Microsoft confirms Rise of the Tomb Raider Xbox exclusivity deal "has a duration"

[jakem1]

Keep telling yourself that MS saved it. One of the longest franchises in gaming, which has been in worst spots would have been cancelled because it didn't meet Sqeenix bloated projections. Having to wait is not a problem, legitimising this crap is. It's not my fault MS happened to be the ones that actually pulled this stupid move with a significant franchise.

Read the quotes I posted above. It's pretty clear that they did need extra help getting the game out the door and ensuring that it's profitable.

At the end of the day, would you have defended Sony the same way you defend MS if they were the ones that went for the deal? I know I would have said the same things, and even if this was a case of someone paying a wad of cash to do the same on PC.

Yes, I would say the same thing. I couldn't care less about the the silly Xbox vs PS vs PC fights you guys get into. It's pretty clear that Sony have exclusives, Microsoft have exclusives, Nintendo have exclusives and their are plenty of PC games that never make it on to either console. That's just the reality of the gaming market and has been for ever.

I'm not defending Microsoft. I'm just pointing out the facts, mainly because I think it's hilarious that anyone would be upset about something as trivial as having to wait a few months longer for a game.

I don't know what your motives are but it's pretty clear that a lot of people are complaining because they like to bash Microsoft whenever they get the chance. Not because they should but because they can.

[trooper11]

I finished watching the TotalBiscuit video and I definitely agree with many of his points. He really made a fair argument.

He admitted that console exclusives are necessary for the console market, even if we don't love the idea of exclusives. He also pointed out correctly, that all three of the console makers are guilty of pulling in 3rd party titles to be exclusives and that this new generation of consoles has seen that practice ramp up even more.

Of course, he is a pc-only gamer, so he does not pull any punches regarding both consoles being underpowered hardware that have to rely on exclusives to survive. He didn't say it directly, but I think its pretty clear that he is in the camp that secretly wishes consoles would go away, leading to all games having to come out on pc. Ultimately, he is in fact pushing for a single gaming platform. No reason to beat around the bush here. If we all hate exclusives, the only way to fix that is to remove the competitive need for them. The only way you do that is to remove the competition.

There is always a huge backlash from gamers online when a console makers spends any amount of time on features instead of games, games, games. Part of that demand includes hearing about the hottest exclusive titles. So if console makers cannot differentiate with special features and services, and they cannot rely on exclusive content, then the console market goes away. You would basically be left with a single console manufacturer, or some kind of Steam Machine-like device that taps into pc gaming.

[Luc2k]

That's a silly blanket statement. Start throwing out the old fanboy card and you will get this thread closed pretty quickly. How about we try to stay rational about it.

You're right I suppose. It just became frustrating for a moment seeing something so anti-consumer being defended.

 

Its funny that TB would make a video about this now and ignore the other times it has happened recently. I guess it only reached his radar once it affected a pc game since he cares little for consoles. I do agree with most of this points though, this kind of practice is not good for everyone. Its something I hope is done less, and yet we all know this kind of thing must happen for consoles to survive.

Well, he is battling cancer right now so he has reduced his video output considerably as a consequence. He does play console games like he says in the video, but he is mainly a PC gamer and his youtube content is targeted at the PC audience.

 

While consoles need exclusives, they don't need to acquire them like this.

 

Read the quotes I posted above. It's pretty clear that they did need extra help getting the game out the door and ensuring that it's profitable.

I did read the quotes and I've read them again now.

 

The CD statement is pure unadulterated PR. That thing definitely went through several lawyers before it was posted. It has zero value for anyone looking for facts about this.

 

The first paragraph of the Ars quote does not imply anywhere that the second game was in not going to make it without an outside cash infusion. Sure, it shows a rocky road, but not cancellation. The second paragraph just says that cash infusions make development easier. I don't think anyone was denying that.

 

Yes, I would say the same thing. I couldn't care less about the the silly Xbox vs PS vs PC fights you guys get into. It's pretty clear that Sony have exclusives, Microsoft have exclusives, Nintendo have exclusives and their are plenty of PC games that never make it on to either console. That's just the reality of the gaming market and has been for ever.

I'm not defending Microsoft. I'm just pointing out the facts, mainly because I think it's hilarious that anyone would be upset about something as trivial as having to wait a few months longer for a game.

I don't know what your motives are but it's pretty clear that a lot of people are complaining because they like to bash Microsoft whenever they get the chance. Not because they should but because they can.

You do miss the point that was repeated over and over again. Maybe I haven't done it in this thread yet (slowly starting to lose track).

 

The problem is not about consoles or PC having exclusives. It's OK to have first party exclusives, from developers with close ties or new IP, even though I'm not keen about that either. On PC, exclusives come from developers not having enough funds to go multi-platform, limited console hardware or limited console controls usually. Nobody pays publishers or developers to keep a game exclusively on PC. Do tell if you have any examples because I can't think of any. And as TotalBiscuit says, consoles can have all our exclusive games because we don't care.

 

Onto the actual problem and why people are upset: MS and Squeenix are limiting access to a game from a franchise that has always been on PC (I don't know about PS). This game in particular is also a sequel to a very popular recent franchise reboot. If you're going to go for 3rd party exclusives at least snatch some new IP. Most of PC gaming also runs on Windows, which is a MS product (talk about screwing your own costumers).

 

Can't speak for others, but if I only wanted to bash MS, I would be a lot more active, because, as a PC gamer, I have plenty to choose from. Some of those issues did come out in the Gamescom thread. I hope it's clear now why I find whole thing anti-consumer, and why exclusives themselves are not as big an issue as those of this particular type.

[Woelfel]

Jeez...so "mad" over something that's happened time and time again. It's a timed exclusive, the practice will continue, get over it.

[ViperAFK]

Jeez...so "mad" over something that's happened time and time again. It's a timed exclusive, the practice will continue, get over it.

Just because its happened before does not mean its not a bad, anti-consumer practice.

 

First party exclusives are fine, waving money at a dev to withhold a multi-platform release from other platforms is lame.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Yes, I would say the same thing. I couldn't care less about the the silly Xbox vs PS vs PC fights you guys get into. It's pretty clear that Sony have exclusives, Microsoft have exclusives, Nintendo have exclusives and their are plenty of PC games that never make it on to either console. That's just the reality of the gaming market and has been for ever.

You can't compare PC to the other two platforms, as nobody is paying to prevent PC games from being released on XB1 or PS4. The usual reason PC games don't also see console releases is that there isn't enough funding, the controller isn't suitable or it is too demanding for them.

 

I'm not defending Microsoft. I'm just pointing out the facts, mainly because I think it's hilarious that anyone would be upset about something as trivial as having to wait a few months longer for a game.

The issue I have is that Microsoft is paying money to prevent me from playing a game. I preordered the previous Tomb Raider game and played it the day of release, yet now I'm going to have to wait months more for the sequel because of Microsoft's aggressive, anti-consumer policies. You might not have a problem with that but I most certainly do.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

The issue I have is that Microsoft is paying money to prevent me from playing a game. I preordered the previous Tomb Raider game and played it the day of release, yet now I'm going to have to wait months more for the sequel because of Microsoft's aggressive, anti-consumer policies. You might not have a problem with that but I most certainly do.

 

 

yeah that is the main reason for me.   i am not a microsoft hater or have any other agenda.

i liked tombraider games (especially the reboot) and i want to play the sequel on day one.   

 

anyways, i hope the delay is not longer then 6 months.

[Woelfel]

Just because its happened before does not mean its not a bad, anti-consumer practice.

 

First party exclusives are fine, waving money at a dev to withhold a multi-platform release from other platforms is lame.

 

and like I said, it's happened time and time again...what will make you think this will end? Not saying that I don't want it to end...but it's also a practice that's been going on forever and one I don't ever see ending. Taco bell uses Pepsi products, McDonalds uses Coke products...those are "multiplatform" if you will but they have exclusive drinks (albeit some drinks are similar but some people don't like one over the other). My alma-mater (NCSU) now use Google software for a good number of their stuff, before they used a lot of MS, it sucked for me as I used a lot of MS stuff and I don't even use gmail anymore. I chose this school, other schools had the same offer but mine chose this software over another. This type of practice always happens and in multiple places is what I'm saying so it's not something that's going to go away.

People say that it's not the same thing as DLC because you still get to play the game...well what if a person REALLY wants to have that DLC and they can't have it because of platform, well that sucks. What one person deems as reasonable may not be reasonable to another. Having platform-specific characters for fighting games suck as well (I'm looking at you Soul Calibur) but it didn't get nearly as much flack as this.

[theyarecomingforyou]

and like I said, it's happened time and time again...what will make you think this will end?

What does that have to do with anything? It is a sleazy business strategy and people are right to criticise it.

 

Not saying that I don't want it to end...but it's also a practice that's been going on forever and one I don't ever see ending.

Well, it won't if people accept it. Microsoft has come under a lot of criticism and has damaged its image with this move - hopefully it will think twice about pulling the same thing again. The last thing consumers should do is accept this as business as usual.

[McKay]

So they cried that the millions they sold of the last tomb raider weren't enough, classed Tomb Raider as a failure, and to solve that problem they made an exclusivity deal with the 2nd worst selling next gen console?

 

Genius. 

[Argi]

Just because its happened before does not mean its not a bad, anti-consumer practice.

 

First party exclusives are fine, waving money at a dev to withhold a multi-platform release from other platforms is lame.

 

People need to stop hating the XB1's due to launch drama and just go ahead and buy one. :) 

[jakem1]

You can't compare PC to the other two platforms, as nobody is paying to prevent PC games from being released on XB1 or PS4. The usual reason PC games don't also see console releases is that there isn't enough funding, the controller isn't suitable or it is too demanding for them.

An exclusive is an exclusive regardless of why.

The issue I have is that Microsoft is paying money to prevent me from playing a game. I preordered the previous Tomb Raider game and played it the day of release, yet now I'm going to have to wait months more for the sequel because of Microsoft's aggressive, anti-consumer policies. You might not have a problem with that but I most certainly do.

 

<sigh>  No, they're not paying money to prevent you playing a game (I doubt they know or care who you are).  They're supporting TR's developers to help get the game out but in return they want to make it exclusive to the Xbox for a few months (i.e. a very short period of time) so they get some benefit.  That's standard practice and it's not unreasonable for them to expect a return on their investment.

As for your claim that they're being aggressive and anti-consumer? That's just silly hyperbole. A three month exclusivity period is nothing when you consider that they could have paid to make it permanently exclusive - that would have been aggressive. The reality is that it's only exclusive in the run up to a single Xmas. No big deal at all. Also, Xbox owners are consumers too and I don't see how they're losing out. Consumers consider exclusives when choosing the console they want to buy so Xbox owners who like TR will be happy to have made the right choice. This is Microsoft supporting their product just like Sony supports their product, and so on.

 

It's pretty clear that all you're interested in doing is using this as an excuse to continue with your constant Microsoft bashing.  Waiting a few months extra for something as frivolous as a game that isn't going to be released for more than a year isn't enough to really irritate any sensible person.

[trooper11]

You're right I suppose. It just became frustrating for a moment seeing something so anti-consumer being defended.

 

Well, he is battling cancer right now so he has reduced his video output considerably as a consequence. He does play console games like he says in the video, but he is mainly a PC gamer and his youtube content is targeted at the PC audience.

I know he is battling cancer, but this is not a new thing for him. He mostly focuses on pc topics, so sick or not, I suspect he would have had the same reaction. I also know he owns both next gen consoles, but he is clearly on the side of the pc platform and prefers that. He only uses the consoles because he can afford them both and he can use them to keep up to date on that market.

The problem is not about consoles or PC having exclusives. It's OK to have first party exclusives, from developers with close ties or new IP, even though I'm not keen about that either. On PC, exclusives come from developers not having enough funds to go multi-platform, limited console hardware or limited console controls usually. Nobody pays publishers or developers to keep a game exclusively on PC. Do tell if you have any examples because I can't think of any. And as TotalBiscuit says, consoles can have all our exclusive games because we don't care.

Is it ok to have first party exclusives? Even TB makes a point to say that exclusivity in ANY form, is bad for the consumer. That literally means that console gaming is bad for the consumer. You cannot separate the two. Each one of us will have to decide what we are willing to accept. Millions of consumers are happy to support the current system, hence the reason timed exclusive deals happen for Sony and MS.

Can't speak for others, but if I only wanted to bash MS, I would be a lot more active, because, as a PC gamer, I have plenty to choose from. Some of those issues did come out in the Gamescom thread. I hope it's clear now why I find whole thing anti-consumer, and why exclusives themselves are not as big an issue as those of this particular type.

MS just sucks all around for gaming, but what are you going to do ultimately. They seem unable to do much correctly. Even their attempts to appease gamers blows up in their face.

 

 

Well, it won't if people accept it. Microsoft has come under a lot of criticism and has damaged its image with this move - hopefully it will think twice about pulling the same thing again. The last thing consumers should do is accept this as business as usual.

I really hope guys such as yourself and the outrage in general on the internet is just as loud when Sony announces its next exclusive. If this kind of backlash had occurred last gen over Ninja Gaiden Sigma, or this gen with Injustice, maybe MS doesn't even make the move it did. It has just been too quiet.

[trooper11]

You can't compare PC to the other two platforms, as nobody is paying to prevent PC games from being released on XB1 or PS4. The usual reason PC games don't also see console releases is that there isn't enough funding, the controller isn't suitable or it is too demanding for them.

The pc certainly is a strange case. It does not have exclusives in the same way as consoles and yet it does have games that have been made for high end pc hardware. If a developer chooses to make a game that is not possible on lower end hardware, such as the hardware in consoles, it has in fact created an exclusive title, barring some consumers access to that game.

I don't think anyone has tried to argue that such a developer is wrong for doing that, but the practice does result in the same thing: some consumers are unable to play unless they buy into high end pc hardware.

If you step back and look at the entire gaming market, you can't ignore the fact that high end pc gaming is a small niche. More and more people are moving away from owning a pc at all, instead using tablets or smartphones for their computing needs. Those people are more likely to get consoles now then invest in a gaming pc. I wonder how long it is before that trend cuts into pc gaming from a sales perspective.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The pc certainly is a strange case. It does not have exclusives in the same way as consoles and yet it does have games that have been made for high end pc hardware. If a developer chooses to make a game that is not possible on lower end hardware, such as the hardware in consoles, it has in fact created an exclusive title, barring some consumers access to that game.

I think even if you look at high profile, high-end PC exclusive games you'll find it's usually down to funding rather than setting out to make a game that can't run on console. For instance, Crysis was PC exclusive but once the brand was established the sequel was designed with consoles in mind. Even Star Citizen is because it's a crowdfunded project and they raised their money from the PC community - the game caters to high spec gamers because they're the ones that funded it. I wouldn't have any problem with Xbox users crowdfunding an exclusive game.

 

If you step back and look at the entire gaming market, you can't ignore the fact that high end pc gaming is a small niche. More and more people are moving away from owning a pc at all, instead using tablets or smartphones for their computing needs. Those people are more likely to get consoles now then invest in a gaming pc. I wonder how long it is before that trend cuts into pc gaming from a sales perspective.

PC gaming is larger than it ever has been, eclipsing console gaming. Tablets and smartphones are definitely popular in their own right but they don't replace PC or console gaming - they complement it. Further, Valve is putting a lot into Steam Machines, their attempt to making PC gaming more accessible than ever. PC gaming is evolving but it's certainly not at risk of disappearing any time soon.

[Showan]

Gamers are what's wrong with the internet. Gamers are part of the problem of the gaming industry. Point blank..

"MS is preventing my box of choice from getting a game" ...,sob...sob...sob...

Either buy an Xbox, or shut up and wait for it to come out on ur platform choice,... Or just don't buy it at all...

Cry, cry, cry,cry...that's all everyone does is cry... Screaming "NO FAIR" all day long like a bunch of 8yr olds...

Zelda is my favorite franchise of all time, I use buy every Nintendo console ever made just to play it.

It is no longer worth me buying a Nintendo for the one game I like. And will probably never buy a Nintendo console again.

I got over it.

More people are complaining just to complain. TR sold only 7million units. But you have 15million people on the internet crying, for a game that, they were probably never intending to buy.

It's to a pint everyone wants their 15min of fame at MS expense.

[Showan]

You're right I suppose. It just became frustrating for a moment seeing something so anti-consumer being defended.

 

Well, he is battling cancer right now so he has reduced his video output considerably as a consequence. He does play console games like he says in the video, but he is mainly a PC gamer and his youtube content is targeted at the PC audience.

 

While consoles need exclusives, they don't need to acquire them like this.

 

I did read the quotes and I've read them again now.

 

The CD statement is pure unadulterated PR. That thing definitely went through several lawyers before it was posted. It has zero value for anyone looking for facts about this.

 

The first paragraph of the Ars quote does not imply anywhere that the second game was in not going to make it without an outside cash infusion. Sure, it shows a rocky road, but not cancellation. The second paragraph just says that cash infusions make development easier. I don't think anyone was denying that.

 

You do miss the point that was repeated over and over again. Maybe I haven't done it in this thread yet (slowly starting to lose track).

 

The problem is not about consoles or PC having exclusives. It's OK to have first party exclusives, from developers with close ties or new IP, even though I'm not keen about that either. On PC, exclusives come from developers not having enough funds to go multi-platform, limited console hardware or limited console controls usually. Nobody pays publishers or developers to keep a game exclusively on PC. Do tell if you have any examples because I can't think of any. And as TotalBiscuit says, consoles can have all our exclusive games because we don't care.

 

Onto the actual problem and why people are upset: MS and Squeenix are limiting access to a game from a franchise that has always been on PC (I don't know about PS). This game in particular is also a sequel to a very popular recent franchise reboot. If you're going to go for 3rd party exclusives at least snatch some new IP. Most of PC gaming also runs on Windows, which is a MS product (talk about screwing your own costumers).

 

Can't speak for others, but if I only wanted to bash MS, I would be a lot more active, because, as a PC gamer, I have plenty to choose from. Some of those issues did come out in the Gamescom thread. I hope it's clear now why I find whole thing anti-consumer, and why exclusives themselves are not as big an issue as those of this particular type.

It's funny that your crying about this. MS dime is the reason you will be playing this sooner rather than later. U will get to play TR sometime in 2016.

MS could of not helped at all, and you could be playing TR in mid 2017 or not at all, because CD/SE didn't have the funds to get more staff to get the game done.

People dog MS for pulling the $$$ and throwing it around. MS is the reason, a lot of games come out.

I met a Sony rep the other day, who's job is to take care of PS kiosk that you see in GameStop, Best Buy, etc.

He said that, there is a lot of things that go behind the scenes that we just have no clue about.

MS (and Sony) have thrown money around to secure exclusive games. But they have also put down $$$ to save gaming franchises we come to love and adore. With exclusivity being a perk for doing so.

Unless you know the details of it personally, why not just sit back and enjoy the gaming industry.

[Vandalsquad]

Are people still arguing this point? Can't wait to grab this game at launch and spoiler the hell out of it now on here.  :laugh:

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Are people still arguing this point? Can't wait to grab this game at launch and spoiler the hell out of it now on here. :laugh:

Unmarked spoilers done to spite anyone will get you a warn/ban. I'd maybe rethink that tactic! Unless you're being sarcastic :)

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Unmarked spoilers done to spite anyone will get you a warn/ban. I'd maybe rethink that tactic! Unless you're being sarcastic :)

 

Ah the dark ages of the GH :pinch: We won't be going back there!

 

Bad enough when Michael was PM'd, but a public post spoiler? Nope, not going to end well :P

[neokal]

why are ps fans greedy. you have uncharted, which is a game id rather play than tomb raider

 

Sony part own naughty dog, which is why their games are only PS. MS does not own any part of Square-Enix. Its like sony buying the exclusive rights to destiny or the next assasins creed. I think some xbox only owners would be ###### off if that happened.

[vcfan]

Sony part own naughty dog, which is why their games are only PS. MS does not own any part of Square-Enix. Its like sony buying the exclusive rights to destiny or the next assasins creed. I think some xbox only owners would be ###### off if that happened.

I would be ###### at Microsoft for not putting up the cash instead. I wouldn't be mad at sony, or any other company. its all part of the game.  I personally love this move,and hope it continues.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Sony part own naughty dog, which is why their games are only PS. MS does not own any part of Square-Enix. Its like sony buying the exclusive rights to destiny or the next assasins creed. I think some xbox only owners would be ###### off if that happened.

 

They fully own Naughty Dog now. Have for a while (since 2001?).

[GotBored]

I personally think Microsoft need to get as many exclusivity deals be it timed, dlc, full exclusivity or any other form now. PS4 has sold over 10 Million units and Xbox One is at 5 million units, having double the customer base means that its going to cost Microsoft more for exclusivity because the publishers lose out on that potential customer base.

 

As the gap widens its going to probably be near impossible for Microsoft to get exclusivity deals on already established I.P's and if they fund a new I.P and don't own the I.P its likely to go to PS4 once the publisher has the means to go multiplatform and isn't locked into any exclusivity contracts (Titanfall for example).

 

I know people like to excuse sales numbers here, thinking they mean nothing but they mean a huge deal to publishers. Say a publisher thinks it will reach 30% of the install base on each platform and they make about $20 per game sale. Removing PS4 from the equation will mean $60,000,000 in lost revenues for them now, as the PS4 continues to sell more units that number will rise.

 

Basically now is the time Microsoft can make these exclusivity deals and they need to do as many as possible.

 

Take Wii U as an example, due to the low install base publishers are skipping it for a few of their multiplatform titles, Xbox One has currently sold less than the Wii U and its not expected to surpass Wii U sales numbers until next year. I prefer the PS4 but I dont want the PS4 to own a huge majority share of the console market because they will just get lazy (Like how they are lazy with OS updates on the PS4 now) and it will remove the need for competitive deals, exclusivity and even making quality content with their in-house studios.

 

So as a PS4 user I think its good that Microsoft is trying to buy titles for the Xbox One (even if its only timed exclusive).

[Vandalsquad]

Unmarked spoilers done to spite anyone will get you a warn/ban. I'd maybe rethink that tactic! Unless you're being sarcastic :)

 

Ah, but now we're into a grey area. Should we still be using spoiler tags in say a GTA5 thread a year later because those on PC haven't played? What time frame do spoilers stop becoming spoilers?  :p