies work in reality.

The second assumption is that this is even a good idea in general. Games like this are not about selling as much stuff as possible. It should be about selling as *little* stuff as possible. Every thing you sell dilutes the value of actual gameplay. In a perfect world you wouldn't sell *anything* and everything everyone had was the result of gameplay. The problem is that games cost money to make, and businesses need to make money to make it worth their while to do anything at all. So everything you sell is problematic, but you have to sell stuff to stay in business. So you try to sell the minimum amount of stuff for the maximum amount of money so you can be profitable while injecting the least amount of stuff not earned through gameplay into the game.

It is actually bad when F2P game operators try to monetize everything. Players notice when everything is for sale. In fact, a game where everything is *cheap* is often seen by the players as worse than a game where everything is expensive, because a game where everything is expensive is a game where the majority of players don't spend much, and everyone is competing against each other mostly on gameplay. A game where everything is cheap is a game where most people spend, and not spending causes you to fall behind the majority of other players, and spending becomes almost mandatory.

That's why I'm opposed to most players' attempts to make monetization in this game "better." Almost every kind of "better" I read actually makes the game worse in my opinion. And adding more avenues for monetization is something I would only consider a good idea if they didn't increase the pressure to spend. In this case, either the monetization avenue just adds another way to chase after the new champion in which case it is likely redundant, or it provides a vastly superior way to get the new champion in which case it becomes a forcing monetization mechanism. I can't think of an obvious happy middle ground in this case, especially one that doesn't interfere with the purpose of adding new champions in general and adding them coincident with joint cross promotion programs in particular.

So... I'll put you down as a 'maybe'?

Always interesting to hear your perspective; particularly on the funding of F2P games, and monetisation generally being a bad thing; which I'm happy to agree with.

I'll dispute your first presumption, which is of my thought processes, and isn't accurate at all: I don't think Kabam just wants to make money at all costs; far from it. Nor do I actually want more money flowing. The presumption I have (and acknowledged above) is that developing characters takes time and money; representing a cost outlay. The cost is recouped by selling crystals as a fundamental aspects of Kabam's business model.
Redeveloping older champions similarly takes time and money. There is no (immediate) recoup, because these are largely champions players already have. Currently, Kabam simply can't prioritise this, because it's an activity with significant cost and little tangible benefit. There are benefits to player experience, and satisfaction levels of the players (and quite possibly the Kabam team themselves); which is why it happens at all.

For the players like me who would like this to happen more frequently - and it's fine if you aren't one of them - it would be helpful if there were a viable business model to make reworking champions more attractive to Kabam. Without simply increasing the drive to spend, though: finding that 'happy middle ground', as you say.

Still, probably a discussion for another day (or at the least, another thread - my apologies to the OP!).

mbrace

The_One wrote: »

Said it before, I'll say it again

Champion buffs don't sell crystals, new champions do

@The_One I actually saw that you literally said this 3 months ago. I laughed when I read it, since now I could see that is exactly what Kabam did here against the community’s wishes. The only logical reason to make a new champ instead of fixing the old CM (wearing the exact same suit), is money from crystals. Although, it makes me so mad that I will be spending less money in general. Not sure if this one is going to work out for Kabam...

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Best Of