Rise of the Tomb Raider - Xbox One/360 2015 timed exclusive Out Nov 10th

[ithrowawayslipcovers]

I think the term 'moneyhatting' is now only used when discussing Microsoft. It makes me laugh. Bloodborne, Day Z and No Mans Sky are all PS4 exclusives but they are all awesome and Tomb Raider sucks. Whatever, i hate the internet gaming community sometimes.

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by ithrowawayslipcovers

I think the term 'moneyhatting' is now only used when discussing Microsoft. It makes me laugh. Bloodborne, Day Z and No Mans Sky are all PS4 exclusives but they are all awesome and Tomb Raider sucks. Whatever, i hate the internet gaming community sometimes.

With the exception of Day Z, all the other games you just listed have never been multi-platform franchise, they're all new exclusive IPs.

The problem here is that Tomb Raider has always been a multi-platform franchise, with the bulk of its fanbase playing the games on Playstations, myself included...so it's a kick in the teeth when Crystal Dynamics/Square-Enix suddenly turn around and say it's exclusive to the Xbox.

Now, I'm buying an XB1 in November anyway, so I'll be fine, but for those who can't really afford a second console and only have a PS4 or simply don't wish to buy a console and game on PC - then it's pretty lame.

I believe this will be a timed-exclusive in all honesty because that's what usually happens with Xbox games i.e. Ryse, Dead Rising etc. So maybe we will see a GOTY edition in 2016 or something?

[ithrowawayslipcovers]

In all likelihood it is a timed exclusive. I would be quite surprised if it wasnt.

[Icemage]

Originally Posted by ithrowawayslipcovers

I think the term 'moneyhatting' is now only used when discussing Microsoft. It makes me laugh. Bloodborne, Day Z and No Mans Sky are all PS4 exclusives but they are all awesome and Tomb Raider sucks. Whatever, i hate the internet gaming community sometimes.

Bloodborne is Sony published, and the original game that it draws its inspiration from, Demon's Souls, was PS3-exclusive (largely because its original intended audience was in Japan, where the Xbox is nearly non-existent).

Day Z probably isn't a moneyhat situation more than a limited manpower situation. Bohemia Interactive is a small team who already have their hands full with the PC version. Considering the difference in install base, it's not a surprise if they decide to work on the hardware with more potential buyers first (and there's no reason they won't work on an XB1 version afterwards).

No Man's Sky I suspect is getting PS4 support first because Sony offered the most help with the fewest strings attached. As with Day Z, the team at Hello Games is tiny, with limited manpower, and they're taking on a monstrously large project.

Tomb Raider, though... Crystal Dynamics is a large studio who are used to working on multiple versions at the same time, so they can't play the "we don't know how to/have the manpower to do multiple versions" card.

The differences here are the reasons behind the exclusivity, timed or otherwise. Personally, I think it's a bit short sighted of Square-Enix to allow timed exclusivity, but maybe it makes financial sense for them. They do run a very real risk of backlash, though, which could hurt the brand moving forward (leaving a large number of fans on the Xbox platform, which at this point looks like it will always have the smaller install base, which in turn will potentially limit sales).

Of course, this is only true if the window of exclusivity is large; more than 3 months or so. If Rise of the Tomb Raider ends up releasing in late November 2015 and comes out in January on other platforms, I don't think it's going to make as much of a splash (potential buyers on other platforms could just prioritize purchases to other games in that period and pick it up on their preferred platform later).

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by Icemage

They made Splosion Man and The Gunstringer before being acquired, and are responsible *cough* for LocoCycle.

Totally unrelated to the discussion, but... how crazy is it that the guy responsible for Lococycle's cutscenes is the director of the biggest movie of the year? And snuck Troma's Llloyd Kaufman into both the game and Guardians Of The Galaxy? It is a crazy world we live in.

[ithrowawayslipcovers]

Yes while all that is true, i only brought up those three cause those were the first games i could think of. The situations are obviously different.

Though i would be shocked if the outcry would be the same if Tomb Raider was announced as a PS4 exclusive.

[Danchez]

Aaaaand with this news, I'm officially out of love with the Tomb Raider franchise.

I've been a die-hard Lara fan since the I played a demo of the very first TR game on PC back in '97, but cutting her journey short on Playstation (where Lara got her start) for a Microsoft payday is pretty sleazy.

[MerrickG]

There is a difference between funding and moneyhatting.

Funding enables something to exist that otherwise wouldn't. (Ex. Dead Rising 3, Bloodborne, Ryse and Scalebound)

Moneyhatting takes something that existed and prevents release elsewhere.

MS did what they felt they had to do, but I do wonder if this will do harm than good in the long run.

For me this is disappointing because I felt that MS was moving on from this type of crap with Phil Spencer and Nadella.

Anyway, my final word on this since I specifically mentioned that I wasn't going to gripe about it in the OP.

so much for that...

[ithrowawayslipcovers]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

There is a difference between funding and moneyhatting.

Funding enables something to exist that otherwise wouldn't. (Ex. Dead Rising 3, Bloodborne, Ryse and Scalebound)

Moneyhatting takes something that existed and prevents release elsewhere.

How do you know that Microsoft moneyhatted Tomb Raider? They may have funded it. They may have taken it to Sony first like EA did with the EA Access and Sony turned them down. We have no idea.

Cant we all just play games and get along?

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by Danchez

Aaaaand with this news, I'm officially out of love with the Tomb Raider franchise.

I've been a die-hard Lara fan since the I played a demo of the very first TR game on PC back in '97, but cutting her journey short on Playstation (where Lara got her start) for a Microsoft payday is pretty sleazy.

Lara got her start on the PC... and Sega Saturn. It's just heavily associated with Playstation because the port to PS1 sold really well, which prompted Sony to pay Eidos for a 3 year exclusivity deal to keep it off other platforms. Saying Lara got her start on Playstation is disingenuous. The original game actually played better on the Saturn than on Playstation, because Saturn was more geared toward 3-D graphics and PS was more sprite-based.

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by ithrowawayslipcovers

How do you know that Microsoft moneyhatted Tomb Raider? They may have funded it. They may have taken it to Sony first like EA did with the EA Access and Sony turned them down. We have no idea.

Cant we all just play games and get along?

No! Because we're too busy believing that all games should be on all platforms and that companies shouldn't spend money to promote their platform over the other guy's! Let's spend all our time complaining on the internet, because INTERNET!

[Danchez]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

Lara got her start on the PC... and Sega Saturn. It's just heavily associated with Playstation because the port to PS1 sold really well, which prompted Sony to pay Eidos for a 3 year exclusivity deal to keep it off other platforms. Saying Lara got her start on Playstation is disingenuous. The original game actually played better on the Saturn than on Playstation, because Saturn was more geared toward 3-D graphics and PS was more sprite-based.

Fair enough, but it was on the Playstation that she attained her widespread popularity, which propelled Tomb Raider into the top tier of recognizable video game franchises.

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

No! Because we're too busy believing that all games should be on all platforms and that companies shouldn't spend money to promote their platform over the other guy's! Let's spend all our time complaining on the internet, because INTERNET!

Instead, let's spend our time complaining about people who are complaining on the internet, because INTERNET!

(...See how that works?)

[dallywhitty]

I've been a hardcore Tomb Raider fan for roughly fifteen years so naturally the announcement has pissed me off. Microsoft must have thrown plenty of cash at Square in order for this to happen. It's a really bizarre decision, not only because the series has always been multi-platform (albeit often associated with PlayStation) but because the most recent game sold best on Sony's consoles!

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

It's great that first party has worked out so well for Sony now. First party hasn't historically worked out so well for Microsoft though, so it's no surprise that they make exclusivity deals to attach franchises to their brand instead of trying to build first party studios again. Their strength has always been in their second-party partners, and working with Insomniac on Sunset Overdrive was definitely a great move on their part. I'm looking forward to playing it (and I may be the only person who actually kinda' enjoyed Fuse, but I digress).

Which is exactly why I said months ago that MS is the one player in the gaming industry that could go away tomorrow and they honestly wouldn't be all that missed. IMO they contribute very little to this industry.

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by ithrowawayslipcovers

How do you know that Microsoft moneyhatted Tomb Raider? They may have funded it. They may have taken it to Sony first like EA did with the EA Access and Sony turned them down. We have no idea.

Cant we all just play games and get along?

Because there is a (huge) difference between a small studio like Hello Games (No Man's Sky) who probably can only develop 1 version at a time, and a juggernaut like Square Enix/ Crystal Dynamics.
Thinking that S-E needed the MS money to get the new Tomb Raider title off the ground is just as ridiculous as believing EA/ Respawn when they say that Titanfall wouldn't have existed without MS's check.

The one comparable business practice between Sony and MS recently has been Sony and RAD with the Order 1886 and Microsoft with Platinum Games with Scalebound.
Both studios were "hired" as 2nd party to do a specific job, on a corporate owned franchise (new IP), although some might say that there are more ties between RAD and Sony than between Platinum and MS.

Frankly, if its to get games that wouldn't exist otherwise, I say good job to them (Dead Rising 3, Ryse...). But this?
I think there will (should) be hell to pay for outright removing a title that I'm pretty sure WAS COMING TO ALL PLATFORMS ORIGINALLY SAME DAY.

The reactions of the dev (level designer) already posted are pretty clear.

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

There is a difference between funding and moneyhatting.

Funding enables something to exist that otherwise wouldn't. (Ex. Dead Rising 3, Bloodborne, Ryse and Scalebound)

Moneyhatting takes something that existed and prevents release elsewhere.

MS did what they felt they had to do, but I do wonder if this will do harm than good in the long run.

For me this is disappointing because I felt that MS was moving on from this type of crap with Phil Spencer and Nadella.

Anyway, my final word on this since I specifically mentioned that I wasn't going to gripe about it in the OP.

so much for that...

Agreed, I'm very disappointed in Spencer, I expected Microsoft to focus on making their own exclusive IPs like Sony, but I guess that was too much to ask. Instead they're continuing to buy games and the thing I dislike about the Xbox brand.

[timbobarry]

Was this game initially announced as coming to all platforms at E3? I remember the trailer during the Microsoft conference but never said which consoles it was coming out for. All it said was Holiday 2015.

[Blu-Generation]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

For me this is disappointing because I felt that MS was moving on from this type of crap with Phil Spencer and Nadella.

I felt the same. After seeing Phil took charge during E3, I thought the old ways of Don Mattrick was over. Apparently, not so much. They're still going after talking point strategy. If you can't win it, buy it.

It makes me wonder which is the bigger lost, the amount MS paid for this to be exclusive (time) or the 10 million PS4 install base the devs turn their back on.

Seems to me like the chances of this game selling to those of the 10 million install base is higher than the chances of those 10 million install base picking up a new console for one game. If anything, by then gamers who wanted Xbox would have gotten an Xbox regardless if this game was exclusive or not.

And if this is just a time exclusive, that renders the deal even more useless for MS. Think of what that amount of money can do if they put out new IPs with potential to kick Sony's butt. Showing Sony ain't the only boy in town with successful new IPs. Instead they opt for talking point, "we got Lara you don't, nah nah nah nah..."

At least that's how I see it.

Who knows, this game could be a hit or miss, if it's a hit that will sale Xbox like hot cakes, good for them. If not, it won't be the first fail investment.

Originally Posted by timbobarry

Was this game initially announced as coming to all platforms at E3?

I don't know, but it sure wasn't announce as exclusive off the bat either.

A title this successful on PS3/PS4, chances are very slim that the team would not have multiplat in mind. Unless money issue was involve.

[KRW1]

What's this ten million? It's not out until 2015? It'll be 25-30 million by then.

[Blu-Generation]

Originally Posted by KRW1

What's this ten million? It's not out until 2015? It'll be 25-30 million by then.

Thanks.

This opens a wider perspective on my point. That's a lot of potential customers.