Support NeoGAF

[Nightengale]

Tomb Raider received attention in negative way, not positive.

Senjutsu meant in a development sense. CD doesn't need to worry about multiple SKUs for launch.

How this whole exclusivity situation impacts the brand and the game's overall performance is a separate conversation that we won't know till post-launch anyway.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

Tomb Raider received attention in negative way, not positive.

Only for a bit. I don't think it would be that affected for now.

Really, this whole fiasco is not really a big problem. Just a minor PR clusterfuck.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Only for a bit. I don't think it would be that affected for now.

Really, this whole fiasco is not really a big problem. Just a minor PR clusterfuck.

This is wishful thinking. I've never seen a a game dragged through the mud like this pre-release. I hope it turns out to be worthy of all the drama.

 

[etta]

This is wishful thinking. I've never seen a a game dragged through the mud like this pre-release.

What mud? Is this hyperbole?

 

[StrongBlackVine]

What mud? Is this hyperbole?

Not about the game itself(which we still no very little about), but the exclusivity deal. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic by saying it doesn't exactly have a positive buzz around it(and not just on Neogaf).

 

[Nightengale]

What mud? Is this hyperbole?

BlackVine beat me to it.

I wouldn't call it mud, but the conversation around the game is sizably about the exclusivity just as much, sometimes more so than the game itself. Imagine if Uncharted 4, till this day, was still talking about Amy Hennig instead of the game. Something like that.

Not about the game itself(which we still no very little about), but the exclusivity deal. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic by saying it doesn't exactly have a positive buzz around it(and not just on Neogaf).

My perception of RotTR is that while it looks great, it lacks an "oomph!" factor that escalates the conversation around the game to that of how Mass Effect 2 or Uncharted 2's reveals completely blew their first game out-of-the-water.

 

[DustyVonEric]

This is wishful thinking. I've never seen a a game dragged through the mud like this pre-release. I hope it turns out to be worthy of all the drama.

*cough*The*cough*Order*cough* *cough*

 

[El_Chino]

Tomb Raider received attention in negative way, not positive.

"No such thing as bad publicity."

 

[StrongBlackVine]

*cough*The*cough*Order*cough* *cough*

OK that would be one.

 

[Conduit]

Senjutsu meant in a development sense. CD doesn't need to worry about multiple SKUs for launch.

Sensutsu's statement doesn't make sense either IMO.

but what I'm saying is that the Xbox One version of the game will be much better off than it would've been if the dev studio were split between developing the game for both PS4 and Xbox One simultaneously.

What, game would be different if it were made simultaneously for Xbone/PS4 and released at the same time WW? Nope.

 

[etta]

Not about the game itself(which we still no very little about), but the exclusivity deal. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic by saying it doesn't exactly have a positive buzz around it(and not just on Neogaf).

BlackVine beat me to it.

I wouldn't call it mud, but the conversation around the game is sizably about the exclusivity just as much, sometimes more so than the game itself. Imagine if Uncharted 4, till this day, was still talking about Amy Hennig instead of the game. Something like that.

What are some examples of this? The general impressions from those who attended E3 and saw the showfloor demos were warm, or am I misremembering? Does SFV have any negative buzz around it? Does the talk about it being exclusive overshadow the talk about the game itself?

 

[Nightengale]

What are some examples of this? The general impressions from those who attended E3 and saw the showfloor demos were warm, or am I misremembering? Does SFV have any negative buzz around it? Does the talk about it being exclusive overshadow the talk about the game itself?

That's why I said I wouldn't call it mud, because I have no opinion on whether or not the exclusivity talk stuff has positive/negative vibes to it. Just that it's a sizable part of the conversation surrounding the game.

There has been 5 "exclusive" game announcements in recent memory where the exclusivity status was discussed, but only 2 to the extent that the publishers/devs have to come out and "explain", beyond what they initially planned for, which were Shenmue 3 and Tomb Raider.

SFV, FFVII and Nier 2's 'exclusivity' on the other hand, were scantly mentioned. At least not to the extent where they had to address the "concerns/confusions."

 

[Ishan]

This game and I'm perfectly okay with timed exclusivity has just in general had bad pr decisions from the e3 showing (actual demo later was better) to the idiotic fact it's going up against fallout 4 ... That's just stupid . Even sony realized bborne vs order and delayed bborne ... I'm not a tr fan but I know ppl like it but what an idiotic decision to go up against fallout4

Edit essentially the only thing I would put up next to fallout 4 would be maybe and maybe tlg or hl3 it's just a horrible horrible idea

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

It's not blocking 2/3rd of gamers from playing the game. They can purchase an XB1 and play it now or WAIT until it's exclusivity period is over and play it on PC or PS4. It is a delay, not an exclusion.

Secondly, when people say this doesn't benefit XB gamers they are wrong. The timed exclusivity adds appeal to the platform, which will hopefully lead to more sales, more platform support, more exclusives, ect...

This thread comes off as hypocritical bitching to me. You can't complain about this deal while excusing other exclusive deals like the Neir sequel, Star Ocean, or potentially even the FFVII remake. Where are the 40+ pages of criticism for these deals? These deals are truely excluding millions of XB owners from playing these games.

Not really, they can just buy a PS4, using your logic.

 

[daxter01]

This game and I'm perfectly okay with timed exclusivity has just in general had bad pr decisions from the e3 showing (actual demo later was better) to the idiotic fact it's going up against fallout 4 ... That's just stupid . Even sony realized bborne vs order and delayed bborne ... I'm not a tr fan but I know ppl like it but what an idiotic decision to go up against fallout4

Edit essentially the only thing I would put up next to fallout 4 would be maybe and maybe tlg or hl3 it's just a horrible horrible idea

MS is gonna bundle the shit out of ROTR

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Not really, they can just buy a PS4 using your logic.

Also they are not really excluding millions as Xbox owners have voted with their wallets that they don't want those types of games. If you want a good selection of smaller scale Japanese games you know you need a Sony or Nintendo platform.

 

[etta]

That's why I said I wouldn't call it mud, because I have no opinion on whether or not the exclusivity talk stuff has positive/negative vibes to it. Just that it's a sizable part of the conversation surrounding the game.

There has been 5 "exclusive" game announcements in recent memory where the exclusivity status was discussed, but only 2 to the extent that the publishers/devs have to come out and "explain", beyond what they initially planned for, which were Shenmue 3 and Tomb Raider.

SFV, FFVII and Nier 2's 'exclusivity' on the other hand, were scantly mentioned. At least not to the extent where they had to address the "concerns/confusions."

The only reason there is talk is because Microsoft were unclear about terms of exclusivity. If Spencer would have said at Gamescom that it is a Holiday 2015 exclusive, none of this talk that you speak of would've happened. The fact that they took so long just made the whole thing snowball.

And I seriously can't see how people are saying this doesn't benefit the potential Xbox One owners and it only puts the PS4 owners at a disadvantage. First of all, Microsoft wouldn't have dropped a single dime if it brought no benefit or advantage. They got guys building models to base their decisions on, they don't just decide on decisions like these over a 30 minutes breakfast. "Oh hey, you know, we got a boatload of money since we don't have Call of Duty marketing, let's blow it on buying timed exclusivity for a big franchise.""Why Phil, that sounds like a genius idea."
Second of all, when Microsoft puts a bundle at 299$ with this game, a major franchise, at Black Friday, it will benefit potential owners greatly. That's the benefit no one seems to be thinking.
Yes the PS4 owners are getting shafted, but this "timed exclusivity deals are only affecting the other platform" argument is way, way undercooked.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

If you want a good selection of smaller scale Japanese games you know you need a Sony or Nintendo platform.

Or they could simply move to Japan, get a job and have all the Japanese games, even the rude ones.

And I seriously can't see how people are saying this doesn't benefit the potential Xbox One owners and it only puts the PS4 owners at a disadvantage. First of all, Microsoft wouldn't have dropped a single dime if it brought no benefit or advantage. They got guys building models to base their decisions on, they don't just decide on decisions like these over a 30 minutes breakfast. "Oh hey, you know, we got a boatload of money since we don't have Call of Duty marketing, let's blow it on buying timed exclusivity for a big franchise.""Why Phil, that sounds like a genius idea."

Those same geniuses thought Kinect, $499 and TVTVTV! would bring them great benefits.

 

[Ushay]

*cough*The*cough*Order*cough* *cough*

Order had some decent hype levels behind it didn't it? Especially here.

From what I've seen GAF's opinion doesn't necessarily reflect the success of a game. Then again GAF is always quite divided in it's opinions (as it should be, we're all different after all).

 

[etta]

Or they could simply move to Japan, get a job and have all the Japanese games, even the rude ones.
Those same geniuses thought Kinect, $499 and TVTVTV! would bring them great benefits.

So Mattrick and Co. = Spencer and Co.? We all know it was Mattrick who had a hard on for Kinect.

 

[overcast]

Sounds good. I'll check it out in late '16 or early '17 in that case.

 

[Nightengale]

So Mattrick and Co. = Spencer and Co.? We all know it was Mattrick who had a hard on for Kinect.

Spencer was there during Mattrick's time. And Spencer was head of games development, even back then.

Spencer may not have been the one responsible for $499, TVTVTV or Kinect, but considering his overall leadership in the software side of Xbox, he's a big part in making the platform appealing to a wider audience, and the reality is that the audience who wants Japanese games are not well served on Xbox.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

So Mattrick and Co. = Spencer and Co.? We all know it was Mattrick who had a hard on for Kinect.

Spencer was there, stop giving him all the credit for the good, and nothing for the bad it's pretty nauseating. I mean, even Yoshida and Iwata got shit for their bad decisions.

 

[etta]

Spencer was there during Mattrick's time. And Spencer was head of games development, even back then.

So why is there a "head of Xbox" if the leadership position makes no difference? It's the head's ultimate decision to steer the company in a direction according to a mission.

Spencer was there, stop giving him all the credit for the good, and nothing for the bad it's pretty nauseating. I mean, even Yoshida and Iwata got shit for their bad decisions.

Who said Spencer wasn't to blame? I'm just saying the majority of the blame is on the leader.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

.

And I seriously can't see how people are saying this doesn't benefit the potential Xbox One owners and it only puts the PS4 owners at a disadvantage. First of all, Microsoft wouldn't have dropped a single dime if it brought no benefit or advantage. They got guys building models to base their decisions on, they don't just decide on decisions like these over a 30 minutes breakfast. "Oh hey, you know, we got a boatload of money since we don't have Call of Duty marketing, let's blow it on buying timed exclusivity for a big franchise.""Why Phil, that sounds like a genius idea."
Second of all, when Microsoft puts a bundle at 299$ with this game, a major franchise, at Black Friday, it will benefit potential owners greatly. That's the benefit no one seems to be thinking.
Yes the PS4 owners are getting shafted, but this "timed exclusivity deals are only affecting the other platform" argument is way, way undercooked.

But how does this deal benefit current or "potential" Xbox owners? MS might not drop money without seeing deal benefitting them, but that doesn't mean that I, as Xbox owner, benefit from this deal in any way.

 

[etta]

But how does this deal benefit current or "potential" Xbox owners? MS might not drop money without seeing deal benefitting them, but that doesn't mean that I, as Xbox owner, benefit from this deal in any way.

You don't. Everyone assumes there's one target market, one consumer pool. There's not. There's potential Xbox One/PS4 owners, those who are deadset on Xbox One, those who already have it, and those deadset on PS4. This only benefits the first consumer pool. There's also those who have a PS4 already and might pick up an Xbox One. These are not benefiting from the deal either. There's probably more pools too. Consumer behaviour is tricky as fuck.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

You don't. Everyone assumes there's one target market, one consumer pool. There's not. There's potential Xbox One/PS4 owners, those who are deadset on Xbox One, those who already have it, and those deadset on PS4. This only benefits the first consumer pool.

But how does it benefit those people? You mean they might get bundles? Bundles can exist without year of exclusivity.

 

[Jigorath]

MGS5 and Bloodborne will likely end up being the top 2 games of the year and likely in the greatest of the generation list.

*cough*

Persona 5

 

[Nightengale]

So why is there a "head of Xbox" if the leadership position makes no difference? It's the head's ultimate decision to steer the company in a direction according to a mission.

I blame Mattrick more for business direction. But I blame them equally when it comes to software. And Phil is double-heading business and games development now, so he takes the praise and blame of both now.

That's how I look at it anyway. First-party output, I always weigh it more towards the folks like Miyamoto or Shu Yoshida, who are leadership in the respective first-party/portfolio management, and less so on Andrew House/Iwata/Mattrick.

I mean, even when Xbox was doing terrible business decisions with Kinect, they still had awesome games in the pipeline. They had a great launch lineup. Most of the games released in the past 2 years, were clearly games that were greenlit in the Mattrick era. So while he deserves praise there, I still give more praise to the person who's in charge of product portfolio then, who is Phil.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

But how does this deal benefit current or "potential" Xbox owners? MS might not drop money without seeing deal benefitting them, but that doesn't mean that I, as Xbox owner, benefit from this deal in any way.

'The other guy loses' is all I can rake from my brain when I see that. I mean, just because your rival supermarket does shit, doesn't automatically mean your own sales went up by default. This is like giving somebody your sweet money to buy some bubblegum (you love bubblegum!) and they come back with a bag of peanuts. And you're allergic to peanuts.

 

[etta]

But how does it benefit those people? You mean they might get bundles? Bundles can exist without year of exclusivity.

It benefits those who are 50/50 on which console to get and also want this specific game. And they also must not want to wait 1 year. Those who want to upgrade from 360 but are leaning on PS4 but also would rather stay in the Xbox family, this and BC is an incentive. There are many types of behaviours, you can't just assume everyone wants PS4 because of power advantage or Uncharted or Xbox because of Halo.

 

[EGM1966]

Whelp this thread has certainly been illuminating for seeing apologists and em warriors on both sides go at it.

Amazing how what is a clearly business benefit only deal that is mainly negative for general consumers (as all timed deals normally are) will still get defended.

Right or wrong though I'm glad this deal does seem to have picked up a lot of negativity in the market and is seen as scummy (perhaps due to the obvious misdirection attempt of initial message) and if performance for the IP does take a hit perhaps we'll see less such deals.

 

[etta]

Whelp this thread has certainly been illuminating for seeing apologists and em warriors on both sides go at it.

Amazing how what is a clearly business benefit only deal that is mainly negative for general consumers (as all timed deals normally are) will still get defended.

Right or wrong though I'm glad this deal does seem to have picked up a lot of negativity in the market and is seen as scummy (perhaps due to the obvious misdirection attempt of initial message) and if performance for the IP does take a hit perhaps we'll see less such deals.

And here I am explaining some of the many reasons why this happens, but of course I get labelled as an apologist. As I have said before, I am not defending it. But most of the people who argue against it do it in a reductionist manner. All I see is incomplete pictures being painted. If you're going to analyze something to find the why at least do it in a scholarly manner.

 

[Three]

The article you posted referenced the Amazon posting. Anything not referencing that and do you have a link confirming that split?

I saw it myself on GAME much like the PS4 version was on GAME too.

Also here you go

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=european-daily

But what's the point of all this when you've already made up your mind.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

And here I am explaining some of the many reasons why this happens, but of course I get labelled as an apologist. As I have said before, I am not defending it. But most of the people who argue against it do it in a reductionist manner. All I see is incomplete pictures being painted. If you're going to analyze something to find the why at least do it in a scholarly manner.

I don't think he meant you. I hope it didn't mean you anyway, because I would say that's pretty unfair. You've reasoned your stance, others disagreeing shouldn't mean you're an apologist.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

But how does this deal benefit current or "potential" Xbox owners? MS might not drop money without seeing deal benefitting them, but that doesn't mean that I, as Xbox owner, benefit from this deal in any way.

I guess You get a game optimised for your platform. Likely more optimised than if it were shipping for more platforms.

Obviously if you don't want the game full stop then you don't really benefit, no.

 

[Stilton Disco]

Ultimately, the inescapable reason there's so much bad press around the exclussivity, and now the huge delay between release dates, isn't the 'evil corporations' paying to keep it off competitors systems, or because MS were deliberately obfuscating the terms of it's 'exclusivity'.

The simple fact of the matter is that Tomb Raider is associated with Playstation and PC. That's where the overwhelming majority of it's fanbase is, and this deal has made that majority salty as fuck, because they're getting incredibly dicked over.

This is why no one gives a shit about SFV, Destiny's DLC, the FFVIIR or any of the other comparable exclussives before and since that no one outside a small minority has ever cared about.

This was a cynical move by SE to take a huge wad of cash in exchange for screwing over most Tomb Raider fans, and by MS to try and force those same fans into buying a brand they usually don't go for.

I mean look at the other current gen Tomb Raider. Lara Croft, Temple of Osiris, received special edition, physical releases on PS4 and PC, but not XO. The reason the games developers gave for it skipping the XO, was that the hardcore Tomb Raider fans that would buy it, aren't on Xbox. There's also the huge split in sales for LC:ToO and TRE in Playstations favour that bares this out too.

That's ultimately where the bad press comes from. Pissed off fans on PC and especially Playstation. You only need to look at the Tomb Raider forums and fan sites, and social media to see how many of them have been livid about this deal from day one.

MS have not added value to their brand. They've not secured an exclussive that's going to bring in loads of customers that were on the fence. They're just holding to ransom a game that most of it's fans would rather play on different systems, and I can't see it doing MS or the Tomb Raider franchise any good, or being worth the price MS paid for it.

The fact that it's going to release on the same day as Fallout 4 is just adding to what is already a very, very poor decision by SE.

TLDR: There's so much bad press over this because most Tomb Raider fans don't want to play this game on an Xbox. They're salty as fuck. Myself included.

 

[Wagram]

SFV, FFVII and Nier 2's 'exclusivity' on the other hand, were scantly mentioned. At least not to the extent where they had to address the "concerns/confusions."

#1: None of those titles were announced for multiple consoles and then changed later.

#2: Nier 2 will sell nothing on Xbox One.

#3: FF7R will have affinity with PlayStation due to nostalgia even if it was multiplat.

#4: Tomb Raider sells more on PS than it does on Xbox.

 

[freefornow]

TLDR: There's so much bad press over this because most Tomb Raider fans don't want to play this game on an Xbox. They're salty as fuck. Myself included.

Well, it's confirmed that they dont have to. So i'm not sure why all the salt?

 

[omonimo]

I don't buy that at all. Microsoft didn't pay for a better experience by having the dev team, with likely significance resources coming from Microsoft's end, focus exclusively on building the Xbox One version of the game? How will that laser like focus on the Xbox One as a platform not somehow lead to a better experience on Xbox One as opposed to if the dev team were split between building the game for both PS4 and Xbox One at the same time? This isn't me saying the Xbox One version will be better than the PS4 version, but what I'm saying is that the Xbox One version of the game will be much better off than it would've been if the dev studio were split between developing the game for both PS4 and Xbox One simultaneously. Tomb Raider on Xbox One is receiving the kind of exclusive attention that a true first party game would receive on the platform, which has to be for the best.

And I believe a separate team entirely is building the game for the 360.

Lol. That's absolutely absurd. They have separate developers so doesn't change anything. One work on Xbox the other to the ps4/pc version. MS has just put the money to avoid this game would been released contemporary to the other platform. A disgusting practice.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Lol. That's absolutely absurd. They have separate developers so doesn't change anything. One work on Xbox the other to the ps4/pc version.

Hmm.

 

[szaromir]

Order had some decent hype levels behind it didn't it? Especially here.

The Order devs repeatedly stating they hate video games brought them a lot of flac.

 

[Stilton Disco]

Well, it's confirmed that they dont have to. So i'm not sure why all the salt?

Because it's still a huge delay for the overwhelming majority of Console players, and while not as bad, still a big enough delay on PC to take the wind out of the sails of any hype and excitement.

Besides which, it's still a deal that screws over most of the fanbase, where the only people that benefit are those in the two massive corporations that so happily gave the series fans the finger to make some behind the scenes cash.

No Tomb Taider fan is better off because of this deal. Most of them are worse off. Why wouldn't they be salty?

 

[etta]

I don't think he meant you. I hope it didn't mean you anyway, because I would say that's pretty unfair. You've reasoned your stance, others disagreeing shouldn't mean you're an apologist.

Thank you.
It felt a bit like I am just shooting blanks. And before anyone else says I am defending this, I am not. My whole point is that this is a very gray matter, just like how most of the shit is in life. Yes, this practice is shitty towards some gamers, but that's not all it is. Just like with how every issue or problem has multiple answers, so does this. Of course it has its benefits, that's why a massive corporation dropped money on it. And yes, they've had some terrible decisions before like with TVTVTV and Kinect, but that doesn't mean they will always make shitty decisions. Again, even if in their past they have made wrong calls, the fact that they are a massive corporation and have well educated people on their payroll should still mean they are very likely to pull the right calls next time around. When there's big money involved, no one will make decisions without thinking three times and triple checking everything.
At the end of it all, these deals have both positives and negatives. You can argue that the negatives far outweigh the positives, but to say there's only negatives is a very undercooked argument.

 

[Ghost Slayer]

Well, it's confirmed that they dont have to. So i'm not sure why all the salt?

Because MS don't want Sony players to play the game same day as Xbone?

 

[omonimo]

Hmm.

From what I know CD never touched the other platform beyond the Xbox machine. Dixxes ported TR on ps/pc from the 2006.

 

[EGM1966]

And here I am explaining some of the many reasons why this happens, but of course I get labelled as an apologist. As I have said before, I am not defending it. But most of the people who argue against it do it in a reductionist manner. All I see is incomplete pictures being painted. If you're going to analyze something to find the why at least do it in a scholarly manner.

You're looking at it in isolation and trying to find a positive for consumers that doesn't really exist for the most part though I'm afraid.

So someone comes off the fence and buys an XB1 for a TR bundle you argue, this is good for them. Then when they get hit with the next unfavourable timed exclusive it's a negative for them right? And that's what the culture of timed exclusivity pretty much guarantees will happen.

Big picture is simple: timed exclusives aren't good for us as consumers and only benefit the businesses themselves. There's really no argument around that. Overall sooner or later you're a victim of a timed exclusive not a beneficiary. Doesn't mean they don't make sense for business and doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that but we shouldn't forget the benefits majorly stop there and mostly there's no benefits and only downsides for consumers as a whole.

And Etta it may be reactionary, as in you're responding to others, but if you do it to the extent you go filling a thread with various replies trying to spin the positive you will always end up looking like an apologist. Better to learn who to respond to and who to ignore: replying to obvious trolls or people who don't want corrected never works and just ends up making you look complicit in spin.

Some people are just uninformed and a clarifying reply goes a long way, others are wilfully ignoring facts and if you want my advice you end up being snared by those folks too often.

 

[Stilton Disco]

From what I know CD never touched the other platform beyond the Xbox machine. Dixxes ported TR on ps/pc from the 2006.

See, this is what I don't get. Why is so much focus placed on the Xbox brand by CD? It's the least popular platform for Tomb Raider, so who's calling the shots over there that has such a massive hard on for MS's machines, and why?

 

[nib95]

See, this is what I don't get. Why is so much focus placed on the Xbox brand by CD? It's the least popular platform for Tomb Raider, so who's calling the shots over there that has such a massive hard on for MS's machines, and why?

Marketing deals?

 

[omonimo]

See, this is what I don't get. Why is so much focus placed on the Xbox brand by CD? It's the least popular platform for Tomb Raider, so who's calling the shots over there that has such a massive hard on for MS's machines, and why?

It's CD who likes to work on MS platform over the other from awhile. Don't ask me why, because I completely ignore the reason.
They talked of privileged relationship with this company.