Rats Off To Ya
Banned
What a completely original and not at all fallacious thought. Please go on.
-
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
What a completely original and not at all fallacious thought. Please go on.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
I don't think we let SE or Crystal Dynamics off the hook, especially with that shit PR that was sent from Crystal Dynamics.
Nightengale
Member
No, Andrew House and Adam Boyes did fuck up with Destiny/Magicka.
I mean, we knew last year that Destiny's exclusive content was timed. (Jim Ryan confirmed it), but that didn't excuse Andrew House making the mistake of implying that the content wasn't timed.
Adam Boyes fucked up earlier this year with Paradox, where he said they're working on 'exclusive PS4' games, when it was actually console exclusive.
However, what they did right was that they immediately corrected that misconception on Twitter/and official statements of timed content, etc.
Look, I like Phil Spencer. A lot. I like that he’s trying to market the XBO differently, and I can understand Microsoft’s need to gain a bit of ground by adding exclusive bits/piece of content (whether digital or physical) to appeal to the multiplatform crowd. That being said, the way this was flaunted as “Exclusive in Holiday 2015” wasn’t misleading, it was just damn right confusing. He had to acknowledge that it was a timed exclusive, but he has no need to clarify it elsewhere. Square Enix is publishing, and probably after 3 months - until whenever, they’ll put it on other platforms. I’m sure the XBO version will have some specific exclusives (Zachary Levi as an exclusive multiplayer character, baha) and it’ll be advertised and touted as a Microsoft Console Exclusive. I bet this will be coming to the 360/XBO maybe even the same day, and then we’ll hear an announcement around E3 for the next versions.
It’s apparent that the multiplatform gap has existed, and so maybe Microsoft is putting money into development specifically to create a version of the game that will hold it’s own, even after the other versions are released (1080p, 60FPS, let them dream!). The statement by Crystal Dynamics also added insult to injury, by letting the PC/PS4 players know that they still have Temple of Osiris! But that Gamescom presentation just shrouded the game with bad vibes. They were specifically coy about the language they used, were met with deserved backlash, and Spencer has clarified that it is an exclusive in 2015 and he doesn’t know what comes next. I wish Sony knew, or SE was at liberty to say; but I almost think Square Enix needs this deal too. Something to keep them afloat as games that do well never seem to meet their sales expectations.
If you also look at the history of Crystal Dynamics with Tomb Raider last gen, it’s apparent that the collaborative support was brewing pretty heavily. Tomb Raider Legend launched on the 360 years before it was ported in the trilogy on PS3, the Anniversary Episodes comprised a DLC package for Legend, and even the specific campaigns “Beneath the Shadows” and “Lara’s Shadow” + exclusive outfits never launched anywhere outside of the 360. Guardian of Light came out a month early on Microsoft’s console before it arrived on Steam/PSN. I’m not the least bit surprised by the timed exclusivity.
I think Phil Spencer wanted to shed light on the issue, but he couldn’t provide the details we wanted to hear in the interests of promoting the game on Microsoft’s console. I hope they do a Lara Croft themed edition console to entice sales of the game (I’d like it!) and I hope the game is good enough to warrant so much madness (less combat, more puzzle exploration please!). I’m not mad about it- at least we’ll see it on other platforms after some time. I don’t think multiplatform exclusives are a good thing, but I think Microsoft needs to do something to add excitement for their machine.
Goodness, this was way too long. Oh, and Pratchett please write collaboratively with Simone! Please, no more dying for a screwdriver! And Aaron Greenberg, just stop man. Those tweets are egregious.
It’s apparent that the multiplatform gap has existed, and so maybe Microsoft is putting money into development specifically to create a version of the game that will hold it’s own, even after the other versions are released (1080p, 60FPS, let them dream!). The statement by Crystal Dynamics also added insult to injury, by letting the PC/PS4 players know that they still have Temple of Osiris! But that Gamescom presentation just shrouded the game with bad vibes. They were specifically coy about the language they used, were met with deserved backlash, and Spencer has clarified that it is an exclusive in 2015 and he doesn’t know what comes next. I wish Sony knew, or SE was at liberty to say; but I almost think Square Enix needs this deal too. Something to keep them afloat as games that do well never seem to meet their sales expectations.
If you also look at the history of Crystal Dynamics with Tomb Raider last gen, it’s apparent that the collaborative support was brewing pretty heavily. Tomb Raider Legend launched on the 360 years before it was ported in the trilogy on PS3, the Anniversary Episodes comprised a DLC package for Legend, and even the specific campaigns “Beneath the Shadows” and “Lara’s Shadow” + exclusive outfits never launched anywhere outside of the 360. Guardian of Light came out a month early on Microsoft’s console before it arrived on Steam/PSN. I’m not the least bit surprised by the timed exclusivity.
I think Phil Spencer wanted to shed light on the issue, but he couldn’t provide the details we wanted to hear in the interests of promoting the game on Microsoft’s console. I hope they do a Lara Croft themed edition console to entice sales of the game (I’d like it!) and I hope the game is good enough to warrant so much madness (less combat, more puzzle exploration please!). I’m not mad about it- at least we’ll see it on other platforms after some time. I don’t think multiplatform exclusives are a good thing, but I think Microsoft needs to do something to add excitement for their machine.
Goodness, this was way too long. Oh, and Pratchett please write collaboratively with Simone! Please, no more dying for a screwdriver! And Aaron Greenberg, just stop man. Those tweets are egregious.
OverlordSteph
Banned
Pissed for what reason, from the Kotaku interview are MS not pumping money into the development of the game. so rightfully theres nothing wrong with it coming to other consoles later. Ive only got a ps4 and im happy waiting some extra months. I dont mind if some else gets to play it before me, thats not my business.
Chobel
Member
That's just PR, MS gave SE money to delay other versions even though SE could make the game without any help from MS. And of course SE will use that money to develop RoTR. MS aren't pumping anything other than marketing.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Square Enix said that they were perfectly OK with Sony selling that stock because they were in good shape. Do you have some proof otherwise?
Shining Sunshine
Banned
What? Who the fuck cares about bonus missions or whatever garbage. The game is on both platforms. And Magicka was obviously on PC without a second thought.
But then MS can't pull a fast one if they did that, which is exactly what they are trying to do.
OverlordSteph
Banned
Phil says it right there, so why would you think other wise that they are not helping with the development of the game.
They have been caught lying before. You can trust them right now.
OverlordSteph
Banned
If we go by the logic once a lier always a lier, then every major corporation has been caught out in a lie.. right ?
Chobel
Member
MS always help 3rd party developers in Xbox versions. Examples Destiny, Diablo 3, The division...etc, it's their role as platform holder. And that's why I said it's PR, because MS are going to help developing RoTR Xbox versions with or without the exclusivity.
Nightengale
Member
I'm saying that if your trailers aren't going to have a label that states 'console exclusive, timed exclusive, etc', your language on-stage when describing these games need to be accurate or you could give the wrong impression.
On Sony's side, it was clear that they flubbed some stuff, because Boyes were using terms like console debut, console exclusive, will be on, etc, but there he missed one word with Magicka. It's important because he's announcing games with different exclusivity status, like Let It Die is a bonafide exclusive, but Magicka isn't.
I'm not going to grit on people making mistakes on-stage, because the reality is sometimes you just missed out saying things. But because 'PR language' is very scrutinised, companies need to be careful with the things they say, or if they said it wrongly, quickly clarify it asap.
Put it this way. Sony's wasn't intentional ( at least based on how they responded ), but the fact is they still conveyed something that was misleading at first impressions. We shouldn't want that to happen again.
That's why Gamescom reveal was the best, announce everything, but very clearly specify what is timed, what is console, and what is bonafide exclusive. That way, even if they made a mistake when announcing that specific game, they could reclarify in the same show that that actually wasn't.
Triggerhappytel
Member
If they'd just said that we wouldn't be having any of these discussions. It's so ridiculous.
I don't even think they called it a "failure", did they - please provide a link if so. What they did do was say it had failed to meet sales expectations, but at 3.5 million copies sold in its first month that's entirely a problem with their budgeting and ridiculous expectations. Plus, it had turned profit by the time the DE launched, so they probably ended up making a nice bit of cash from the game. There's no publisher in the world who would refuse to green light a sequel to a game that sold 6.5 million copies. Unless you can provide examples, then we can discuss further.
Rats Off To Ya
Banned
"Why would an executive lie about his product?"
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Sure, Sony didn't intend it. All of their indie supported games are coming for PC, and they want it like that because they know indie needs to make money.
Microsoft sure as hell want it to be misleading. They lied about Dead Rising 3 exclusivity and Ryse exclusivity. Now that they're coming out for PC, a lot of people aren't going to fall for it again. That's why this TR thing is such a big deal now.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Giving money "helps" with development. I doubt any one at MIcrosoft can actually help them design a better TR game.
Chobel
Member
He's technically not lying, he's twisting the truth.
OverlordSteph
Banned
As i said before, if we are using the logic once a lier always a lier, then Sony, MS and many other companies should not be trusted at all.. using that logic
These companies can decide weather they want to stretch the truth or not depending on how it benefits them. Your post makes no sense.
Rats Off To Ya
Banned
And your logic is "he said it's true so it must be true."
I'm not saying he's definitely lying. I'm just saying your logic is ridiculous.
Yeah, so?
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
Major Corporation Too™
I have too many TR thread tabs open, I don't know where I'm posting anymore.
Droopaloop
Banned
Blame Sony. If they wouldn't be winning in such a drastic fashion in terms of sales Microsoft never would have made this deal.
/s
Seriously though, I think getting beat in sales by such a significant margin probably lead to a deals like this. It's great to know that they are helping pay for marketing and some development costs; but this game was going to be made regardless. There is no need to omit other players.
I suppose I can understand that given the sales situation, a type of deal of this nature would yield a more immediate result in terms of sales and income. Developing a new I.P. and getting to to market takes time. Should have invested in a few solid looking indies. That stilll doesn't make it beneficial to the consumer though. Either way, it is what it is and I'm sure more details will come out in the future.
Desperate Microsoft may not be the best Microsoft it turns out (for other console and pc owners anyway.)
/s
Seriously though, I think getting beat in sales by such a significant margin probably lead to a deals like this. It's great to know that they are helping pay for marketing and some development costs; but this game was going to be made regardless. There is no need to omit other players.
I suppose I can understand that given the sales situation, a type of deal of this nature would yield a more immediate result in terms of sales and income. Developing a new I.P. and getting to to market takes time. Should have invested in a few solid looking indies. That stilll doesn't make it beneficial to the consumer though. Either way, it is what it is and I'm sure more details will come out in the future.
Desperate Microsoft may not be the best Microsoft it turns out (for other console and pc owners anyway.)
OverlordSteph
Banned
My logic is give me evidence that they are not helping in the development of the game then i will consider it a lie. But there is no evidence, you are just reading between the lines to reach to a conclusion that has been fabricated. I highly doubt they will go through all the trouble to make it a timed exclusive and not add any help to its development.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
It's not hate, it's assuming that most of the money needs to address the opportunity cost of not releasing the game at launch on PS4 and its massive user base.
shacklesmcgee
Member
But...there will never be "evidence" they did either, so....?
They're gonna play the game, where they constantly try to convience people, that ROTR not coming to Playstation, since that's their competitor. That's why Phil using the DR3, Ryse examples. PC doesn't matter for them, they want the potential PS4 buyers.
Realistically, Square-Enix would be dumb to ignore about 20 million PS4 userbase at early 2016. However, realistically, Microsoft capable of buying full or console exclusivity, just like Titanfall.
Realistically, Square-Enix would be dumb to ignore about 20 million PS4 userbase at early 2016. However, realistically, Microsoft capable of buying full or console exclusivity, just like Titanfall.
devonraynor
Member
Someone should tweet Phil if he's proud of the business decision.
Now millions of players are kept away from a sequel to a game they bought earlier.
Why not pour that money into their on studios or a new IP?
Now millions of players are kept away from a sequel to a game they bought earlier.
Why not pour that money into their on studios or a new IP?
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
MS and Sony tend to send engineers and generally help big third party releases with or without exclusivity arrangements IMHO.
At least we can all hope that all that extra money, if not going directly into the development of TR, might be funneled into getting FFXV out before 2020!
Effigenius
Member
Honestly, the sales are irrelevant. If it didn't meet costs or sales goals it failed. I have no access to their books, just going on what they said. Waterworld made $85 million. Which was a great performance in 1995. Except it cost $238 million to make. Eventually after many years they broke evenish. Still, you never saw a WaterWorld 2.
Nightengale
Member
Because 2015
OverlordSteph
Banned
Sony got their act together with their self publishing indie policy quite a bit earlier than MS. So for all the fuzzy talk about how great X or Y company is to work with, the simplest explanation is that PS4 was the only/more practical option at the time these games were in development.
MS has the infamous parity clause to try and combat this, but those quoted indies are popular so are likely to have waivers from MS, so th won't be too worried about launching first on playstation (plus it gets them marketing spend/visibility like at E3/gamescom)
StrongBlackVine
Banned
You will be able to play it. Xbox just gets it first.
cripterion
Member
Nothing sucks if you own both consoles. I buy games to enjoy myself and of course I'd like to have the choice on which console I'll buy a certain game most of the time but that's not how this industry works so why get caught up on all this drama and be upset about it?
Don't care if Phil is a good or bad guy either. He could be thinking the worst about gamers, I don't need to like a company or their spokesman to buy their games.
I was giving shit on 2K as of late cause I didn't really like 2K14, and I am pretty sure this year will be just slight improvements. They have one of the worst PR ever too, but they're releasing the game on pc this year with all the features so I'm not going to punish myself and not buy the game because Ronnie2K is an ass or because or their past mistakes, etc..
All I'm saying is I know this is an enthusiast forum and threads as such are normal but man some of you are way too invested into all of this and I think it's a sad state of affairs when gamers are more interested about the back room deals than the actual game.
shacklesmcgee
Member
ok? I'm saying there is no evidence that shows they are helping with development, just as there is no evidence proving they aren't. And there never will be for either, so to base your logic off that is sort of idiotic.
People keep repeating this as if they were at the table while this deal was going down. Where the proof of this? Shame me with links. It's the weekend. I have some time to read them now.
krypt0nian
Banned
Kagari already stated that they don't need any help financially to bring it out.
soul creator
Member
The game was never announced as multi platform. It was just assumed to be, based on the previous versions being multiplatform.
Your clearly in a position of great awareness, please inform the rest of us about the specifics of this deal, because you MUST know to call him a liar....its not just some fanboy hunch surely?
@ all the people defending Microsoft / Spencer for this;
Here are the things they said during the conference;
All of these statements are constructed in such a way as to imply full exclusivity. Then, when we started speculating, some noticed that on the Microsoft site, it said that Microsoft was publishing the game, but then that turned out to be just an error and Square Enix was still publishing the game;
All the while, we got non-committal non-answers from Microsoft;
And now, suddenly, Microsoft is publishing the game and it is somehow just like Dead Rising 3;
Right now we have a relationship with Square and Crystal on publishing the game,
All this does is create more confusion.
Why can they not come forward and tell us what the fuck is going on? Spencer says he is not trying to deceive us, but he is certainly not giving us straight answers. Of course you're helping with the development of the Xbox One version, that is your duty as holder of that platform. We're not questioning that, neither are we questioning that you are going to help in marketing ( as that is expected in these kind of deals ). What we want, and as consumers, deserve to know, is the nature of this deal and this exclusivity. For all we know, PS4 and PC versions are in full development right now ( Why else release the remastered version of the original for PS4 just earlier this year? The original was profitable, a both commercially and critically successful game. As of yet, nothing points to RotTR not being a multi-platform title from the very beginning.). Are PS4 and PC versions in development right now and is Microsoft simply paying to delay those? Did CD / SE somehow get into massive financial trouble and decided to develop the Xbox One version first ( for whatever weird reason )? Etc. Etc.
I'm not asking for them to market the PS4 or PC version, I'm just calling them out for this disingenuous "well, we don't know what platforms it is coming to beyond Xbox, but there is the possibility, but we don't publish, so don't ask us #Holiday2015, but it has a duration but won't tell you what that duration is, but it's also like Dead Rising 3 and we're partially publishing.".
And here's another thing; If this deal is of such nature that revealing its contents or length would render the deal 'ineffective', then they made a shit deal. Them deliberately being ambiguous about the whole thing does not make it a better deal and only serves to suck people into a shit deal because they are presenting it as a better, non-existent deal.
If they had been clear in what the deal was from the beginning, much of this outrage wouldn't be here. A simple "We're proud to announce that, in an exclusive partnership with Crystal Dynamics, Rise of the Tomb Raider will be coming to Xbox One one month before it comes to any other platform." would have prevented most of the explosive outrage. Oh, there would still be outrage, because artificially delaying the game on other platforms is a shitty practice, but the outrage would be much less explosive than with this disingenuous twist-fest. They could've prevented most of this if they had been clear from the start. But they weren't clear on what the deal was, and they're still not clear on what the deal is.
And this all goes equally for Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics. You don't lie or be intentionally vague about something in front of your consumers; it is not in their best interests and thusly should not be in your best interests.
Just tell us what the fuck is going on. No "Well, it's similar to [ GAME ]", no "Well we don't know a thing about the platforms this game will be on. We didn't do a deal on that exact thing or anything...", no twisted sentences, no ambiguity.
Just tell us what this deal is and what it means.
Here are the things they said during the conference;
"Coming holiday 2015, exclusively to Xbox." ( Crystal Dynamics guy ) and "Coming holiday 2015, exclusively on Xbox." ( Text on screen ) both are statements constructed in such a way to imply that holiday 2015 is just the release date and not an indication of timed exclusivity.
"... to have Rise of the Tomb Raider come to our platform in 2015, exclusively." ( Phil Harrison ) again is constructed in such a way as to imply full exclusivity, with holiday 2015 just being the release date.
"Rise of the Tomb Raider is just the start; from this point forward in our show all the games here on in will also be exclusively available on Xbox." ( Phil Harrison ) was followed up by talking about full exclusives such as Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, Screamride and The Master Chief Collection. In that context, this sentence likens the RotTR exclusivity with the full exclusivity of Microsoft-developed or funded games, again implying full exclusivity.
"We showed you continued commitment to bringing the best exclusives to Xbox One in 2015 and beyond." ( Phil Spencer ) was directly followed up by Spencer specifically singling out Quantum Break and Rise of the Tomb Raider in the context of this quote, implying that RotTR was similar to Quantum Break in its exclusivity.
"... announce that Rise of the Tomb Raider will be joining the list of Xbox exclusives in holiday 2015." ( Phil Spencer ) again implies full exclusivity with holiday 2015 being the release date for the game.
"... to have Rise of the Tomb Raider come to our platform in 2015, exclusively." ( Phil Harrison ) again is constructed in such a way as to imply full exclusivity, with holiday 2015 just being the release date.
"Rise of the Tomb Raider is just the start; from this point forward in our show all the games here on in will also be exclusively available on Xbox." ( Phil Harrison ) was followed up by talking about full exclusives such as Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, Screamride and The Master Chief Collection. In that context, this sentence likens the RotTR exclusivity with the full exclusivity of Microsoft-developed or funded games, again implying full exclusivity.
"We showed you continued commitment to bringing the best exclusives to Xbox One in 2015 and beyond." ( Phil Spencer ) was directly followed up by Spencer specifically singling out Quantum Break and Rise of the Tomb Raider in the context of this quote, implying that RotTR was similar to Quantum Break in its exclusivity.
"... announce that Rise of the Tomb Raider will be joining the list of Xbox exclusives in holiday 2015." ( Phil Spencer ) again implies full exclusivity with holiday 2015 being the release date for the game.
All of these statements are constructed in such a way as to imply full exclusivity. Then, when we started speculating, some noticed that on the Microsoft site, it said that Microsoft was publishing the game, but then that turned out to be just an error and Square Enix was still publishing the game;
All the while, we got non-committal non-answers from Microsoft;
And now, suddenly, Microsoft is publishing the game and it is somehow just like Dead Rising 3;
Right now we have a relationship with Square and Crystal on publishing the game,
All this does is create more confusion.
Why can they not come forward and tell us what the fuck is going on? Spencer says he is not trying to deceive us, but he is certainly not giving us straight answers. Of course you're helping with the development of the Xbox One version, that is your duty as holder of that platform. We're not questioning that, neither are we questioning that you are going to help in marketing ( as that is expected in these kind of deals ). What we want, and as consumers, deserve to know, is the nature of this deal and this exclusivity. For all we know, PS4 and PC versions are in full development right now ( Why else release the remastered version of the original for PS4 just earlier this year? The original was profitable, a both commercially and critically successful game. As of yet, nothing points to RotTR not being a multi-platform title from the very beginning.). Are PS4 and PC versions in development right now and is Microsoft simply paying to delay those? Did CD / SE somehow get into massive financial trouble and decided to develop the Xbox One version first ( for whatever weird reason )? Etc. Etc.
I'm not asking for them to market the PS4 or PC version, I'm just calling them out for this disingenuous "well, we don't know what platforms it is coming to beyond Xbox, but there is the possibility, but we don't publish, so don't ask us #Holiday2015, but it has a duration but won't tell you what that duration is, but it's also like Dead Rising 3 and we're partially publishing.".
And here's another thing; If this deal is of such nature that revealing its contents or length would render the deal 'ineffective', then they made a shit deal. Them deliberately being ambiguous about the whole thing does not make it a better deal and only serves to suck people into a shit deal because they are presenting it as a better, non-existent deal.
If they had been clear in what the deal was from the beginning, much of this outrage wouldn't be here. A simple "We're proud to announce that, in an exclusive partnership with Crystal Dynamics, Rise of the Tomb Raider will be coming to Xbox One one month before it comes to any other platform." would have prevented most of the explosive outrage. Oh, there would still be outrage, because artificially delaying the game on other platforms is a shitty practice, but the outrage would be much less explosive than with this disingenuous twist-fest. They could've prevented most of this if they had been clear from the start. But they weren't clear on what the deal was, and they're still not clear on what the deal is.
And this all goes equally for Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics. You don't lie or be intentionally vague about something in front of your consumers; it is not in their best interests and thusly should not be in your best interests.
Just tell us what the fuck is going on. No "Well, it's similar to [ GAME ]", no "Well we don't know a thing about the platforms this game will be on. We didn't do a deal on that exact thing or anything...", no twisted sentences, no ambiguity.
Just tell us what this deal is and what it means.
