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

Chobel said:
We know that SE are able to develop RoTR without MS help.



It does matter, funding games is different than moneyhatting out other platforms. RoTR were always coming to Xbox, all MS did was stopping other platforms from getting this game.
Click to expand...

Same garbage they pulled with Splinter Cell: Conviction.
 
David___ said:
Prove it. Funding a game from the ground up =/= writing a check to make sure a game doesn't come to platform x
Click to expand...

What do you think Square Enix and CD will do with the money, rent a yacht and throw a party every night for the rest of the summer? No... they're a game company... they will use it to make games, including Rise of the Tomb Raider.
 
pnoozi said:
And Microsoft is footing the bill (or at least a portion of it) for Rise of the Tomb Raider.

So what you're saying is it would be perfectly acceptable if, instead of purchasing exclusivity (possibly timed) for Rise of the Tomb Raider, Microsoft had purchased CD and Tomb Raider outright, so that all future Tomb Raiders are exclusive to Xbox indefinitely. That would have been okay. But paying to keep a single game exclusive to Xbox for a year is an outrage.
Click to expand...

If Microsoft had purchased CD they'd make one new Tomb Raider game, then be put to pasture (Kinect game development) and we'd see Lara Croft DLC for other games at best. Perhaps Microsoft would let them make Gears of War DLC.

I'm not even angry by the exclusivity, really. It's just one of the least intelligent choices a publisher could be making in this generation. I also believe that whatever Microsoft is paying Squenix was too stupid to negotiate a decent price. If anything I think it's Squenix that's getting both short ends of the stick.
 
So to make a broad summary, moneyhatting is okay if in your highly subjective opinion, a game could never have been made without financial intervention by a first party publisher?

That is a reasonable position to take, but I have pretty strong doubts that Bloodborne or No Man's Sky would have completely died if not for Sony's intervention. From Software has tons of revenue from the Dark Souls titles, and Hello Games are ambitious enough to attract VC money without an exclusivity deal. If you believe otherwise, then I suppose that's just where we have to agree to disagree.
 
border said:
The same way that the PC-only demographic is supposed to play Bloodborne. For whatever reason, people aren't nearly as upset about that moneyhat.....even though Dark Souls has a pretty avid PC gamer following.
Click to expand...

Bloodborne is new IP being made for Sony in collaboration with Sony Japan Studios. How is this comparable to a Microsoft buying a game that was set to release on all platforms(except Wii U)?
 
I hope CD comes with a better PR statement that actually outlines if Microsoft is actually helping the game exist, like Bayonetta 2 or Sunset Overdrive, though it seems likely that's not the case.

Especially when the game wasn't announced as a exclusive at the E3 world premiere. What a weird turn of events.
 
border said:
So to make a broad summary, moneyhatting is okay if in your highly subjective opinion, a game could never have been made without financial intervention by a first party publisher?

That is a reasonable position to take, but I have pretty strong doubts that Bloodborne or No Man's Sky would have completely died if not for Sony's intervention. From Software has tons of revenue from the Dark Souls titles, and Hello Games are ambitious enough to attract VC money without an exclusivity deal. If you believe otherwise, then I suppose that's just where we have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Moneyhatting an already established multiplat series and cutting people out who are already invested in the series is scummy. Regardless who does it. Bloodborne doesn't fit that criteria so why do you keep bringing it up?

I'll give you an example. Let's say Bioshock comes out on all systems and is a huge success. If Sony moneyhatted the sequel it would absolutely be scummy. But if MS moneyhatted Bioshock as a new IP so that the first title only came out on their system, that's not as bad, as its not cutting out people who already played the first game and who are invested in the story.

Although I think the focus should also be on the dev and their decision to section off their property.
 
border said:
The same way that the PC-only demographic is supposed to play Bloodborne. For whatever reason, people aren't nearly as upset about that moneyhat.....even though Dark Souls has a pretty avid PC gamer following.
Click to expand...

border said:
So to make a broad summary, moneyhatting is okay if in your highly subjective opinion, a game could never have been made without financial intervention by a first party publisher?

That is a reasonable position to take, but I have pretty strong doubts that Bloodborne or No Man's Sky would have completely died if not for Sony's intervention. From Software has tons of revenue from the Dark Souls titles, and Hello Games are ambitious enough to attract VC money without an exclusivity deal. If you believe otherwise, then I suppose that's just where we have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...


I don't think you know what a moneyhat is.
 
DrSlek said:
I'm confused. The Tomb Raider reboot didn't seel very well across all platforms, did it?

I don't understand how agreeing to an exclusivity deal with a single console will work out better for the Publisher....
Click to expand...

It sold a couple of million copies. The problem was SE had completely mental sales expectations for it.
 
evildede said:
And like everyone else here, you obviously know all the details of that deal, right?
Click to expand...

I think it's more of a perception problem, where MS was ambiguous about TR's exclusivity until now. With Bloodborne, Sony was upfront about it being exclusive. It feels like, more than anything, people feel betrayed because there was a reasonable expectation for TR to be multiplat. If TR was announced as an MS exclusive when it was revealed at E3, I think there would have been less of an uproar.
 
If anyone is pissed off about this, even if it ends up being a timed exclusive, speak with your wallets and don't buy the game period. That will send a bigger message.
 
Malechai said:
If anyone is pissed off about this, even if it ends up being a timed exclusive, speak with your wallets and don't buy the game period. That will send a bigger message.
Click to expand...

It is easy to say that, but hard to do when it's a game you really like. Buying it used or off eBay so SE doesn't see any additional profit will be my compromise on a boycott.
 
border said:
So to make a broad summary, moneyhatting is okay if in your highly subjective opinion, a game could never have been made without financial intervention by a first party publisher?

That is a reasonable position to take, but I have pretty strong doubts that Bloodborne or No Man's Sky would have completely died if not for Sony's intervention. From Software has tons of revenue from the Dark Souls titles, and Hello Games are ambitious enough to attract VC money without an exclusivity deal. If you believe otherwise, then I suppose that's just where we have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

No. Moneyhat is paying developers who don't need help funding to stop other platforms from getting the game (timed or not).

Some game can be made with the help of other publishers, but if the platform holder (Sony/MS) is one helping it doesn't make it a moneyhat.

evildede said:
And like everyone else here, you obviously know all the details of that deal, right?
Click to expand...

We know SE didn't need help from MS to develop the game.
 
Matriox said:
I don't think you know what a moneyhat is.
Click to expand...

Probably because definitions vary. I'm using the broad definition of a moneyhat -- "Funds given to publishers for timed or permanent exclusivity".

Yukiko said:
Moneyhatting an already established multiplat series and cutting people out who are already invested in the series is scummy. Regardless who does it. Bloodborne doesn't fit that criteria so why do you keep brining it up?
Click to expand...

Bloodborne is a "new IP" in name only. It mimics mechanics established by a previous franchise, with much of the same creative team involved in production. If Microsoft paid Naughty Dog to produce a new exploration/adventure/shooter starring a lovable rogue similar to Nathan Drake, I don't think it would be unfair to call it a moneyhat situation.
 
I have the Sunset Overdrive Xbox One bundle preordered but I will not purchase this game until it comes to PC. This isn't like Bayonetta 2 where without the money the game would never have been made, this is straight up pay to keep the game off of other consoles (and PC) bullshit.

Also to Microsoft: WTF mate? You know you Windows too right? Throw us a bone will ya?
 
border said:
If Microsoft paid Naughty Dog to produce a new exploration/adventure/shooter starring a lovable rogue similar to Nathan Drake, I don't think it would be unfair to call it a moneyhat situation.
Click to expand...

You do know Sony owns Naughty Dog, right?

Bloodborne is a "new IP" in name only. It mimics mechanics established by a previous franchise, with much of the same creative team involved in production.
Click to expand...
And that previous franchise mimic'ed another previous franchise that's also owned by Sony. Your point?
 
border said:
After the financial success of the two Dark Souls games, do you really believe that Bloodborne couldn't have been independently financed?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a moneyhat. Bloodborne was not a game that Sony saw in FROMs office and decided to buy, the IP was a proposal to FROM by Sony. It would not exist had Sony not went to Miyazaki and said, "Let's make this game together".
 
MrBud360 said:
Microsoft all you need now is to get Mass Effect, KOTOR, Fallout or Elders Scrolls exclusivity and you could change the game.
Click to expand...

MrBud360 said:
Tomb Raider could be a better game with this exclusivity. They can use the cloud to do something especial like Crackdown 3 physics. When you doesn't have to worry about different hardware's you can focus your entire team to squeeze one platform. The Rise of Tomb Raider could be the 2015 Game of the Year. That was a BIG BIG move by Microsoft.
Click to expand...

In such a short time your post history is wondrous.
 
Doesn't help when Crystal Dynamics says:

I’d like to give you some insight into this decision, and why we feel this is the very best thing for the Tomb Raider sequel we’re creating at the studio.
Click to expand...

And gives this laughable text as the reasons for their decision:

Today’s announcement with Microsoft is one step to help us put Tomb Raider on top of action adventure gaming. Our friends at Microsoft have always seen huge potential in Tomb Raider and have believed in our vision since our first unveil with them on their stage at E3 2011. We know they will get behind this game more than any support we have had from them in the past - we believe this will be a step to really forging the Tomb Raider brand as one of the biggest in gaming, with the help, belief and backing of a major partner like Microsoft.
Click to expand...

The way they expect us to lap this shit up as a satisfactory answer is borderline offensive lol.
 
HYDE said:
Add me to this camp...

I bought Tomb Raider on PS3 and on PS4.

Such distasteful bullcrap shitty practices by both parties involved.
Click to expand...

Yeah, same here. It's a really big slap in the face to people like me who enjoyed the game so much that they got it on PS3 and PS4.

This was literally first in line to be my GOTY for 2013 until The Last of Us was released. Tomb Raider is still one of the more memorable action-adventure experiences I've had last gen.

They've just given me the finger with this announcement. Feels great.
 
Malechai said:
If anyone is pissed off about this, even if it ends up being a timed exclusive, speak with your wallets and don't buy the game period. That will send a bigger message.
Click to expand...

This is an easy decision as I don't plan on getting an XB1. If it is timed exclusive, I'll wait till it hits the bargain bin.
 
Chobel said:
No. Moneyhat is paying developers who don't need help funding to stop other platforms from getting the game (timed or not).
Click to expand...

The term "moneyhat" originates from a Penny Arcade comic strip involving the development of a new Oddworld game from Lorne Lanning. Given the situation at the time as well as recent history, I would argue that Oddworld very much NEEDED outside funding to finish their game. Their previous publisher, GT Interactive, died in 1999......two years before the Xbox-exclusive release of Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee. Microsoft paid for the development of the game, and it was still considered a "moneyhat" situation.

Money-Hat.jpg
 
MrChowderClams said:
I think it's more of a perception problem, where MS was ambiguous about TR's exclusivity until now. With Bloodborne, Sony was upfront about it being exclusive. It feels like, more than anything, people feel betrayed because there was a reasonable expectation for TR to be multiplat. If TR was announced as an MS exclusive when it was revealed at E3, I think there would have been less of an uproar.
Click to expand...

The thing is even the reveal is ambiguous. People keep referring to that MS presser as it is the only "official" source of info we have about the game maybe being multi platform. Yet, when you read it, it mentions: "Xbox exclusives shared the stage with blockbusters such as “Assassin’s Creed Unity,” “Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare,” “Evolve” and “Rise of the Tomb Raider,” and independent games such as “INSIDE,” adding to a growing library of games on Xbox One."

The blockbusters they mention, they all have something "exclusive" on XBox One or are being associated to Xbox One. COD has DLC first on Xbox One, Evolve has some deal also about the DLC as well as the beta only on Xbox One, AC is being associated with Xbox One this time around (while Watchdogs and Farcry 4 are associated with PS4) and then we have Tomb Raider which from the trailers, already seemed to be associated to XBox One in the same way AC Unity is.

So maybe there was already some "exclusive" content or deal being made with Microsoft, or maybe the Xbox One was the lead platform (like it is for The Division I believe) and was much further ahead on development on that version. Maybe the PS4 port would have been outsourced, maybe early on there were talks with MS about exclusivity but it was still up in the air at E3? Who knows?

The problem here is everyone assumes, no one has proof, and so people keep bashing MS for no reason IMO, when there might be a lot more that we are not aware of. Maybe some real insider (not CBOAT, but someone from CD who really knows what happened) could actually share some insight at some point or make things more clear. However, franchises move from one console to another, this isn't a first, and it won't be the last. People have to stop the needless bashing, as whether we are talking MS or Sony, this won't be the last we see of this.
 
This game was not exclusive during the E3 presser. If it was Microsoft would have jizzed it all over the screen to get maximum exposure. This deal happened after E3 and before Gamescom.
 
libregkd said:
Which also was a Sony funded exclusive game, your point?
Click to expand...

Yep. He's ignoring the fact that plenty of gamers played TR across multiple systems. Only Sony console owners played Demon Souls. Not that hard to understand why fans would be pissed at this decision. Especially since TR fan base is overwhelmingly on the other platforms. If Sony had done this I would say it's still scummy since X1/360 and PC gamers who played the first one are being blocked from playing the sequel of a series they started.
 
ElMexiMerican said:
It appears so http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/rise-of-the-tomb-raider#fbid=GAM3Id-jSw-
Click to expand...

I can't imagine the 360 version selling well at all that late into 2015. Like I said, last-gen software sales will be dead by then. Though it will probably be handled by a skeleton crew or farmed out to another studio while the main team works on the Xbone version.

border said:
Bloodborne is a "new IP" in name only. It mimics mechanics established by a previous franchise, with much of the same creative team involved in production. If Microsoft paid Naughty Dog to produce a new exploration/adventure/shooter starring a lovable rogue similar to Nathan Drake, I don't think it would be unfair to call it a moneyhat situation.
Click to expand...

It's called an established formula. Many developers tend to have it. This is like saying Dragon Age (Origins) is a new IP "in name only" because it follows the same structure as EVERY Bioware game before it (especially Baulder's Gate). It's like saying Sunset Overdrive is Ratchet and Clank reskinned, so it's a moneyhat (hint: it's not). It's ridiculous.

Bloodborne is a new IP. Period. It's also not a moneyhat.
 
badb0y said:
This game was not exclusive during the E3 presser. If it was Microsoft would have jizzed it all over the screen to get maximum exposure. This deal happened after E3 and before Gamescom.
Click to expand...

And you think those kinds of deal are made in a day? Who says the talks don't go back all the way before E3? And no talks were made by Square Enix before that as to not lose sales of the Definitive Edition?
 
border said:
The term "moneyhat" originates from a Penny Arcade comic strip involving the development of a new Oddworld game from Lorne Lanning. Given the situation at the time as well as recent history, I would argue that Oddworld very much NEEDED outside funding to finish their game. Their previous publisher, GT Interactive, died in 1999......two years before the Xbox-exclusive release of Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee. Microsoft paid for the development of the game, and it was still considered a "moneyhat" situation.

Money-Hat.jpg
Click to expand...

Obviously what I said was my definition of moneyhat, and I believe most here agree with it.
 
pnoozi said:
You guys either have a severe bias towards Sony, or a deep-seated moral opposition to subcontracting.
Click to expand...

What? Naughty Dog staff are employess of Sony, not subcontracted.
Saying that response is due to a Sony bias probably says more about you than the person you were quoting.
 
pnoozi said:
You guys either have a severe bias towards Sony, or a deep-seated moral opposition to subcontracting.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with pubs contracting devs to make exclusives. I'm fine with Scalebound being Xbone exclusive since MS is footing the bill. I'm fine with DR3 being exclusive since MS funded it.

What I'm not fine is pubs writing a check to deny a game to a platform.
 
pnoozi said:
You guys either have a severe bias towards Sony, or a deep-seated moral opposition to subcontracting.
Click to expand...

Yeah no. I have an X1 and think these kind of practices are bad for consumers and the industry. I'd love to see film or TV series start to yank on going series and tell their audience to pay $400 if they want to finish it.

This industry is always complaining about not being taken seriously and you have shit like this.
 
mrklaw said:
Lots of people only have one console. And when you have to pay to play online this gen, I think even more people will have only one console.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course but that doesn't change the fact that you'll miss out on a ton of great games if you only own 1 platform. Hell even if you have 2 or 3. Every manufacturer is putting something worth having.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LTTP: Tomb Raider (2013)
16
515
Gamerguy84 replied
LRG Announces Physical Editions of Tomb Raider IV-VI Remastered for Switch, PS5, PS4, and Xbox (Standard: $29.99, CE: $79.99)
News 
20
406
SALMORE replied
Tomb Raider Pinball FX Announced
News 
4
137
Madflavor replied
Is Tomb Raider twitter teasing the next Tomb Raider reveal at The Game Awards?
2
82
4K
ShaikhCroft replied
Amazon Tomb Raider seems to be based on Angelina Jolie
Opinion 
26
328
Shaki12345 replied
Top Bottom