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

[MorganX]

Nope, just wired. Wireless will be a nice option since you won't have to buy an adapter like you did with the 360 controller.

 

Wireless 360 is my PC controller of choice. But I'm not sure MS can pull off a driver for their proprietary WiFi protocol on PCs with no lag. We'll see.

[LaP]

Wireless 360 is my PC controller of choice. But I'm not sure MS can pull off a driver for their proprietary WiFi protocol on PCs with no lag. We'll see.

 

If there's a dongle I wish it will be smaller this time. Like that universal Logitech dongle.

[trooper11]

Wireless 360 is my PC controller of choice. But I'm not sure MS can pull off a driver for their proprietary WiFi protocol on PCs with no lag. We'll see.

Is it proprietary though? It uses Wifi Direct, which would require your computer to have the proper receiver, but is it more proprietary than that?

[theyarecomingforyou]

Like when Nintendo depraved Sony and PC gamers of Resident Evil when the Gamecube came out right? This happens all the time in the industry, this just happens to be a bigger AA game.

I don't care which company does it, it's a sleazy business strategy.

 

If you think if Microsoft managed to get timed exclusives of CoD, BF etc it wouldn't give Sony much to worry about think again. Microsoft is in a position to throw money at it's problem and will continue to do so until the odds even out.

Microsoft can't even hold onto the exclusives it has. Ryse, Dead Rising 3 and Titanfall were all Xbox exclusives yet have made their way over to PC (or in Titanfall's case the sequel will also be released on PC and PS4). For Square Enix there is value in the deal 

 

I own a more then capable PC and PS4 and ONE simply because I don't want to miss out on any exclusives.

And people like you are the reason Microsoft screws over gamers like this.

 

1. First you complained that they paid to make sequel(DR3) of a multiplatform exclusive.

2. I point out that DR3 wouldn't exist if not for microsoft

3. So now your problem with Microsoft is that they are funding game production

seriously?  :laugh:

Dead Rising 3 was already in development as a high-end PC game, so it's utter nonsense that it wouldn't have come out without Microsoft. In fact without Microsoft's involvement, forcing the developers to rush the title, it would have likely been a much better game. So my problem is that Microsoft is ruining games that could have otherwise been good, yes.

 

I think it's quite the contrary. This is actually what makes Microsoft such a really dangerous competitor. Save for an handful of companies no other company in the world can pour money on a product like Microsoft can. The XBox brand poor financial results in the past would have made lot of companies go bankrupt by now or at the very least it would have angered the shareholders enough to have a change in leadership and vision. Nintendo would be in big trouble and maybe out of business if the xbox would be its product. Yet Microsoft keeps pouring money on it like if it was ketchup.

There's only so long Microsoft can continue to lose money before it has to change strategy. Microsoft has yet to make a return on the Xbox brand overall - it has had years of profitability but they're offset by R&D, manufacturing and marketing costs. The PS4 is significantly outselling the XB1 and Microsoft will have a harder time convincing publishers to support an exclusive when more money could be made on the PS4.

 

MS are developing DX12, the biggest leap of difference in PC gaming since DX was announced; they're also bringing X1 platform fronting exclusives like Ryse and DR to PC and they're making it worse?

 

What do you even want?

Microsoft should have been working on and released DX12 a lot earlier. In fact Microsoft was so slow that AMD developed it's own API, called Mantle, that forced Microsoft into action - otherwise it risked losing control over PC gaming.

 

That first part pretty much can be summed up as you want MS to exit the console market. Without exclusive content, they lose against Sony. But as you said, you don't care about consoles, so that loss would be your gain.

I believe that Microsoft should exit the consoles market because a) it doesn't make any money and is a massive liability, and b) there is a clear conflict of interest with PC gaming.

 

The X1 controller is supported like the 360 controller is now. I've been using it on my pc for a few months now, works well.

It isn't officially supported and only the wired version has unofficial support, which I have no interest in.

 

As mentioned earlier, this deal is about restricting content for other platforms rather than developing content exclusively for Xbox. The difference is significant. Microsoft did the same thing with Halo and it annoyed a lot of gamers. This is about Microsoft paying to screw over gamers and other platforms rather than working to improve the Xbox. It's a pathetic move.

[vcfan]

Same could be said about Halo. 

uncharted and tr are a similar type game. halo isnt

[spacer]

Nope, just wired. Wireless will be a nice option since you won't have to buy an adapter like you did with the 360 controller.

Technically, any exclusive title is both content creation and content restriction. Still, this is a timed exclusive, so that means its a timed content restriction. That is not quite as bad as an outright exclusive.

The reason this is a bigger deal is simply because the last game was multiplatform, that is all.

It's not really content creation though, because the game was already under development. (it was even originally announced for all major platforms) Microsoft isn't funding the development directly. I mean, if SE comes out tomorrow and says "Rise" wouldn't be possible without Microsoft's backing, then all of this goes away. But it seems apparent that is not the case.

 

And I totally agreed with you that timed exclusivity isn't as bad as full exclusivity, but Microsoft still spent some, non-trivial, amount of money on a timed exclusivity deal. That money could have easily been spent on funding a brand new game, or even a true exclusive IP, from any developer. Instead we're getting another Tomb Raider, only for Xbox (for now) which is a short-term gain for Microsoft that has little benefit to consumers.

 

After this exclusivity deal ends, Microsoft will be in the same boat they are in now.

[Houtei]

So people are butthurt because they bought a PS4 and can't afford and/or read some stuff about Xbox being less powerful and cant bring themselves to buy an xbox ?   These kind of practices have gone on since the beginning of gaming.  It also goes on with many other types of companies like movie theaters in the same area.  Bluray vs DVD and HDDVD and DivX players as well when they existed.  They all spend money for exclusives to draw the customers to them if it didn't work they wouldn't be doing it but it does.  

 

You can count on many consoles being sold just because a game is out for it thats not on the others.  May not be a TON but from there that turns into more games in the long run being sold and live subscriptions and DLC and what not.  Paying out money for exclusive if the game is good enough is very worth it if your playing a long game.  The ONLY people hurt are people that are broke and/or stuck up.  

[MorganX]

If there's a dongle I wish it will be smaller this time. Like that universal Logitech dongle.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure why they can't or didn't produce a nano dongle. That would be fantastic!

Is it proprietary though? It uses Wifi Direct, which would require your computer to have the proper receiver, but is it more proprietary than that?

 

"The Xbox One controller does not use WiFi Direct for any of it's communication. The controller uses a proprietary wireless communication protocol that is optimized for gameplay and voice chat.

Xbox One does support WiFi Direct but that is for things like SmartGlass" - Major Nelson

 

I think if it was standard WiFi Direct, there would already be drivers and a receiver and I would buy one immediately. I'll buy one anyway, but being proprietary, that's most likely why it's not supported on PC yet. With all the wifi activity of a PC, particularly if the game is online, that's going to be a good engineering feet keeping the required response time. I personally don't think they will be able to pull it off in the XBone's lifetime, but I definitely hope so.

[RatherLargeBear]

It isn't officially supported and only the wired version has unofficial support, which I have no interest in.

 

 

 

It is officially supported, has been since the beginning of June. Plug it in and windows will install the official drivers. 

[Brandon H Supervisor]

 

Yeah, I'm not sure why they can't or didn't produce a nano dongle. That would be fantastic!

 

"The Xbox One controller does not use WiFi Direct for any of it's communication. The controller uses a proprietary wireless communication protocol that is optimized for gameplay and voice chat.

Xbox One does support WiFi Direct but that is for things like SmartGlass" - Major Nelson

 

I think if it was standard WiFi Direct, there would already be drivers and a receiver and I would buy one immediately. I'll buy one anyway, but being proprietary, that's most likely why it's not supported on PC yet. With all the wifi activity of a PC, particularly if the game is online, that's going to be a good engineering feet keeping the required response time. I personally don't think they will be able to pull it off in the XBone's lifetime, but I definitely hope so.

 

i still don't understand why MS didn't just go with bluetooth for the controller like PS did. it seems to work fine for the DS3 & DS4. this allows easy connectivity to PC.

[theyarecomingforyou]

It is officially supported, has been since the beginning of June. Plug it in and windows will install the official drivers. 

With the X360 controller there was a version specifically for Windows; that isn't the case with the XB1 controller. More importantly, nobody wants a wired controller in this day and age. I have a couple of wireless X360 controllers and have zero interest in a wired XB1 controller.

 

Microsoft is actually moving backwards with PC support.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

With the X360 controller there was a version specifically for Windows

no there wasn't. it was the same controller it just came bundled with the proprietary adapter to run it wirelessly on a PC and MS refused to sell said adapter on its own.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

With the X360 controller there was a version specifically for Windows; that isn't the case with the XB1 controller. More importantly, nobody wants a wired controller in this day and age. I have a couple of wireless X360 controllers and have zero interest in a wired XB1 controller.

 

Microsoft is actually moving backwards with PC support.

 

That specific version was exactly the same as a 360 controller with a higher price tag. They both function and look exactly the same.

 

Thankfully they didn't do the same thing for X1.

 

Edit: never mind, I didn't see Brando's post :P

[MorganX]

no there wasn't. it was the same controller it just came bundled with the proprietary adapter to run it wirelessly on a PC and MS refused to sell said adapter on its own.

Both correct. Said package was branded Xbox Wireless Controller for Windows, so IACFY is correct as well. I bought 2 of them. Only place to get the official adapter. All the cheap knock off adapters require a driver install. The official adapter has a native driver.

That specific version was exactly the same as a 360 controller with a higher price tag. They both function and look exactly the same.

Thankfully they didn't do the same thing for X1.

Edit: never mind, I didn't see Brando's post :p

Actually both of mine were cheaper than the console version, both from Amazon.com. You know MS, Sony, and Nintendo make a killing off console peripherals. Today the Windows version is about $6 more than an X360 and $2 more than an Xbone @ Amazon.com.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Both correct. Said package was branded Xbox Wireless Controller for Windows, so IACFY is correct as well. I bought 2 of them. Only place to get the official adapter. All the cheap knock off adapters require a driver install. The official adapter has a native driver.

 

You could buy the crossfire separately too. I have two but never bought the "Windows" controller.

 

As for prices, maybe it's different in US? These are the prices today in UK:

 

 

It's always been more expensive here.

[trooper11]

Microsoft can't even hold onto the exclusives it has. Ryse, Dead Rising 3 and Titanfall were all Xbox exclusives yet have made their way over to PC (or in Titanfall's case the sequel will also be released on PC and PS4). For Square Enix there is value in the deal

Ryse and Titanfall going to pc is a good thing though right? So in that case, its a good thing that MS didn't try to secure those as X1 exclusive. Again, if those were Sony exclusives, good luck finding them on pc later. Which company is more likely to have it's exclusive titles also show up on pc?

And people like you are the reason Microsoft screws over gamers like this.

Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all work the same way. That is how the console market works. So any console gamer is in fact supporting the system that you don't want to see supported at all.

 

There's only so long Microsoft can continue to lose money before it has to change strategy. Microsoft has yet to make a return on the Xbox brand overall - it has had years of profitability but they're offset by R&D, manufacturing and marketing costs. The PS4 is significantly outselling the XB1 and Microsoft will have a harder time convincing publishers to support an exclusive when more money could be made on the PS4.

Right, so that means they need all the exclusive titles they can get. Hence for moves like this. But doing that makes pc-only gamers angry. It's a no win scenario.

Microsoft should have been working on and released DX12 a lot earlier. In fact Microsoft was so slow that AMD developed it's own API, called Mantle, that forced Microsoft into action - otherwise it risked losing control over PC gaming.

Honestly, MS has had a lot on its plate over the past few years. Its been going through a massive transition in reaction to the massive changes in the market. Everything would have been better if stuff was released earlier, but they simply ran out of time. Do you really think they would intentionally delay DX12 when it is clearly better for pc and console gaming? I mean its an important release for MS. I'm sure AMD's release did spur on MS, but I kind of doubt they were not already working on DX12 in some capacity. Still, I agree that it would have been better if it was out say last year.

 

I believe that Microsoft should exit the consoles market because a) it doesn't make any money and is a massive liability, and b) there is a clear conflict of interest with PC gaming.

[

Still, what did MS really do for pc gaming before xbox was around other than tools like DX? They had a handful of games they released every so often, but its not like they were some big publisher or creating gaming specific experiences with Windows.

But hey, don't be shocked if MS' ultimate goal is the marriage of console and pc gaming with the X1. I wouldn't be surprised if their whole 'One Windows' push that brings a connected market and development across Xbox, WP, and Windows leads to the X1 and pc games being interchangeable. It could take a while and it might not even full materialize with the X1, but I get this feeling that MS is tired of having to invest so much developing two platforms when they can do everything on one.

As mentioned earlier, this deal is about restricting content for other platforms rather than developing content exclusively for Xbox. The difference is significant. Microsoft did the same thing with Halo and it annoyed a lot of gamers. This is about Microsoft paying to screw over gamers and other platforms rather than working to improve the Xbox. It's a pathetic move.

They are working to improve the Xbox. This move does not change their aggressive pace to improve the platform. I don't necessarily like these moves, but since its been the MO for gaming consoles for so long, it doesn't shock me like it may have years ago.

 

 

And I totally agreed with you that timed exclusivity isn't as bad as full exclusivity, but Microsoft still spent some, non-trivial, amount of money on a timed exclusivity deal. That money could have easily been spent on funding a brand new game, or even a true exclusive IP, from any developer. Instead we're getting another Tomb Raider, only for Xbox (for now) which is a short-term gain for Microsoft that has little benefit to consumers.

 

After this exclusivity deal ends, Microsoft will be in the same boat they are in now.

Well I'm at a loss really. MS secures one timed exclusive, and suddenly it means they are not developing exclusive titles or new IP. The whole straw man argument that doing that deal means fewer new ip or exclusive ip gets us no where.

What about all of the deals MS and Sony are doing for timed exclusive content or early access? All of that could have been spent on new ip and exclusives in theory.

Maybe MS will respond to this backlash by doing fewer exclusive deals. They are certainly open to making radical changes based on feedback. However, like some feedback, it could result in them just falling farther behind as the competition pushes forward happily. I just don't see this ending well.

[Luc2k]

But hey, don't be shocked if MS' ultimate goal is the marriage of console and pc gaming with the X1. I wouldn't be surprised if their whole 'One Windows' push that brings a connected market and development across Xbox, WP, and Windows leads to the X1 and pc games being interchangeable. It could take a while and it might not even full materialize with the X1, but I get this feeling that MS is tired of having to invest so much developing two platforms when they can do everything on one.

Very much doubt this because MS is looking for more control of software on their platforms (Xbox Marketplace, Windows Store), but they can't do that with the digital PC market and if they attempted to, users wouldn't stand for it since we are used to the freedom. On the flip side, how would they approach the cut-throat price competition found on PC or even DRM free games? Isn't the point of consoles to lose on hardware and make up for it on software with a closed ecosystem? 

[trooper11]

Very much doubt this because MS is looking for more control of software on their platforms (Xbox Marketplace, Windows Store), but they can't do that with the digital PC market and if they attempted to, users wouldn't stand for it since we are used to the freedom. On the flip side, how would they approach the cut-throat price competition found on PC or even DRM free games? Isn't the point of consoles to lose on hardware and make up for it on software with a closed ecosystem?

Actually, MS is more about getting services everywhere than they are about locking it down for their own platforms. It wouldn't shock me if gaming was an area they wanted to offer as a service too. Get away from a focus on just one piece of hardware and make it accessible on all platforms possible.

Both Sony and MS have sold consoles at a loss in the past, but this gen they both chose hardware that allowed them to sell their console at a break even price from day one. Nintendo never sell their consoles at a loss.

Your right though that there would be hurdle to jump for MS, but it seems to me that its a goal worth pursuing. Staying with the current console model seems silly. MS can't win there since they get attacked from the pc side for a lack of support and then from the other side when content isn't exclusive to the X1.

I would say if MS could come up with a netflix type service model for gaming, that even pc gamers would be open to it. They could also trump Steam by being more aggressive in bringing more digital sharing options. Come up with a proper rental/selling option for digital titles. Maybe you guys have some ideas on how MS could make the transition?

[trooper11]

All this talk about exclusives and timed exclusives reminded me of a situation that happened not long ago, Injustice is still only available on the ps4. It was a multiplatform game that switched to ps4 only. It had been assumed it was a timed exclusive, but we have yet to even hear a hint that it would come to the X1.

I wouldn't be shocked if Injustice was nearly as popular as the last Tomb Raider game, so its an interesting comparison to what is going on now.

However, there was little in the way of discussion about that happening though.

[Polonium]

Probably due to Sony not making a big song dance about it on stage somewhere?

[trooper11]

Probably due to Sony not making a big song dance about it on stage somewhere?

I'm pretty sure Sony did mention it, but I can't remember if it was at E3 or another event.

Oh, and I also remember the whole Ninja Gaiden switch on the ps3, even though that release didn't count as a brand new game, but one that was remade with extra content and some odd choices regarding the gore.

[Polonium]

Listen, its not a ###### for tat thing. Doesn't matter who does it, its a dirty tactic.

Bottom line is the game isnt exclusive to Xbox so this is now a non event.

Timed exclusives is clearly something MS think can help them this generation, let them try it. I only hope when it proves to be unsuccessful, they spend that sort of money on developing new and refreshing ideas for their platform.

[JonnyLH]

Listen, its not a ###### for tat thing. Doesn't matter who does it, its a dirty tactic.

Bottom line is the game isnt exclusive to Xbox so this is now a non event.

Timed exclusives is clearly something MS think can help them this generation, let them try it. I only hope when it proves to be unsuccessful, they spend that sort of money on developing new and refreshing ideas for their platform.

So you'd rather have no game at all rather than a timed exclusive?

 

You do realise MS are chipping in for development costs? If they didn't, SE didn't think the reboot of TR was profitable enough to do another. 

[jakem1]

So you'd rather have no game at all rather than a timed exclusive?

 

You do realise MS are chipping in for development costs? If they didn't, SE didn't think the reboot of TR was profitable enough to do another. 

 

This is the bit I don't get about the haters.  They'll get the game shortly after Xbox owners and they will get it because MS invested in the game's development. 

 

I guess it's easier to bash Microsoft if you don't let facts get in the way.

[Luc2k]

Actually, MS is more about getting services everywhere than they are about locking it down for their own platforms. It wouldn't shock me if gaming was an area they wanted to offer as a service too. Get away from a focus on just one piece of hardware and make it accessible on all platforms possible.

Both Sony and MS have sold consoles at a loss in the past, but this gen they both chose hardware that allowed them to sell their console at a break even price from day one. Nintendo never sell their consoles at a loss.

Your right though that there would be hurdle to jump for MS, but it seems to me that its a goal worth pursuing. Staying with the current console model seems silly. MS can't win there since they get attacked from the pc side for a lack of support and then from the other side when content isn't exclusive to the X1.

I would say if MS could come up with a netflix type service model for gaming, that even pc gamers would be open to it. They could also trump Steam by being more aggressive in bringing more digital sharing options. Come up with a proper rental/selling option for digital titles. Maybe you guys have some ideas on how MS could make the transition?

MS is also know for the old "Embrace, extend and extinguish" so excuse me for not being so optimistic about them not locking stuff.

 

Even if they made a profit on the hardware this time, while I'm not sure of, I do suspect that software brings the bulk in and while the idea of a Netflix seems noble, it is also more complicated with games. And then you add sharing to it. I honestly have no clue how they'd go about it, but I really doubt it would be financially feasible for MS or anyone else any time soon.

 

So you'd rather have no game at all rather than a timed exclusive?

 

You do realise MS are chipping in for development costs? If they didn't, SE didn't think the reboot of TR was profitable enough to do another. 

We know money changed hands, but do you have a source for this claim you're making? For all I know right now, the money could have been used by the Squeenix execs on hookers.