Infernostew
Member
Some people are acting like Cystal Dynamics is some small indie game company that don't have the resources to develop on multiple consoles.
Rise of the Tomb Raider coming to PC Early 2016. PS4 Holiday 2016
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
- Status
Roberto Larcos
Member
Really? Because a lot of signs point to a Tomb Raider followup not being possible without Microsoft's assistance. That's what Colin Moriarty seems to believe at least.
So now instead of no-one getting a game (because Square Enix wouldn't fully-fund it), 4/5 platforms do. That's a very major positive.
I'll likely buy this over Fallout at launch. Combination of this being cheaper digitally than Fallout in the UK (and wanting to support that), and Fallout's notorious day 1 bugs. Also it looks awesome. Tomb Raider 2013 was my game of the year.
If that is the case, why wasn't this clear at E3?
Usually when something can only happen because there are otherwise no funds, you know this at the time of announcement.
Not announce the game without platforms and then 2 months later say oh we can finally announced we're timed exclusive.
What is more likely is that the negotiations for this timed aspect weren't concluded by the time of the game reveal at E3.
I guess we'll never know, but I wonder if part of the terms of MS deal is that they have to make up the difference in price for every PS4 copy sold under $60 for X amount of time?
But game IS multiplatform, game IS in development for PC/PS4/Xbone/X360. Release of the game for PS4 and PC is delayed for 2016. Game IS cross-gen ( sadly ) and game for PC/PS4/Xbone will have some cross-gen assets. So much about development for multiplatform title for 1 current-gen console. I don't see any effort in that.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Exclusive focus by the dev team on the Xbox One version of the game is almost certainly a positive, and Xbox has also been funding original and exclusive content for the system. They've been doing this from the very start of the generation.
Sunset Overdrive
Scalebound
Quantum Break
Ori and the Blind Forest
D4
Recore
Ryse
And I'm sure there's quite a few I'm missing. Microsoft has been investing in new and original content that's exclusive from the very start, so any attempts to try and isolate the Tomb Raider deal like it's somehow all they're doing just comes off as highly disingenuous.
Maybe... But there is a tremendous amount of risk involved with launching a new IP... (See Kameo, Ryse, The Order, Drive Club etc). That's why companies hedge their bets by supporting existing and new IPs from 1st and 3rd parties... Microsoft is no different from any other company in that regard.
Well they sure as hell have already pimped Tomb Raider as "their" bigger "exclusive" game than they ever did Sunset Overdrive, Ori and the Blind Forest, Ryse, or friggin' D4.
Man, I still can't believe they sent D4 out there to die. That was Konami Blades of Time level neglect...
Roberto Larcos
Member
Maybe because Square Enix doesn't want to be seen as a company that needs outside help (like Crytek / Capcom) to make games? And maybe because Microsoft values that relationship enough that they can refrain from publicly shaming them on the world stage?
Any why wait? Because Microsoft wanted more people to buy on Xbox One, but people became so feral about the possibility of it not being timed that Square Enix / Microsoft were left with no choice but to pacify 'fans'. Seriously, not seen anything like this cut-throat approach from gamers towards Hello Games / Sony, despite their being plenty of thread to pull at regarding No Man's Sky's exclusivity.
This is a topic that has annoyed me a fair bit. The sense of entitlement of people is absolutely ridiculous. This is a game that may not have been made had it not been for Microsoft, yet they're the villains.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I disagree. They went all in on Sunset Overdrive, and they certainly didn't just up and ignore Ryse. Ryse for a launch game was getting a pretty nice push.
I don't see how that is an answer to the question I posed.
Why weren't the platforms announced at the game announcement, like is the industry standard at E3? Why were press release not including this information.
Why was the very next time the game was shown publicly (using stills from the E3 trailer) at Gamescom and the only new information was that it was something like "Holiday 2015, Timed Xbox"?
Also what is this "shaming" supposed to mean in the context of Square Enix debuting their new game at the Microsoft Press Briefing E3 2014?
But you can't even create a coherent argument for the chain of events that incorporate all publicly known facts.
Mendax
Member
nonsense. the game broke even ages ago and square's goal from the start was to reinvigorate the IP, hence the term "tomb raider reboot"
There really isn't.
Reposting from a eariler thread -
There is nothing to suggest Microsoft's involvement at that time before the Definitive versions came out.
Results - March/April
Greenlit news(August) - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-01-square-enix-confirms-next-gen-tomb-raider-sequel
The game was still a multi-plat at E3 2015 when it was announced formally. Suggesting the deal was in the making and not done at that point before it was announced as timed at Gamescom.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125066039&postcount=5124
Nothing points to this needing MS's assistance to be made in any way.
Also not forgetting we needed 3-5 updates between MS and CD before they announced they would be helping with the development of the game.
Are you serious with this? Are you legitimate serious with this?
Ghost Slayer
Member
Wow, if this is the case, why MS won't pull "lifetime exclusive" like they did with Titanfall because TR won't be made without them? I am sure MS is not dumb to fund the game that latter come to PS platform
And No Man's Sky's, you know that Hello Game studio was affected by flood right? They had trouble so Sony helped them.
Handy Fake
Member
There really isn't.
Reposting from a eariler thread -
There is nothing to suggest Microsoft's involvement at that time before the Definitive versions came out.
Results - March/April
Greenlit news(August) - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-01-square-enix-confirms-next-gen-tomb-raider-sequel
The game was still a multi-plat at E3 2015 when it was announced formally. Suggesting the deal was in the making and not done at that point before it was announced as timed at Gamescom.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125066039&postcount=5124
Nothing points to this needing MS's assistance to be made in any way.
Also not forgetting we needed 3-5 updates between MS and CD before they announced they would be helping with the development of the game.
I may be wrong, but I think one of the Mods (Kigari?) confirmed that it was in development as a multi-plat before MS stepped in.
For this to be true the argument has to be:
Square Enix created a CGI announcement trailer for June 2014 to gauge interest whether or not they are actually going to make the game.
Had Microsoft not stepped in the time between E3 2014 and Gamescom 2014 the game would have been canceled.
A few weeks after it was announced and months into production if we go by standard AAA development schedule.
vpance
Gold Member
I'm sure that's the case. We know SE were capable of funding the game on their own, so if a moneyhat comes along it better pay out close to what they could've made without it. But it's possible they still got hosed, by underestimating the disparity of sales between platforms.
BluenoseGames
Member
A Sequel to Tomb Raider was already well into development, literally straight after they finished the first one.
Then they announce it at E3 2014 when its already well into development yet don't reveal Xbox Timed Exclusivity? They wait until Gamescom ? Something tells me this deal came to play right after E3 when the game was already well into development. So Microsoft's assistance wasn't really needed, the only reason SE took it was probably for the fat check.
She did iirc but we don't even need that as in one of the links I showed it was already greenlight even after it's performance which Square Enix wasn't too happy about.
Yh which is just pure craziness.
Makoto Yuki
Banned
What? Can you source this?
I mean TR reboot did well, even if it didn't perform to the ludicrous standards set by SE, but outright cancel it without MS' help? Never heard that before.
I guess opinions and all that, or perhaps location, but I barely saw ANY major marketing pushes for Sunset Overdrive. It had some decent, if unspectacular, commercials from time to time on Gamestop prior to release, but once the game actually came out, it practically vanished.
I've already seen more commercials, hype, advertisements, pre-order promotions, store displays, and marketing material for Halo 5 than I ever saw for Sunset Overdrive... and I really, REALLY like Sunset Overdrive. It's actually, IMO, the best game on the system right now. But you wouldn't know it from how much Microsoft totally never talked about it about a week after an underperforming launch.
Though I will recant on Ryse. That stuff was everywhere. It was the technical showcase for the system's power and I couldn't get through a Youtube video without an unskippable 15 second Ryse commercial bugging me every step of the way. That was more a case of the game just being mediocre and Microsoft moving on as quickly as they could to other things.
It's not a source. It's saying for this scenario to be true whatsoever, these circumstances had to happen... which is extremely doubtful.
I am not saying this is the case.
I'm putting the argument that Roberto Larcos is making and trying to fit it into the publicly available information about the game.
If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit
Mendax
Member
the problem there is that it doesn't fit at all
sauerkraut
Banned
I believe he was talking hypothetically.
It makes no sense to directly contrast the marketing of something like Sunset Overdrive, to the marketing of something like Halo. You can't just throw X millions at every game regardless of their mainstream sales potential. Giving Sunset Overdrive that sort of marketing push, isn't going to see it selling comparable numbers, it would just turn it into a financial disaster. It's like asking why Wipeout HD wasn't pushed like Uncharted.
Sunset got a freaking white console bundle... Ori got a ton of love for a digital title as well...
Neither of them are Halo though... In terms of appeal, so what did you expect...
I would really like to know where this "Sony helped Hello Games after the flood" story came from.
Sure it may seem like a good guess but Hello Games already had a relationship with Sony since Joe Danger was done through Pub Fund, and the NMS deal could have just as easily been born out of that. I'm also pretty sure Shahid Kamal contacted them long before the flood happened.
Except those decisions were actually made before the consoles launched and the sales gap was known.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Sorry to anyone I pissed off with my limited knowledge of the facts. As stated on a previous page, my argument is based around Colin Moriarty's belief that TR was only made because of Microsoft, which looks to be off-base.
sauerkraut
Banned
Would it hurt if they release an Xbox version of ff7? I would tend to assume that it would accrue more sales for square soft.
panda-zebra
Member
It doesn't work like that.
No hard feelings. I'm not annoyed or offended.
Well, good to know one more time.
Phil Rogers, Square-Enix CEO
I am also excited to reveal that we are well into development on a next-generation Tomb Raider sequel ( August 1st 2013. )
Yep I mean otherwise why where MS/Square Enix so cagey about the deal that it needed so much updates for clarification.
He did
It's cool these things are not easy to find if you don't already know about them.
Makoto Yuki
Banned
Ahh I see. I thought this thread was going in crazy directions again.
Tomb Raider reboot was sold on all the major consoles, the sudden Microsoft Exclusivity just came out of nowhere and wasn't warranted. SE was complaining that the reboot didn't sell enough, on Xbox One, PS4, 360, PS3, and PC. That's 3 more platforms than just Xbox One/360. If selling on 4 consoles and PC wasn't enough why would they limit themselves to just 2 now? This game was going to be made anyways without MS' help. So please, don't defend Microsoft as if their some kind of savior for RotR, they made a business decision to make the game exclusive to their console for a set amount of time. They didn't do that so RotR could be made, they did that to have another "exclusive" this holiday to go against Uncharted, which was delayed to next year.
Ahh, IGN, no wonder your knowledge is limited. (Is he still there? I dunno)
It's cool, the message behind the game's "exclusivity" has always been a mess until now. Announcing that it will come to PC and PS4, even though it's a long way off.
Hurt? Not directly, but it could be an opportunity cost to consider. For example if the team responsible for porting ff7 to xb1 had the opportunity to port ff12 to ps4? The consideration isn't just cost vs. profit but also profit vs. potential profit of other projects.
Melchiah
Member
There's no reason to put the word polished within paragraphs, as this is what was reported back then.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Phil...in-1080p-on-Xbox-One-Bungie-Says-455943.shtml
And that was possible , eventhough the game was released on both platfforms simultaneousy, in addition to the last gen versions.
There's no evidence now, that TR on PS4 would benefit in any way from the delay, apart from the usual framerate/resolution increase, which most likely would have been there anyway, even if it was released on the same day.
Do you really believe there would be no TR without it? The game was announced long before the exclusivity deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Tomb_Raider
Yea, they were not the market segement for this, they were deadset on PS4, and as I have said before, these consumer pools get shafted by this.
First, I am not going to apologize for the brand love and I will tell you why. I grew up with this, it's where my fondest gaming memories are. This is exactly like the PS3 situation last gen, it was the worse console (for third party) but people stuck with it, because they too grew up with PlayStation. This is not all of them, obviously, some had no problem switching to 360 as their main because of the advantages. I have a PS4 but I won't switch to it as my main, though obviously I got it for a reason (Naughty Dog games). This is the same like growing up with something like the Fast and Furious franchise, the new movies are full of cliches and corny lines, but you still love watching them, and they still put a smile on your face.
Second, they do have new IP's that they have invested in, so buying this exclusivity has not affected that. You can't say Phantom Dust was put on hold because of the ROTR deal.
And lastly, it seems some of my responders didn't read all my posts on this argument. I am on the same side of the fence everyone is. I was arguing that this thing isn't completely black and white.
MS said the Deal was to counter UC4, problem is ps4 owners can now play UC4 and TR. I just don't See TR being a system seller. Obviously that's just my opinion It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
The main dev team is primarily only building the Xbox One version of the game at this point in time. That's a positive for the game and for people hoping to buy it on Xbox One.
Most publishers don't want to get out on stage and say "we don't have the resources/didn't have confidence in the project we're announcing today!"
And where in the announcement time frame would you place this loss of confidence based on the available information posted in this thread a few posts up?
thelastcrusader
Banned
Whatever. Maybe I'll get through some of my backlog by holiday 2016.
To be fair, you seem to be asking something that simply never really happens anyway. At no point on stage was Dead Rising 3 announced as something that was exclusive due to a lack of funds, neither was Titanfall, neither was Street Fighter V etc.
Anything along those lines usually only gets talked about more candidly in things like tweets and BTS footage or whatever. Outside of Shenmue III, I honestly can't think of any times where a project was presented on stages as cash-strapped.
But there has been so much discussion about this all and the situation is very clear for Titanfall and Street Fighter V as a comparison.
Or phrased differently: This point of how the games came to be have been explained across different avenues.
I'm not asking for this to have been included in the press conference. Any supporting evidence for the case is enough.
Right now I don't see any supporting evidence that Square Enix didn't plan this as a regular multiplatform title that a multiplatform publisher in the console space works on based on the available information across all the information channels we have.
The only thing that I see as being significantly clearer with games like Titanfall or Street Fighter are the terms of exclusivity, in that there were known to be exclusive (or perceived timed exclusive) at the time of announcement. Hell, the Titanfall stuff only surfaced long after the fact, with the initial reaction being very similar to Rise of the Tomb Raider today.
As I've mentioned before in the thread, I don't really see compelling evidence that Street Fighter V wasn't something that was going to happen anyway, and required additional funding to be realised. There's like one tweet from Ono saying he doesn't have an R&D budget for SFV (which only really says it wasn't in active development at that specific time), along with more tweets and statements that allude to the project initially being intended for both platforms. Basically we don't actually know these things in either case, but with Street Fighter it's simply assumed Capcom were going to let their no 2 or 3 franchise rot for the generation.
They are working on the Xbox 360 version, which is getting a simultaneous release with the Xbox One version.
They are also clearly working on the PC version, which will be released a few months later.
I think you're way off base, here.
- Status