• 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

Ummmm..... no. How many people do you believe are going to say, "No way I'm buying an XB1 because they are going to have the new Tomb Raider game?" Really?

I don't think it'll harm Xbox, but this puts them under scrutiny once more. People will be more and more skeptical about the actual status of some game's exclusivity, especially if they don't own the IP. And while some may think it's a fringe issue, it doesn't help Xbox's cause if many games media are writing that their exclusivity-steal of TR is bullshit/or a poor PR as they tried to pretend it wasn't timed.

Maybe it will all amount to nothing, but the reality is that the 'conversation' around MS right now is not remotely positive.
 
So because of some blunders on MS' part, the xbox one isn't a great place to play games?

I don't know how development works but maybe SE are saving money for not having to develop for 4 or 5 different platforms so they can achieve a higher profit margin with help from MS.

Ben Kuchera?
 
So because of some blunders on MS' part, the xbox one isn't a great place to play games?

I don't know how development works but maybe SE are saving money for not having to develop for 4 or 5 different platforms so they can achieve a higher profit margin with help from MS.

Multiplatform development is not that expensive.

Also, cutting out the highest install base platforms are definitely not aiming for higher profit margins. Microsoft would need to pay tens of millions for it to be worth a full exclusive.
 
Ummmm..... no. How many people do you believe are going to say, "No way I'm buying an XB1 because they are going to have the new Tomb Raider game?" Really?

I know this is just anecdotal, that's all I got, but I know several people who were really leaning towards the "buy an XBone" side of the fence when the rumors started circulating about the white ones coming soon. Then with all this Tomb Raider BS they have firmly flopped to the anti Microsoft side of things.

It's not about the XBone having Tomb Raider, it's about what it means for where MS is putting it's money, and MS's dishonesty.
 
I know this is just anecdotal, that's all I got, but I know several people who were really leaning towards the "buy an XBone" side of the fence when the rumors started circulating about the white ones coming soon. Then with all this Tomb Raider BS they have firmly flopped to the anti Microsoft side of things.

It's not about the XBone having Tomb Raider, it's about what it means for where MS is putting it's money, and MS's dishonesty.
Yes yes so true. The absolute majority of people who buy video games and consoles choose what to buy on how honourable a company is and exactly how much they ate investing in first party.
 
They really won't give a straight answer, will they?

He gave as straight an answer as you're going to get from any platform holder regarding the issue:

"Yes, the deal has a duration. I didn't buy it. I don't own the franchise," said Spencer. "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."

What the hell do people want him to do? Shit on his deal and advertise the Playstation 4 version? The initial controversy was warranted, but everything since has been absolutely ridiculous.
 
This whole situation still bugs me and Spencer's constant vague garbage isn't helping me feel any better.

Hell, I was planning to buy this game on PC, but if there's no PS4 version I got no problem turning my nose up. And I adored the first game. I can't reward this shit.
 
... I don't know how development works but maybe SE are saving money for not having to develop for 4 or 5 different platforms so they can achieve a higher profit margin with help from MS.
Being the Xbone and the PS4 use similar hardware, developing for both isn't all that difficult. And being that their hardware is just PC parts, developing for one means your title is ready for all three. It's one of the main reasons that current-gen consoles used PC parts - simplified development.

What the deal does for SE is essentially underwrite the cost of development, ensuring that the smaller number of sales it'll achieve as timed exclusive on the Xbone are enough to make a profit anyway. It's the kind of deal you make when you can't really take risks. SE can't risk 'Rise of the Tomb Raider' failing, so this deal guarantees it's a success - even a small one - and brings massive brand exposure, similar to what Titanfall received. 'Titanfall' didn't break sales records, but Microsoft's deal ensured everyone knew what Titanfall was. SE is playing the long game. It's a smart move for SE.
 
I had a random (and perhaps unimportant) thought... Didn't Sony pay for Tomb Raider II exclusivity back in the day so that it didn't also come out for Saturn/N64?

The actual equivalent here would be if Sega purchased exclusivity, TR2 was never coming out on the Saturn anyway because it wasn't selling and was a pain in the arse to program. Sony got it by default.
 
"Right now we have a relationship with Square and Crystal on publishing the game”
Interesting... so it looks like MS is publishing it after all.

Well, that will remain uncertain about the PS4 version then. But if MS is in fact publishing it then, if the PS4 version ever gets released, may take a little longer then I was expecting after all that confusion.

I won't be bashing MS for anything though, they're doing what they can yo make their platform more atractive and I respect that since theyre a corporation. If SE accepted the deal it could not be that bad to them, probably MS will pay a good ammount for the development so it wont cost much for SE and will be easy for them to make profit.
 
They really won't give a straight answer, will they?

A straight answer was given. He said it's a deal with a duration on it. He will absolutely not say when or if Square and CD will bring the game to other platforms outside of the ones agreed upon in their deal (Xbox One and Xbox 360), because it isn't his IP, he doesn't own it, and it isn't his place to speak on such matters. That is Square's business as the IP owner, and obviously Square doesn't wish to divulge that info right now or they would have. People expecting Phil to explain and walk people through every detail of this business deal, as if he's somehow required to assuage the concerns of PS4 gamers with details that will provide them with some certainty, are being unreasonable. That's not at all his job.

Part of what makes deals like this effective in the first place is the uncertainty of it all and the silence and evasiveness of the key players regarding whether or not it's coming to other platforms and when. And it's looking like it's the same exact structure as the Dead Rising 3 deal. Microsoft published it under the Microsoft Game Studios banner, but we all know the actual IP is owned by Capcom. It seems that this might very well be the case for Tomb Raider. And didn't some people say that they saw a site where it was listed that MS is publishing the game?
 
He gave as straight an answer as you're going to get from any platform holder regarding the issue:



What the hell do people want him to do? Shit on his deal and advertise the Playstation 4 version? The initial controversy was warranted, but everything since has been absolutely ridiculous.

No. What we want is a straight answer to RISE OF THE TOMB RAIDER exclusivity. NOT THE FRANCHISE.

>Exclusive > "RotTR will only be on Xbox"

>Timed > "Play RotTR first on Xbox"

>Console Exclusive > "There won't be a PS4 version"

One of the three is correct.

We know he is capable of saying all three since Yusuf had no problem dick waving that TF won't be on PS4 at all.

We also know that they had no problem being clear that the indies they showed at GC will be on xbox first

And we also know if it was a real exclusive they would've been screaming at the top of the mountains so its either the first two since this isn't happening.
 
He gave as straight an answer as you're going to get from any platform holder regarding the issue:



What the hell do people want him to do? Shit on his deal and advertise the Playstation 4 version? The initial controversy was warranted, but everything since has been absolutely ridiculous.

This. There's nothing confusing about the situation. It's a timed exclusive of which ms doesn't want to reveal its length. There's two options available to people, whether they buy the game on Xbox or they play other games while waiting however long that exclusivity deal lasts. Its not rocket science.
 
What the hell do people want him to do? Shit on his deal and advertise the Playstation 4 version? The initial controversy was warranted, but everything since has been absolutely ridiculous.

Seen this strawman about 50 times now. Can you please stop with this? You're better than this.

All anybody wanted was for them to say "First on Xbox", which they've ALWAYS used prior to this. Does "First on Xbox" mean he's shitting on his deal or advertising the PS4 version??
 
So because of some blunders on MS' part, the xbox one isn't a great place to play games?

I don't know how development works but maybe SE are saving money for not having to develop for 4 or 5 different platforms so they can achieve a higher profit margin with help from MS.

It's easy math, really.

Release on multiple consoles = maximizing profits.
 
That is Square's business as the IP owner, and obviously Square doesn't wish to divulge that info right now or they would have.

But they did...

http://tombraider.tumblr.com/post/94529480860/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-update

UPDATE - August 15th, 2014

Thank you for all of the feedback and questions. There has been a lot of coverage about Rise of the Tomb Raider, and a new round of articles followed Phil Spencer’s Eurogamer interview in which he confirmed that the exclusivity is timed. In case you haven’t read that article yet, you can do so here.
 
No. What we want is a straight answer to RISE OF THE TOMB RAIDERS exclusivity. NOT THE FRANCHISE.

>Exclusive > "RotTR will only be on Xbox"

>Timed > "Play RotTR first on Xbox"

>Console Exclusive > "There won't be a PS4 version"

One of the three is correct.

We know he is capable of saying all three since Yusuf had no problem dick waving that TF won't be on PS4 at all.

We also know that they had no problem being clear that the indies they showed at GC will be on xbox first

And we also know if it was a real exclusive they would've been screaming at the top of the mountains.
lol.Spencer says theres a duration. No one has screamed from the mountains that its exclusive for the games lifetime for a reason. All this faux outrage is straight comedy.
 
Seen this strawman about 50 times now. Can you please stop with this?

All anybody wanted was for them to say "First on Xbox", which they've ALWAYS used prior to this. Does "First on Xbox" mean he's shitting on his deal or advertising the PS4 version??

Nah, he kinda has a point. People want Phil to do something that diminishes the impact or importance of their announcement of this deal with Square, and that's just not something he's going to do, nor should he. He's said as much as he needs to. They didn't buy out Tomb Raider or have long term control of the IP. It's still owned by Square.


That's not divulging specifics of the deal. They just echoed what Phil already said. They provided no new information. The Tomb Raider statement still doesn't tell you for how long this deal is in place, and what all the specifics of it are. It doesn't even tell you that it's coming to PS4. Safe bet? Yea, sure, but they haven't gone into the specifics just yet is all I'm saying.
 
I know this is just anecdotal, that's all I got, but I know several people who were really leaning towards the "buy an XBone" side of the fence when the rumors started circulating about the white ones coming soon. Then with all this Tomb Raider BS they have firmly flopped to the anti Microsoft side of things.

It's not about the XBone having Tomb Raider, it's about what it means for where MS is putting it's money, and MS's dishonesty.


So you know people that were thinking on getting an XBO because of the white one, but changed their mind because that very console is getting a game first? That just doesn't make sense to me.
 
What no one realises is that SE is financially unstable...

Sony sold their SE shares at one of the worst times possible for SE, yet you blame SE/CD because they want to make money?

I'm pretty sure the deal with MS makes them more money than they would have made if the game had been released on PS4 and PC at the same otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

I personally believe the game will be console exclusive on Xbox and will release on PC after a few months.
 
Nah, he kinda has a point. People want Phil to do something that diminishes the impact or importance of their announcement of this deal with Square, and that's just not something he's going to do, nor should he. He's said as much as he needs to. They didn't buy out Tomb Raider or have long term control of the IP. It's still owned by Square.

Nah no he really doesn't. Just answer the question. What was wrong with "First on Xbox" which they've always used before? If "First on Xbox" diminishes the impact soooo much, why did they use it for years and STILL continue to use it? They should just stop with that altogether because obviously what everyone wants them to do in using those three little words is ridiculous.

It's a complete strawman to accuse other people of being unreasonable when literally NOBODY is asking that they shit on their deal or mention the PS4 at all. Nobody mentions the other competitor, but mentioning that a game is coming out first on your console when that is the fact of the matter is the norm.
 
A straight answer was given. He said it's a deal with a duration on it. He will absolutely not say when or if Square and CD will bring the game to other platforms outside of the ones agreed upon in their deal (Xbox One and Xbox 360), because it isn't his IP, he doesn't own it, and it isn't his place to speak on such matters. That is Square's business as the IP owner, and obviously Square doesn't wish to divulge that info right now or they would have. People expecting Phil to explain and walk people through every detail of this business deal, as if he's somehow required to assuage the concerns of PS4 gamers with details that will provide them with some certainty, are being unreasonable. That's not at all his job.

Part of what makes deals like this effective in the first place is the uncertainty of it all and the silence and evasiveness of the key players regarding whether or not it's coming to other platforms and when. And it's looking like it's the same exact structure as the Dead Rising 3 deal. Microsoft published it under the Microsoft Game Studios banner, but we all know the actual IP is owned by Capcom. It seems that this might very well be the case for Tomb Raider. And didn't some people say that they saw a site where it was listed that MS is publishing the game?

When you pay for parts of the development, you kind of own a bit of it.

Otherwise, you just don't say you paid for development.
 
I know this is just anecdotal, that's all I got, but I know several people who were really leaning towards the "buy an XBone" side of the fence when the rumors started circulating about the white ones coming soon. Then with all this Tomb Raider BS they have firmly flopped to the anti Microsoft side of things.

It's not about the XBone having Tomb Raider, it's about what it means for where MS is putting it's money, and MS's dishonesty.
Where MS is putting its money? Their securing exclusives, funding new IP's, updating the OS every month, getting indies on board. Anyone who says they don't have any games slated for the future because they are spending money on securing TombRaider is ridiculous. We got Halo 5, Quantum Break, most likely a new Forza, yes Tomb Raider, plus I'm sure there will be a few unannounced games brought to light for next year.
I still dont get the dishonesty part. The press release said "exclusively for holiday 2015". Pretty self explanatory. They arent going to come out and say yeah it'll be on other systems later if they don't have to. It would be bad business. You want people to want to purchase your system to play the game. Not wait. Pretty simple concept to understand.
 
Seen this strawman about 50 times now. Can you please stop with this?

All anybody wanted was for them to say "First on Xbox", which they've ALWAYS used prior to this. Does "First on Xbox" mean he's shitting on his deal or advertising the PS4 version??

I just provided you with a quote where he said the arrangement with SE is timed. I agree that the initial outcry was warranted, but it's been officially confirmed by multiple outlets, including both Phil Spencer and the developers, that the game's exclusivity is not forever.

Everything since has been twisting words, overreactions, manufactured outrage and spilled milk.
 
I just provided you with a quote where he said the arrangement with SE is timed. I agree that the initial outcry was warranted, but it's been officially confirmed by multiple outlets, including both Phil Spencer and the developers, that the game's exclusivity is not forever.

He says there's a duration yet compares the deal to Dead Rising 3 and Ryse, both of which were pub'ed and funded by MS yet this is being funded and published by SE. Yes, that doesn't produce confusion at all.
 
They arent going to come out and say yeah it'll be on other systems later if they don't have to. It would be bad business. You want people to want to purchase your system to play the game. Not wait. Pretty simple concept to understand.

So it was okay to imply it was coming to other systems later with Smite, Goat Simulator, Threes, etc, but not okay with Tomb Raider? Why the double standard?

(we know why the double standard exist, it's because TR is a megaton grab compared to the other games that it was worth pulling the wool over our eyes)
 
When you pay for parts of the development, you kind of own a bit of it.

Otherwise, you just don't say you paid for development.

Very true, they have some serious stake in it from the looks of things, but they are still doing their best to respect the property owner and the developer, which in this case is Square and CD.
 
I just provided you with a quote where he said the arrangement with SE is timed. I agree that the initial outcry was warranted, but it's been officially confirmed by multiple outlets, including both Phil Spencer and the developers, that the game's exclusivity is not forever.

Everything since has been twisting words, overreactions, manufactured outrage and spilled milk.

Double post
 
I just provided you with a quote where he said the arrangement with SE is timed. I agree that the initial outcry was warranted, but it's been officially confirmed by multiple outlets, including both Phil Spencer and the developers, that the game's exclusivity is not forever.

Everything since has been twisting words, overreactions, manufactured outrage and spilled milk.

Ah then we misunderstood each other. I agree that now after both MS and S-E have confirmed it, it's not an issue anymore. I was talking strictly about the announcement. That was simply not right. I am confused at the people who still feel they need to say something else. It really can't get much clearer at this point other than for them to say ITS COMING OUT ON PS4 AND PC!!!
 
Very true, they have some serious stake in it from the looks of things, but they are still doing their best to respect the property owner and the developer, which in this case is Square and CD.

Sure, but Sony is helping all those indies out, and they're doing First on PS4.

That's all they say though. Some people will figure out Sony helped pay for their development even if they will eventually go on Xbone.

Sony never did this shady word game of exclusivity.
 
I haven't had an opportunity to read through this thread but doesn't it seem a little bit stupid if Microsoft are pumping money into this game to be made, only for it to be released for their "competitors" to enjoy some time later?

I get they want the game to be as great as it can be, since it'll be launching on Xbox One first, but they'll be down $$$ for a product that somebody else can play on another console several months down the track.

Or are MS okay with that cost since it gets them temporary exclusivity?

I feel like I'm missing something here ._.
 

This makes me feel a lot better. I believe in you, shinobi. I'll just need to try and avoid anything Microsoft says on the matter for the next year and a half, lest I have an aneurysm.

I haven't had an opportunity to read through this thread but doesn't it seem a little bit stupid if Microsoft are pumping money into this game to be made, only for it to be released for their "competitors" to enjoy some time later?

I get they want the game to be as great as it can be, since it'll be launching on Xbox One first, but they'll be down $$$ for a product that somebody else can play on another console several months down the track.

Or are MS okay with that cost since it gets them temporary exclusivity?

I feel like I'm missing something here ._.

It got them to the top last generation, but that was when their chief competitor often got a sub-par port. They're still relying on their old tricks but I don't think it's gonna work out as well as they're expecting this time around.
 
When you pay for parts of the development, you kind of own a bit of it.

Otherwise, you just don't say you paid for development.

Very true, they have some serious stake in it from the looks of things, but they are still doing their best to respect the property owner and the developer, which in this case is Square and CD.

Titanfall was also 'paid for development', yet we didn't find out about that until 'Final Hours of Titanfall', and even despite that fact... Titanfall wasn't locked out of other platforms forever. It could had come to PS3/PS4 next year had MS not brokered the lifetime deal with EA.

Honestly, I'm thinking that Spencer's using the 'paid for development' line as a buffer for himself to make it look like the exclusivity deal was more than just a moneygrab. By associating that your money is doing more than just 'stealing the game', you give the illusion that you're more than just a thief. They never needed to use that line for Titanfall, but somehow they felt the need to assert that statement with Rise.

There's just way too little context behind all these deals to be able to figure out what it's closer to. Part of it is also contributed by the fact that no one, ever questioned the exclusivity status of Dead Rising 3 and Ryse on XB1 when it launched, even though now we know that it could go to PC after a certain period of time. ( probably not PS4 though, because it was ultimately still fully MS-funded ) whereas Titanfall's initial deal allowed for a PS3/4 port later.

I mean, the only guesses we have right now is that we have insiders with a relatively decent reliability saying that it's not locked out of Playstation, and the fact that... MS isn't willing to tout the same 'lifetime' statement they used for Titanfall for Rise of Tomb Raider.
 
I haven't had an opportunity to read through this thread but doesn't it seem a little bit stupid if Microsoft are pumping money into this game to be made, only for it to be released for their "competitors" to enjoy some time later?

I get they want the game to be as great as it can be, since it'll be launching on Xbox One first, but they'll be down $$$ for a product that somebody else can play on another console several months down the track.

Or are MS okay with that cost since it gets them temporary exclusivity?

I feel like I'm missing something here ._.

Well the alternative is if they don't pay for it or help with the development the below could and almost certainly would happen:

1) TR would release simultaneously on all platforms meaning Xbox loses the perceived advantage.

2) Building on 1, if they release simultaneously, without MS's development help it could be a situation where TR releases with lower resolution and framerate on the One.

Given the above, I don't think it's stupid of them at all to do this.
 
Why are so many people getting so angry with MS, you need to direct your anger at SE and CD. The game is not out till the end of 2015, by then you will have confirmation on how long the exclusivity will last. And in sure allot of ps4 owners are not planning on buying that game anyway, most are just angry because it involves MS, and for some reason they are getting the back lash for a business deal. If Sony did this and not MS i'm 100% no one would be complaining. The game is coming to all consoles eventually, just wait and see.
 
I haven't had an opportunity to read through this thread but doesn't it seem a little bit stupid if Microsoft are pumping money into this game to be made, only for it to be released for their "competitors" to enjoy some time later?

I get they want the game to be as great as it can be, since it'll be launching on Xbox One first, but they'll be down $$$ for a product that somebody else can play on another console several months down the track.

Or are MS okay with that cost since it gets them temporary exclusivity?

I feel like I'm missing something here ._.

They did that with GTA4's DLCs. Paid for the development for timed exclusivity.

http://www.thegtaplace.com/news/11604/microsoft-paid-50-million-for-gta-iv-dlc/
 
Why are so many people getting so angry with MS, you need to direct your anger at SE and CD. The game is not out till the end of 2015, by then you will have confirmation on how long the exclusivity will last. And in sure allot of ps4 owners are not planning on buying that game anyway, most are just angry because it involves MS, and for some reason they are getting the back lash for a business deal. If Sony did this and not MS i'm 100% no one would be complaining. The game is coming to all consoles eventually, just wait and see.

Can we stop with this crap? I'm a PC player, I'd be pissed regardless who made the deal.
 
So, your jaw dropped when somebody called Spencer 'scum', but then say you find the outrage at MS and their PR obfuscation 'extremely obscene'.

Stop for a moment and lol at the double standard here while complaining about double standards.


My jaw is seriously dropping now.



Just earlier today, tons of posts about Sony being different because they help pay for development and marketing costs and that justify their exclusives, yet no matter what Microsoft does they are either liars, NSA spies or scum.


Stop for a moment and consider the double standard here.

No just previous Tomb Raider XBox exclusive threads. People said Sony were the good guys because they didnt just pay for exclusivity without doing anything like Microsoft.

Now Microsoft confirms they are doing something, and now that's not a thing anymore. I just don't get that line of thinking.



I mean, either you have to vilify all the exclusives, or have to be open for that its fair of both companies to make use of it.

I don't own an Xbox. Just commenting on something extremely obscene.
 
Top Bottom