Support NeoGAF

[daman824]

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.

Whether or not the game would be made without MS doesn't really matter at this point. Fact is, microsoft is partially paying for the development of the game and is footing the bill for a large portion of its marketing. In return, the game releases on the xbox one first.

 

[TeRey09]

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.

This deal wasn't made to punish PS4 owners, it was made to give the 10s of millions of people who don't have a current gen console an incentive to get an Xbox One. What's the purpose of having a product if it doesn't have anything over it's competition. As an Xbox One owner should feel like i'm being punished because Bloodborne isn't coming to Xbox? No because Sony is directly involved in that game's development and marketing just like Microsoft is on Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

[cripterion]

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.

The 360 is a dead console in the west? Ok now. Maybe you would have a point if those japanese games weren't released in Europe and US.

 

[benny_a]

As an Xbox One owner should feel like i'm being punished because Bloodborne isn't coming to Xbox? No because Sony is directly involved in that game's development and marketing just like Microsoft is on Rise of the Tomb Raider.

I feel it has to be demonstrated, not just asserted, that Tomb Raider made by big multiplatform publisher is the same as a regular first party title.

 

[soul creator]

This is from MS' E3 press release.

At this time MS was treating RotTR just like every other 3rd party multiplat.

Yes, others have mentioned this before. I think a better explanation is that it was still heavily going in the direction of exclusivity, but all details weren't ironed out. After all, they don't want to say "exclusive holiday 2015!", have the deal break down, and then have to issue an awkward correction later.

Hence the reason why SE (the company that actually decides what to do with the game) made zero mention of other platforms, and only ever talked about the game through MS channels.

Of course, part of this is speculation on my part, but that's literally what everyone else is doing when they speak about how they just know it was always intended to be on other platforms.

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.

Source for this info? Since we seem to suddenly be super strict about passing off knowledge of the internal development process and financials of the studio and publisher as fact.

Even if they aren't for whatever reason there's still the 360 version and unless outsourced, are going to split resources between CD.

2 platforms is still less than what it would've been if it was fully multiplatform. It's still time saved.

 

[Iorv3th]

This deal wasn't made to punish PS4 owners, it was made to give the 10s of millions of people who don't have a current gen console an incentive to get an Xbox One. What's the purpose of having a product if it doesn't have anything over it's competition. As an Xbox One owner should feel like i'm being punished because Bloodborne isn't coming to Xbox? No because Sony is directly involved in that game's development and marketing just like Microsoft is on Rise of the Tomb Raider.

What? It's not the same. Demons Souls was a collaboration between Sony's Japan Studio and From Software. Same thing with Bloodborne being worked on by From and Japan Studio. It's a new game new franchise everything.

Saying "hey I want to pay for that game to be exclusive" is now the same as "hey lets collaborate together on a new project"?

2 platforms is still less than what it would've been if it was fully multiplatform. It's still time saved.

Wouldn't it then be even less work if the two platforms was the One and PS4 due to similar architechture and not having to worry about such a massive dowgrade to last gen?

 

[TeRey09]

I feel it has to be demonstrated, not just asserted, that Tomb Raider made by big multiplatform publisher is the same as a regular first party title.

Bloodbourne is First Party? I thought it was being made by the Dark Souls and Demon Souls team?

 

[DNAbro]

Bloodbourne is First Party? I thought it was being made by the Dark Souls and Demon Souls team?

IP is owned by sony. Would be second party.

 

[shem935]

Bloodbourne is First Party? I thought it was being made by the Dark Souls and Demon Souls team?

Sony commissioned the game. The definition of 2nd party doesn't really exist anymore but Bloodborne would have been classified as this. Sony is paying for development on Bloodborne.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Bloodbourne is First Party? I thought it was being made by the Dark Souls and Demon Souls team?

Sony published.

 

[IonicSnake]

Bloodbourne is First Party? I thought it was being made by the Dark Souls and Demon Souls team?

Sony and the Miyazaki team have teamed up to make Bloodborne and Sony owns the IP.

 

[benny_a]

IP is owned by sony. Would be second party.

There is no such thing as second party.

It's a term used colloquially to mean a first party game developed by an independent game developer.

Obviously because of moving goal posts, false equivalence, tu quoque and a host of other logical fallacies we now have to be precise when talking about this stuff.

 

[DNAbro]

There is no such thing as second party.

It's a term used colloquially to mean a first party game developed by an independent game developer.

Obviously because of moving goal posts, false equivalence, tu quoque and a host of other logical fallacies we now have to be precise when talking about this stuff.

people usually get it though. but yeah yeah.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

I think it is ABSOLUTELY justifiable for Microsoft to continue to take shit for their behavior, just as I think it was justifiable for Sony to take shit for years after 2006. This isn't a charity. When you make a product that is undesirable for many people, the consumers will speak up. When you lie often about your product, the consumers will speak up. When you continue that behavior, nobody is going to give you a free ride - the consumers will speak up.

And that is the way it always should be. That you think it's necessary to protect the hurt feelings of these giant soulless corporations is beyond me, but I don't care. Everyone is doing what needs to be done.




False. Fucks up aren't just related to the mere system policies - even though extremely damaging ones such as their ID @ Xbox Parity clause are still in place - but are related to their lies/deceptions/misdirections. Attitude also matters when evaluating a company, because it plays directly into how much you can trust them with your hard earned cash.

Deceiving customers on power, exclusivity, ad buys, system features (importance of Kinect, Xbox TV) = mistreatment

There's a billion more I can pull up for you. Note a pattern: This is a company that things gamers are idiots and continually deceives them in an attempt to make their situation seem better. All companies are not out for our own good, but that doesn't mean we as consumers have to sit around and take it when they actively mistreat us or treat us like we're bloody fucking idiots. When a company like Sony or Microsoft behave like this, we have a right - and indeed, a necessity - to fight back and tell them to stop. They don't have to listen, and then we don't have to buy.




I do give them "credit." Before I was never going to get their system, now I want to get one when it hits $299.99. Which was the same exact price I got a PS3 at, because Sony also fucked up and didn't know when to shut the fuck up with their deceptions and arrogance. It wasn't until they did start to meaningfully change all aspects of their behavior that I came on board.

Microsoft has to do the same.

Did she say the XBox One is exclusive to the Xbox one? Am I reading this right? Why would the xbone edition not be exclusive to the xbone? Damn.

 

[David___]

Yes, others have mentioned this before. I think a better explanation is that it was still heavily going in the direction of exclusivity, but all details weren't ironed out. After all, they don't want to say "exclusive holiday 2015!", have the deal break down, and then have to issue an awkward correction later.

And what they're doing with all the fumbling around and dancing is better than them making a correction to an announcement?

Hence the reason why SE (the company that actually decides what to do with the game) made zero mention of other platforms, and only ever talked about the game through MS channels.

Want to know what other game does this to? CoD. Every single year. They rarely talk about the PS versions at all. They even have a multiplayer reveal that's sponsored by MS. Want to know another game that did this? Diablo 3. Blizzard did their best to make sure only the PS3/PS4 versions were talked about at all until a month or two before launch they said "Oh, its out on the 360 as well"

Source for this info? Since we seem to suddenly be super strict about passing off knowledge of the internal development process and financials of the studio and publisher as fact.

If the game is only timed and not fully exclusive then they aren't going to wait for the last minute and rush to make 3 different versions unless they even want more of a shit show.

 

[TeRey09]

IP is owned by sony. Would be second party.

Sony commissioned the game. The definition of 2nd party doesn't really exist anymore but Bloodborne would have been classified as this. Sony is paying for development on Bloodborne.

Sony published.

Sony and the Miyazaki team have teamed up to make Bloodborne and Sony owns the IP.

Damnit alright, but I'll stick with my original point sans the Bloodborne analogy.

 

[David___]

Bloodbourne is First Party? I thought it was being made by the Dark Souls and Demon Souls team?

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86262151&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

 

[CarbonByGravity]

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

You might be correct but that doesn't change the fact that this uproar hurts MS more than SquareEnix. Every day this story goes on, the negative perception of MS and their Xbox One grows, which results in less of thier consoles sold by the day, while increasing their number of consoles sold by their competition. This is the problem MS has at the moment. Actually, this has been the issue MS has had since the inception of the Xbox One. Hence Sony selling 10 million consoles at a historic rate while MS continues to flounder.

 

[Amir0x]

Did she say the XBox One is exclusive to the Xbox one? Am I reading this right? Why would the xbone edition not be exclusive to the xbone? Damn.

When Minecraft was announced for next-gen, previously Microsoft had announced it was exclusive to Xbox One and therefore wouldn't be coming to other next-gen consoles. Then it was revealed it wasn't exclusive (actually the PS4 version is further along now according to Notch). And we got hilarious responses like this:

This is basically Microsoft so far for the entirety of this gen up to now.

 

[nynt9]

This deal wasn't made to punish PS4 owners, it was made to give the 10s of millions of people who don't have a current gen console an incentive to get an Xbox One. What's the purpose of having a product if it doesn't have anything over it's competition. As an Xbox One owner should feel like i'm being punished because Bloodborne isn't coming to Xbox? No because Sony is directly involved in that game's development and marketing just like Microsoft is on Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Damnit alright, but I'll stick with my original point sans the Bloodborne analogy.

But the game was already coming to XB1. So Preventing it from coming to other platforms does punish those platforms. So the point falls apart. Bloodborne was never coming to other platforms, so as an owner of Xbox you never "lost" anything. Non-Xbox owners got an opportunity taken away from them.

As an incentive to get an Xbox One, it's not a very powerful incentive because it seems to be timed. People who haven't gotten a console so far can probably wait a few more months for the game to come to another platform, so it won't be the swaying factor for anyone.

 

[icespide]

When Minecraft was announced for next-gen, previously Microsoft had announced it was exclusive to Xbox One and therefore wouldn't be coming to other next-gen consoles. Then it was revealed it wasn't exclusive (actually the PS4 version is further along now according to Notch). And we got hilarious responses like this:

This is basically Microsoft so far for the entirety of this gen up to now.

first time I've seen this. hilarious

 

[soul creator]

And what they're doing with all the fumbling around and dancing is better than them making a correction to an announcement?

I think most of the fumbling is done by us folks on message boards trying to find the secret meaning behind everything, as opposed to looking at the publically available information, lol.

The game has only ever been mentioned in public as associated with MS. No other platforms were ever mentioned until Gamescom, which was Xbox One and Xbox 360 in Holiday 2015. The deal has a duration, but we don't know how long that is. After that time elapses, Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics decide what they want to do with the game.

That's what's known. Whether it was always intended to be multiplatform, the state of the development on other platforms, the length of the exclusivity deal, the length of time MS has been "collaborating" with SE/CD...those are all things we can only speculate on, not confirm.

But I don't think we can conclusively say "yep, it was always gonna be on PS4/PC in Holiday 2015, until MS came in late and stole it away", unless we have more information on the unknown things I mentioned.

Want to know what other game does this to? CoD. Every single year. They rarely talk about the PS versions at all. They even have a multiplayer reveal that's sponsored by MS. Want to know another game that did this? Diablo 3. Blizzard did their best to make sure only the PS3/PS4 versions were talked about at all until a month or two before launch they said "Oh, its out on the 360 as well"

Exactly! That's why it's best not to assume it's multiplatform until it's actually confirmed that way.

I could assume that Deep Down (which is probably a better PS4 exclusive to use in these comparisons) is coming to Xbox One, because it's published by Capcom, and they routinely make multiplatform games. But it'd be odd of me to treat it as confirmed, or pretend like I know Capcom's future plans (or their past plans for it) for it after the PS4 release, when there's currently no indication that it's coming to another platform. Maybe it was in development for Xbox One, who knows, but I can't just say "Capcom's a multiplatform developer, of course it was gonna be on the Xbox One before it got taken away from me". That would be a bit presumptuous.

Maybe that'll change in the future, but for now, it's a PS4 exclusive.

If the game is only timed and not fully exclusive then they aren't going to wait for the last minute and rush to make 3 different versions unless they even want more of a shit show.

Depends on when the other versions come out. We don't know the length of this deal, after all. Could be 2 months, could be 2 years.

Unless you have a source confirming that too.

 

[Amir0x]

I could assume that Deep Down (which is probably a better PS4 exclusive to use in these comparisons) is coming to Xbox One, because it's published by Capcom, and they routinely make multiplatform games. But it'd be odd of me to treat it as confirmed, or pretend like I know Capcom's future plans (or their past plans for it) for it after the PS4 release, when there's currently no indication that it's coming to another platform. Maybe it was in development for Xbox One, who knows, but I can't just say "Capcom's a multiplatform developer, of course it was gonna be on the Xbox One before it got taken away from me". That would be a bit presumptuous.

Maybe that'll change in the future, but for now, it's a PS4 exclusive.

Actually IIRC the reason it is exclusive to PS4 is because of Microsoft's Xbox One policy on F2P games being behind a paywall. Many companies with F2P games have so far avoided the Xbox One because of that policy.

Yet another damaging policy, alongside their ID@Xbox parity clause, that remains in place.

It too has gotta go, Microsoft.

 

[TeRey09]

But the game was already coming to XB1. So Preventing it from coming to other platforms does punish those platforms. So the point falls apart. Bloodborne was never coming to other platforms, so as an owner of Xbox you never "lost" anything. Non-Xbox owners got an opportunity taken away from them.

As an incentive to get an Xbox One, it's not a very powerful incentive because it seems to be timed. People who haven't gotten a console so far can probably wait a few more months for the game to come to another platform, so it won't be the swaying factor for anyone.

I've already dropped the Bloodborne point so no reason in arguing that.

It's designed to bolster the line up for Holiday 2015, 2 or 3 exclusives plus the multiplats are the way to entice new owners to buy in. No matter if the game is timed or not if the line up is good when I want to buy a console the I'll get the console.

 

[benny_a]

Actually IIRC the reason it is exclusive to PS4 is because of Microsoft's Xbox One policy on F2P games being behind a paywall. Many companies with F2P games have so far avoided the Xbox One because of that policy.

Yet another damaging policy, alongside their ID@Xbox parity clause, that remains in place.

It too has gotta go, Microsoft.

It's not even announced for anywhere but Japan.

Let's take all that ridiculous argumentation that is going on where similarities are used in argument and key differences are ignored stuff to their logical conclusions and say every game is always moneyhatted.

Those Sodoku and Othello games only on PlayStation in Japan is proof Sony is moneyhatting and keeping the Xbox platform down!

 

[soul creator]

Actually IIRC the reason it is exclusive to PS4 is because of Microsoft's Xbox One policy on F2P games being behind a paywall. Many companies with F2P games have so far avoided the Xbox One because of that policy.

Yet another damaging policy, alongside their ID@Xbox parity clause, that remains in place.

It too has gotta go, Microsoft.

source?

I see this and this and this (lol)

Not seeing any mention that it has to do with the free to play policies on the Xbox One.

It's not even announced for anywhere but Japan.

Let's take all that ridiculous argumentation that is going on where similarities are used in argument and key differences are ignored stuff to their logical conclusions and say every game is always moneyhatted.

Those Sodoku and Othello games only on PlayStation in Japan is proof Sony is moneyhatting and keeping the Xbox platform down!

I agree, which is why pretending to know all the internal details of Square Enix's multiplatform release plans and solely concluding that MS swooped in out of nowhere to steal it away seems to be a bit presumptuous. We have don't have much idea of all the platforms they wanted to release it on (MS platforms were the only ones ever hinted at initially, until it was confirmed), we don't have much idea of how long MS and SE have been talking to each other (it can very easily be the same type of "collaboration" that people feel is justified for exclusivity), and various other factors that we're not privy to.

"PS4 got the definitive edition, and is selling a lot, so obviously it was gonna come out on that until MS snuck in out of nowhere and ripped it away!" is not the only possible scenario that exists, at least, not without more information available. So I'm not sure why that conclusion gets the benefit of the doubt as being true, even with little to no evidence, but other conclusions based on the same publically available information are just chalked up as delusional MS fanboys or something.

 

[benny_a]

I agree, which is why pretending to know all the internal details of Square Enix's multiplatform release plans and solely concluding that MS swooped in out of nowhere to steal it away seems to be a bit presumptuous. We have don't have much idea of all the platforms they wanted to release it on (MS platforms were the only ones ever hinted at initially, until it was confirmed), we don't have much idea of how long MS and SE have been talking to each other (it can very easily be the same type of "collaboration" that people feel is justified for exclusivity), and various other factors that we're not privy to.

"PS4 got the definitive edition, and is selling a lot, so obviously it was gonna come out on that until MS snuck in out of nowhere and ripped it away!" is not the only possible scenario that exists, at least, not without more information available.

For me it's easy. Any time a multiplatform publisher decides that they shouldn't publish on all viable platforms they are being fools.

Based on the announcement at E3, announcement at gamescom, the posts on twitter, the interviews, the website with the game details I'm taking the, for me, reasonable conclusion that Microsoft offered a deal to SE.

Maybe we'll even find out in January 2016, when an investor asks in the Q&A why Tomb Raider wasn't released on the other viable platforms where the previous games did well.

Sure, that's definitely a possibility as well. But that can also apply to pretty much every 3rd party exclusive game ever made, lol.

It's not like that was a common thing in the last 5 years.

 

[soul creator]

For me it's easy. Any time a multiplatform publisher decides that they shouldn't publish on all viable platforms they are being fools.

Sure, that's definitely a possibility as well. But that can also apply to pretty much every 3rd party exclusive game ever made, lol.

Based on the announcement at E3, announcement at gamesco, the posts on twitter, the interviews, the website with the game details I'm taking the, for me, reasonable conclusion that Microsoft offered a deal to SE.

Well yes, they obviously offered some kind of deal. But do we know how long that deal has been discussed? Do we know if the deal has been in discussion since 2013 when the last version was released (or even before that!), or was it a deal that just popped up recently? What are the details of the "collaboration"?

Maybe we'll even find out in January 2016, when an investor asks in the Q&A why Tomb Raider wasn't released on the other viable platforms where the previous games did well.

It'll be interesting to hear the rationale, if it comes out.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

When Minecraft was announced for next-gen, previously Microsoft had announced it was exclusive to Xbox One and therefore wouldn't be coming to other next-gen consoles. Then it was revealed it wasn't exclusive (actually the PS4 version is further along now according to Notch). And we got hilarious responses like this:

This is basically Microsoft so far for the entirety of this gen up to now.

Xbox one edition now exclusive to PS4/PC.

 

[Freeman]

When Minecraft was announced for next-gen, previously Microsoft had announced it was exclusive to Xbox One and therefore wouldn't be coming to other next-gen consoles. Then it was revealed it wasn't exclusive (actually the PS4 version is further along now according to Notch). And we got hilarious responses like this:

This is basically Microsoft so far for the entirety of this gen up to now.

They are ridiculous. They insult everyone with their statements, they must think we are all completely stupid.

 

[SeventhSon]

Actually IIRC the reason it is exclusive to PS4 is because of Microsoft's Xbox One policy on F2P games being behind a paywall. Many companies with F2P games have so far avoided the Xbox One because of that policy.

Yet another damaging policy, alongside their ID@Xbox parity clause, that remains in place.

It too has gotta go, Microsoft.

Yeah, a publisher may choose a platform or platforms for reasons other than a moneyhat. For example, I don't think Sony or Microsoft has paid anyone to not release multilplatform games on Wii U. In the PS2 era, Sony was far and away the world wide market leader that many Japanese publishers didn't see the ROI worth it to port PS2 games to GC or Xbox, given that PS2 itself was difficult to program for in the first place, a port wasn't a simple or inexpensive matter.

 

[bishoptl]

a source for what ? they made AAA games with sony, namco and capcom

indie devs released games simultaneously on platforms with far less

So you have nothing. Good to know.

 

[icespide]

So you have nothing. Good to know.

 

[RexNovis]

I don't really think it's a case that Xbox is getting desperate, just that the people who are seemingly committed to hating everything about it are getting more desperate as Microsoft takes more steps to either bring various improvements to the platform that have been highly requested by fans through very regular system updates, or takes steps to add more value in other ways by making deals for big titles as they've done with Tomb Raider. Love it or hate it, making a potentially big game a timed exclusive to your platform, and possibly securing some major co-publishing deal on that game, is something that adds value to a console, whether one agrees with the policy of doing such a thing or not.

Each and every time I see people entertaining the completely ludicrous idea of MS introducing entirely new hardware in 2 years time when there's absolutely zero need for such a silly thing, or the classic faux concern for Xbox One owners, I'm reminded of where the desperation truly exists.

Hahahahahahahaha yes you're totally right. Buying a mediocre AAA title (that in previous entires sold much better on the competing platform) as a timed exclusive and then performing a PR dance to make everyone think it's exclusive doesn't seen desperate at all. For fuck's sake Senjutsu do you even comprehend how absurd your statements and assertions are? They are just completely devoid of any attachment to reality. I mean you even assert that a game isn't impacted by being bound to last gen hardware because you feel like it won't be.

In this case, I don't think there will be. I think the next gen game's development is going ahead with no consideration for the last gen system. And the 360 version will be its own game where the dev tries their absolute best to emulate what is happening in the next gen console and PC versions. If they can't make it happen, then they change it as much as they need to in order for it to work. Just because there's a last gen version of the game doesn't always mean the next gen version can't truly take advantage of the hardware. I feel the game is being designed first and foremost for next gen.

Rarely do we know something for sure, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet considering when it's being released. I'm just guessing, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.

Literally zero evidence of independent development but hey it makes MS seem better ergo it makes me feel better ergo it has to be right. FFS man. Just stop. In conclusion every time I read one of your posts "I'm reminded of where the desperation truly exists."

 

[vpance]

The only thing I hope is MS stops it with these fucking bail outs of their own console. Xbone is like a bad bank; it has toxic assets, let it try to survive on its own. But if it dies, it dies. Don't hurt other taxpayers in the process by trying to prop it up like this. Don't block the majority of the gaming audience from outright playing a big game that they were supposed to be able to, timed or otherwise.

 

[TeRey09]

The only thing I hope is MS stops it with these fucking bail outs of their own console. Xbone is like a bad bank; it has toxic assets, let it try to survive on its own. But if it dies, it dies. Don't hurt other taxpayers in the process by trying to prop it up like this. Don't block the majority of the gaming audience from outright playing a big game that they were supposed to be able to, timed or otherwise.

Damn I didn't know the Xbox One was that bad, having the potential to bring everything down with it. /s

What toxic assets I might ask?

 

[David___]

Holy shit

 

[Josman]

Whether or not the game would be made without MS doesn't really matter at this point. Fact is, microsoft is partially paying for the development of the game and is footing the bill for a large portion of its marketing. In return, the game releases on the xbox one first.

The fact is the game would have existed with or without Microsoft, the only reason they're partially paying extra for development is to get timed exclusivity, Xbox owners gained nothing from this, the losers are PC and Playstation owners that combine more than 100 million persons. And it's a shitty practice that won't get them out of their hole.

 

[DNAbro]

holy fuck that's amazing.

 

[alatif113]

needs some color correction.

 

[licktheenvelope]

Whether or not the game would be made without MS doesn't really matter at this point. Fact is, microsoft is partially paying for the development of the game and is footing the bill for a large portion of its marketing. In return, the game releases on the xbox one first.

Microsoft is not "paying for development of the game"....

Square/Crystal Dynamics started into development a long time ago and (unless they don't operate like every other business on the planet) had a budget and time-table in place. They were well well into this timetable when Microsoft bought in... but again (and i'm surprised I have to re-iterate this) the only thing Mircosoft is "paying for" is for the game to not be out on other consoles.

The 'marketing' is only Xbox marketing unless you actually believe Microsoft is paying for separate Tomb Raider marketing (hint: they wont).

How can you pay for development of a game that's being developed anyway? It was already financed. Sheesh, project planning 101.

 

[Zombie James]

When Minecraft was announced for next-gen, previously Microsoft had announced it was exclusive to Xbox One and therefore wouldn't be coming to other next-gen consoles. Then it was revealed it wasn't exclusive (actually the PS4 version is further along now according to Notch). And we got hilarious responses like this:

This is basically Microsoft so far for the entirety of this gen up to now.

Haha, wow.

 

[RPGam3r]

Microsoft is not "paying for development of the game"....

Square/Crystal Dynamics started into development a long time ago and (unless they don't operate like every other business on the planet) had a budget and time-table in place. They were well well into this timetable when Microsoft bought in... but again (and i'm surprised I have to re-iterate this) the only thing Mircosoft is "paying for" is for the game to not be out on other consoles.

The 'marketing' is only Xbox marketing unless you actually believe Microsoft is paying for separate Tomb Raider marketing (hint: they wont).

How can you pay for development of a game that's being developed anyway? It was already financed. Sheesh, project planning 101.

You don't always stay on budget during development, and often need to look at reduction in scope or cutting corners in some way. There is no set in stone budget, if another player gets involved and increases your budget are you just going to say "naw we agreed to X amount years ago". Every project I've been on has been over budget, sometimes we just spent more on more resources to pull in the time line.

 

[RexNovis]

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.

Wow that reads like a PR statement if I've ever seen one.

Spoiler

Psst you forgot #XB1M13

When Minecraft was announced for next-gen, previously Microsoft had announced it was exclusive to Xbox One and therefore wouldn't be coming to other next-gen consoles. Then it was revealed it wasn't exclusive (actually the PS4 version is further along now according to Notch). And we got hilarious responses like this:

This is basically Microsoft so far for the entirety of this gen up to now.

It's just sad that this doesn't even surprise me at this point. MS PR so far is just some of the worst I have ever seen. Truly horrible.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Step Up: Bish Edition

 

[Dr Bass]

Wow that reads like a PR statement if I've ever seen one.

Spoiler

Psst you forgot #XB1M13

It's just sad that this doesn't even surprise me at this point. MS PR so far is just some of the worst I have ever seen. Truly horrible.

Is it a parody account? The handle is xbox support "2".

 

[W.S.]

The fact is the game would have existed with or without Microsoft, the only reason they're partially paying extra for development is to get timed exclusivity, Xbox owners gained nothing from this, the losers are PC and Playstation owners that combine more than 100 million persons. And it's a shitty practice that won't get them out of their hole.

This has been covered elsewhere but Microsoft/Square-Enix would have to mutually benefit from the deal through various ways, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. As big a company as SE may be they might not have wanted to invest as much in the sequel so MS's money would help alleviate that and Microsoft benefits from this through the timed exclusivity.

The game will eventually release on PS4/PC so outside of having to wait longer for the game it's still a win-win scenario for both parties. Having RotTR release first on the One/360 on top of MS's own exclusives is a pretty good strategy for them to help draw more people to the console in terms of having a cumulative effect on people interested in the console during that time.

Not saying anyone has to like it and it's their prerogative to choose to buy the game or not on the One/360 but I think it's an understandable strategy on MS's part given that they want to try to compete more aggressively with Sony.

 

[DNAbro]

Is it a parody account? The handle is xbox support "2".

they have multiple support accounts

 

[shacklesmcgee]

Wow that reads like a PR statement if I've ever seen one.

Spoiler

Psst you forgot #XB1M13

I liked this one actually

Oh I agree. I have an Xbox One and it just feels like things are improving on it for me as a consumer every day. I even love that EA All Access or whatever it is called is on the system. You don't have to use it if you don't want to, but it has games I enjoy, and can't afford to buy right now. I'll take it.

Anyways, what were we talking about again? Tomb Raider right?

 

[Dr Bass]

they have multiple support accounts

Well if that's real then yeah, that's pretty absurd.