• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Phil Spencer: MS will spend money on marketing and developing Rise of the Tomb Raider

If Microsoft is creating confusion, it's safe to say it's timed. They purposely act dodgy about a game's status when they want people to think it's only on the Xbox brand.

Wickerbasket said:
You sound pretty bitter.

It's OK if it's not exclusive, you can still enjoy the game.
Click to expand...

People like that don't want to enjoy the game. They just want other people to not be able to enjoy it.
 
I consider myself a fan of all consoles. Some I played more than others based on which generation had the games I liked. But this past week the partisanship in this place seems the worst it's ever been. I know many people don't agree but I don't see how what ms is doing with ROTTR is any different than Bloodbourne, Sunset Overdrive, Wild, Sony's or MS indie funding support etc. This place has gone bonkers recently. I am so glad I have no agenda or care which console "wins".
 
tmac456 said:
JPsrJMr.jpg


Uncharted 4 is the king of this genre and will have ps4 users busy for a while. Shitty that this is how things are done now, but this doesn't phase me much at all
Click to expand...

I know people compare these two games, but they still feel quite different to me. Tomb Raider had Metroid elements non-existent in the Uncharted games. It felt open world while still ultimately being a linear game. If I only owned a PS4 I would definitely feel like I was missing out.
 
dancmc said:
I consider myself a fan of all consoles. Some I played more than others based on which generation had the games I liked. But this past week the partisanship in this place seems the worst it's ever been. I know many people don't agree but I don't see how what ms is doing with ROTTR is any different than Bloodbourne, Sunset Overdrive, Wild, Sony's or MS indie funding support etc. This place has gone bonkers recently. I am so glad I have no agenda or care which console "wins".
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't read the 9000 posts debunking how it's not the same.
 
dancmc said:
I consider myself a fan of all consoles. Some I played more than others based on which generation had the games I liked. But this past week the partisanship in this place seems the worst it's ever been. I know many people don't agree but I don't see how what ms is doing with ROTTR is any different than Bloodbourne, Sunset Overdrive, Wild, Sony's or MS indie funding support etc. This place has gone bonkers recently. I am so glad I have no agenda or care which console "wins".
Click to expand...

People will just argue it's not the same at all because those are all new ips. Which I find a ridiculous argument
 
RexNovis said:
Actually no I did reference "It has a duration."

And please enlighten me as to how that phrase is at all clear. It's pretty much the epitome of non committal PR. We know what the phrase timed exclusive means. It has implications that have been defined by past examples. We have absolutely no idea from this comment what their contract is just that it will not continue until the end if time. The two are not remotely the same. Nobody says "it has a duration" nobody. I have never once heard that phrase prior to it coming out of Phil Spencer's mouth. The only reason you would say such a thing is if you're trying to be overtly vague and non committal which is exactly what he is doing.
Click to expand...
“It has a duration” means the same as “timed”, what else could it mean or what else could you make of it? I mean, that is the first conclusion you can make, and the interview goes on about “I can’t talk about specifics or other console” and that gives the second hint where he pretty much spells it out for you that it’s timed. I think you are hung up on trying to see that something different then it really is, instead of just reading what is there. “Can’t talk”, “a duration”, “SE’s IP” and “They can do what they want with the franchise” are pretty solid confirmations that can’t be twisted. And that whole interview reeks of timed confirmation.

Rule of thumb is that a third party publisher can do whatever they want with their IP, even if they got some funds from a first party console manufacturer. There are special cases--Titanfall jumps to mind-- but those are far and between. And Microsoft is not immune to this, look at Dead Rising 3 and Ryse. While it sucks for PS4/PC owners, they will get it--especially considering how well Tomb Raider Remaster sold.

It’s understandable why he would be a little vague, he doesn’t want to promote other platforms; seeing he is part of a first party company. This is the aspect some people seem to forget, take for example all those “First to console” statements at shows; not one of those developers is going to talk about when it’s coming to another platform because of the affiliation. We know it’s timed, get vague hints and eventually it leaks out. You can’t really blame them for keeping quiet or dodging the subject, and promoting their game as premier title that is coming first on the platform.
 
Team Vernia said:
I know people compare these two games, but they still feel quite different to me. Tomb Raider had Metroid elements non-existent in the Uncharted games. It felt open world while still ultimately being a linear game. If I only owned a PS4 I would definitely feel like I was missing out.
Click to expand...

I agree, to an extent. The problem with TR 2013 was that the narrative drove you forward so hard and didn't properly utilize the exploration/hunting aspects. If had spent less time on set pieces trying to mimic Uncharted, and more time on it's own unique features, it would have been better for it.

The fact that pretty much all of the actual "tomb raiding" is entirely optional sums up the game in a nutshell.
 
Aroll said:
Sony kicks everyones ass metaphorically in 2013? Sony fans have no problems gloating and trashing the competition. Microsoft does some positives in 2014? Microsoft fans just sit back and enjoy, Sony fans get nervous and contemplate why their console is missing features the Xbox One is getting. Wii U starts to do good - eh, it's still a last gen machine I can ignore.

I get a weird feeling that Sony fans are starting to feel a bit insecure about their platform and hate that a supposedly "inferior platform" is spending money and building a formidable library of exclusive games.

Not all fans are like this, Just seems to be a general feeling I am getting from Gaf.
Click to expand...

Sony is still wrecking Microsoft in 2014.

This game won't be much of a system seller. It's a nice coup though.

Majority of Sony "fans" are irritated because this practice sucks for consumers. And I think anyone with a level head can understand why X1 owners are irritated about the Destiny timed exclusive expansion packs. It sucks in general and the big problem is it's becoming more and more common
 
Paco said:
Your saltiness is just misdirected.

Spencer confirmed it was a timed deal days ago.
Click to expand...

I understand it's business to talk like a politician these days, but Jesus-limboing-Christ, I would like it if he was more direct.

'Suppose it's timed exclusive and will make it to PS4 at some point. I don't believe it's full on Xbox exclusive, however. If it were Xbox/PC exclusive, we'd be hearing more shouting from the mountain tops. Also, "duration" seems to be the key word here. Hopefully it's not misdirection in itself. I want to play this game at some point, but I do not want to purchase an Xbox One to do so.

I'll pick up a Bone when they cut the price another $50 bucks. Even then, it'll be for it's 1st party exclusives. Had I bought an Xbone already, I wouldn't support this game in any form, then again, the money used to purchase said hypothetical Xbone would probably have trickled into the hands of that dastardly SE.

6a015394069e98970b0163045b3cce970d-500wi
 
dancmc said:
I consider myself a fan of all consoles. Some I played more than others based on which generation had the games I liked. But this past week the partisanship in this place seems the worst it's ever been. I know many people don't agree but I don't see how what ms is doing with ROTTR is any different than Bloodbourne, Sunset Overdrive, Wild, Sony's or MS indie funding support etc. This place has gone bonkers recently. I am so glad I have no agenda or care which console "wins".
Click to expand...

Holy shit, my head.

It's not the same. Stop trying to say it is.

It's the difference between two parties coming together during the initial planning and creating a game which both support and help develop, and one party bribing the other out of the competitors market.
 
viveks86 said:
Before you go, I'm curious to know what you think is the confusion. Also, is there a confusion now?
Click to expand...

Probably not now. But with how everyone was discussing it before when bringing up exclusivity and timed exclusivity. I don't really like timed exclusive deals, they're stupid, they're literally a fart in the wind and add nothing of value. I'd wait till it's available on my console of choice than decide to pick up the other system for that one game.

This isn't really competition, or content creation like Scalebound is. There's nothing stand out about it. It's content denial. If this was content creation it would be funding studios for a brand new IP or franchise revivals exclusive to their platform, that would turn my head but we see very little of that from MS. They have also not really built up their first party studios in ways that make a difference. Drek's post covers that.

My problems with them go pretty deep.
 
bananafactory said:
I agree, to an extent. The problem with TR 2013 was that the narrative drove you forward so hard and didn't properly utilize the exploration/hunting aspects. If had spent less time on set pieces trying to mimic Uncharted, and more time on it's own unique features, it would have been better for it.

The fact that pretty much all of the actual "tomb raiding" is entirely optional sums up the game in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

It had its faults, but that's why the sequel is exciting for me. If it builds on the unique things it could be a very special game. I can't wait to see what CD brings to the table.
 
javiergame4 said:
are you sure about that? we'll see shinobi. MS wouldn't spend money helping develop for no reason/help market it. If I were spending cash on developing it, I wouldn't want my competitor having access to it. But sure we will listen to your "leaks" which aren't even mostly true the whole time.
Click to expand...
Microsoft are giving Square a ton of money for a timed exclusive. Square puts that money in the bank. Square then spends a ton of money developing the game, which means money then comes out of that bank account.

Microsoft: 'We're helping fund development of the game'.
 
Aroll said:
I know all fanboys can be that way, but it seems especially true of sony fans.
Not all fans are like this, Just seems to be a general feeling I am getting from Gaf.
Click to expand...

oh boy oh boy...you have mostly visited threads related to Sony/MS I reckon.

When a fan(boy) goes into full rage mode it's a total mess no matter which "side" they are on. Heck even someone just saying something can label them a fan in the "console wars" when in reality all they wanted to point out was that X was shitty. Next day Y is shitty to them. Come in to a Handheld thread sometime. Sometimes the Vita was something <insert deity here> would have crafted. Other days it's something <insert evil counter to said deity> would have crapped out to plague humanity :)

Best thing is to try and shit on everything you find shitty.

Do it more eloquently than I thou :)
 
Aroll said:
I understand why PS fans are upset. Seriously I do. No one likes to think the future of a franchise they enjoy will no longer be on the platform you own.

Though to be fair, Tomb Raider has been practically dead until the reboot. So it's been basically one game so far.

That being said, IF Microsoft paid good money for exclusivity, is paying for marketing, and has pumped money into development... then I don't know why anyone was confused. Phil Spencer literally compared it to what they did with Dead Rising - which was pump money for exclusivity, pay for marketing, and help pay fro development. Given that SE was disappointed with sales for the reboot (despite the fact the sales figures actually looked really good) I am not all too sure they were "looking forward" to crafting a sequel. In fact, given remarks out of SE, I wouldn't be shocked if they were secretly shopping for partners for the game to help with the financial burden so they can make more money off sales by investing less. It seems they invested HEAVILY in the original reboot and didn't like the profit margins.

Obviously I am not going to believe everything Phil Spencer says - just like I don;t believe everything Iwata says or everything Sony folks say. Sure, Phil hasn't seemingly gone wrong with his words YET since taking over, but it;s going to happen. He has a stake in these console wars.

But they have no reason to lie about how much money they pumped into this. Especially since it definitely looks like it is a console exclusive game - and going back and reading all the other remarks about it since being launched, I don't see SE or Microsoft ever mentioning it was a timed exclusive. This seemed to be folks personal interpretation (likely because they can't believe SE would agree to not have Tomb Raider on PS at all). It's also probably coming to PC because Microsoft supports PC gamers better these days. They might as well, given most game with Direct X on a windows platform. Might be a delayed release, but that's been standard for a long time with PC gamers. We're fairly accustomed to it to the point that we might complain, but we can't blame any individual company for it.

I understand being upset. For PS fans it might feel like it would to me if say, Metroid suddenly got yanked and was only going to be on the PS4.

In general though, I am happy with this. I HATE console timed exclusives. I really do. I also hate console specific DLC. If there is going to be a competition here for content, I would rather that competition be for exclusive content. If Microsoft wants to nail down the next Tomb Raider - which if it does well enough they will continue to pay to keep i there - then why shouldn't they? Exclusive content is what sells consoles. Microsoft is trying to scoop up as much as exclusive content as they can get.

I understand being upset if you own a PS4... and it sucks Sony can't pony up for exclusives as much as Nintendo and Microsoft can. Still, hard to get mad at Microsoft. All they did here was increase the value of the Xbox One by locking down yet another big exclusive game for their platform that no one else will get (save PC). Just like they got Dead RIsing, Titanfall, etc. I don't see an issue with this. It sucks, but it's understandable.

I just get the feeling if this was the other way around (Sony bought up exclusivity rights), there would be a lot less bitching. It always feels like (to me) that Sony fans seem to be really hostile and protective. I know all fanboys can be that way, but it seems especially true of sony fans. Sony kicks everyones ass metaphorically in 2013? Sony fans have no problems gloating and trashing the competition. Microsoft does some positives in 2014? Microsoft fans just sit back and enjoy, Sony fans get nervous and contemplate why their console is missing features the Xbox One is getting. Wii U starts to do good - eh, it's still a last gen machine I can ignore.

Microsoft locks down more exclusive games - damn you microsoft you evil whores. I get a weird feeling that Sony fans are starting to feel a bit insecure about their platform and hate that a supposedly "inferior platform" is spending money and building a formidable library of exclusive games.

Not all fans are like this, Just seems to be a general feeling I am getting from Gaf.
Click to expand...

This is a really thoughtful post, just one thing. Spencer actually did say the deal had a duration, which means it's a timed exclusive. It was very plainly put a few days ago. The problem is getting news from GAF. They tend to leave out details, sometimes really important ones because they typically fail to read past the first few sentences, or they are selectively hunting for information to fit their narrative.

Here it is from Spencer himself:

"I have Tomb Raider shipping next holiday exclusively on Xbox. It is Xbox 360 and Xbox One. I'm not trying to fake anybody out in terms of where this thing is. What they do with the franchise in the long run is not mine. I don't control it. So all I can talk about is the deal I have. I don't know where else Tomb Raider goes."

Is there a time limit on the exclusivity period?

"Yes, the deal has a duration. I didn't buy it. I don't own the franchise."
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate, but there are several problems with GAF in the types of members it has. We have the console warriors which will jump at any chance to fuel the fire even at the cost of the truth, the "simpletons," as I like to call them who read a headline and react, and then there are those who refuse to be reasonable and move the goal post to continue finding something to justify why they flew off the handle. Each of those types of members were out in full force on this and made a mess.

Dirk Benedict said:
I understand it's business to talk like a politician these days, but Jesus-limboing-Christ, I would like it if he was more direct.

'Suppose it's timed exclusive and will make it to PS4 at some point. I don't believe it's full on Xbox exclusive, however. If it were Xbox/PC exclusive, we'd be hearing more shouting from the mountain tops. Also, "duration" seems to be the key word here. Hopefully it's not misdirection in itself. I want to play this game at some point, but I do not want to purchase an Xbox One to do so.

I'll pick up a Bone when they cut the price another $50 bucks. Even then, it'll be for it's 1st party exclusives. Had I bought an Xbone already, I wouldn't support this game in any form, then again, the money used to purchase said hypothetical Xbone would probably have trickled into the hands of that dastardly SE.

6a015394069e98970b0163045b3cce970d-500wi
Click to expand...

Spencer very plainly said the deal has a duration and it's up to SE what they do with after the fact. There's really no way he could have been more direct about answering that question.
 
Mihael Mello Keehl said:
Can sony step in and say whether or not this will come to PS4? That will squash all of this in less than a second.
Click to expand...

NO!

Ugh. Please for the love of...

Squeenix can by all means do what they want after the timed-exclusivity ends. They could be like Itagaki and decide "fak Sony" or not. But we all know that after the timer ends it will be on PS4.

What Sony cannot do is basically dictate what Squeenix does. I mean it is pretty darn obvious anyway.

If there ever was a time when GAF should sticky what Phil really said...
 
Paco said:
And what does all that matter if it's only wrapped in a deal with an expiration date?
Click to expand...

But is it? I'll repeat myself: this latest release makes me doubt that it will actually come to other platforms (except perhaps PC down the road).

Notice how, in the Kotaku interview where he's being SO clear and SO explicit, Spencer says (let's just quote it here):

When I asked straight up whether Tomb Raider was a timed exclusive or a full exclusive on Xbox One, Spencer said that it &#8220;has a duration&#8221;. &#8220;I didn&#8217;t buy the IP, so I don&#8217;t own Tomb Raider as a franchise. Our deal obviously has a duration,&#8221; he clarified. &#8220;If I owned the IP it would be forever, but I don&#8217;t own the IP and I don&#8217;t own development of Tomb Raider on any other platform. So if you ask me, is Tomb Raider going to ship on another platform, I actually can&#8217;t give you an answer because I&#8217;m not the developer of the game.

I can talk about Tomb Raider coming to Xbox in 2015 exclusively, right - that&#8217;s the deal I have on the game, but I don&#8217;t own the IP.&#8221;

Is he talking about the GAME or is he talking about the IP? The only thing "clear" about what he's saying here is that they didn't buy the IP. Well, yeah. We know. But what about this game? Was your deal to buy the game as an exclusive or not? It's 100% clear that Microsoft wants people to believe it's an exclusive (hence the original PR at the reveal) so that they'll buy an X1. It's also very clear that SE/CD has something in their agreement to not discuss exclusivity, as they waited upon Spencer's statements until saying anything themselves.
 
Amir0x said:
a post that pretends to be objective before getting right to the real point: that oh teh nos the forum and gamers are more biased toward Microsoft and would treat Sony differently


PLEASE RETURN TO 2006 NEOGAF. These arguments are fucking tired already
Click to expand...

Oh I am certainly not 100% objective? Who is? To be that way is to never hold an opinion of your own.

I own a gaming PC, PS4, Xbox One, and a Wii U because they all have exclusive games I want to play. I am more biased towards Nintendo given the sites I work for and my history and gaming preferences.

I just watch trends and spoke my mind there. It feels like Sony fans pipe up more than any other fan base. Why? I don't know. THis is coming from someone who spends most of his time in the Nintendo fan base. I also don't have any issues with companies buying up exclusive games so long as they aren't timed exclusives. I hate that stuff. I prefer you to just go all the way and make it platform exclusive. It increases the value of that console to me. Multiplatform games don't do much for me since the days of console exclusive DLC and the almost near inability for me to play all the content for a game without buying it more than once.
 
TheLostBigBoss said:
Holy shit, my head.

It's not the same. Stop trying to say it is.

It's the difference between two parties coming together during the initial planning and creating a game which both support and help develop, and one party bribing the other out of the competitors market.
Click to expand...

All of that is mere semantics. It's still money exchanging hands to enable an exclusive relationship. I don't see any other way than that.
 
dancmc said:
All of that is mere semantics. It's still money exchanging hands to enable an exclusive relationship. I don't see any other way than that.
Click to expand...

TR would have existed with or without MS money hatting it. SO would not have existed without MS, Bloodborne would not have existed without Sony, ect.
 
I think if Sony did the same thing with Rise Of The Tomb Raider, my only reaction would be "Hmmmph, looks like I will have to play the game on PS4." I prefer to play on XB1 but XB1 doesn't have Last Of Us Remastered (and I didn't play TLOU on PS3), therefore from my perspective it's impossible for me to stay an XB1-only gamer.

I guess to me this whole reaction to this exclusivity deal screams hollow to me. There is an awful lot of emphasis on the "purity" or "morality" of an exclusive. Like if two parties (Nintendo and Platinum, for example) come together and have an agreement with each other before any development begins, that makes the exclusive morally acceptable. Or if one party swoops in and saves a game from development hell, that makes the exclusive morally acceptable. To me it is insane that this actually matters to people. The notion of one side (i.e. Sony fans, or Microsoft fans) being deprived of content is not something that I could get upset over. Sony fans are going to be deprived of Halo, and XB1 fans are going to be deprived of TLOU - doesn't matter how the exclusive is acquired to me.
 
I really don't understand how this Bloodborne comparison appeared outta nowhere and has thrived so quickly. It's like new talking points went out.
 
Disaster Nebraska said:
But is it? I'll repeat myself: this latest release makes me doubt that it will actually come to other platforms (except perhaps PC down the road).
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Do you really care for the truth, or would you like to believe the narrative GAF constructed? I won't even ask why, I won't judge you for your agenda.
 
matrixman92 said:
People will just argue it's not the same at all because those are all new ips. Which I find a ridiculous argument
Click to expand...

No, they will argue that they are new "games".

Bloodborne:

Before: Does not exist.
Sony: Lets make a game, here is some money.
After: Coming to PS4.

Tomb Raider:

Before: Coming to Xbox One and PS4/PC
Microsoft: Here is some money
After: Coming to Xbox One, PS4/PC later.

Completely different scenarios and being a new IP does not come into it at all. You will notice in the first instance, the PS4 has had a net positive effect. In the second scenario, the PS4/PC has had a negative effect, the Xbox One has been completely unchanged.

That is, unless you believe the Xbox One version will be in some way different due to "development money", but I think we all know they will be more or less identical once they are all finally out (which will be another issue for another day no doubt).

Will this tactic from Microsoft be effective? This remains to be seen. It should certainly result in higher sales of Tomb Raider on the Xbox One. This might help cement that platform as the "home" of the series.... but it doesn't really seem worth that effort given it isn't going to sell xbox live subscriptions.

I would have saved the money and thrown it at something else if this is the way they want to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tomb Raider Catalyst and Legacy of Atlantis Trailer Released
News  2 3
105
839
Agent_4Seven replied
Phil Spencer kicks off Xbox's 25 year anniversary with video and logo
2 3
122
525
OLED_Gamer replied
  • Poll
New Tomb Raider images leak
2 3 4 5 6
292
1K
TGO replied
Good decisions Phil Spencer and his team made
Opinion  2 3
114
756
Ishma3L replied
Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis Difficulty Will be Adjusted for ‘Modern Player Tastes’
News  2
67
532
Feel Like I'm On 42 replied
Top Bottom