WrenchNinja
Member
Calling people entitled is like an automatic argument loser.
Rise of the Tomb Raider timed Xbox exclusive for Holiday 2015 (No PS/PC, SE publish)
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
If it was set in stone back then, why wasn't it announced as such at E3 already?
markedbravado
Member
The initial explosion of anger was based on the full exclusive front. The temperament has settled since talk of timed exclusive emerged. Reaction would have been less agitated had it been known to be a timed exclusive.
The Antitype
Banned
Attacking a general sentiment (not even a core argument) without presenting an argument of your own is pretty much a failing at life indicator.
razgriz417
Member
Seems like this will be a timed exclusive (I believe in Shinobi and CBOAT), so guess I'll wait to get this on Steam down the line
Well okay then. Titanfall and Sunset Overdrive are like HellBlade and Bloodborne. All those games felt like gains to their respective console owners.
XB1 owners didn't gain anything with TR exclusivity.
We will have to wait and see how well it sells on the PS4 when it releases.
In order to get the cash from Microsoft I'd assume they would have to forfeit the release of the PC version as well. CD was probably more than happy to do so.
I just genuinely think that Uncharted scared the shit out of them, so instead of releasing a game on a platform in the shadow of a giant they ran and got some cash. The PC version is just a casualty as a part of the negotiations. That would just make too much sense to me.
They said "will release holiday 2015 exclusively on Xbox One" so they gave a release date and an exclusivity announcement. Usually for timed exclusives publishers and developers say something like "and the coming year/months on PS4 and PC". They didn't say anything like that.
Where is it confirmed that it's timed exclusive only because nothing they said sounds like it is?
Where is it confirmed that it's timed exclusive only because nothing they said sounds like it is?
Ramocalypse
Member
ha, thanks, though this thread is moving like wild fire.
Effigenius
Member
Part of me wonders if this is Square Enix's way of saying Fuck you to Sony over the Uncharted franchise ripping them off. Though that doesn't explain why the PC version gets the shaft. I am assuming because there is a law that the PC must always get every aaa game after the consoles.
So now it's about the way they communicated the exclusivity? It both comes down to games being timed exclusive, nothing less.
Awh hell no. Don't use such words. I'm not even in for or against you here, but those are petty words.
plasmawave
Banned
They will not have my money that's for sure.
What a horrible decision, but then again this is SE.
What a horrible decision, but then again this is SE.
perineumlick
Member
You're being overly dramatic with the entitlement stuff. People get upset, even angry; so what? It's their money at the end of the day, and this is a hobby. Who are we to say what is justified? It makes perfect sense for people to expect a game that came out on all systems last year to continue that trend, and it also makes sense for people to voice disappointment if that game is excluded from their platform of choice.
The Antitype
Banned
I doubt it was set in stone. Who knows what stage the negotiations were at at that stage, or what financial pressures may have come to bear.
My point is nothing was promised and then revoked.
A game and a release window were announced at E3. That was it. We've heard nothing about the game since then, until today.
Hell, nothing has been revoked period, since the PS4 is still getting the game.
Effigenius
Member
contract wasnt worked out yet? I remember there was supposed to be a major third party exclusive announces at e3 that never happened. Maybe this was it?
I know this wasn't aimed at me. But I wanted to clarify with my last post, I do not think gamers are entitled to getting a sequel, just because they supported the first game. But I do think as a company, it's the right thing to do. People want to talk about business decisions being business etc. And it's true. But business isn't all about short term $$ gain. There are other implications of what these companies do, in terms of consumer perception of them, their reputation, and consumers having trust in them.
So while I think this deal was definitely beneficial to both MS and CD (at least in the short term), I think it's a terrible move in the long run. I basically see it as, MS wants to move some console units. TR won't sell that many units on X1 because the majority of its fan base are on another platform. So basically fans of the franchise are stuck in limbo so CD can get some extra money, and MS can move some units.
I do not think this is a good move for either company, and I do think it will damage their reputation (which could translate into sales, and the momentum of the reboot). But only time will tell. Still, I'm personally against this practice. I think if these companies want to compete, they should invest in new IPs (either their own produced IPs, or getting exclusives for new IPs)...rather than focus on sniping away already established franchises away from fans that are invested in them. I think that's harmful to the industry as a whole, and isn't a very "clean" business practice. Either way, consumers lose out.
plasmawave
Banned
A sequel (?) to Heavenly Sword coming to PS4 first VS a multiplat that sold more on the PS platform sequel coming to Xbox exclusively?
Something doesn't add up.
Just read the comments in threads of Titanfall or Sunset Overdrive where developers discussed about exclusivity and then tell me if you read anything like that in BloodBorne or Hellblade.
My point is that sometimes MS gets way too much hate for exclusive deals while Sony gets away with it.
The Antitype
Banned
Fair enough. I'll dial back.
As a PS4 only owner for now I think this is a big catch for MS even if the game ends up on PS4 and PC after awhile. I would probably buy PS4 RoTB day 1 and now I'll have to wait.
I've been dying to play Plants vs. Zombies for a good time and only now I'll be able to do that on PS4, it's annoying but it made me think about getting an Xbox (which I didn't, I ended up picking up a WiiU because I thought it would complement the PS4 better).
That said it makes me wonder if they aren't buying big timed exclusive deals because they have already announced most of their first party titles for the foreseeable future. It's no secret that MS first party is small in comparison to Sony's. Besides Black Tusks Gears, Platinum Scalebound, Remedy's QB and Halo 5 how many other big AAA games they have coming on the next year and forward?
I think there is a difference in securing a time exclusive deal on an indie game (like Sony's No Man's Sky) and a big third party game (like Titanfall and Tomb Raider). I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, ideally there would be no such thing as a timed exclusive, I'm just saying that maybe MS is doing this because they don't have enough first party games to show in the long run.
I fear that they might do the same thing they did with the 360 where at first they had a lot of great exclusives at the beginning but then they stopped investing on that.
I hope MS does the same as Sony did last gen and really invest on games that can be only played on Xbox for real, instead of timed exclusives. This is the way they will earn a purchase from me in the future.
I've been dying to play Plants vs. Zombies for a good time and only now I'll be able to do that on PS4, it's annoying but it made me think about getting an Xbox (which I didn't, I ended up picking up a WiiU because I thought it would complement the PS4 better).
That said it makes me wonder if they aren't buying big timed exclusive deals because they have already announced most of their first party titles for the foreseeable future. It's no secret that MS first party is small in comparison to Sony's. Besides Black Tusks Gears, Platinum Scalebound, Remedy's QB and Halo 5 how many other big AAA games they have coming on the next year and forward?
I think there is a difference in securing a time exclusive deal on an indie game (like Sony's No Man's Sky) and a big third party game (like Titanfall and Tomb Raider). I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, ideally there would be no such thing as a timed exclusive, I'm just saying that maybe MS is doing this because they don't have enough first party games to show in the long run.
I fear that they might do the same thing they did with the 360 where at first they had a lot of great exclusives at the beginning but then they stopped investing on that.
I hope MS does the same as Sony did last gen and really invest on games that can be only played on Xbox for real, instead of timed exclusives. This is the way they will earn a purchase from me in the future.
Because it's still not officially confirmed as a timed exclusive. If you visit verious social networks and the TR fansites you will see how people are still angry and mad because they think it's an exclusive. As long as S-E doesn't confirm it people are going to remain angry and disappointed, which is not really surpring since the company is giving the middle finger to their biggest fanbase (Tomb Raider never missed a PS/PC version).
plasmawave
Banned
A sequel (?) to Heavenly Sword coming to PS4 first VS a multiplat that sold more on the PS platform sequel coming to Xbox exclusively?
Something doesn't add up.
This is basically MS being dicks throwing money to the publisher to block the game from coming out to other consoles.
I was being facetious!
What I meant was that it's far more likely to expect SE to blame lack of mobile platforms for TROTR as the reason for potential disappointing sales as opposed to the timed exclusivity deal on Xbox One.
However, I do believe the paycheck received by SE for the timed exclusivity would be enough to allow the continuation of the franchise.Though it's not unlikely to see the fanbase of the game to dwindle substantially due to this deal, which could lead to more harm to the franchise than SE/CD may expect.
Has to be a legit sum of money for exclusive rights since TR sold better on PS3/PS4 then 360/X1 and the install base will be a fair amount smaller limiting sales potential.
I just want to see games succeed but I don't know if this is the right choice since they weren't even happy with the last games sales.
PC being cut out too is pretty weird they usually just pretend PC doesn't matter when it comes to exclusive stuff and release it anyways.
Hope it works out for them.
I just want to see games succeed but I don't know if this is the right choice since they weren't even happy with the last games sales.
PC being cut out too is pretty weird they usually just pretend PC doesn't matter when it comes to exclusive stuff and release it anyways.
Hope it works out for them.
GAF is diverse, and some hate the principle of it. It's a long running multiplatform series that's not out and out tanked in sales (just the opposite it seems, despite insane SE projections) or been on hiatus for a long time and thus needed saving, nor does there seem to actually be any sort of advantage going XB1 exclusive like FF going PS1 exclusive or hypothetically Tomb Raider going OG Xbox exclusive, not unless we get some real Kinect support here. Just seems like either SE will very easily take out payouts, or (more likely depending on how much Microsoft was willing to throw and how much SE cares about the IP) someone there, maybe from the Eidos side, is still cozy with Microsoft and was happy to do this sort of deal, especially in light of how FF exclusivity on PS4 didn't pan out.
I do wonder if a positive business relationship could be a key factor, because if that held out for the newer installment then it really just makes whoever decided this look like a complete fucking idiot unless the sum of money was insane, in which case Microsoft might be the fucking idiot instead. Series does well on PlayStation even when they do throw the Xbox some bones over PS, and now the PS4's just rolling all over the Xbox everywhere. Why the fuck keep spitting in the face of the larger audience?
I've already pointed out to you that Titanfall and Sunset are new IPs. BloodBorne is a spiritual successor to Demon Souls (which was a Sony title) and Hellblade is timed exclusive for a new IP.
Context is everything. I don't see why you are comparing a sequel to a major franchise, where the majority of the people that bought the game are being left out in the dark, so MS can move some units and CD can secure a little extra money. People more than anything, are upset that a series they are already invested in, is being denied to them. I do think, that is the core reason why people are upset.
How do you think most third party multi-plats are? There seems to be this narrative around here that Microsoft money hats and Sony gets out of merit.
This is really pulling hairs. Would you have no reaction had Bloodborne been announced as an XB1 exclusive, essentially denying all of the PlayStation owners who invested in Dark Souls?
Have we not established that TR is a timed exclusive at this point? All the sources posted about that are hinting it.
I just don't understand how one timed exclusive could be less worse than the other timed exclusive.
darkistheway
Member
You have to wonder if the moneyhat is really worth it in the current climate. The PS4's lead is only going to increase and there's just no way the game sells more as an (timed) exclusive.
From MS's perspective, does Tomb Raider sell consoles?
Weird.
From MS's perspective, does Tomb Raider sell consoles?
Weird.
There is truly no way that the contracts were in place for this game to be a Xbox exclusive during E3. You keep suggesting that it was already exclusive at the time and to think otherwise was foolish, but E3 is much bigger than Gamescom -- especially in the US, which is the main MS demographic -- and if they had that in their pocket at the time, it would have been announced. That fact alone is why common sense led the vast majority of people to assume the game would be releasing across multiple platforms, just like its predecessor and the other Tomb Raider game that was announced at the same time.
I mean, you keep toeing the line, saying that of course there were valid reasons to feel or think this way, but that to get your hopes set on something that you aren't certain about yet is foolish, but at that point why is anyone even watching or talking about Gamescom announcements of games years out? Hype is the entire point of these conferences and the intention of these companies. To criticize fans for looking forward to a game that common sense suggested they would get a chance to play seems unnecessary and petty.
But the fact that you haven't responded regarding your comments about fanboys gives me hope that you realize flinging around such accusations anytime someone accuses Microsoft of poor behavior or decision making is kind of--
Oh. Okay.
Context is everything indeed. But reasoning just doesn't seem to work sometimes. -_-
I'm sure someone has said this already, but it's one thing when a new IP or a sequel to a cult-favorite but not-financial success IP is funded or co-dev'ed by a first party (titanfall, bayo 2, sunset overdrive, devil's third, bloodborne (which is itself a special case with From/Sony history)) but it's vastly different when a multiplatform game sells a ton of copies and seems like a massive success and then turns out to be even a timed exclusive on the console it sold fewer copies of in it's previous installment.
This was the biggest surprise of the day for me, even though I've never played any Tomb Raider games and am entirely unaffected. Bold/weird move.
This was the biggest surprise of the day for me, even though I've never played any Tomb Raider games and am entirely unaffected. Bold/weird move.
I meant already established IP's. Can you give me an example of Sony recently sniping a major established franchise, and shutting out fans that played the game (or games prior). BloodBorne is an offshoot of Demon Souls (not Dark Souls). And Demon Souls was always exclusive to Sony as they helped Dev it.
plasmawave
Banned
As I've said, because TR was multiplatform and sold vastly more on the PS platform?
SE is saying fuck you to all those fans.
Prototype Viktor
Member
Which is weird since one will obviously win from available system numbers alone
I never brought TR in the discussion, my point was about the strong hatred for MS in general when it comes to third party buyouts whether it is Titanfall, Sunset Overdrive, or any other deal while Sony getting away with it easily.
Fanboy tears
old manatee
Banned
Wonder when Rise of the Tomb Raider HD will be out.
Where is the distinction?
VibratingDonkey
Member
I haven't read this whole thread as it's 8974 pages long, but the OP leaves me a bit confused. Is it timed or not? And why has that been so weirdly difficult to establish?
Hellblade's a previously announced game from a developer who's made a Sony published PS3 exclusive in the past, with which at first glance Hellblade seems to have some ties to.
Tomb Raider's been multiplatform since its inception. Rise was announced before this exclusivity arrangement. It was expected to be multiplatform.
Hellblade's a previously announced game from a developer who's made a Sony published PS3 exclusive in the past, with which at first glance Hellblade seems to have some ties to.