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

[UNCMT9]

A 360 version now? The hilarity continues.

[R3P0]

Well so much for this title for me guess ill be catching up on Uncharted now and becoming a fan of Drake instead of Lara.

[ReverendSlim]

I think some of you just like freaking out over any business decision that Microsoft makes, because you want to see them as some horrible detriment to the industry when the truth is anything but. You don't see Xbox One owners over in the PS4 forum freaking out over Hellblade coming to PS4 as a timed exclusive. But then, I guess that's not seen as robbing gamers of some bizarre expectation to everything out there they think they deserve. Or maybe "Xbots" are just more relaxed about the realities of the industry than Sony fans are. It's all very odd to me. Then again, I guess most of the ire people post on the internet is odd to me, so go figure.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

I think some of you just like freaking out over any business decision that Microsoft makes, because you want to see them as some horrible detriment to the industry when the truth is anything but. You don't see Xbox One owners over in the PS4 forum freaking out over Hellblade coming to PS4 as a timed exclusive. But then, I guess that's not seen as robbing gamers of some bizarre expectation to everything out there they think they deserve. Or maybe "Xbots" are just more relaxed about the realities of the industry than Sony fans are. It's all very odd to me. Then again, I guess most of the ire people post on the internet is odd to me, so go figure.

There also wasn't a picture posted by the company of an Xbox version the day before this was announced. There was a PS4 and PC and Xbox collectors edition or whatever shown then this announcement came down. Theres a huge difference between announcing something exclusive from the get go and showing promotional product an essentially trolling 10 million people. Hellblade was always announced as a timed exclusive, Tomb Raider was announced as multi platform day 1 across the board then this decision was made which makes no sense. Thats why people are upset, you can sit there all day with your rose colored glasses and spin it any way you want but sales numbers on the first title dont lie this game sold well on PS4 and poor on XBox One.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

I think some of you just like freaking out over any business decision that Microsoft makes, because you want to see them as some horrible detriment to the industry when the truth is anything but. You don't see Xbox One owners over in the PS4 forum freaking out over Hellblade coming to PS4 as a timed exclusive. But then, I guess that's not seen as robbing gamers of some bizarre expectation to everything out there they think they deserve. Or maybe "Xbots" are just more relaxed about the realities of the industry than Sony fans are. It's all very odd to me. Then again, I guess most of the ire people post on the internet is odd to me, so go figure.

Let's be honest if you or anyone else went over to the PS4 forum and did the complaining that happens here it would lead to a ban.

Since Mavrick is a MOD I am hoping that he will keep blatant trolling out of the Xbox forum.

[Blu Lemmy]

PS4, Xbox who cares, we are all gamers.

Announcing it as exclusive then backtracking and adding time defined isn't cool though

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by Blu Lemmy

PS4, Xbox who cares, we are all gamers.

Announcing it as exclusive then backtracking and adding time defined isn't cool though

I think you're missing the point. The fact that we're all gamers proves this deserves to be multiplat, especially with the success of TR on PS4.

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

I think you're missing the point. The fact that we're all gamers proves this deserves to be multiplat, especially with the success of TR on PS4.

But you do understand that these platforms and the platform holders make deals for games to be exclusive to differentiate their platforms from one another, and that the only way for "all gamers" to play "all games" is to have all the platforms, right? We don't have a ubiquitous one console world. The success of TR on a competing platform is exactly why it's smart for Microsoft to secure it. Otherwise, what would be the advantage to them?

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

But you do understand that these platforms and the platform holders make deals for games to be exclusive to differentiate their platforms from one another, and that the only way for "all gamers" to play "all games" is to have all the platforms, right? We don't have a ubiquitous one console world. The success of TR on a competing platform is exactly why it's smart for Microsoft to secure it. Otherwise, what would be the advantage to them?

But like I said yesterday Rev (and you agreed with me), this deal is not going to move the console sales needle in MS' favor whatsoever. So in reality, this deal is not going to benefit MS in any meaningful, measurable way. All this is doing is alienating a huge userbase and giving MS nothing more than some symbolic feather in their cap. Again, I was hoping MS would use their resources to strengthen their in-house development community and create must-have original IP's. But no, they'd rather take the easy road and buy off franchises. They want to enjoy the spoils of exclusivity without doing the leg work of creating it. Like I said, they aggregate more than they create, which is why I don't feel like they belong in the industry.

[Chris60119]

Its a TIMED exclusive.. It will be out on PS4

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/gamenews.php?id=121795

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

But like I said yesterday Rev (and you agreed with me), this deal is not going to move the console sales needle in MS' favor whatsoever. So in reality, this deal is not going to benefit MS in any meaningful, measurable way. All this is doing is alienating a huge userbase and giving MS nothing more than some symbolic feather in their caps. Again, I was hoping MS would use their resources to strengthen their in-house development community and create must-have original IP's. But no, they'd rather take the easy road and buy off franchises. They want to enjoy the spoils of exclusivity without doing the leg work of creating it. Like I said, they aggregate more than they create.

It doesn't matter if it moves the console sales needle (and I still agree that it likely won't). It's about associating a franchise with a brand and like it or not, your average Joe who isn't scrutinizing every move they make on the internet is only going to see that they can only get Tomb Raider 2 on Xbox One/360 this Christmas. It benefits them in mindshare - not of the internet populace who have already made their choice of console but of the parents who are doing the Christmas shopping. You say it's alienating a huge user base... but it's a PS4 user base, which isn't really relevant to them. Of course, people who own the competing platform are upset. Why would Microsoft be concerned about them over the people they're actually trying to sell to?

And yes, people who think Sony's first party success is the way to do things seem to want Microsoft to follow suit... but that ship has sailed for them. They had a first party stable and it didn't work out, so they're not beating that drum again. And I don't blame them, because their success has historically always been in second party partnerships and exclusivity deals like this one. We can't keep saying that every company should be doing the thing that one company has great success with. And people keep tooting the "bad for the industry" horn, when the reality is that these sorts of deals do nothing but support the industry, even if it raises the hackles of gamers who own a competing console. It's a business, plain and simple. The companies involved make these deals because in this industry, there is a HUGE potential for losses on AAA titles and advance money and marketing dollars help mitigate development costs on the front end AND get them a bigger marketing presence than they might have had on their own. This is not some humanitarian endeavor to ensure that gamers get access to all games on their platform of choice... It's BUSINESS.

[vinodraju666]

Originally Posted by Icemage

It's not full exclusivity.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...has-a-duration



So YES, Microsoft paid money, and YES, it is a timed exclusive.

Thanks for posting this article !!!.....Am much relieved now!

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

It doesn't matter if it moves the console sales needle (and I still agree that it likely won't). It's about associating a franchise with a brand and like it or not, your average Joe who isn't scrutinizing every move they make on the internet is only going to see that they can only get Tomb Raider 2 on Xbox One/360 this Christmas. It benefits them in mindshare - not of the internet populace who have already made their choice of console but of the parents who are doing the Christmas shopping. You say it's alienating a huge user base... but it's a PS4 user base, which isn't really relevant to them. Of course, people who own the competing platform are upset. Why would Microsoft be concerned about them over the people they're actually trying to sell to?

And yes, people who think Sony's first party success is the way to do things seem to want Microsoft to follow suit... but that ship has sailed for them. They had a first party stable and it didn't work out, so they're not beating that drum again. And I don't blame them, because their success has historically always been in second party partnerships and exclusivity deals like this one. We can't keep saying that every company should be doing the thing that one company has great success with. And people keep tooting the "bad for the industry" horn, when the reality is that these sorts of deals do nothing but support the industry, even if it raises the hackles of gamers who own a competing console. It's a business, plain and simple. The companies involved make these deals because in this industry, there is a HUGE potential for losses on AAA titles and advance money and marketing dollars help mitigate development costs on the front end AND get them a bigger marketing presence than they might have had on their own. This is not some humanitarian endeavor to ensure that gamers get access to all games on their platform of choice... It's BUSINESS.

I understand that it's business Rev but then again why as a gamer is it my job to be understanding of that? From a gamer's perspective, if you're not creating anything. If your'e not being a contributor to this industry and to this hobby that I love so much, get the hell out! I'm not interested in fattening your bottom line if you're not willing to be creative and provide something compelling to me that will make me want to support your platform. I'm all for a company making a profit. But I expect them to earn it.

[Matt S]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

I think some of you just like freaking out over any business decision that Microsoft makes, because you want to see them as some horrible detriment to the industry when the truth is anything but. You don't see Xbox One owners over in the PS4 forum freaking out over Hellblade coming to PS4 as a timed exclusive. But then, I guess that's not seen as robbing gamers of some bizarre expectation to everything out there they think they deserve. Or maybe "Xbots" are just more relaxed about the realities of the industry than Sony fans are. It's all very odd to me. Then again, I guess most of the ire people post on the internet is odd to me, so go figure.

So, their support of EA access is good for the industry? Really? Tell me more....

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

But you do understand that these platforms and the platform holders make deals for games to be exclusive to differentiate their platforms from one another, and that the only way for "all gamers" to play "all games" is to have all the platforms, right? We don't have a ubiquitous one console world. The success of TR on a competing platform is exactly why it's smart for Microsoft to secure it. Otherwise, what would be the advantage to them?

You are (as usual), deliberately missing the point.

They are not building anything that wouldn't otherwise exist here. They are removing something that was intended to be played by all from at least half of the userbase. Period. It's like the Titanfall situation, just worse (existing IP with a long tradition of being Multiplat).

If the situation was reversed and Sony and Ubisoft came out and said that after carreful consideration, it was for the best that the next iteration of Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6: Siege was now going to be a "Playstation® Exclusive".
And by "Playstation® Exclusive", they would really actually mean PS4 & PS3, and only for the next 6 months to a year, but they wouldn't say that the first day in the medias, just "Exclusive in 2015".

I am sure you would think it's just business as usual ... am I right?

[varmintx]

That extremely insulting "apology" by CD still makes me not want it. But, I will get it anyway...and they know most people will; that's how these mega-corporations continue to get away with these blatant anti-consumer practices. Their damn corporate-speak makes me want to puke.

Edit: Oh, and I should point out that my rant is not against just CD, SE or MS for this particular case. Sony's line of BS corporate-speak about EA Access (that I have no interest in anyway, but it's the principle) is just another example of countless that I could name.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by varmintx

That extremely insulting "apology" by CD still makes me not want it. But, I will get it anyway...and they know most people will; that's how these mega-corporations continue to get away with these blatant anti-consumer practices. Their damn corporate-speak makes me want to puke.

I'm buying it used. CD isn't getting a dime of my money.

[Psybits]

Originally Posted by ariakon

Well, Titanfall was once a timed exclusive and we all know how that turned out. I do think, though, that full exclusivity would harm the IP considerably. Not releasing a product to the majority of potential customers (about 60-65 percent in this case) would be a mistake. It'd be like Apple banning Iphone sales to Hipsters and white people.

And we all know how that turned out as well. EA later went on to say that they thought the Xbone would sell just like the 360 when it came out and that they were shortsighted not seeing how well the PS4 would sell.

But I agree with what someone has already said here, this in no way benefits any gamer. Playstation gamers don't get to play this right away, and xbox gamers don't really get anything new since they would still have gotten this game anyway without this deal.

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by Matt S

So, their support of EA access is good for the industry? Really? Tell me more....

Absolutely. It gives EA a secondary revenue stream for older titles via a subscription service, which is something other companies will no doubt be looking at as well. And it's a good deal for consumers who are on a budget and don't need to buy games as soon as they come out. It will depend on what else they put in the vault, but right now, you can't argue that the $30/year isn't worth it just for the games they have there now when you factor in what those games still cost on the used market. Whether that service will be a success remains to be seen, but it's an expected step toward the new monetization methods we're going to see as things shift to digital and away from retail. It's not perfect, but it's a good first stab at that business model.

Originally Posted by Elandyll

You are (as usual), deliberately missing the point.

They are not building anything that wouldn't otherwise exist here. They are removing something that was intended to be played by all from at least half of the userbase. Period. It's like the Titanfall situation, just worse (existing IP with a long tradition of being Multiplat).

I'm not missing the point at all. I get that you feel slighted by the perceived "removal" of it from the user base. But as I said before, AAA titles are a high risk proposition. It makes financial sense for companies to make deals like this to mitigate their initial costs and reduce that risk. It effectively reduces the number of copies they have to sell to make a profit and often gives them extra marketing at a reduced cost. Is it good for PS4 owners? Of course not. But that's not relevant to whether it's good business and good for the industry.

Originally Posted by Elandyll

If the situation was reversed and Sony and Ubisoft came out and said that after carreful consideration, it was for the best that the next iteration of Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6: Siege was now goint to be a "Playstation® Exclusive".
And by "Playstation® Exclusive", they would really actually mean PS4 & PS3, and only for the next 6 months to a year, but they wouldn't say that the first day in the medias, just "Exclusive in 2015".

I am sure you would think it's just business as usual ... am I right?

I would, actually. And if I really wanted to play that title, I would likely buy a PS4. Or if I couldn't afford a PS4, I would just play something else until the game came out on the console I do have so I could play with the established friends that I game with. A 6 month or even a year wait isn't a deal-breaker, because it's not like there's a shortage of other titles to play (especially before THIS holiday season - my wallet's already crying).

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

Let's be honest if you or anyone else went over to the PS4 forum and did the complaining that happens here it would lead to a ban.

Since Mavrick is a MOD I am hoping that he will keep blatant trolling out of the Xbox forum.

No one is trolling. Most people agree this business model sucks.