-
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
Too bad for them. It's their loss if they don't want to pony up (if they can't that something else) just because they are anti MS.
I feel all the things you say here could be applied to Sony & Nintendo. I'm sure plenty of people will enjoy the game on the desperate's company's console that's trying to stay relevant
Again, this is being viewed by the prism of someone who doesn't understand the non-fanboy mind. It COULD have something to do with people rightfully not wanting to jump on board to Xbox One after the shit they pulled, and that's their right. Very recently they were still being told by Microsoft PR that gamers just didn't understand what they were originally offering with XBO, and that's why they got angry. Before that they were saying it is still absolutely in the plans to return to that goal down the line when people are more ready for it. They still don't understand it has nothing to do with people needing to be ready.
But, we don't even need any of that. MANY people do not have the time or money to get two very expensive consoles. It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. You select the system that is the best choice for your needs, and then because you're financially responsible, you stick with it. Consoles and games are extremely expensive. The hobby is not cheap even remotely. None of these people should be shamed because they are angry that a franchise they had every right to expect would be on the same console it always had been since the dawn of its existence suddenly decided to go timed exclusive because Microsoft wants to buy their way to relevancy.
It's not a solution to tell people to just go out and spend lots more money. Because this is the real world, and there are many more important things that need to be spent money on than videogames.
It's not living in the past. They still have some negative policies in place, and they're still treating gamers with disrespect at an extremely frequent rate. I've catalogued only a fraction of them in my post to you before.
Additionally, even if they HAD changed every single element, it would take time for most people to think they've seen enough to trust them again. Rebuilding trust takes time. It hasn't even been a full year since the system released yet. And every single time they mistreat gamers or disrespect our intelligence, they set that trust backwards.
Again, they didn't correct everything. They still have an extremely damaging ID@Xbox Policy in place, and they are still frequently misleading and lying to gamers. I can tell you it is nearly a weekly occurrence that they say some new bullshit and there's a 30 page thread about it because they can't just be straight.
Half took place before, half took place after. But I can pull up many more examples if you only need the ones that took place after March 31, 2014. Phil Spencer has not changed everything, and this Rise of the Tomb Raider obfuscation is the latest illustration.
There's a very real corporate culture of misleading people about the full truth of what they're offering is
for the umpteenth time, the Bayonetta situation isn't like the Tomb Raider one. Tomb Raider was coming to PS4/PC/One all at the same time, microsoft paid to make sure that didn't happen. Bayonetta 2 would not exist if it wasn't for Nintendo.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
Is this the same situation? I can't say I know that much about it, but is there some sort of documentation around the nature of the game's timed exclusivity? I was under the impression that they were operating as an independent developer for the game, with the budgetary restraints that come with that. I suppose I assumed that because of those monetary restrictions that they are developing the game for each platform as they can, and trying to get the game out to the largest parts of the market as soon as possible and then porting it to others when they can. Like other indie games.
so ? they pay for marketing $ which is absurdly high these days
if they get timed exclusivity for that thats fine by me
and maybe they paid square some more money which contributes to tomb raiders development
square took the money, they thought it was the right decision for the franchise and they are the only ones to blame about this situation. cant blame them, having ms pay for marketing and more minimizes risk
Neander
Member
I honestly think this is part of the uproar. People like you expressing concern over a company that they just want to see crash and burn at all costs.
That could very easily be the result of MS's parity clause on self publishing, it's far easier to see no money being exchanged for that scenario compared to the sequel of 6.5m selling Tomb Raider (2013) that sold most on PlayStation.
cripterion
Member
I'm not saying they don't have the right to choose, but I can't understand why take such a stance.
I don't care about what they try to do, If a game interests me I'm just going to get it and by doing so I'm not thinking I'm rewarding the MS guys by buying their console and games on it, I just buy it for myself because I just like to play games.
When it came to their original plans for the Xbox One, it's something that would have impacted on my quality of gaming so I wouldn't have bought the product, plain and simple.
But the exclusive deals the big players make behind close doors, well it sucks but doesn't stop me from enjoying a game. Destiny has more content on PS4 + bonuses? Well I'm buying the game on that. I sure would have liked to play this game on my pc, with a proper framerate but it's not happening so that's that.
Situation-wise, that game says "first to console" right upfront, which for some people is a much better way of presenting a timed exclusive than what we got for TR. For those who don't like the exclusivity itself, they should bring up the issue in that thread.
How do you know they aren't talking about the polish AAA games should have?
For all we know Sony pub funded the game, which would explain the timed exclusivity.
That's awesome but as I said, money is the important factor here. It is never a solution to tell people to spend more money they very often don't have.
are you going to tell me ninja theory has no money to launch on two platforms simultaneously ? they worked with several publishers on AAA games and made enough cash to self publish games on x1/ps4
cripterion
Member
That not what I meant.
I know it's an expensive hobby, and I also had to make a choice during certain generations as to which console to get but it was never about which console manufacturer or game dev I found the most likable or had the best PR. It was always about the games.
Crimson_Gold
Member
Those games were funded by publishers. We've never received any info on how profitable the studio was from those projects. So you're just assuming that is the case
Verification awaits
rokkerkory
Member
Business, how does it work? Hate is so strong in this one.
And they made a choice too, almost certainly based on games. If they liked Tomb Raider, that choice would have naturally been PS4, as the Definitive Edition was best on PS4 and sold the most on PS4, and Tomb Raider traditionally has always sold the most on PlayStation. There was literally no reason at all for them to assume they weren't making the proper investment by going PS4. Heck, or PC for that matter!
Now they are being punished for it by a vindictive console manufacturer. That's not right, in my view.
I'm sure you're going to provide a source for this, right?
Yeah, that 12 person team at Ninja Theory surely is expensive. I heard it's comparable to Assassin's Creed 5's team size.
i don't think any ninja theory game has ever sold a lot. They probably honestly don't have a ton of money to work fulltime on both consoles.
Quadraphonic
Member
Except Microsoft was trying to trick people into thinking it wasn't timed exclusivity.
I'd like to see that source as well.
cripterion
Member
But they're not being punished, all they have to do is wait... It's not like the PS4 library solely rests upon Tomb Raider 2
theyve been dodgy about it but "its a holiday 2015 exclusive" was a giveaway
spencer clarified later and CD made a statement
soul creator
Member
Technically, almost every exclusive game (first party or otherwise) is merely a "talking point for your console of choice" by this logic. After all, there often is no technical reason why Numerous Exclusive games on Modern Console A can't exist on Modern Console B. All of those come down to "investor-focused" reasons as well. In regards to Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, unless we're talking about Kinect-exclusive, PS Camera/touchpad/PS Move-exclusive games, or Wii Gamepad Screen-exclusive games, there's almost never a technical reason for a game's exclusivity. And even then, people could design those peripherals work to be cross platform if they wanted to actually try to reach all gamers.
"But that would be expensive and make no business sense to do!"
Stop thinking like an investor!
Of course, the typical response to that when talking about things like first party developers or "fully funded 3rd party exclusives" is this: "well, the company gets more money to focus on making the best game possible for one platform, instead of splitting their attention between multiple platforms!" Which is a very valid point. And I'd say, if that's the response, why doesn't that apply to Tomb Raider as well? They can now focus on one platform (well, two, assuming they're working on the last gen version, which isn't known yet), instead of 5 or whatever. So by the logic most people typically use to defend first party development, and those "talking point exclusives", it seems like Tomb Raider would qualify as well. Its not like the PS4/PC version was finished and on store shelves, and suddenly got recalled due to a moneyhat. The game is still in development, and all the supposed "first party" benefits apply to them as well (more focused and streamlined development, increased marketing, etc.)
After all, Uncharted exists on Playstation consoles because Sony is putting up the money to do so, and because Sony wants a "talking point for their console of choice", not because a 3rd person action-adventure game controlled by a dual analog controller is suddenly impossible to do on a PC or an Xbox, and only the power of the PS4 can bring it to life.
Halo exists on Xbox consoles because MS is putting up the money to do so, and because MS wants a "talking point for their console of choice", not because an FPS is suddenly impossible to do on a PC or PS4, and only the power of the Xbox can bring it to life.
Zelda exists on Nintendo consoles because Nintendo puts up the money to do so, and they want a "talking point for their console of choice", not because green elven looking heroes can somehow only be rendered on Nintendo hardware.
The console industry, 3rd party royalties, platform holders, and that whole business model by definition is "investor-focused". We've just grown up with this model, so we accept it as "natural" and "pro-gamer" even if it's just as arbitrary as anything else.
...that's why I say burn the whole thing down, one console standard future, unite as one, and bring an end to this tribal warfare!
a source for what ? they made AAA games with sony, namco and capcom
indie devs released games simultaneously on platforms with far less
Arc Christelle
Member
Didn't that happen with Mass Effect?
Swass
Member
Didn't Sony very clearly say Hellblade was timed? Microsoft's communication on RotTR is the actual problem and not the exclusivity itself, so I don't see how these are related. For whatever reason some people keep using the exclusivity as a deflection from the actual issue which is Microsoft's continued deception.
So I take it we're finally comparing moneyhatting to 1st party development.
yep. exclusivity is fine. just he upfront about it
It's easily better than Uncharted 1 and 3. UC2 is incredible though and better than TR.
Now we know it's a timed deal. Maybe it's too cynical of me, but I don't think we'd know this if they hadn't been forced to say something these past few days with parties involved taking heat. In this case it's not solely about a fan going to where his interests are, but a company putting a detour sign to get you to spend money in ways you didn't actually need to.
i thought they were publishing when i wrote that
VanCityGamer
Member
We now have formulas trying to change the reality that a timed exclusive for a pretty big game release is kind of a pretty big deal. Come on.
Anything that is a subtracted value from PS is a value added to the Xbox One, and the same also works in reverse, especially so when we're talking about a big release such as this one. We can fairly argue about just how much of an added value it is, and that's a fair discussion, but to act like there's no value at all is just not credible. Am I really talking to the same group that was so excited over exclusive Destiny/Watch Dogs DLC?
When a situation with a game has so many people upset, then it's clearly a big deal, and it's definitely a big deal for the xbox one for there to be a timed exclusive on this game.
The way I see it, there are two perspectives.
1) The person who already owns an Xbox One, and 2) the person who doesn't. For the Xbox owner, there is no additional value being added; the game was always coming to XB1, and still is. For the other person, there is value being added, which is taken into consideration during the purchasing decision; XB1 has a big game coming in Fall 2015 that the PS4 does not.
Well they've changed their stance to "co-publishing" now so we're still at muddy waters with their PR.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
...because their phrasing was opaque as hell. Also, soul, you can't possibly be comparing first party development with moneyhatting timed third party exclusivity, right? How many times is that argument going to need to be deconstructed in this thread?
yeah they made triple AAA games that were funded by those companies. That doesn't mean they have enough money by themselves to release a game on a similar scale on both consoles.
not to mention none of those games were hugely successful financially
cripterion
Member
It happens all the time though. Just look at sports games not released on pc or having outdated versions. I own a PS3 but left it in Japan and I want to play Jojo Bizarre Adventures but it's not out on 360, If I want to play I have to have a PS3.
Several fighting game series were available on 360 and the sequels are not coming/didn't come too.
It sucks but that's the way this industry rolls.
PS : But I can understand people giving MS shit for being deceiving about what type of exclusivity it is.
Now we're comparing Japanse dev not developing for a dead console to money-hatting a game away from a more healthy console now. Let's see how far this ball could be spun.
soul creator
Member
Two quick questions:
Do you have a source that a PS4/PC version of Rise of the Tomb Raider was ever announced for Holiday 2015? A source that doesn't include speculation from retail placeholder listings, or assumptions based on older games would be nice. "Moneyhatting away" assumes that it was already budgeted and planned for release at the same time, until MS showed up out of nowhere.
And yes, the entire notion of the game console business model is due to "moneyhatting" and "investor focused" reasons. It's inherently built into the business model of how consoles have worked for 30 years. We're just used to it because "that's how things have always been", not because there's an actual technical or artistic reason for them to be that way. I didn't think that was controversial.
In addition, the primary benefits of first party development (more focused platform development, increased exposure as a "flagship platform title") also apply in Tomb Raider's case, correct?
I don't see the issue. MS pays SE money that will either go into this games budget or a future games budget and helps SE market the game. Most likely by handling/paying for quite a bit of it. In return, the game is exclusive to the xbox one for a set amount of time. After which SE can port it to other systems.
The only potential negative is that deals like this affect the first party output of microsoft. But with fable legends, forza horizon, the mcc, halo 5, sunset overdrive, gears, crackdown, scalebound, ki:s2, and quantum break coming out You can't really say that's the case. Diversity looks great too. This year alone ms is publishing an open world racer, a first person shooter, a crazy jsr like third person shooter, a casual kinect dancing game, and a fighting game.
The only potential negative is that deals like this affect the first party output of microsoft. But with fable legends, forza horizon, the mcc, halo 5, sunset overdrive, gears, crackdown, scalebound, ki:s2, and quantum break coming out You can't really say that's the case. Diversity looks great too. This year alone ms is publishing an open world racer, a first person shooter, a crazy jsr like third person shooter, a casual kinect dancing game, and a fighting game.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
I'm getting fucking dizzy over here.
soul creator
Member
The only thing I'd add to clarify (based on all public information) is that it's exclusive to the Xbox One, and then if SE decides to after the deal ends, they may port it to another platform (or make a new version, or make a different game, or whatever). A port may be likely, but it's not guaranteed (unless we have sources showing that is what SE is planning to do...)
ChosenPredator
Banned
There is a few titles for MS not sure if it's exclusive or not Below, (smite don't really play dota games but i guess this was huge news), ori and the blind forest,Ghost of a Tale, The Escapist, Cuphead
few neat titles coming to xbox
His answers are so vague it's annoying, it could mean they spent money with the Xbox version, and the fact that they're paying for marketing is a given since they're leaving out more than 100 Playstation and PC owners. Does he really expects us to believe SE couldn't afford the developing the game? hell, the game is being published by them.
It's really sad how some people believe MS every word Phil Spencer says considering he was there before the launch of the console.
It's really sad how some people believe MS every word Phil Spencer says considering he was there before the launch of the console.
This is from MS' E3 press release.
At this time MS was treating RotTR just like every other 3rd party multiplat.
If they were still working out the deal then don't announce it then and wait to avoid this.
Focused platform development only comes with full/complete exclusivity. The PS4/PS3/PC versions are still being made in conjunction with the Xbone/360 versions. Even if they aren't for whatever reason there's still the 360 version and unless outsourced, are going to split resources between CD.