Rise of the Tomb Raider timed Xbox exclusive for Holiday 2015 (No PS/PC, SE publish)

thinking about this SquareEnix might be making a smart choice, Xbox One version would have been weakest line so they have pushed it up as an exclusive to sell more copies. 3 months down the Line they will still get the PS4/PC sales as expected.
There's the excitement for a new game factor though, and sometimes those late ports have catastrophically low sales. ME2 did not do so hot on PS3, and while that had the long running series angle (especially with the first installment missing until awhile after the series concluded) I doubt Bioshock did really well on PS3 with a late port.
Well I read the Hellblade thread, and haven't read anyone complaining about the timed exclusivity, but lot of people are fuming over TR deal which begs a question, why they are not pissed at timed exclusive offers that Sony has invested in?
But in all honesty, me arguing over this still doesn't change the fact that how much i am pissed at MS for not releasing this on PC at least. PC owners always get "deal with it" during these console wars.
Actually I think the more interesting question would be if they feel similarly about other XB1 exclusives, and what they think about THOSE games. Because quite a few of those, even if I'd LIKE them on PC or PS4 instead, do look pretty good and I'm far from angry or even irritated that those are XB1 exclusives, while TR's exclusivity just seems stupid, like some antiquated practice from last gen without many of the reasons that would've made such a move sensible then IE the PS3 requiring more time anyway, not doing so well, being out a year later, etc.
 
I understand that Hellblade being a timed exclusive for the PS4 and TR being a timed exclusive for XB1 are not "1-1", but theres a lot of similarities considering there's absolutely no backlash on the Hellblade front. MS is just going to be made out to be the villain this entire gen, huh?
 
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.

That's exactly what they're doing. Microsoft is leveraging their advantage over Sony (they have a lot more money to throw around, because outside the PS4, Sony is not doing great financially), to try and combat Sony's advantage over them (tons of first party content), in addition to Sony's PR advantage.

As far as PR goes, Microsoft is doing everything they can. They've basically axed everything consumers didn't like. But it takes time to rebuild trust and brand value. One of the best ways to do it in the gaming industry, is offer more great games than the other guys, that you can only get there. Do it consistently enough, for long enough, feelings start to change. Take a look at Sony at the PS3 launch, to Sony when Last of Us released.

Now, the argument is there that Microsoft is taking a shortcut while Sony invested for the long haul. That's true. Hopefully Microsoft will start to reinvest in their own internal software. The people that axed most of their first party stuff and set the initial vision of the Xbox One are pretty much gone now. Phil Spencer, who a lot of people in the industry seem to have a good opinion of, seems to be trying to overhaul this whole clusterfuck. I hope that means we see a return to the kind of thing we saw in the initial J Allard days, when they were making deals with everybody from Oddworld to Double Fine to make new games for them.

Until then, they have to buy time but give consumers a reason to want an Xbox One over PS4. They have the money to spend on exclusives and timed exclusives, so why wouldn't a company try to leverage that as much as they can to increase the perceived value of their product?
 
Your whole argument is 'what about the fans that supported the game'.

Look at my post and ask me when did I say it was OK. I understand you have love to assume shit but let's continue.....

I guess you don't/didn't give a shit about Sega Saturn owning Tomb Raider fans when Tomb Raider went exclusive? What about their money? What about their support?

I guess I didn't have a Sega Saturn to know what impact it had on the industry and didn't know Tomb Raider started on that first. But yes, continue to assume that you know exactly what I was feeling or asking at this point...

Maybe, just maybe *gasp* business factors into these decisions more than the fee-fees of the people who happened to buy the game on one platform versus another.

Shocking, I know.

Or Maybe Maybe, Edios or whomever started the franchise was dead wrong in alienating the franchise that it started on the Sega Saturn and fell into the money hands of Sony to bring it over. The practice back then does not make the practice today any better or valid. It's still scummy at the end of the day.

You are right, business is business at the end of the day, but since this is strictly about money and not the people behind it - I hope they are happy that the money that they need consumers to buy and support this game will no longer be rewarded due to incompetence.
 
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.

Fair enough. I'm talking abut this specific decision though, and why I think it's scummy. But I do get that the conversation has gone beyond just this specific decision. So I apologize. I still think it's scummy regardless if it's Sony/MS to snipe an already established franchise to shut out everyone else.

I'm more open to it when they publish it themselves, fund the dev, or if it's a new IP. But my issue is around them doing it with already established series that fans are invested in. That to me seems like a lose-lose for consumers.

Where is the distinction?

Need clarification. The distinction between well established franchises? Or are you asking about Demon Souls? Demon Souls was a new franchise that was co-dev by Sony, and BloodBorne is a successor to that. So I don't see why that needs to be clarified there. A well established franchise vs a new IP is also pretty clear. One has a fan base that has bought into a past game(s) and in some cases like film/books, it's a series with a story that continues with its sequels. Sniping exclusives from these kind of games, means it's shutting out fans that have already invested in a series from going any further with a series they got started on, all so one console company can sell Units (basically, fans of that series being screwed over, just so a company can move some console units. In the case of TR, the bulk majority of the fan base is on another platform, and the game itself won't sell as well).

Whereas a new IP..is new. You really don't see the difference?
 
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.
Well there's no good example to support their case, yet most here seem to repeat the same words again and again.
 
I believe you're missing something, yes.

I think he means he will not support Microsoft for using this sort of perceived anti-consumer tactics, despite Xbox One being cheaper and more to his liking without Kinect.

Yeah I guess I could see that. I guess being a multi console owner for years and years had made me over look this type of thing because I'll be able to play it anyways if/when I want.

At the same time they are doing something for their supporters of xbox. Sure it is more in their interest and not ours but at the end of the day I have never had much vested interest in a company. I only care about the games I get to play.

So I can see how it would rub some wrong.
 
18 years as a fan but not buying a XBone for this.

This is exactly the wrong kind of third party exclusive, a multiplat series moneyhatted to be exclusive. It isn't a reward to Xbone owners, they would get it anyway, just a middle finger from Square to PC/PS gamers.

If it timed exclusive I'll be buying it used. Not supporting it.
 
so is it exclusive? as in not timed

Seems there is some mixed messages, but it seems clear it's timed.

I am hoping it's permanent though. I think it'd kill the franchise's growth in its tracks and hopefully permanently put away the new shitty formulation of Tomb Raider once and for all. I am crossing the fuck out of my fingers right now. They literally could not have picked a more perfect game in my mind to snatch - a sequel to the horrific original bastardization of the franchise, one I loathed with all my heart for destroying a series that was still a true original in the industry and remained so since few if any games play like it even today. This 'me-too', check-list by design series couldn't be worse, and so since they decided to destroy a franchise I love, I want nothing more than to sit back and watch it deconstruct :D
 
I feel like people are really being intentionally obtuse in order to group this with other exclusives.
I'm just not seeing the argument against it. In my opinion, this generation needs more exclusives and not less.

Need clarification. The distinction between well established franchises? Or are you asking about Demon Souls? Demon Souls was a new franchise that was co-dev by Sony, and BloodBorne is a successor to that. So I don't see why that needs to be clarified there. A well established franchise vs a new IP is also pretty clear. One has a fan base that has bought into past game (in some cases like film/books, it's a game with a story that continues with its sequels). Sniping exclusives from these kind of games, means it's shutting out fans that have already invested in a series from going any further with a series they got started on.

Whereas a new IP..is new. You really don't see the difference?
What I am saying is I do not see how Bloodborne is the spiritual successor to Demon's Souls and not also Dark Souls. Because Sony is helping develop it? How is that making it uniquely like Demon's Souls as opposed to Dark Souls? I fail to see the distinction.

Do you think the Xbox owners who loved Dark Souls 1 and 2 care that Bloodborne isn't called Dark Souls when they cannot play it? There is no way Playstation owners who invested in them would not be upset had Bloodborne been an XB1 exclusive.

Besides the fact that dark souls already got a sequel not too long ago? Sony studios helping out with both demon souls and bloodborne.
How does this make Bloodborne a spiritual successor to Demon's Souls and not Dark Souls?
Co-Developed with Sony Studios Japan I believe.
I still don't see how that changes anything.
 
Tomb Raider (1996): PS1, PC, Saturn
Tomb Raider 2: PS1, PC
Tomb Raider 3: PS1, PC
Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation: PS1, PC, Dreamcast
Tomb Raider: Chronicles: PS1, PC, Dreamcast
Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness: PS2, PC
Tomb Raider: Legend: PS2, PS3, PC, X360
Tomb Raider: Anniversary: PS2, PS3, PC, X360
Tomb Raider: Underworld: PS3, PC, X360
Tomb Raider (2013): PS3, PC, X360
Rise of the Tomb Raider: XBO, X360?

Played every game on PC and Playstation, and this is what happens to me?
 
I'm really glad, as a loyal PC customer, that MS has dragged me into this console warz bullshit, and now I don't get to play a game i was excited for!(except that shitty title.) "MS would never just start buying third parties...." Ugh this is bullshit
 
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?

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.

I get it. But tell me the reason for hate in this thread in respect to Sunset Overdrive exclusivity. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=870611
 
What does the title of the thread say?

i read the updates to the OP in descending order with the Dear Tomb Raider community quote last. im kind of confused to be honest

Seems there is some mixed messages, but it seems clear it's timed.

I am hoping it's permanent though. I think it'd kill the franchise's growth in its tracks and hopefully permanently put away the new shitty formulation of Tomb Raider once and for all. I am crossing the fuck out of my fingers right now. They literally could not have picked a more perfect game in my mind to snatch - a sequel to the horrific original bastardization of the franchise, one I loathed with all my heart for destroying a series that was still a true original in the industry and remained so since few if any games play like it even today. This 'me-too', check-list by design series couldn't be worse, and so since they decided to destroy a franchise I love, I want nothing more than to sit back and watch it deconstruct :D

well thats an interesting reason to want it exclusive lol
 
Hellblade is a timed exclusive for PS4, just like Tomb Raider for Xbox. But people are hating MS for their apparent "dick move" as some would call here.

Yeah because "First On" is very clear but "exclusive" is just fooling the consumer thinking its a full exclusive
 
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.

As several other commenters as well as myself have pointed out, we have no idea what stage of negotiation the contract was in at E3.

Once again (and again, and again, I suppose), I completely understand fans being disappointed that they will have to wait for a game they would have liked to play as soon as possible.

There is a difference between disappointment and the notion that you are owed a release on a particular platform, at a particular time, especially when nothing has been explicitly promised at any time.
 
Where is the distinction?

One or the other is the obvious and inherently superior Souls series, and I'll leave it to your presumed hardcore game knowledge to decide which.

(No, but seriously, a lot about Bloodborne does sound new enough that I personally don't even think it's a direct spiritual successor to either. But obviously that's said without getting a hands on.)
 
I'm just not seeing the argument against it. In my opinion, this generation needs more exclusives and not less.

Agreed. MS and Sony should invest in new IP, and securing exclusives by helping publish or give money to studios that see it as a good deal. What MS did with Sunset was a very good move. Taking away an established franchise where the majority of fans of said franchise is on the other platform (all so they can move some Console units)...is pretty cheap, and hurts a lot of gamers.

I don't see this as a good thing for our industry.
 
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?

dark souls 3 is still coming out for both consoles. bloodborne is not the same franchise.
 
Seems there is some mixed messages, but it seems clear it's timed.

I am hoping it's permanent though. I think it'd kill the franchise's growth in its tracks and hopefully permanently put away the new shitty formulation of Tomb Raider once and for all. I am crossing the fuck out of my fingers right now. They literally could not have picked a more perfect game in my mind to snatch - a sequel to the horrific original bastardization of the franchise, one I loathed with all my heart for destroying a series that was still a true original in the industry and remained so since few if any games play like it even today. This 'me-too', check-list by design series couldn't be worse, and so since they decided to destroy a franchise I love, I want nothing more than to sit back and watch it deconstruct :D
;_;7
 
I understand that Hellblade being a timed exclusive for the PS4 and TR being a timed exclusive for XB1 are not "1-1", but theres a lot of similarities considering there's absolutely no backlash on the Hellblade front. MS is just going to be made out to be the villain this entire gen, huh?
Honestly I wonder how well known Hellblade even was beforehand. Tomb Raider's something most people know about, but I imagine most of Ninja Theory's games don't get as serious attention, maybe they catch the name and forget about it until news comes up again, or they don't even know it exists and are NOW learning it's a PS4 exclusive. Which highlights the difference here really, we needed something like SE biting on PS4 exclusivity for FFXV and/or KH3 to get this same kind of reaction probably.
 
I'm just not seeing the argument against it. In my opinion, this generation needs more exclusives and not less.

More first party exclusives, less third party exclusives (especially if a sequel to a game that was previously released) please.

I understand that Hellblade being a timed exclusive for the PS4 and TR being a timed exclusive for XB1 are not "1-1", but theres a lot of similarities considering there's absolutely no backlash on the Hellblade front. MS is just going to be made out to be the villain this entire gen, huh?

Hellblade is timed exclusive as well? Well fuck that.
 
Fair enough. I'm talking abut this specific decision though, and why I think it's scummy. But I do get that the conversation has gone beyond just this specific decision. So I apologize. I still think it's scummy regardless if it's Sony/MS to snipe an already established franchise to shut out everyone else.

I'm more open to it when they publish it themselves, fund the dev, or if it's a new IP. But my issue is around them doing it with already established series that fans are invested in. That to me seems like a lose-lose for consumers.
What's your opinion on Dead rising 3 exclusivity? The game is published by Microsoft, but was an established franchise.
 
Seems there is some mixed messages, but it seems clear it's timed.

I am hoping it's permanent though. I think it'd kill the franchise's growth in its tracks and hopefully permanently put away the new shitty formulation of Tomb Raider once and for all. I am crossing the fuck out of my fingers right now. They literally could not have picked a more perfect game in my mind to snatch - a sequel to the horrific original bastardization of the franchise, one I loathed with all my heart for destroying a series that was still a true original in the industry and remained so since few if any games play like it even today. This 'me-too', check-list by design series couldn't be worse, and so since they decided to destroy a franchise I love, I want nothing more than to sit back and watch it deconstruct :D

Are you being sarcastic or for real because I can't tell lol.
 
As several other commenters as well as myself have pointed out, we have no idea what stage of negotiation the contract was in at E3.

Once again (and again, and again, I suppose), I completely understand fans being disappointed that they will have to wait for a game they would have liked to play as soon as possible.

There is a difference between disappointment and the notion that you are owed a release on a particular platform, at a particular time, especially when nothing has been explicitly promised at any time.

I find it odd that you keep talking about things liked being "owed" or a sense of "entitlement" when the topic under discussion is the "right" to spend $60 on a video game.

Oh no, we wanted to give a company our money in exchange for goods and services. What entitled assholes.
 
This is really shocking and terrible news for me as a diehard Tomb Raider fan. It might be favorite franchise, but I will not buy a Xbox One to play it. Hopefully it is on PS4 early 2016, but Microsoft could always pull a Titanfall and buy outright exclusivity. I feel genuine hate right now.
 
I understand that Hellblade being a timed exclusive for the PS4 and TR being a timed exclusive for XB1 are not "1-1", but theres a lot of similarities considering there's absolutely no backlash on the Hellblade front. MS is just going to be made out to be the villain this entire gen, huh?

Sony made it abundantly clear that Hellblade is a timed exclusive. MS are using wordplay to make it seem like TR is a permanent exclusive.
 
Seems there is some mixed messages, but it seems clear it's timed.

I am hoping it's permanent though. I think it'd kill the franchise's growth in its tracks and hopefully permanently put away the new shitty formulation of Tomb Raider once and for all. I am crossing the fuck out of my fingers right now. They literally could not have picked a more perfect game in my mind to snatch - a sequel to the horrific original bastardization of the franchise, one I loathed with all my heart for destroying a series that was still a true original in the industry and remained so since few if any games play like it even today. This 'me-too', check-list by design series couldn't be worse, and so since they decided to destroy a franchise I love, I want nothing more than to sit back and watch it deconstruct :D

lol dayyyum!
 
In case anyone missed it (not reading 93 pages), the message in OP is the edited version, the line

This doesn’t mean that we’re walking away from our fans who only play on PlayStation or on PC. Those are great systems, with great partners, and amazing communities.


Originally said this

We’d like to work with those of you who don’t own an Xbox One and find ways for you to participate in our campaign right alongside those who do.

Like they expected PS4/PC owners to spread good word of it and do their marketing?
 
As several other commenters as well as myself have pointed out, we have no idea what stage of negotiation the contract was in at E3.

Once again (and again, and again, I suppose), I completely understand fans being disappointed that they will have to wait for a game they would have liked to play as soon as possible.

There is a difference between disappointment and the notion that you are owed a release on a particular platform, at a particular time, especially when nothing has been explicitly promised at any time.


Eh, no we deserved a PC release at least, MS just made a dick move, there is no real other way of looking at it
 
Look at my post and ask me when did I say it was OK. I understand you have love to assume shit but let's continue.....

This isn't even a sentence in English, so I can't help you until you clear up what you're trying to say/ask.

I guess I didn't have a Sega Saturn to know what impact it had on the industry and didn't know Tomb Raider started on that first. But yes, continue to assume that you know exactly what I was feeling or asking at this point...

Nobody was assuming what you felt at that point. We were responding to the fact that when you were presented with evidence that the exact same scenario had happened in the past, with different consoles, your response was to basically belittle the importance of the Saturn and it's users.


Or Maybe Maybe, Edios or whomever started the franchise was dead wrong in alienating the franchise that it started on the Sega Saturn and fell into the money hands of Sony to bring it over. The practice back then does not make the practice today any better or valid. It's still scummy at the end of the day.

If you believe it's scummy regardless of the when and the who, then I can respect that. Personally, I'm on the other side. I think it's fine, regardless of the when and the who. Eidos and Core basically made themselves into powerhouses by devoting all their energy to the PSX and PC versions of Tomb Raider 2.

Granted, Core was a shitty developer coasting on a great idea/look, and that ultimately bit them in the ass, but the business decision was a sound one.

You are right, business is business at the end of the day, but since this is strictly about money and not the people behind it - I hope they are happy that the money that they need consumers to buy and support this game will no longer be rewarded due to incompetence.

Why? Can you point out a timed exclusive that suffered terribly for having released on one platform before another?
 
Top Bottom