Yeah I'm not here on an agenda to make Sony "look bad too" -- I'm here for a debate. I can be wrong in everything I am saying, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting at all if I had nothing to gain.
-
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
- Thread starter CassidyIzABeast
- Start date
Yeah I'm not here on an agenda to make Sony "look bad too" -- I'm here for a debate. I can be wrong in everything I am saying, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting at all if I had nothing to gain.
While this deal affects me in no way at all since I didn't plan on getting the game anyway. I do find it pretty scummy of them to make this kind of deal that bars people from playing a game that was already announced for other systems. They must have a big gap in their portfolio to have to do this.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
So they are making sure the game runs decent? Sounds like standard operating with any big game coming out.
Either way, it's not remotely close to co-development status and is sounding and being worded so generally that I can only assume it's small little things to make sure the game doesn't run too much worse than the PS4 version.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Ehh, Dead Rising 3 didn't run well at all though.
[QUOTE="D";125612579]This thread is like 25 pages long and I just was too lazy to read all of them so maybe the question i'm about to ask was already answered but here goes...
So Phil is saying they are spending money on development, right? If the game is slated for a holiday release next year then how much more can they do to it in such a "short" amount of time? Can anything major and worth MS "spending money" be put into the game that won't keep it from being delayed to "insure they put out a great experience?"
Basically is he just bullshitting everyone and giving a smokescreen excuse as to why they put there funds in besides exclusivity and trying to drive sales to their console or is it really true? Also it seemed like the game was moving right along when announced, especially with a projected release of next year....so I guess basically MS is helping SE/CD out on costs or something?[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying I disagree with your overall accusation, but what the hell does the bolded even mean? 12-16 months is a TON of development time. Hell, a ton can be accomplished in as little as a few months.
So Phil is saying they are spending money on development, right? If the game is slated for a holiday release next year then how much more can they do to it in such a "short" amount of time? Can anything major and worth MS "spending money" be put into the game that won't keep it from being delayed to "insure they put out a great experience?"
Basically is he just bullshitting everyone and giving a smokescreen excuse as to why they put there funds in besides exclusivity and trying to drive sales to their console or is it really true? Also it seemed like the game was moving right along when announced, especially with a projected release of next year....so I guess basically MS is helping SE/CD out on costs or something?[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying I disagree with your overall accusation, but what the hell does the bolded even mean? 12-16 months is a TON of development time. Hell, a ton can be accomplished in as little as a few months.
Nightengale
Member
I'll say that the term 'development' has become such an obtuse statement in this day and age. ( for everyone, not just MS )
Bungie 'helped' Sony design the PS4 controller and was 'involved' in the design of the PS4? I'll laugh if that was anything more than a feedback form and letting devs test out multiple controller prototypes.
MS are 'great partners' and a bunch of flowery language on how Xbox and CoD had design synergy (CoD) = sending some engineers to help with game optimization.
Shyakugaun
Banned
Lol I've said this many times but never get a reply from the complainers, they just gloss over common sense I guess
Chobel
Member
Without MS help, it would probably run like shit.
Naughty_Doge
Member
So...could this mean it won't come to the PS4? 
Compare Dead Rising 3 at its unveiling, and then after when Microsoft publicly mentioned the fact that they were sending over personnel to help iron out the kinks.
VanCityGamer
Member
Interesting. Don't have time to read the whole thread, so I'll ask this question:
What's the general consensus now on whether or not the game will come to PS4 and/or PC?
What's the general consensus now on whether or not the game will come to PS4 and/or PC?
Shyakugaun
Banned
[QUOTE="D";125612579]This thread is like 25 pages long and I just was too lazy to read all of them so maybe the question i'm about to ask was already answered but here goes...
So Phil is saying they are spending money on development, right? If the game is slated for a holiday release next year then how much more can they do to it in such a "short" amount of time? Can anything major and worth MS "spending money" be put into the game that won't keep it from being delayed to "insure they put out a great experience?"
Basically is he just bullshitting everyone and giving a smokescreen excuse as to why they put there funds in besides exclusivity and trying to drive sales to their console or is it really true? Also it seemed like the game was moving right along when announced, especially with a projected release of next year....so I guess basically MS is helping SE/CD out on costs or something?[/QUOTE]
This game has well over a year before its released ....I don't even ...lol
Nightengale
Member
Doesn't make it a good thing.
And the fact is, Sony is also doing it with some devs/games. (mostly indies) However, they've always been upfront about that fact, said it was timed, and never tried to maneuver around any PR bullshit that MS tried with Tomb Raider.
We can only speculate on the level of involvement from Microsoft on this title and the level of involvement of Sony with their co-developed games. So I dont see how you or anyone can state anything as a fact like that.
People have already started getting answers out of them, it only took a few days of raging internets. How they ever thought they'd slide by with their "exclusive Holiday 2015" alone for more than a year is anyone's guess.
The possibility exists after whatever contract MSoft made with SE ends.
I think that's the offensive part, the fact that they believe a significant portion of the gaming populace is stupid enough to fall for their misguiding words and evasive PR speak. Don't give a timetable, just say it's "launching first" and avoid this idiocy.
DoubleTake
Member
BeamImpact
Member
what if he is refering to some additional development funds that microsoft pays to have the Xbox One version much more optimized than it would have been without it?
right now it looks like itll be Xbox and PC i guess
right now it looks like itll be Xbox and PC i guess
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
He did say the deal has a duration. He also said they didn't buy the IP. Technically, he's right: he's not Squeenix and he doesn't get to decide where it goes. But he is being intentionally vague and it's pretty darn obvious that there's some sort of gag on SE/CD from clarifying the situation.
From what I've noticed, it isn't people flying off the handle simply because of the exclusivity, nor because it's a formerly-multiplat game that is now going to be a timed/full exclusive because...reasons. People are also upset because of how - let's just call a spade a spade - intentionally vague and misleading the PR has being for the situation up until this point. Par for the course for Microsoft, I suppose.
The Kotaku article has him talking about "I can't say where it will go because I don't own the IP". So he's not even talking about the game any more but the IP.
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/08/13/xboxs-phil-spencer-responds-tomb-raider-exclusivity-questions
While it might be easy to say "lol GAF. so salty", all people want to hear is if this game will be coming out on the PC, the PS4, or other platforms. I don't think "when" is even a big part of the conversation. People just want to know where the game will be available. Microsoft is being intentionally vague because they are trying to milk the deal for all it's worth. Square Enix seems like they're not even allowed to comment on the deal unless Microsoft speaks first.
Are people being simpletons for wanting those answers? Or are you unaware that there are unanswered questions still lingering in the situation?
Night Angel
Member
Since it apparently needs repeating.
I could be wrong, but something perceived as a "AAA" title like a Tomb Raider, I just thought that maybe all the "heavy lifting" would have already been done at the beginning of the development cycle due to costs being higher than your typical game that isn't "AAA" and the company trying to ensure that there are no major problems that will stop them from getting at least a big chunk of their R&D money back through sales
Guess what i'm trying to say is for a game of "gold standard" I'd like to think that all the heavy work would be done asap to make sure that Q&A and all that would run smoothly and there be no problems. Cause if a game of that caliber were to flop because of anything other than people just flat out not liking it, then all the money spent on it would hurt the checkbook worse than a normal non-AAA title
I'm sorry but that's 100% unadulterated smooth puréed horse shit. Lets look at The Witness as a example.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I feel pretty confident in stating the level of involvement with Japan Studios co-development status, as it's being credited and we have previous history to work on. At the least, it's far more involved than Microsoft will ever be in Tomb Raider.
Spencer is being specifically vague for obvious reasons, because the deal is shady and he wants to make it sound normal and beneficial.
Nightengale
Member
http://tombraider.tumblr.com/post/94529480860/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-update
An update from Crystal Dynamics:
Except he actually didn't, but Darrel helped cut through Spencer's PR fudging.
Naughty_Doge
Member
Thank goodness. That's all I needed to hear. Keep fighting the good fight, Microsoft.
Puppet Shadow
Member
So if it comes out on PC 6 months later, it's a timed exclusive. Makes sense,
Hmm, I wonder if it's coming out on PS4?
CosmicGroinPull
Member
LOL, doesn't this seem like MS read gaf and agrees with our definition of what a 'good' exclusive is - and now tries to change their tune a little bit?
MS must be a bunch of fools to 'help with development', only to have the product sold to someone else 6 months later.
*sigh* Just pay SE more and keep the damn game to yourself, MS.
MS must be a bunch of fools to 'help with development', only to have the product sold to someone else 6 months later.
*sigh* Just pay SE more and keep the damn game to yourself, MS.
soul creator
Member
The game wasn't announced for other systems, as far as I know. It was assumed to come to other systems, due to the fact that the previous Tomb Raider game was cross platform, and SE is obviously a 3rd party, but the announcement (which occurred at Microsoft's E3 conference) and the subsequent press release never made any mention of platforms.
(another link where the systems are "presumed" even though there's no actual confirmation)
Some retailers did take preorders for other systems though, which may have led to the confusion. But retailers often do those things as placeholders, even when they don't have full details. That's why Amazon says the game is coming out at the end of the year...
Nightengale
Member
http://the-witness.net/news/2013/02/a-clarification-about-our-ps4-exclusivity/
Dated : 22nd February 2013.
So... right off the gate:
- confirmation of timed exclusivity
- acknowledgement that on consoles only, it will be timed.
- acknowledgement of other console hardware it will be coming to.
- clarification that it does not include PC/iOS in the timed deal
You were saying?
We can guess but we cant know for sure. MS could be helping develop, market and publish TR enough to warrant a timed exclusive but not enough for a full exclusive.
This. I feel like they hadn't really completely figured out the terms of this deal when they announced it. Its the only way any of this shit makes sense.
VanCityGamer
Member
OK, thanks. Square Enix is publishing, not Microsoft...correct? So hasn't really changed from before where we thought it was a timed exclusive. These most recent quotes had me worried that it might be totally exclusive now. Really hoping it's out on PS4 within a year of release on XB1.
gundamkyoukai
Member
Yep Sony send coders all over the place last gen if i remember right that is the norm for the system company .
Stone Ocean
Member
Definitely MS. They're the ones that can benefit from the confusion, Square / CD are getting their money either way so they likely don't give a shit beyond that disastrous PR letter from CD.
Uno Venova
Banned
Wow this is so foreign to me, where's the obfuscation? The carefully ordered words to confuse people about what the deal actually is?
soul creator
Member
My guess would be Square Enix. MS confirmed the deal has a duration, SE decides what they want to do afterward.
If they want to pay for a port to PS4/PC/whatever after the deal is done, it's obviously up to SE, and not Microsoft. As far as we know, they could say fuck it, and spend that port money on a random iOS RPG port. Who knows with them. But either way, SE decides what they want to do afterward. That seems like the most straightforward read of the situation, imo.
SE is publishing, CD is developing, it's exactly the same as TR 2013, except this time MSoft seems to be funding marketing and has some length of exclusivity. The PS4 question is trickier because neither Ryse nor Dead Rising 3 are coming to PS4 and both are now multi-platform with PC, so not sure if Tomb Raider Rise would have a similar outcome.
Fnord
Member
They actually don't say they're "co-developing" the game. Only that they're providing money for development. Which is totally different and doesn't change anything from the original announcement. Clearly SE/CD would use any moneyhat money to offset development costs.
Effigenius
Member
He doesn't. He loves PC gamers. He loves you so much he wants to sell you an Xbox One.
The whole problem is that people are being overly obtuse about this and the wording, without taking in the factor in why its presented this way.
The same could be said about the trend of First to console messaging. None of the developers of those announced deal are going to talk about it coming to other platforms, even though everybody in the room knows that its coming and out of courtesy they are not talking about it when those expire (You do hear whispers or off site confirmations, but it doesnt happen a lot). You cant really blame them, they will dodge or be overly vague about it. In case of Tomb Raider, they are not going to talk about it being timed or going to another platform, because they want to promote it. Can you really blame them from walking around the issue? No, I could not; no matter what company it is.
Heck, the interview in the OP three-to-four times confirmed that its going to other platforms.
licktheenvelope
Member
AC4: Blackflag is actually surprisingly fun and this is from someone who hated the Assassin's Creed series.
EDIT:
.... well then.
Dammit, I thought I was making a new thread but I ended up replying to this one
That like every platform holder in existence, its announcements regarding timed and/or console exclusive was arbitrarily handled. They all try and slip in funky wordings such as "console exclusive," "exclusive this X, Y or Z," or confusion through complete omission, and don't go out of their way to clarify until called out. No Man's Sky for example. Yes, it's true list of platforms was eventually unveiled, but not at the fore front, and not without some prying.
reptilescorpio
Member
If MS are spending money directly on the development of the game then I can understand having an exclusive arrangement, kinda like the Sony Pub Fund stuff on PS3.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Full stop. I do not expect Microsoft to make any comments on whether or not it's coming to PS4. The lack of information from Square and Crystal Dynamics, as well as Microsoft's own vague wording that implies it may be exclusive, or maybe console exclusive, is what irritates me. I can't speak for anyone else but that's how I feel about it.