Microsoft confirms Rise of the Tomb Raider Xbox exclusivity deal "has a duration"

[Showan]

Not even in the same ball park. Tomb Raider came to all platforms prior to this and now MS have tried to make it exclusive.

Imagine Halo came out on Xbox but 2 went Sony and Xbox never saw it again to finish off the campaign.

That's what happened (almost) here.

Destiny is a new IP.

 

 

Why does being a new IP give it a break?  1yr is 1yr no matter how you slice the pie.  

 

Waiting 30-60 days for something is one thing.  Waiting a full year is another.

 

I'm not justifying what MS or Crystal Dynamics is doing.

 

But the double standard is very strong.

[Polonium]

Its not double standards at all. Pulling a game that was multiplatform into an exclusive is a bit shady. Shall we look at Fifa as well? Big chunks of the game missing on other platforms as MS have done a deal there.

Far naughtier than taking a new IP and getting timed dlc.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Why does being a new IP give it a break?  1yr is 1yr no matter how you slice the pie.  

 

Waiting 30-60 days for something is one thing.  Waiting a full year is another.

 

I'm not justifying what MS or Crystal Dynamics is doing.

 

But the double standard is very strong.

 

There is a scale of how much it can affect a gamers experience. Blocking a SP portion, especially a continuing story is arguably more annoying than cornering off some MP DLC or map packs. Those kinds of deals exist on both platforms, MS with COD, Sony with Destiny. In the later examples you still get to enjoy the game, at least the SP portion, and usually the majority of the MP.

 

The deal is done, it's finally 100% clear it's timed, PS4 and PC owners will have to deal with it, only time will tell if the money spent was worth it and if the bad PR, mostly for Square/TR, was worth whatever money they earned. The issue for Square was always that like it or not the majority of their fanbase is PS based - As seen from the TR sales figures I posted. No matter what way they cut the deal they were going to annoy a lot of single platform only holders.

[Woelfel]

Its not double standards at all. Pulling a game that was multiplatform into an exclusive is a bit shady. Shall we look at Fifa as well? Big chunks of the game missing on other platforms as MS have done a deal there.

Far naughtier than taking a new IP and getting timed dlc.

 

Shady? No. If the game was announced for Xbox, PC, and PS4, and then it never came out until after the duration was over would be shady. Not saying that it is timed, is not being shady. You do know where it's going to be, you just don't know where it's not going to be.

 

You know what's funny, if the platform holders never say anything about exclusives during their press releases and left everyone in the dark, it would be hilarious as everyone would wonder if those games would ever make it to the other system.

[LaP]

Why didn't they say this all along and not cause an absolute ruckus which has been proven to be false?

 

Cause that's the point.

 

If you say right away it's gonna be timed exclusive and released on other platforms 6 months later then you destroy the purpose of the deal.

 

Let's be honest most people won't know that Phil Spencer said that to Eurogamer. Joe Blow will see the TV add saying XBox One Exclusive 2015 and they will think it is exclusive and they wont dig any further to know all the details.

 

Sony does the same with all the exclusive content ****. They thrown the word exclusive around like candies but then when you dig a little bit you realise it is exclusive content nobody care about of exclusive access to a beta and such.

 

I'm still ###### tough. I did not care about Splinter Cell or Gear of Wars cause those were new ips. But Tomb Raider i think it was not really a good move by both Square-Enix and MS. They should have worked together on a new ip published by Microsoft.

[NeoWind]

If the game is a new IP then it's perfectly acceptable that microsoft want to make it exclusive as long as they desire. If i'm not wrong, it will come to PS4 and PC in the early 2016 and this kind of move really do tarnish the brand reputation substantially regardless of how much money MS paid. In fact, just look at how two of exclusive game sales on X1 give us a clear idea that it won't bode well for tomb raider.

[LaP]

They should just have said "coming first to..." like Sony did to have avoided this PR headache.

 

 

Yeah actually i kind of agree with that.

why are ps fans greedy. you have uncharted, which is a game id rather play than tomb raider

 

There's gamers on PC too just so you know.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

It was clear enough but some people are so quick to rage that things get lost on them, really what else could "exclusively on Xbox in 2015" mean?  When does this even come out?  November 2015?  September 2015?   It's going to be the typical timed exclusive bit like I've said in the other thread, but no, let's just rage because that's the easy thing to do.

 

 

holiday 2015 means xmas.   so i would not expect the game on PC until at least summer 2016 :(

[LaP]

Not even in the same ball park. Tomb Raider came to all platforms prior to this and now MS have tried to make it exclusive.

Imagine Halo came out on Xbox but 2 went Sony and Xbox never saw it again to finish off the campaign.

That's what happened (almost) here.

Destiny is a new IP.

 

Destiny is kinda like Titanfall. New ip owned by a dev but published by a big publisher. But the big publisher doesn't own the right of the ip in both case. The dev probably had to make a deal to be able to retain the right of the ip.

 

So yeah not a big deal in both case.

[Polonium]

If the game is a new IP then it's perfectly acceptable that microsoft want to make it exclusive as long as they desire. If i'm not wrong, it will come to PS4 and PC in the early 2016 and this kind of move really do tarnish the brand reputation substantially regardless of how much money MS paid. In fact, just look at how two of exclusive game sales on X1 give us a clear idea that it won't bode well for tomb raider.

If it was a new IP I'd have no issues, look at sunset overdrive by insomniac. No issues at all with them making games cross platform and going exclusive.

Tomb Raider isn't a new IP and for me what CD and MS have done with their poor PR wording is disgusting.

[Avi Patel]

wait....phil spencer is talking about the exclusivity of the overall franchise, not the specific rise of the tomb raider game.  He just said that the exclusivity deal doesn't extend to the entire franchise....and that doesn't necessarily mean that the rise of the tomb raider will come out on the ps4/ps3 or pc.  Phil even says that ms doesn't own every iteration of the tomb raider franchise....so does that mean that they do own this upcoming tomb raider installment? 

 

Am I thinking about this the right way?

[LaP]

How is it any different from when Sony signed an exclusive with Eidos in 1997 denying the N64 and Saturn a sequel?

 

http://www.tombnews.com/news/1997/09/1801/

 

Eidos was relatively small and had cash problem in early 2000.

 

Square-Enix is bigger and if they have cash problem there's a management problem somewhere.

 

If we learn in the upcoming months that Square-Enix is almost bankrupt then i'll understand the move. But for now it doesn't look like it is the case. Square-Enix actually had strong financial results last year if i am to believe gaming publications like IGN or Gamespot.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Eidos was relatively small and had cash problem in early 2000.

 

Square-Enix is bigger and if they have cash problem there's a management problem somewhere.

 

If we learn in the upcoming months that Square-Enix is almost bankrupt then i'll understand the move. But for now it doesn't look like it is the case. Square-Enix actually had strong financial results last year if i am to believe gaming publications like IGN or Gamespot.

 

Tomb Raider wasn't on the N64 either. It was on discs due to FMVs and audio, not a cartridge, a lot of games came about on the PS1 due to the optical media. Didn't the Saturn pretty much die on its arse really quickly as well?

 

Until the XB/PS2 came about, pretty much everything was on the PS1 bar all the great games Nintendo made themselves. There were no other horses to put your bets on, and obviously the PS1 started the household name that is TR.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Timed exclusives are terrible for gamers. Full stop. Microsoft is wrong to pursue such deals, especially when previous titles in the franchise haven't been exclusive, and Square Enix is wrong to accept such a deal. It also annoys me when the duration of the exclusivity agreements are hidden from the public. The same applies to Sony.

 

This isn't doing anything to help Microsoft's already damaged image. It just makes the company look desperate and irritates gamers.

[Avi Patel]

theyarecomingforyou, on 13 Aug 2014 - 11:53, said:

Timed exclusives are terrible for gamers. Full stop. Microsoft is wrong to pursue such deals, especially when previous titles in the franchise haven't been exclusive, and Square Enix is wrong to accept such a deal. It also annoys me when the duration of the exclusivity agreements are hidden from the public. The same applies to Sony.

 

This isn't doing anything to help Microsoft's already damaged image. It just makes the company look desperate and irritates gamers.

doesn't matter.

gamers who already dislike Microsoft will continue to dislike Microsoft. 

same goes for sony and Nintendo.

this is just pure business.  and it's good for xbox gamers and soon-to-be xbox gamers. 

I'm sure sony and Nintendo both have tried to do such deals, they just can't because they aren't too rich. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

doesn't matter.

gamers who already dislike Microsoft will continue to dislike Microsoft. 

same goes for sony and Nintendo.

this is just pure business.  and it's good for xbox gamers and soon-to-be xbox gamers. 

I'm sure sony and Nintendo both have tried to do such deals, they just can't because they aren't too rich. 

 

It's a good deal for MS, it's the status quo for Xbox gamers, the gamers aren't getting anything special. TR is a multiplat game, it's not the first time it's been on the Xbox or anything like that. PS and PC gamers are getting a bad deal, but Xbox gamers are just getting what was expected when the game was announced at E3.

 

In fact if anything, what will happen now as it usually does whenever it does get released to PC/PS4, it will probably come with all the DLC and possibly extras. Obviously getting to play it earlier is superior, but if people do hold off they'll no doubt get the better package later...

[Avi Patel]

Audioboxer, on 13 Aug 2014 - 12:18, said:

It's a good deal for MS, it's the status quo for Xbox gamers, the gamers aren't getting anything special. TR is a multiplat game, it's not the first time it's been on the Xbox or anything like that. PS and PC gamers are getting a bad deal, but Xbox gamers are just getting what was expected when the game was announced at E3.

 

In fact if anything, what will happen now as it usually does whenever it does get released to PC/PS4, it will probably come with all the DLC and possibly extras. Obviously getting to play it earlier is superior, but if people do hold off they'll no doubt get the better package later...

 I truly think that people are mis-interpreting phil's comments. 

I believe the Rise of the Tomb Raider will forever remain an Xbox exclusive.  He's talking about franchise exclusivity, not of the game.  When asked about the game, he was careful to avoid placing the game as the subject -> instead, he switched over to the term "franchise" and "ip." 

[Woelfel]

I'm pretty sure that if this deal was not timed, and it was just exclusive people would be calling for torches for MS. Wait, Bayonetta was multiplatform and now they are a nintendo exclusive...where are the torches? I remember people not liking that but it doesn't seem to be as bad as when MS "does" it...hmm...

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

 I truly think that people are mis-interpreting phil's comments. 

I believe the Rise of the Tomb Raider will forever remain an Xbox exclusive.  He's talking about franchise exclusivity, not of the game.  When asked about the game, he was careful to avoid placing the game as the subject -> instead, he switched over to the term "franchise" and "ip." 

 

Not many if anyone really interprets it like that. If that was the case MS would probably be publishing the game as they'd be giving Square that much money it would surely buy them the rights to the title.

 

I'm pretty sure that if this deal was not timed, and it was just exclusive people would be calling for torches for MS. Wait, Bayonetta was multiplatform and now they are a nintendo exclusive...where are the torches? I remember people not liking that but it doesn't seem to be as bad as when MS "does" it...hmm...

 

Bayonetta 2 was never going to happen, Nintendo FUNDED the whole game. That is different. They took a dead franchise and funded the development for the whole title - Why on earth would they make it multiplatform and let Sony/MS make money from it? In this case most gamers who like Bayonetta are just glad they're seeing a sequel they thought they were never going to.

 

And if you need proof - http://www.destructoid.com/platinum-s-inaba-bayonetta-2-wouldn-t-exist-w-o-nintendo-235541.phtml

[Brandon H Supervisor]

 I truly think that people are mis-interpreting phil's comments. 

I believe the Rise of the Tomb Raider will forever remain an Xbox exclusive.  He's talking about franchise exclusivity, not of the game.  When asked about the game, he was careful to avoid placing the game as the subject -> instead, he switched over to the term "franchise" and "ip." 

if that is indeed the case I can guarantee you that the decision won't last long once the general public realizes it and fully backlashes. they'll be forced to reverse that decision and release the game on PC/PS if that happens

Bayonetta 2 was never going to happen, Nintendo FUNDED the whole game. That is different. They took a dead franchise and funded the development for the whole title - Why on earth would they make it multiplatform and let Sony/MS make money from it? In this case most gamers who like Bayonetta are just glad they're seeing a sequel they thought they were never going to.

this

[Avi Patel]

Brando212, on 13 Aug 2014 - 12:29, said:Brando212, on 13 Aug 2014 - 12:29, said:

if that is indeed the case I can guarantee you that the decision won't last long once the general public realizes it and fully backlashes. they'll be forced to reverse that decision and release the game on PC/PS if that happens

this

how can they be forced to reverse a deal if they already signed the papers and everything? 

anyways, we'll truly know soon. 

 

but whatever. 

[Brandon H Supervisor]

how can they be forced to reverse a deal if they already signed the papers and everything? 

anyways, we'll truly know soon. 

 

but whatever. 

because the backlash would be at MS just as much as at Square and MS would pretty much have to allow the agreement be broken

[Woelfel]

Not many if anyone really interprets it like that. If that was the case MS would probably be publishing the game as they'd be giving Square that much money it would surely buy them the rights to the title.

 

 

 

Bayonetta 2 was never going to happen, Nintendo FUNDED the whole game. That is different. They took a dead franchise and funded the development for the whole title - Why on earth would they make it multiplatform and let Sony/MS make money from it? In this case most gamers who like Bayonetta are just glad they're seeing a sequel they thought they were never going to.

 

And if you need proof - http://www.destructoid.com/platinum-s-inaba-bayonetta-2-wouldn-t-exist-w-o-nintendo-235541.phtml

 

Ah you are right. I forgot that that happened. I still don't think it's that big of a deal, but I do see that every exclusive that MS gets (no matter how it gets it...besides Halo), there's some backlash on it. From Dead Rising, to Titanfall, to this, there's always an "uproar" over it from people who don't own an Xbox. It just seems silly to me.

[jakem1]

Ah you are right. I forgot that that happened. I still don't think it's that big of a deal, but I do see that every exclusive that MS gets (no matter how it gets it...besides Halo), there's some backlash on it. From Dead Rising, to Titanfall, to this, there's always an "uproar" over it from people who don't own an Xbox. It just seems silly to me.

 

That's because it is silly.  People are ranting and raving because they can't get their hands on a game as if it's the end of the world.  Apart from the fact that it's completely irrational it's also hypocritical as those same people don't complain when their preferred platform gets an exclusive.  The people complaining need to grow up.

[theyarecomingforyou]

doesn't matter.

gamers who already dislike Microsoft will continue to dislike Microsoft. 

same goes for sony and Nintendo.

this is just pure business.  and it's good for xbox gamers and soon-to-be xbox gamers. 

I'm sure sony and Nintendo both have tried to do such deals, they just can't because they aren't too rich. 

It ISN'T good for Xbox gamers, unless they take pleasure in PC and PlayStation gamers being unable to play the game (which would be rather sad). This just screws over fans.

 

I still don't think it's that big of a deal, but I do see that every exclusive that MS gets (no matter how it gets it...besides Halo), there's some backlash on it. From Dead Rising, to Titanfall, to this, there's always an "uproar" over it from people who don't own an Xbox. It just seems silly to me.

Titanfall was a new franchise that was Xbox exclusive and it didn't generate much of an 'uproar' - people don't like exclusives but they're understandable. Dead Rising 3 was worse, as it took a multiplatform game and made it an Xbox exclusive - it would have generated more controversy if it was actually a decent game.

 

Taking existing franchises and paying to make them platform exclusive is a sleazy business tactic and people are right to criticise Microsoft for it.