Windows RT
Banned
If this game will come to Windows 10 store, in my opinion, that will be great for WIN 10 ecosystem. The store needs big AAA titles, not all those mobile/tablet games.
Rise of the Tomb Raider coming to PC Early 2016. PS4 Holiday 2016
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
- Status
If this game will come to Windows 10 store, in my opinion, that will be great for WIN 10 ecosystem. The store needs big AAA titles, not all those mobile/tablet games.
Really?? What kind of melodrama is this?
So what does the Capcom deal with SF5, a lifetime exclusive represent? By your logic that's an even bigger fuck you to the Xbox fanbase.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Mhmm mhmm. *nods head*
Which is probably the reason it is coming to PC so much sooner than PS4
Not really a great sign if Microsoft have to give major publishers a big bag of money in order to secure a Windows Store release for their games.
Hard to imagine SE would opt to not release this or any other game for Windows 7/8 unless it was part of their deal with Microsoft. Strategically similar to how Microsoft put out a bunch of games that required Vista around the time of it's release, and then forgot that PC games existed again.
FuKuy
Member
Well... that's why dictionaries where created. To avoid people messing with words.
Point is:
- At the end of 2015 anyone who wants to play Tomb Raider have to buy an Xbox One. So is clearly an Xbox One exclusive.
- People who waits until early 2016 will have two options: Xbox One and PC. So that's not an exclusive anymore.
- At the end of 2016 people will have 3 options: PS4, Xbox One and PC.
Windows RT
Banned
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Yikes! You really believe that hardware is the only axis to measure a console's worth. Or, what am I supposed to make of this?! I'm sorry. I don't think I can help you.
But you're wrong.
Anyone that wants to play Tomb Raider in 2015 has to buy either a 360 or a Xbox One.
Nightengale
Member
I know what you meant. My meaning, however is that even if you listed a hundred, and MS has the greatest lineup ever... That changes nothing.
Publishers should never feel content with their lineup. If they can afford to publish more games, they should. I'm always advocating the +1 more mentality.
I would love for every publisher on the planet to have Nintendo's level of game output at minimum. (including portable games)
CosmicGroinPull
Member
It's my money. I'm not allowed?
This has been done to death since this exclusive announcement more than a year ago. Why do people insist on dragging in this comparison when it's not the same thing?
If Microsoft's money had been the reason for ROTR's existence, I would have been thankful to Microsoft for saving a bombed franchise. Then if the game had turned out great, I would have bought a damn Xbox One to play it.
Why do I keep seeing this Sony Too SOny Too arguments. Keep your silly and childish console wars; all I care about is one game and whether it's good enough to justify buying a whole new console when I'm not even interested in the rest of its library. (Answer: It's not)
ResidentDante
Member
Yikes! You really believe that hardware is the only axis to measure a console's worth. Or, what am I supposed to make of this?! I'm sorry. I don't think I can help you.
You brought up the inferior hardware debate and that we shouldn't encourage it, don't turn around now and ask me
RubenCordeiro
Neo Member
I find it funny that some people are so outraged by the 1 year exclusivity deal but otherwise would be crying rivers if the game was fully exclusive.
Mind you that I do not own a Xbox one nor like console exclusives in any shape or form, but it is interesting nonetheless.
We can assume that Microsoft made sure the PS4 version came later than the PC version, since Microsoft still has interest in the latter. It's annoying for the PS4 customers, but if they release a version with all the post launch DLC for the base price it will be a decent deal. (I do not believe in a discounted release at all)
Mind you that I do not own a Xbox one nor like console exclusives in any shape or form, but it is interesting nonetheless.
We can assume that Microsoft made sure the PS4 version came later than the PC version, since Microsoft still has interest in the latter. It's annoying for the PS4 customers, but if they release a version with all the post launch DLC for the base price it will be a decent deal. (I do not believe in a discounted release at all)
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
You brought up the inferior hardware debate and that we shouldn't encourage it, don't turn around now and ask me
No, I didn't. You did. I used the word "product". Don't project your agenda on me.
JimmyRustler
Member
Just confirms that the game is indeed more than a cheap Uncharted copy. TR 2013 was fucking amazing and I can't wait to play the sequel on PC.
Welfare
Member
I agree with this.
protomouse
Member
I don't think you quite understand what a monopoly is. It's always a risky proposition, as companies in such a position tend to want to abuse it for short-term gains.
Paracelsus
Member
Most of the anti-consumers nickle-and-dime practices were born during the most multiplatform gen ever, the 7th.
Most of them had to do with 3rd parties.
The no monopoly things protects agains BS from the platform holders. Like always online, paying for online MP, ect.
The nickel-and-dime stuff is a result of the increasing scope of the games, and the new opportunities afforded by online. It has little to do with the relative success of numerous platforms.
The worst gen for actual anti-consumer shit was the 8bit generation.
Well as a PS4 owner I'm just happy that I can play the game, even if I have to wait for a year. But Square Enix better not expect me to pay the full price by the end of 2016.
I am curious though whether this deal will really pay off for both Microsoft and Square Enix. I really doubt many people will buy a Xbox for TR, and I am sure this whole thing will affect the sales figures of the game in a negative way.
I am curious though whether this deal will really pay off for both Microsoft and Square Enix. I really doubt many people will buy a Xbox for TR, and I am sure this whole thing will affect the sales figures of the game in a negative way.
Not necessarily, put it this way, Rise of Tomb Raider has to be something extra special to take attention away from Fallout 4, Halo, Assassin's Creed, Battlefront and COD this year to not be down on the pecking order of many gamer's wish list, and then next year they could release the game on a console that may launch near Horizon, COD, Battlefield, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, GT7, FFXV or whatever the fuck gets a release date announced at next year's E3 potentially a death spiral.
You're right that a good game is a good game no matter when it's released, but will it be a good enough game to be at the top of the pecking order when it launches.
Its going to be tedious to attempt to avoid spoilers for half a year if not more
Well here's an idea. Wait for a year. Having you going around masquerading like this is some big insult levied at you by Square Enix just reeks of immaturity and more befitting to the 'silly and childish console wars' argument.
Anyone who thinks that SF5 would not have happened had it not been for Sony's involvement is supremely naive. Yes they helped out with the development of the game but Square Enix have said similar before:
"Microsoft has always seen huge potential in Tomb Raider and they will get behind this game with more support across development, marketing and retail than ever before,"
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...publishing-deal-similar-to-dead-rising-3.aspx
Yes its a shoddy practice in general but remember, this is nothing new and Tomb Raider itself has been subject to it for quite some time; see the Playstation exclusivity leaving others in the lurch with TR2 etc.
Ampersands
Member
I'm glad to hear this game is coming to PC relatively soon. I had a ton of fun with the reboot and will probably pick this one up down the line.
I know people call it 'Uncharted-Lite" but hey, I don't own a Playstation.
I know people call it 'Uncharted-Lite" but hey, I don't own a Playstation.
Yeah I enjoyed the 2013 reboot and honestly I don't mind the PC delay. I'll be getting Fallout 4 on November 10th so I don't mind SE having more time to polish up the PC port and by then we'll know if the game is good or not.
DaleinCalgary
Member
I hope they got paid well. When they do this type of thing (Plants vs Zombies MW) and then release it at $60 later people don't buy it like they do when its released day 1.
It's not like people will be dying to find out what happens in the next amazing adventure of Lara Croft. Way way too much importance for a series that has gone way off the original path.
Huh? How did I get dragged in to this randomly? Don't think I've even posted in the thread yet.
I thought this game would be a console exclusive for around 6 months, so a year is pretty good.
GHG
Member
Don't worry, I don't think he'll have to fight to get one.
This is war my friend, no holds barred.
I don't think anyone thinks a SFV wouldn't happen at all, but given the rumblings beforehand, I don't think we would have got a SFV in 2016, felt Like it would probably happen in 2018 in a f2p model if Sony didn't step in.
FunkyPajamas
Member
It's a shitty deal for some, as you said. But that doesn't negate what I'm saying: the only drama is from people making a big deal out of this.
I was. The wording of the announcement itself was SO convoluted and ambiguous that a lot of people called it right there and then. A few hours later, journos following up on the announcement made it even worse, so much so that MS had to redact their PR to something more vague. A few weeks later it was pretty much the general consensus that the game was only a timed exclusive. Now we have actual dates, but let's be honest here: we've known for a while.
I don't know, I saw a thread about the Sony/Shenmue thing. I saw some Kotaku article, I think perhaps a Jimquisition or similar on the subject, etc. I'm just saying that the comunity pulls both ways. I don't understand "Chris Rock".
I wasn't calling you out on that.
FuKuy
Member
I thought the 360 version was cancelled...
No way. There were always anti-consumer practices, because in the end all companies aim to make money. And with changing times, these practices take other forms. The shitton of barely working NES pheripals with mindblowing commercials scamming kids/parents into buying that utter crap would be an example. And during the ps2 gen a lot of titles of significant franchises never even made it to another platform, even when they skipped brand. Nowadays you can at least be sure most games will eventually come to the platform of your preference (if it has a decent userbase).
CassidyIzABeast
Member
If its not cancelled its been pushed back to 2016. I remember they didn't list the 360 version in the financial report.
Edit: nvm that image was photoshopped. 360 version is still coming this year.
EventHorizon
Member
In their defense, if you haven't played a game it is new you so it doesn't matter how old it is. The real problem is that I don't see the Tomb Raider series to be big enough to get away with this.
When the game finally come out on the PS4 how much of a marketing budget can Square Enix devote to it? With is having such a spread out schedule they can't get an appropriate marketing push for each release. After all the reason for making the deal with Microsoft in the first place was so they wouldn't have to pay for marketing. If they just end up spending that money anyway next holiday season then what was the point.
So that leaves the very real likelihood that Rise of the Tomb Raider will release in a crowded field with little marketing behind it and relying on its reputation for sales. Like I said I don't think the franchise is big enough to handle that.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
I don't think I've posted enough in this thread to qualify as "masquerading around". I'll concede (and am perfectly aware) of the hint of immaturity with regards to 'getting the game in the end, but still complaining', BUT, you must be the world's most accomodating customer if a seller can treat you like this and be perfectly fine with it.
Really don't care to argue with you on SFV since I absolutely don't care for it, but I've seen long posts by others detailing the development of their partnership. By the way, the blurb about development assistance came waaaay after the exclusivity announcement, so believe it if you want. See, the naivety argument goes both ways. Bottom line, if the game had been announced day 1 as a Microsoft exclusive as a result of their cooperation, I would have no issues with it, it would've just been my rotten luck.
c'mon man, you''re joking right?
It's not a case of me being oblivious to the way I'm being 'treated'. Like I've said before, these kind of third party deals are shitty. But no matter what excuse people pull, the end result is this:
EVERYONE gets to play Tomb Raider eventually
NOT EVERYONE gets to play SFV.
So ultimately it all boils down to business. Who then cares about the comparative degree of development assistance for the two titles when all you care about is how you are treated?
This is the reality of the industry that you really need to face (and I'm not saying accept it). I have done what I think is best and bought all the consoles and yes I admit that not everyone is in a position to do that, it definitely is the best way forward to ensure you never miss out on anything.
But that's not true. You're just ignoring some platforms because you feel like it.
Well "everyone" doesn't get to play either, because neither is coming to all platforms...
But Street Fighter V releasing on PC means fuck all for someone with an Xbox One and not a gaming PC. Someone with a PS4 and no gaming PC can still get Rise of the Tomb Raider.
His take on it is closer to being accurate than your implication is.
- Status