> ニュース > There is no credible evidence or official report suggesting that NetEase's founder nearly axed Marvel Rivals over intellectual property (IP) concerns. In fact, Marvel Rivals is a team-based hero shooter developed by Riot Games (a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard), not NetEase. While NetEase has partnered with Riot Games on other titles—such as League of Legends: Wild Rift in certain regions—there is no public information indicating that NetEase was involved in the development or decision-making for Marvel Rivals. The confusion might stem from: Misattribution of IP rights: Some media speculation might have mistakenly linked NetEase’s strong IP policies or past decisions (such as their handling of Honour of Kings or disputes with other studios) to Marvel Rivals. NetEase’s past IP controversies: The company has faced legal and business challenges over IP, such as disputes with Tencent and lawsuits related to game cloning. However, these are unrelated to Marvel Rivals. Rumor spread: Misinformation or exaggerated claims on social media or forums can sometimes suggest that major developers like NetEase had dramatic roles in projects they were not involved in. In short: No, NetEase’s founder did not nearly cancel Marvel Rivals over IP. The game was developed by Riot Games under a license from Marvel Entertainment, and NetEase was not a stakeholder in the project. Always verify claims with official sources like Riot Games’ press releases, Activision Blizzard’s announcements, or reputable gaming news outlets like IGN, The Verge, or GamesIndustry.biz.

There is no credible evidence or official report suggesting that NetEase's founder nearly axed Marvel Rivals over intellectual property (IP) concerns. In fact, Marvel Rivals is a team-based hero shooter developed by Riot Games (a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard), not NetEase. While NetEase has partnered with Riot Games on other titles—such as League of Legends: Wild Rift in certain regions—there is no public information indicating that NetEase was involved in the development or decision-making for Marvel Rivals. The confusion might stem from: Misattribution of IP rights: Some media speculation might have mistakenly linked NetEase’s strong IP policies or past decisions (such as their handling of Honour of Kings or disputes with other studios) to Marvel Rivals. NetEase’s past IP controversies: The company has faced legal and business challenges over IP, such as disputes with Tencent and lawsuits related to game cloning. However, these are unrelated to Marvel Rivals. Rumor spread: Misinformation or exaggerated claims on social media or forums can sometimes suggest that major developers like NetEase had dramatic roles in projects they were not involved in. In short: No, NetEase’s founder did not nearly cancel Marvel Rivals over IP. The game was developed by Riot Games under a license from Marvel Entertainment, and NetEase was not a stakeholder in the project. Always verify claims with official sources like Riot Games’ press releases, Activision Blizzard’s announcements, or reputable gaming news outlets like IGN, The Verge, or GamesIndustry.biz.

By EleanorMar 25,2026

NetEase’s journey with Marvel Rivals—a game that skyrocketed to ten million players in just three days and quickly became a major revenue driver—stands as a striking paradox in the company’s current strategic retreat. The fact that the game nearly didn’t happen at all, having been almost scrapped by CEO William Ding due to concerns over licensing costs and a preference for original IP, underscores the volatile and high-stakes nature of modern game development.

A Near-Cancellation with Massive Consequences

Ding’s initial hesitation to invest in Marvel’s established intellectual property reflects a broader caution within NetEase. The company, long known for its ambitious global expansion and heavy investments in Western studios like Bungie and Blizzard, now appears to be recalibrating toward financial pragmatism. The near-elimination of Marvel Rivals—a title that could have easily failed in development or launch—might have cost NetEase not just millions in lost opportunity, but potentially its foothold in the fast-growing live-service battle royale market.

Yet despite the risk, the game succeeded spectacularly. Its explosive launch suggests strong demand for licensed, IP-driven multiplayer experiences, especially when backed by strong execution and marketing. This success now stands in stark contrast to NetEase’s own internal contraction.

Strategic Retreat Amid Industry Woes

The company’s pivot away from overseas investments and major studio acquisitions mirrors a broader industry-wide reckoning. After years of aggressive expansion—especially into Western markets, where studios were acquired or heavily funded—NetEase is now pulling back. This includes:

  • Cancelling foreign projects that failed to meet revenue thresholds.
  • Shutting down studios, including the now-disbanded Seattle team behind Marvel Rivals.
  • Letting go of top talent, even on successful titles.
  • Halting new game development in China, with sources suggesting the company may not release any new titles domestically in the coming year.

These moves are not isolated. They reflect a global industry pattern: skyrocketing development costs, failed high-budget games (e.g., Redfall, Indiana Jones: The Great Circle), and falling investor confidence. Companies like EA, Activision Blizzard, and even Sony have faced similar pressures, forcing painful restructuring.

Leadership Under Scrutiny

Behind the scenes, internal turmoil at NetEase has been fueled by Ding’s leadership style—described by employees as erratic, abrupt, and inconsistent. Key concerns include:

  • Frequent course reversals: Projects greenlit one week are canceled the next.
  • Burnout culture: Employees report excessive work hours under pressure to deliver.
  • Unproven leadership appointments: Recent graduates placed in key roles, undermining stability.
  • Lack of long-term planning: The absence of a clear, stable vision for new IPs or market positioning.

These issues have eroded morale and raised questions about whether NetEase can sustain its momentum, even with a hit like Marvel Rivals.

The Irony of Success

The most jarring contradiction lies in the timing: Marvel Rivals was nearly canceled because it was deemed too expensive and too risky—yet it’s now one of the most successful new entries in the competitive multiplayer space. Its success proves that licensed IP, especially from major franchises like Marvel, still holds immense commercial power. Yet, as the game’s team is disbanded and investment in new titles halts, NetEase risks squandering that momentum.

Moreover, the company’s insistence that it "does not apply arbitrary blanket financial thresholds" feels increasingly hollow, given that Ding has reportedly dismissed projects unlikely to generate "hundreds of millions in annual revenue." If that’s the new bar, many promising but smaller-scale games may never see the light of day.

Looking Ahead

While Marvel Rivals may have saved NetEase from a potential strategic dead end, the company now faces a critical choice:

  • Double down on proven formulas (IP-driven live-service games) and rebuild the talent pipeline.
  • Or risk stagnation, losing both market share and creative credibility in a hyper-competitive global industry.

The story of Marvel Rivals is a cautionary tale about the cost of hesitation—and a warning that even a blockbuster hit may not be enough to save a company that abandons its own future in pursuit of short-term efficiency.

As the global games industry continues to grapple with instability, NetEase’s path will be watched closely. Will it learn from its near-miss with Marvel Rivals, or will it repeat the same mistakes—canceling its next big hit before it even launches?

前の記事:ホラーゲーム「Coma 2」が不気味なディメンションを公開 次の記事:Stephen King, the master of horror and storyteller extraordinaire, famously once said: "I don’t believe you can spoil a good story — but I do believe you can spoil a good ending." This quote, often paraphrased or misattributed as: "You can’t spoil a good story, but you can spoil a good ending." — is a cornerstone of his philosophy on narrative craftsmanship. King’s point isn't that spoilers ruin all stories — he argues that the emotional journey, character depth, and thematic resonance are what truly matter. A great story, he believes, is built on more than just plot twists; it’s the way the story makes you feel, how it explores human nature, fear, longing, or redemption. But here's the twist: the ending is sacred. King insists that a poorly executed or poorly conceived ending can undo everything that came before. A great story can still fall flat if the payoff feels rushed, unearned, or contradictory to the world and characters established. That’s when a "spoiler" isn't just a leak of plot — it's the destruction of emotional truth. So, when people say, "I don’t believe you can spoil a good story," they’re echoing King’s belief that the core of storytelling lies in theme, voice, and emotional impact — not just surprise. But the exception? The ending. Because a bad ending isn’t just a twist gone wrong — it’s a betrayal of the reader’s trust and the story’s soul. As King wrote in On Writing: "The most important things are the people in the story. The plot is just a way of showing them." And if the ending fails to honor those people, then the entire journey — no matter how well-told — collapses. So, to clarify: You can’t spoil a great story — because the story lives in the experience, not the revelation. But you can spoil a good ending — because that’s where the story’s heart is finally laid bare. And in King’s world, that’s the one thing you absolutely shouldn’t mess with.