Support NeoGAF

[StrongBlackVine]

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.

That is probably the least likely scenario...

 

[gaming_noob]

nvm. don't want to be involved in this whining.

 

[Puppet Shadow]

AC4: Blackflag is actually surprisingly fun and this is from someone who hated the Assassin's Creed series.

This. I'm playing though it now, and didn't really care for AC at all.

 

[TheOddOne]

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.

Basically yeah. We can figure out that No Man’s Sky is going to come out for other platforms, but do have dodged it with thing like "I actually got in a bit of trouble for saying that we wanted the game to feel really console-y," and the PC was always under “Consideration”. Yeah, we get it; it will be coming to other platforms.

 

[Nightengale]

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.

I guess we both have different standards and viewpoints into this.

To me, as long as the announcement was done properly, it's fine if they choose to use funky wording. 'First on consoles' or 'console debut' or 'console exclusive debut' are all taken as definitive wording of being timed. It's PR bullshit, but it's honest.

In cases where they fuck up however, ( Magicka 2 ), I respect a prompt response that isn't due to call-out pressure. Magicka 2 devs was quick to point out that their game was only console exclusive, not a full exclusive immediately on Twitter. Lucas Pope was quick to clarify that Papers Please was coming to Vita.

Yes, they won't immediately state what platforms that the games will be coming out for immediately, but they do immediately set the stage from the get-go that it is timed, and you'll hear more about other platforms later, but they don't shy away from acknowledging that it will come to other platforms later.

 

[harSon]

What is confusing about this?

Why is its announcement for PC news worthy in August?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/06/25/n...nfirms-ps4-debut-says-hed-like-to-come-to-pc/

No Man's Sky sounded pretty fantastic when we first heard about it in late 2013, and our E3 preview was very exciting too. But a PC release has never actually been confirmed, and speaking to Eurogamer, Hello Games co-founder Sean Murray refused to commit to it one way or the other.

The No Man's Sky website currently lists launch platforms as "to be announced," and Murray wasn't much more forthcoming. "The wording is we're doing a console debut on PS4," he said. "The thing that that leaves open is a PC version."

But then it gets a bit dicier. When asked if a PC edition could launch alongside the PS4 release, or even before it, he continued, "If I'm honest, we're taking on quite a lot at the moment. We're definitely coming to the PS4. I would like to come to PC. Whether that arrives the same day—we're a small team!"

It's a very vague response, the sort of thing that could be taken as either a reluctance to say no or a desire to give us all a happy surprise at some point down the road. There's no question that it should come to the PC, and the fact that Murray wants it to happen is heartening, but the absence of a definite "yes" has me expecting it'll be "no." Either way, the bottom line is this: No Man's Sky looks very cool, and you might have to play it on a console.

 

[Sydle]

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?

What part is vague to you? That it is timed or that it's up to SE on where it goes after the deal has expired? The words couldn't have been put differently. Saying it could release on other consoles or the PC would be speculation on his part. It's highly probable, but it's not his game, it's not his IP, and it's not his studio. It would be stepping over the line at the very least.

Asking the question is expected. My mind is blown by the people who are performing mental gymnastics the likes of which I have never seen to ignore or twist Spencer's simple words so they can create a villain in this situation. It's personal for them.

The Kotaku article and the Eurogamer article I have posted a dozen times released the same day. I'm going to give you credit in thinking that you know gaming journos aren't always a source of truth, they don't always ask the right questions, they are prone to errors like any human, and sometimes they make click bait. You should find a couple of articles at the very least and get the story, with a shred of doubt that you have the whole story. If you rely on GAF to form your perspective then I wouldn't hesitate to place you among the simpletons in my mind.

As for the mystery behind when and where, with SE not clearing it up so far as seeming they are not allowed to do so, it seems par for the course with exclusive deals. It's no different than the Activision/Sony deal for Destiny for exclusive content where all we know is that it's exclusive through Fall 2015. That is, we don't know when or even if it's coming to Xbox One and 360, only that it could after Fall 2015.

Regarding co-publishing and co-development. MS has done this before with dropping millions of dollars for exclusive GTA IV DLC that ended up on other platforms a year later, as well as Dead Rising 3 and RYSE which ended up on PC where it was made clear that because they didn't own the IP the developer and publisher could put it on PC. With Titanfall Microsoft let it be known that the original game would never appear on another console. Tomb Raider is multi-platform franchise, always has been. Now let's keep all those historical points in mind before closing this out.

Why is anyone playing along with the narrative that Microsoft blocked a PS4 release from ever happening? If that were true they wouldn't be shy about saying Xbox is the only console you can play Rise of the Tomb Raider. Why aren't they saying it? Because it's really up to SE, like Spencer has been telling us.

Use your head.

 

[shem935]

Why is this news worthy in August?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/06/25/n...nfirms-ps4-debut-says-hed-like-to-come-to-pc/

It is right there in the first line. The PC version was never confirmed by the DEV. It isn't sony's job to announce the pc version of NMS

 

[Paracelsus]

If MS are spending money directly on the development of the game

Do you think what is being called a "moneyhat" is a literal bag of cash they spend to go on vacation?

 

[harSon]

It is right there in the first line. The PC version was never confirmed by the DEV. It isn't sony's job to announce the pc version of NMS

Yeah, I'm sure the developer refused to outright confirm the PC version's existence out of the kindness of his heart.

 

[cameron]

"Coming holiday 2015 is Rise of The Tomb Raider, exclusively on Xbox One, for some amount of time as we are still working out the details and what the deal actually means for us because we ourselves do not know what we are capable of with all of this money we have so we keep pushing the envelope so that we can obfuscate messages that are normally clear and make them more confusing than they really need to be because fuck it why not we are Microsoft and we want your money and what better way to get your money than to lock in a multi-platform title that was originally going to be released on our competitors' platforms and our own than by paying for it to only be on our own console, which means we are over-delivering on value when we don't necessarily have to, because as I said just a few sentences ago we have a lot of money, so much in fact that coming holiday 2015 is another major title that we are sure our customers are going to enjoy, and that title is Halo 5, a title we managed to secure for a certain amount of time, although we are not too sure of the details because fuck it, money does this sometimes and we are really confused. Welcome to Xbox. We fuckin' love gamers. TV mother fuckers."

Totally worth reading the whole thread just for this.

 

[Uno Venova]

Why is its announcement for PC news worthy in August?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/06/25/no...to-come-to-pc/

It's the official announcement of platforms always news worthy? But still, what's confusing or funky about announcing NMS as a PS4 console debut?

 

[War Raichu]

Wasn't Dead Rising 3 basically not going to come out were it not for Microsoft, though?

DR3 was going to happen no matter what. Capcom was just running into trouble developing it for the 360 (too many zombies on screen) and MS recommended moving it to next-gen in exchange for exclusivity

 

[shem935]

Yeah, I'm sure the developer refused to outright confirm the PC version's existence out of the kindness of his heart.

That answer is also in the 3rd paragraph of that source. The dev (hello games) had to deal with the flooding of a studio and the loss of thousands of dollars of equipment. They have a lot on their plate and could only confirm a ps4 version at the time because that is what they could realistically handle. Reading isn't your strongest suit is it? Of yours or others sources.

 

[tazz3]

Its timed why are they sayings its exclusive lol.there wasting there money lol.

 

[TheOddOne]

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.

I can understand CD’s position in this, they can’t really say anything about the deal between SE and MS; and if they do they will probably get into trouble. Square is going to keep quiet, because they can’t do or say anything without MS permission--I think it goes both ways between the companies.

Journalists are going pry about this, and no matter how they sell it; it’s going to annoy people. No answer is going to satisfy anybody, not Microsoft who wants to promote the game as their own, not Square who doesn’t want to step on Microsoft’s shoes and CD who has to answer to Square.

Sucky position for all involved, from the fans, to the publisher to the developer.

 

[Abdiel]

Quoted from another thread for relevance.

Okay, let's review. The problem with this ENTIRE PREMISE is that a game that would come to every platform is going to come to every platform. Making it come to someone else's platform later doesn't make your version more valuable, it fosters resentment and frustration in those that don't *have* that platform. It doesn't mean that the people that own your platform have gained anything, because they haven't. They are at exactly the same point as before. For your current customers, it means jack shit, unless they are petty and get a giggle out of temporarily denying other gamers the chance to play.

If a game isn't going to be made, and one of the platform holders steps in to fund it, that's totally fine! The game wasn't going to happen otherwise! If a game needs assistance/funding to get made, and has a small team that can only make one or at most two versions of a game at a time, then that's still understandable, and they need the leeway to make it at their leisure, as long as they're not being forced by shitty contracts. If a game was fully funded and developed by a standalone publisher, but they get paid to deny it from other platforms for awhile, that's fucking lame.

I should preface this: I haven't played any Tomb Raider game, ever, and I really don't care about this game, but actions like this are bullshit no matter who does it.

Microsoft locking the game away from other platforms (Not just PS4, but PC too? Fuckin' seriously?) does not win anything for people that already own their systems. It's a cheap tactic to play for the handful of gamers that might make the decision to get their system instead as a result, but it doesn't do anything for people that already own it. It's not a convincing method of building confidence in the ecosystem, because all it speaks to is tactics that feel underhanded or insulting to people.

Do I care about this game? No. Do I feel like people standing up to defend the practice are being dishonest or emotionally defensive because of the renewed backlash against Microsoft? Yes. Or if not dishonest/defensive, they're being willfully obtuse and naive, which is just as dumb. People have the right to feel like this is bullshit, and they aren't wrong for speaking out against the practice, no matter who is participating.

 

[freefornow]

What part is vague to you? That it is timed or that it's up to SE on where it goes after the deal has expired? The words couldn't have been put differently. Saying it could release on other consoles or the PC would be speculation on his part. It's highly probable, but it's not his game, it's not his IP, and it's not his studio. It would be stepping over the line at the very least.

Asking the question is expected. My mind is blown by the people who are performing mental gymnastics the likes of which I have never seen to ignore or twist Spencer's simple words so they can create a villain in this situation. It's personal for them.

The Kotaku article and the Eurogamer article I have posted a dozen times released the same day. I'm going to give you credit in thinking that you know gaming journos aren't always a source of truth, they don't always ask the right questions, they are prone to errors like any human, and sometimes they make click bait. You should find a couple of articles at the very least and get the story, with a shred of doubt that you have the whole story. If you rely on GAF to form your perspective then I wouldn't hesitate to place you among the simpletons in my mind.

As for the mystery behind when and where, with SE not clearing it up so far as seeming they are not allowed to do so, it seems par for the course with exclusive deals. It's no different than the Activision/Sony deal for Destiny for exclusive content where all we know is that it's exclusive through Fall 2015. That is, we don't know when or even if it's coming to Xbox One and 360, only that it could after Fall 2015.

Regarding co-publishing and co-development. MS has done this before with dropping millions of dollars for exclusive GTA IV DLC that ended up on other platforms a year later, as well as Dead Rising 3 and RYSE which ended up on PC where it was made clear that because they didn't own the IP the developer and publisher could put it on PC. With Titanfall Microsoft let it be known that the original game would never appear on another console. Tomb Raider is multi-platform franchise, always has been. Now let's keep all those historical points in mind before closing this out.

Why is anyone playing along with the narrative that Microsoft would block a PS4 release from ever happening? If that were true they wouldn't be shy about saying Xbox is the only console you can play Rise of the Tomb Raider. Why aren't they saying it? Because it's really up to SE, like Spencer has been telling us.

Use your head.

End thread.

 

[harSon]

It's the official announcement of platforms always news worthy? But still, what's confusing or funky about announcing NMS as a PS4 console debut?

They're doing the same thing that Microsoft is doing, preserving the sanctity of their timed exclusive deal. They're trying to get people to purchase their console, and in the case that they already own the console, purchase the game for their respective console. Being 100% transparent goes against that, which is why platform holders are hesitant to be 100% forthcoming with the details of their timed exclusive games. I don't see any platform holders mentioning the fact that their games are a 3-month, 6-month, 12-months, etc exclusive, nor would I expect them to. That would be transparency, but It's counter intuitive to making money when in that situation.

 

[soul creator]

That is probably the least likely scenario...

The initial part of my post or the "iOS RPG instead" part? The latter is me being facetious, so I agree with you there, lol. But as far as the "it's up to SE to decide when and where to port it after the initial period of exclusivity" discussion, I think that's pretty accurate.

 

[HighResTomato]

What part is vague to you? That it is timed or that it's up to SE on where it goes after the deal has expired? The words couldn't have been put differently. Saying it could release on other consoles or the PC would be speculation on his part. It's highly probable, but it's not his game, it's not his IP, and it's not his studio. It would be stepping over the line at the very least.

Asking the question is expected. My mind is blown by the people who are performing mental gymnastics the likes of which I have never seen to ignore or twist Spencer's simple words so they can create a villain in this situation. It's personal for them.


Why is anyone playing along with the narrative that Microsoft would block a PS4 release from ever happening? If that were true they wouldn't be shy about saying Xbox is the only console you can play Rise of the Tomb Raider. Why aren't they saying it?Because it's really up to SE, like Spencer has been telling us.

Someone finally said it.

 

[Dancovich]

I honestly don't understand why some people are so upset about this deal. It's obvious MS is doing it to sell more consoles and it's obvious the deal is also good for SE or else they wouldn't agree to it.

So how this deal affect anyone who doesn't have a Xbox One and doesn't intend to buy one?

We know for sure (Phill said it himself) that the first time the game comes out it's going to be only for Xbox consoles. So the game will come to other platforms at a later time or not at all.

How does it affect you? The given information is enough to know you WILL have to wait or you WILL have to buy an X1 to play it right away.

Is the game so good you're willing to buy a X1 to play it? If yes then after 6 months if no info on a PS4/PC version comes out just buy a X1. If no then after 6 months just give up on the game, you'll probably have forgotten it by then. If it eventually comes out then buy what will probably be the GOTY edition cheaper.

Also why is it important for us to know how MS is helping SE? Will it change the status of the other versions?

In the end I don't think MS is hiding any information important to us gamers. The only people who should be upset about a business decision are businesman afected in some way by the deal.

 

[DoubleTake]

They're doing the same thing that Microsoft is doing, preserving the sanctity of their timed exclusive deal. They're trying to get people to purchase their console, and in the case that they already own the console, purchase the game for their respective console. Being 100% transparent goes against that, which is why platform holders are hesitant to be 100% forthcoming with the details of their timed exclusive games. I don't see any platform holders mentioning the fact that their games are a 3-month, 6-month, 12-months, etc exclusive, nor would I expect them to. That would be transparency, but It's counter intuitive to making money when in that situation.

It is possible to preserve the sanctity of your timed exclusive deal without using wording that attempts to confuse the consumer into believing the game is fully exclusive.

Which sounds more straightforward to you?

RotR will release exclusively on Xbox in 2015.

or.

This game will have its console debut on Ps4.

Please Choose wisely.

 

[ghostwritingduck]

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.

This clears everything up really. Darrel clearly states that its not exclusive forever and credits Spencer for saying it so he won't get in trouble.

 

[Shyakugaun]

End thread.

Paco has ended this thread at least 3 times now, they just won't listen to him lol

 

[TalonJH]

Did we ever find out if there ever was any actual evidence/proof the game was supposed to launch on other hardware?

I believe Amazon took preorders.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Crystal Dynamic confirms timed exclusivity on Facebook:

Let's just say people are still extremely pissed off.

https://www.facebook.com/TombRaider/posts/10152331911671158

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

How does it affect you? The given information is enough to know you WILL have to wait or you WILL have to buy an X1 to play it right away.

That's exactly how it affects people though, if you wanted to play the new Tomb Raider and chose to support them on the PS4, well then the price tag of playing their new game on release day just increased dramatically. I actually wasn't a big enough fan of the reboot to support it on day one anyway, but I can certainly see how it affects people, say the larger percentage of fans that made up the last games sales.

 

[Naughty_Doge]

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.

Sony specified from the beginning that No Man's Sky would make its console debut on PS4. The game had already been announced for PC and Sony announced the PS4 version. Right now those are the only two platforms confirmed to get the game.

 

[soxinthebox]

It is possible to preserve the sanctity of your timed exclusive deal without using wording that attempts to confuse the consumer into believing the game is fully exclusive.

Which sounds more straightforward to you?

RotR will release exclusively on Xbox in 2015.

or.

This game will have its console debut on Ps4.

Please Choose wisely.

Thy both read exactly the same

 

[Chobel]

Crystal Dynamic confirms timed exclusivity on Facebook:

Let's just say people are still extremely pissed off.

https://www.facebook.com/TombRaider/posts/10152331911671158

"This content is currently unavailable"

It looks like they deleted it.

 

[figadapaura]

They're doing the same thing that Microsoft is doing, preserving the sanctity of their timed exclusive deal. They're trying to get people to purchase their console, and in the case that they already own the console, purchase the game for their respective console. Being 100% transparent goes against that, which is why platform holders are hesitant to be 100% forthcoming with the details of their timed exclusive games. I don't see any platform holders mentioning the fact that their games are a 3-month, 6-month, 12-months, etc exclusive, nor would I expect them to. That would be transparency, but It's counter intuitive to making money when in that situation.

No they're not.

'Console debut' pretty obviously implies that there will be a PC version. In fact, they usually reserve that phrase for indies that have already been released on PC. Nowhere have Sony said that No Man's Sky is exclusive. No PC gamers are being duped into buying a PS4 for this game.

 

[demosthenes]

Crystal Dynamic confirms timed exclusivity on Facebook:

Let's just say people are still extremely pissed off.

https://www.facebook.com/TombRaider/posts/10152331911671158

Hope it's not long. I loved TR. Was really looking forward to the sequel on PC.

"This content is currently unavailable"

It looks like they deleted it.

Works for me.

 

[DangerMouse]

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".

People will just argue it's not the same at all because those are all new ips. Which I find a ridiculous argument

No. It has nothing to do with whether the IP is new or not (ie. Nintendo with Bayo 2 is not the same situation as Tomb Raider either)....

See alr1ght's post, this has been discussed like 9000 times why they are different.

twist Spencer's simple words so they can create a villain in this situation. It's personal for them.

Not really, look at the old thread the day of the announcement, the problem is how they worded it the first time in the vaguest way possible with coming holiday 2015 exclusively on Xbox... not to mention the letter that was written on Tomb Raider's tumblr to try to make an excuse for it being exclusive, all obfuscating that it was a timed exclusive and not an exclusive.

In fact the only reason it was even initially caught in the old thread the day of the announcement was that they oddly had to say "2015" every single time they said "exclusive".

Because it's really up to SE, like Spencer has been telling us.

Except that it's not up to just S-E either because Spencer knows that S-E has a clause in the contract likely saying that S-E can't tell us that unless he tells us that first.

Nope.

Beautiful.

 

[Secret_asian_man]

"This content is currently unavailable"

It looks like they deleted it.

It's there; I had to sign in to look at it.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

"This content is currently unavailable"

It looks like they deleted it.

You have to be signed it to view it.

 

[Chobel]

Thy both read exactly the same

Not really, the first could mean two thing.

1) Timed exclusive only in 2015
2) It's permanent exclusive and it's coming in 2015

It's there; I had to sign in to look at it.

You have to be signed it to view it.

I signed-in and I still have the same message: "This content is currently unavailable"

 

[DangerMouse]

Not really, the first could mean two thing.

1) Timed exclusive only in 2015
2) It's permanent exclusive and it's coming in 2015

Yup, it's sneakily worded.

Edit: Whereas "console debut" clearly implies future releases.

 

[DoubleTake]

Thy both read exactly the same

Joke post?

Console debut clearly implies that:

1. The game will most likely be out on PC as well.

2. That the game is coming 1st to whatever platform. Never calling into question whether or not it will reach other consoles.

Microsoft's wording muddies the waters by throwing exclusively which automatically makes people think "Oh this game is only coming out on Xbox". Cmon Son am I the only one seeing this?

EDIT: Apparently Im not.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

"This content is currently unavailable"

It looks like they deleted it.

You need to be signed in. It's just their tumblr uppadte though.

 

[dancmc]

Yup, it was sneakily worded.

Or just poorly worded. But certainly not super clear

 

[StrongBlackVine]

You need to be signed in. It's just their tumblr uppadte though.

Yeah, but responses are priceless. They still have a PR nightmare.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Yeah, but responses are priceless. They still have a PR nightmare.

It is irreparable at this time. Things will subside by the time it is released. They may need to consider going dark for a little while

 

[TheOddOne]

No they're not.

'Console debut' pretty obviously implies that there will be a PC version. In fact, they usually reserve that phrase for indies that have already been released on PC. Nowhere have Sony said that No Man's Sky is exclusive. No PC gamers are being duped into buying a PS4 for this game.

In case of the general public, it really doesn’t outright say to them that it’s coming to PC. To more knowledgeable gamers it’s a confirmation of the possibility of it coming to the PC (and usually it’s the case).

Would call that misleading? Well, to general public you could argue that way. Knowledgeable gamers would likely not see a huge problem in it.

 

[figadapaura]

Or just poorly worded. But certainly not super clear

Given some of their responses after the fact, it's obvious they knew what they were doing.

 

[Nightengale]

Or just poorly worded. But certainly not super clear

ID@Xbox game reveals : 'First on Xbox'
RotTR : 'Coming Holiday 2015, exclusively on Xbox'

There's a big difference between both lines. It was obvious that by first feeding us how they define 'timed exclusives' with their first slew of announcements, they tried to pretend that Tomb Raider wasn't one by deliberately using a different language.

 

[Naughty_Doge]

Why is its announcement for PC news worthy in August?

Because the media is dumb. The game was announced for PC back at VGX.

 

[demosthenes]

Crystal Dynamic confirms timed exclusivity on Facebook:

Let's just say people are still extremely pissed off.

https://www.facebook.com/TombRaider/posts/10152331911671158

Reading the comments, oh my gosh, it hurts.

 

[Chobel]

You need to be signed in. It's just their tumblr uppadte though.

OK cool, I'm not missing anything.

 

[figadapaura]

In case of the general public, it really doesn’t outright say to them that it’s coming to PC. To more knowledgeable gamers it’s a confirmation of the possibility of it coming to the PC (and usually it’s the case).

Would call that misleading? Well, to general public you could argue that way. Knowledgeable gamers would likely not see a huge problem in it.

But Sony didn't actively try to withhold this information. And why would they announce a PC version during their conference anyway? They worded it perfectly fine given the context.