Bloody Hell, Where’s the Symbiote? The Mystery of the Missing Venom Game and the He-Said, She-Said Drama
AI Gaming News Author · kotaku ·
Nadji Jeter claims a standalone Venom game was cancelled following the death of Tony Todd, but industry insider Jason Schreier says that's not the full story, leaving fans caught in a web of conflicting rumors.
I’ve been tinkering with this story all morning, and bloody hell, it’s wilder than it first appeared. You know that feeling when you’re sure you’ve spotted a legendary loot drop in the distance, only to realize it was just a glitch in the rendering? That’s exactly what’s happening with the long-rumored, much-desired standalone Venom game. We’ve been tracking this thing like a wizard hunting a rogue familiar for years, and just when we thought we had a lead, the trail went cold—and then got weirdly crowded with conflicting stories.
Here’s the setup: For those of us who spent more time than is probably healthy swinging through Insomniac’s New York, a Venom spin-off seemed like a stone-cold certainty. We had that brilliant playable segment in *Spider-Man 2*, and let’s be honest, Miles Morales proved that the 'smaller standalone' model works. It gives the devs a chance to breathe, the players something to chew on, and the accountants a reason to keep the lights on without waiting seven years for a numbered sequel. But it’s now 2026, and while we’re all prepping our claws for *Marvel’s Wolverine* this September, the symbiote is nowhere to be seen.
Things got spicy recently when Nadji Jeter—the voice and soul behind Miles Morales—dropped what he called an 'exclusive' in a recent interview. According to Jeter, a Venom game and a companion DLC were absolutely on the cards. He talked about being shown the start of it, the 'how everything was going to be' of it all. But then he dropped the heavy news: the project was allegedly shelved because we lost the legendary Tony Todd. Now, Todd’s performance as Venom was nothing short of iconic—he brought a rumbling, terrifying gravity to the role that few could match. It’s a human story that hits hard; losing a talent like that is a blow to any creative team.
But hold your hippogriffs, because here comes the skepticism. No sooner had Jeter’s comments hit the digital ether than Jason Schreier, the industry’s resident truth-seeker over at Bloomberg, threw a massive spanner in the works. Posting on ResetEra, Schreier simply noted, 'This isn’t true.'
Now, when Jason Schreier says something isn’t true, I usually sit up and listen. He’s like a wizard who’s actually read the ancient scrolls instead of just looking at the pictures. The question is: what part isn’t true? Is the game not cancelled? Or was it never actually a full standalone project in the way Jeter described? Or perhaps—and this is the cynical wizard in me talking—the reason for the delay has more to do with corporate roadmaps and ballooning budgets than the tragic passing of a lead actor.
If we cast our minds back to the infamous Insomniac hack of late 2023 (a dark spell if ever there was one), the leaked documents suggested a Venom title was slated for a 2025 release. Well, 2025 has come and gone like a poorly cast invisibility spell. The roadmap showed Venom as a 'bridge' game, a way to keep the momentum going between *Spider-Man 2* and the eventual third entry. Economically, it makes all the sense in the world. You’ve already got the assets, you’ve got the engine, and you’ve got a fan base screaming for more 19-inches of Venom (sorry, I couldn't help myself).
So why the radio silence? I reckon we’re seeing a classic case of the 'corporate pivot.' Insomniac is currently a very busy hive. They’ve got *Wolverine* coming in hot, a new *Ratchet and Clank* presumably in the works, and those X-Men plans that looked incredibly ambitious in the leaks. In the world of high-stakes AAA development, 'bridge games' can sometimes turn into 'bridge collapses' if the main project needs more hands on deck.
There’s also the Web3 angle to consider—not that Insomniac is going full blockchain (thank the gods), but the *concept* of digital ownership and persistent assets is something the industry is obsessed with right now. A Venom game built on the bones of the previous titles is the ultimate exercise in asset utility. It’s smart, it’s efficient, and it’s what gamers actually want. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel every five years, why not let us play with the toys you’ve already built? If they were smart, they’d be looking at how community-driven mods have kept games alive for decades and realize that a Venom-centric 'expansion' is basically a license to print money.
But back to the Jeter/Schreier rift. It’s entirely possible that Jeter saw a slice of a project that was eventually folded back into *Spider-Man 3* or turned into something else entirely. Actors are often the last to know when the boardroom decides to shift the tectonic plates of development. Meanwhile, Schreier is looking at the cold, hard spreadsheets.
I’m choosing to be cautiously optimistic here. I don't think Venom is dead; I think he’s just in the shadows, waiting for the right moment to pounce. Whether they recast Todd (huge shoes to fill, mate) or use some other narrative wizardry to keep the character alive, the demand is too high to ignore. But let this be a lesson in the dangers of hype and 'exclusives.' Until we see a trailer that isn't leaked by a disgruntled goblin with a hard drive, we should take everything with a pinch of salt.
In the meantime, we’ve got Logan’s grumpy adventures to look forward to this September. But I’ll be keeping my digital tea leaves handy, watching for any sign of black goo on the horizon. Because let's be fair dinkum: a world with a playable Venom game is just more fun than one without it, even if the corporate path to getting there is messier than a fireball in a library.
Tags: Insomniac Games, Spider-Man 2, Venom, PlayStation 5, Game Development
Original article: kotaku