Support NeoGAF

[TheOddOne]

I'm not going to cite names, but there are folks with mental gymnastics here that attribute Spencer's 'IP/franchise' statement in the sentence to a possibility 'Oh, MS might had bought a duration where every game made by Crystal is perma-exclusive to MS, but only that duration!'

As fucking stupid as that sounds.

Or it being a "Oh, it's like Ryse/DR3 where MS has a duration of exclusivity, but most likely never coming to PS4 ever! because that's what happened with both those games!"

And while I will say that the Eurogamer article is pretty straight-forward, the Kotaku article is slightly less so.

And those people get glossed over because of the absurdity of those claims.

Both the Kotaku and Eurogamer look to be from the same press meeting, because they basically both have the same soundbites. Eurogamer, I guess, just posted word-for-word what was said.

 

[Pound_lb003]

While that's probably true, people should stick to announced games in their list warz posts.

Or go crazy and avoid trying to compare lineups? I've never seen an example of a list ever producing some worthwhile discussion. It's juvenile and reductive.

 

[Nightengale]

Or go crazy and avoid trying to compare lineups? I've never seen an example of a list ever producing some worthwhile discussion. It's juvenile and reductive.

Pretty much.

List has value to keep track of each company's releases annually, but putting it to comparison? That's risky.

 

[Moobabe]

Next year's retail exclusive line up

Xbox One
Quantum Break
Fable Legends
Rise of the Tomb Raider (also on 360)
Halo 5

PS4
The Order 1886
Ratchet Redux
BloodBorne
Uncharted 4

fall 2015 MS have a advantage where they have Halo 5 and Tomb Raider. Its 0vvious they bouggt exclusivity for Tomb Raider to compete with Uncharted.

The Order and Bloodborne are both in the first few months of next year though aren't they? I'm sure Sony has something other than Uncharted for the end of the year as well

 

[Kikujiro]

Development money may mean a lot of thing. I think the last gen version will be on 360 only and that could easily mean development money, since they are paying for a timed exclusive they are paying to put it on the 360 too.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

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.

Nope, you read it wrong. What I find obscene is that people are acting angrily at Microsoft for something that is commonplace, and have been for years.

Seriously. We literally had this discussion before splinter cell came out. "ONLY ON XBOX" stamp meant, 6 months exclusive, does not include PC. It has meant that ever since. On all the platforms.
We had the same thing during the FFXIII meltdown, same thing with crying for Rockstar and Valve game ports.

There is nothing new here, just misplaced fanboyism.


#LeavePhilSpencerAlone;D



edit: I was wrong. Sometimes its much longer than 6 months exclusive;

E3 2002: Sony gets Grand Theft Auto exclusive


Sony announces a two-year deal with Take-Two to make Grand Theft Auto III and future installments of the series exclusive to the PlayStation 2.

Sony Computer Entertainment America and Take-Two Interactive have announced an exclusive deal for the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Under terms of the agreement, Grand Theft Auto III and future installments of the series released before October 2004 will be released only on the Sony PlayStation 2 platform. This deal follows the recent release of Grand Theft Auto III for the PC, and it is unknown if the agreement eliminates the possibility of PC versions of upcoming Grand Theft Auto games coming out in the next two years.

Grand Theft Auto III was released for the PlayStation 2 last October and became the best-selling video game of 2001. The game also won numerous awards, including GameSpot's Video Game of the Year for 2001. Take-Two's Rockstar Games division recently announced Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, a follow-up to the game scheduled for release on the PlayStation 2 this fall.

By Trey Walker, GameSpot PC

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Nope, you read it wrong. What I find obscene is that people are acting angrily at Microsoft for something that is commonplace, and have been for years.

Seriously. We literally had this discussion before splinter cell came out. "ONLY ON XBOX" stamp meant, 6 months exclusive, does not include PC. It has meant that ever since. On all the platforms.
We had the same thing during the FFXIII meltdown, same thing with crying for Rockstar and Valve game ports.

There is nothing new here, just misplaced fanboyism.


#LeavePhilSpencerAlone;D

This is something Microsoft has made commonplace for years.

The FF meltdown wasn't because it was an exclusive but because it went multiplatform after being first party and sort of third (Nintendo) for pretty much years and now on Xbox.

The GTA dlc was dirty as hell because that was an exclusive for a whole year before hitting the PS3, in which GTA had a huge reputation for being Playstation only (when it wasn't but the most popular titles originated on the system, just like Max Pain)

The only misplaced fanboyism is the fact that instead of recognizing the deal as particularly shitty regardless of how many years in the industry it has happened, it only benefits the end user with the console that has no problem with these huge irrelevant deals to fix one position on the sales charts. That end user is most likely the hidden fanboy who is no different than the fanboys who actually like Tomb Raider. Please......

 

[nature boy]

So people are upset about a timed exclusive from Microsoft and they're not upset about a permanent exclusive from Sony (Bloodborne)?

And Sony really dropped the ball letting this happen in the first place.

But it's fairly commonplace, so I really don't understand all the controversy.

 

[Stone Ocean]

So people are upset about a timed exclusive from Microsoft and they're not upset about a permanent exclusive from Sony (Bloodborne)?

For the billionth time, different situations

Sony hired From Software to make a brand new IP. MS paid to make a game that was announced for like 2 years and was 100% multiplat to only come on their consoles for a limited amount of time while also being very vague about how much time that would be.

 

[test_account]

So people are upset about a timed exclusive from Microsoft and they're not upset about a permanent exclusive from Sony (Bloodborne)?

And Sony really dropped the ball letting this happen in the first place.

But it's fairly commonplace, so I really don't understand all the controversy.

Bloodborne is probably financed by Sony (as in, Sony is hiring From Software to make a game for them), so it makes sense that its only on their platform. That said, i also dont understand why there is so much discussion around the Tomber Rider situation. And it being timed exclusive (as it most likely seems), it makes me more curious why there is so much discussion around it.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

So people are upset about a timed exclusive from Microsoft and they're not upset about a permanent exclusive from Sony (Bloodborne)?

And Sony really dropped the ball letting this happen in the first place.

But it's fairly commonplace, so I really don't understand all the controversy.

Sony is co-developing Bloodborne. And they dropped the ball by? Not outbidding MS?

 

[nature boy]

For the billionth time, different situations

Sony hired From Software to make a brand new IP. MS paid to make a game that was announced for like 2 years and was 100% multiplat to only come on their consoles for a limited amount of time while also being very vague about how much time that would be.

And?

It's still a 1st party making theirs a 3rd party IP, except in MS' case it's time limited.

And it's totally fair game to try to get a well-known franchise as an exclusive.

Sony is co-developing Bloodborne. And they dropped the ball by? Not outbidding MS?

No, but letting MS get TR as an exclusive in the first place. They apparently didn't make it worthwhile for SE to not sign a deal.

 

[fastford58]

So people are upset about a timed exclusive from Microsoft and they're not upset about a permanent exclusive from Sony (Bloodborne)?

And Sony really dropped the ball letting this happen in the first place.

But it's fairly commonplace, so I really don't understand all the controversy.

Pretty sure Sony doesn't care about a franchise like Tomb Raider going exclusive. Sony is in a position where their sales are so good, these types of deals are probably coming to them and MS is in a position where these types of deals make them seem desperate.

Bloodborne feels like more of a natural progression from the success of Demon's Souls rather than the current state of the console market. Although given Sony's reaction to the first game, I'm thinking they are lucky to have secured this one as exclusive.

 

[icespide]

people talking about bloodborne again? round and round we go

 

[Poona]

But it's fairly commonplace, so I really don't understand all the controversy.

Because Tomb Raider has been a PC and Playstation title since 1996. Majority of the fanbase exists there. When the news first hit it seemed that the game had been taken from them, and things still haven't been cleared up.

Also for those who aren't such big fans of Lara, but probably purchased the definitive edition of the latest game on ps4 are a bit bummed as that version was the superior version when compared to the xbone. So it was naturally assumed the next game would again come to the ps4 and most likely be the best version again.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

And?

It's still a 1st party making theirs a 3rd party IP, except in MS' case it's time limited.

How is Bloodborne a 3rd party IP? From Software is a 3rd party developer, contracted by Sony to make a new IP for them, to be co-developed by Sony's Japan studio.

 

[Kayant]

And?

It's still a 1st party making theirs a 3rd party IP, except in MS' case it's time limited.

And it's totally fair game to try to get a well-known franchise as an exclusive.


No, but letting MS get TR as an exclusive in the first place. They apparently didn't make it worthwhile for SE to not sign a deal.

Are you being serious? Sony WENT to From Software for Bloodborne to be made. It wouldn't exist without them. Tomb raider was already coming. It was being made already and was announced a long time ago.

 

[gaming_noob]

How come people arent mad about bloodborne being PS4 exclusive this is same situation

 

[Slashlen]

Every time I go into this thread, I just think about how much work this is creating for @NeoGAFShitPosts.

 

[fade_]

How come people arent mad about bloodborne being PS4 exclusive this is same situation

They aren't mad because it's not the same situation.

 

[ShogunDarius]

i'm starting to think GAF needs a pinned topic/thread stating why Bloodborne and Bayonetta 2 arent the same as Tomb Raider. A locked topic though, just one post detailing what the difference is.

 

[Persona RS]

How come people arent mad about bloodborne being PS4 exclusive this is same situation

Not this again. It's not the same situation.

Bloodborne is being developed by From Software in colaboration with SCE Japan Studio and Sony is the publisher.

 

[omonimo]

How come people arent mad about bloodborne being PS4 exclusive this is same situation

Jeez I can't believe someone is not embarassed to post the same shit after tons of explanations in the previous post that's not the same thing.

 

[icespide]

I feel like we need a thread that specifically explains how the bloodborne situation is different from tomb raider

 

[tmtyf]

Are you being serious? Sony WENT to From Software for Bloodborne to be made. It wouldn't exist without them. Tomb raider was already coming. It was being made already and was announced a long time ago.

just because it was announced doesn't mean it wasn't in development hell, I mean look at the last guardian or ffxv. se has big franchises but it doesn't mean they have deep pockets. They made a lot of bad choices which cost them a lot of money.

 

[DNAbro]

Next year's retail exclusive line up

Xbox One
Quantum Break
Fable Legends
Rise of the Tomb Raider (also on 360)
Halo 5

PS4
The Order 1886
Ratchet Redux
BloodBorne
Uncharted 4

fall 2015 MS have a advantage where they have Halo 5 and Tomb Raider. Its 0vvious they bouggt exclusivity for Tomb Raider to compete with Uncharted.

Bloodborne and the Order are early next year. It's stupid to compare there 2015 line ups when we don't know it yet. But we can guess Uncharted, Rime, Tearaway, Ratchet, and Until Dawn are all coming next year so no it's not those 4 games against Microsoft's currently announced games.

just because it was announced doesn't mean it wasn't in development hell, I mean look at the last guardian or ffxv. se has big franchises but it doesn't mean they have deep pockets. They made a lot of bad choices which cost them a lot of money.

You can't just make up scenarios that fit what you want to hear. Kagari was already said that Square did not need help with this game.

 

[gaming_noob]

I was just mocking this thread. Discussion stagnated long ago and it seems people are just
looking for the next ignorant post to pounce on and be all emotional about...

 

[Steroyd]

And?

It's still a 1st party making theirs a 3rd party IP, except in MS' case it's time limited.

And it's totally fair game to try to get a well-known franchise as an exclusive.


No, but letting MS get TR as an exclusive in the first place. They apparently didn't make it worthwhile for SE to not sign a deal.

Why isn't there an equal shitstorm around Scalebound?

 

[kensama]

How come people arent mad about bloodborne being PS4 exclusive this is same situation

Since when it's the same situation?

- Bloodborne IP (trademarked by Sony) is owned by Sony (not like tomb Raider which is an SE IP)

- Japan Studios develop the game with From Software, but globally when you see the game running it's a far more outstanding technically than previous FS game and Japan Studio shouldn't be for nothing in this.

Nevermind: just see your post after posting my message

 

[fade_]

Why isn't there an equal shitstorm around Scalebound?

NEW IP that most likely wouldnt exist without MS money. Are we going in circles again? Time to exit.

 

[Steroyd]

Bloodborne and the Order are early next year. It's stupid to compare there 2015 line ups when we don't know it yet. But we can guess Uncharted, Rime, Tearaway, Ratchet, and Until Dawn are all coming next year so no it's not those 4 games against Microsoft's currently announced games.

Outside of Ratchet and Uncharted (which weren't present at Gamescom) I thought everything shown in the Gamescom showreel were games coming out in the next 6 months?

NEW IP that most likely wouldnt exist without MS money. Are we going in circles again? Time to exit.

Following nature_boy's logic, if we're going to talk about Bloodborne...

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

NEW IP that most likely wouldnt exist without MS money. Are we going in circles again? Time to exit.

And then to requote for accuracy to Bloodborne.

NEW IP that most likely wouldnt exist without Sony money. Are we going in circles again? Time to exit.

 

[Kayant]

just because it was announced doesn't mean it wasn't in development hell, I mean look at the last guardian or ffxv. se has big franchises but it doesn't mean they have deep pockets. They made a lot of bad choices which cost them a lot of money.

Ok. You have evidence for that? Because last tomb raider was profitable just but before the release of the remasters for PS4/XB1. Game's sequel was announced years ago. MS referenced to the title as a multiplat from their release material, first statement we got from CD don't point towards that so where in this time frame do you find they were in development hell when nothing points to that? There is no rumors to even suggest this either.

 

[DNAbro]

Outside of Ratchet and Uncharted (which weren't present at Gamescom) I thought everything shown in the Gamescom showreel were games coming out in the next 6 months?



Following nature_boy's logic, if we're going to talk about Bloodborne...

no, all the trailers before the show were showing stuff at the most 6 months off (infamous first light, the order, bloodborne)

 

[nature boy]

How is Bloodborne a 3rd party IP? From Software is a 3rd party developer, contracted by Sony to make a new IP for them, to be co-developed by Sony's Japan studio.

Are you being serious? Sony WENT to From Software for Bloodborne to be made. It wouldn't exist without them. Tomb raider was already coming. It was being made already and was announced a long time ago.

Who came up with the concept of Bloodborne? Did From come up with the concept, Sony saw it and said "thanks, we'll pay and help dev" or did Sony do all of the concept and outsource part of the development to From? Everything I've seen seems to indicate it's a From game with finance and some assistance from Japan Studio. So it's Sony's IP from a legal perspective, but it seems it's From doing all the creative work.

And I don't understand the sense of entitlement that Tomb Raider cannot be a (timed) exclusive for one console.

 

[nature boy]

Following nature_boy's logic, if we're going to talk about Bloodborne...

I'm not complaining about exclusives. You missed the point.

 

[markedbravado]

Are there any exclusivity deals with retailers on game pricing? I was looking to buy a AAA game for my PS4 and find myself disappointed that the Xbox One versions of ACBF, BF3 and TR are consistently cheaper. I don't get it. Why is this becoming a trend? Wouldn't the sale be across the board if the publisher wanted to sell more units?

 

[shacklesmcgee]

Who came up with the concept of Bloodborne? Did From come up with the concept, Sony saw it and said "thanks, we'll pay and help dev" or did Sony do all of the concept and outsource part of the development to From? Everything I've seen seems to indicate it's a From game with finance and some assistance from Japan Studio. So it's Sony's IP from a legal perspective, but it seems it's From doing all the creative work.

And I don't understand the sense of entitlement that Tomb Raider cannot be a (timed) exclusive for one console.

So if Sony Japan did all the netcode and programming, but From did all the modelling and texture work, whose game is it then? Sony didn't do any creative work, right?

 

[br3wnor]

So people are upset about a timed exclusive from Microsoft and they're not upset about a permanent exclusive from Sony (Bloodborne)?

And Sony really dropped the ball letting this happen in the first place.

But it's fairly commonplace, so I really don't understand all the controversy.

Bloodborne is a new IP. Millions of people played the first Tomb Raider on PC and PS3, those millions are being told to "fuck off for now" by CD. That's why it's ridiculous. Honestly I don't blame Microsoft it's really C and Square that deserve the blame. Hopefully the sequels sales are severely diminished to stop this shit from happening to other franchises

 

[Genio88]

Next year's retail exclusive line up

Xbox One
Quantum Break
Fable Legends
Rise of the Tomb Raider (also on 360)
Halo 5

PS4
The Order 1886
Ratchet Redux
BloodBorne
Uncharted 4

fall 2015 MS have a advantage where they have Halo 5 and Tomb Raider. Its 0vvious they bouggt exclusivity for Tomb Raider to compete with Uncharted.

You are forgetting Crackdown 3 and Scalebound

 

[enzo_gt]

For the billionth time, different situations

Sony hired From Software to make a brand new IP. MS paid to make a game that was announced for like 2 years and was 100% multiplat to only come on their consoles for a limited amount of time while also being very vague about how much time that would be.

Source?

Also, I'm not sure why people keep bringing up who owns the Bloodborne IP or how long the Tomb Raider IP has been on non-XB platforms. Both completely irrelevant points to the current situation. With the advent of co-development, who's publishing doesn't even matter either. MS is helping the game get made, they have stake in it's existence. Would it have existed without MS? Maybe, maybe not in its current form, you cannot logically conclude that without knowing where their money is going specifically (which you will never know). I wonder where this shitstorm was when all of these indie games were announced to "console debut" on PS4. But let's continue arguing it's the principle of timed exclusivity that makes it shitty while applying that only to select situations.

 

[DNAbro]

Who came up with the concept of Bloodborne? Did From come up with the concept, Sony saw it and said "thanks, we'll pay and help dev" or did Sony do all of the concept and outsource part of the development to From? Everything I've seen seems to indicate it's a From game with finance and some assistance from Japan Studio. So it's Sony's IP from a legal perspective, but it seems it's From doing all the creative work.

And I don't understand the sense of entitlement that Tomb Raider cannot be a (timed) exclusive for one console.

there was a quote going around from the creator saying Sony game to From with the concept. The game wasn't being made until Sony came in.

 

[icespide]

You are forgetting Crackdown 3 and Scalebound

you really think those are 2015 games?

 

[tmtyf]

Ok. You have evidence for that? Because last tomb raider was profitable just but before the release of the remasters for PS4/XB1. Game's sequel was announced years ago. MS referenced to the title as a multiplat from their release material, first statement we got from CD don't point towards that so where in this time frame do you find they were in development hell when nothing points to that? There is no rumors to even suggest this either.

never said they were,i meant we just don't know why this deal went down the way it did. Perhaps when they started making it, it had a lower budget due to not meeting expectations at start? Do they think releasing on ps4 after uncharted comes out will give them more profit? Nobody knows, only them but the fact that this is now a Xbox 2015 exclusive means they decided it was the best course of action as they could have easily turned MS down should they not have needed money/help as they would be losing out on sales from other platforms.

Either way I'm hoping MS does in fact help with development to make this next game in the series better than the previous one.

 

[charsace]

So this means SE is in trouble right? Because the DR3 situation meant Capcom was in trouble.

 

[DNAbro]

So this means SE is in trouble right? Because the DR3 situation meant Capcom was in trouble.

nah, square just thought they could get more money out of the deal.

 

[rawd]

How come people arent mad about bloodborne being PS4 exclusive this is same situation

I'm mad Mario Kart isn't on PS4

 

[Steroyd]

Who came up with the concept of Bloodborne? Did From come up with the concept, Sony saw it and said "thanks, we'll pay and help dev" or did Sony do all of the concept and outsource part of the development to From? Everything I've seen seems to indicate it's a From game with finance and some assistance from Japan Studio. So it's Sony's IP from a legal perspective, but it seems it's From doing all the creative work.

Doesn't matter if Sony asked From or From went with a concept and Sony okayed it, the bottom line is that there's a collaboration between the 2 where Sony owns the IP, if From didn't like the deal they would have done an Insomiac and went to Bandai, EA, or even MS if that was the case.

And I don't understand the sense of entitlement that Tomb Raider cannot be a (timed) exclusive for one console.

It wasn't made clear at first, and took an almost arm twist on Spencer to come out that there's a duration, and Crystal Dynamics themselves only admitted that fact by referencing the Phil Spencer interview, this lack of transparency alone annoyed people.

Then we look at Tomb Raider regaining it's PS1-like sales after over a decade of mediocracy and suddenly it's timed exclusive to the one platform it sold the worst, making the need for transparency to be that much more important in which they done fuck up.

 

[2spooky4me]

I was convinced it was a timed exclusive, but all this media attention might make Phil Spencer want to secure it as a true exclusive.

 

[AmaterasuOni]

I'm mad Mario Kart isn't on PS4

I'm mad about Zelda! Why no PS4 port?