Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[Cjail]

What's much rare is cross-platform titles with a history of being available suddenly becoming locked to a brand. Have there been many of these before?

As I said in the other thread Splinter Cell Conviction comes to mind, also recently Bayonetta 2.
Maybe we could add MGS and Resident Evil remakes and RE Zero on GC as well.

I can name many games that did the opposite and went multi-plat after firstly being exclusive.

 

[Scott_Arm]

IMHO exclusives are a good thing - more games is good for everyone!

But, paying someone *not* to release a game on your competitor's platform is the opposite of an exclusive... and quite why the PC got dragged into this, I don't know .

I don't see it as an important distinction. In the end, it's a game that can only be played on one platform.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I've decided that I support exclusives completely, because it makes adults act like sulking babies on the Internet, judging from some other forums I've been looking at. It's worth it to witness the public embarrassment these people bring upon themselves.

And you seriously think that no-one has a right to be upset by this? If Sony paid Rockstar to make GTA6 exclusive to the PS4 would XBO gamers be unjustified in being upset over it?

I don't see it as an important distinction. In the end, it's a game that can only be played on one platform.

The distinction is that no XBO gamer played Uncharted 1-4 on the XB360 and/or were looking forward to playing Uncharted 5 on their XBO. No expectations have been built or destroyed.

TR on the other hand is my wifes favourite gaming franchise and has always been available on the PC. We've both very much been looking forward to playing the next game with the full expectation that we'd be able to. MS have now paid SE a load of money so that we can't. I think I have a right to be pissed at that.

 

[Scott_Arm]

And you seriously think that no-one has a right to be upset by this? If Sony paid Rockstar to make GTA6 exclusive to the PS4 would XBO gamers be unjustified in being upset over it?

Yes.

 

[function]

Similar, I agree (if Sony did pay to secure exclusivity. Have you any link showing that?), but to a lesser extent. At that point TR wasn't a franchise, and there were few Saturn owners, and the game was also released on PC (going by Wikipedia).

TR was originally a Saturn game and came out first on the Saturn (only by a few weeks). It was a great game. TR2 for the Saturn was progressing well according to Core, and the lead programmer was talking about how much you could get from the Saturn by "banging on the hardware".

Then it got dumped.

Not sure if it was paid exclusivity (was a good decision by Sony if true) or if it was just the Saturn's increasing irrelevance (why Capcom dropped the Saturn version of Resident Evil 2 when they rebooted development of the second game).

There also wasn't an internet to inform people that the game was getting dropped from a platform.

Oh but there was, sir! There was an internet to inform people like me, and we were "as salty as fuck".

The actors change but the play stays the same!

 

[pjbliverpool]

Yes.

And yet I bet you would be.

 

[jlippo]

Pretty sure this is timed. Some of the guys that said it was full exclusive now seem to be unsure.

Agreed, wouldn't really be surprised if it's mentioned on Sony presentation.

 

[Scott_Arm]

And yet I bet you would be.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I'd probably be disappointed that I I'd have to get a different system to play it on, but I could buy one if I really wanted to play it. I wouldn't go online and write, "Fuck you Crystal Dynamics/Square Enix/Microsoft!" There are a lot of exclusives I'd like to play, but can't because I don't have the right platform. Lots of Sony and Nintendo exclusives, and some PC ones. This gen I decided I'll only buy one console. That's just the way it is. Some games I'll miss out on. I'll just play something else, and save my energy for things that are actually important.

 

[Cjail]

If I was Square-Enix I would sign a deal to bring FFVII remake on PS4 exclusively

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't see it as an important distinction. In the end, it's a game that can only be played on one platform.

It's the difference between not getting something you weren't expecting to get, and not getting something you were expecting to get.
Fans of the franchise expecting to play the game bought their console platform expecting to continue it. They have now been told they won't have that option and will have to buy a £300 console to play the game. This is very different to not getting to play Sunshine Overdrive or No Man's Sky which were revealed as exclusive and set everyone's expectations.

The level of emotional response comes from how much these fans were invested in the franchise, which goes to show people really liked where it was going. The developers choosing MS's money instead of the fan's money and loyalty as they see it incites a sense of betrayal.

Expecting people to be unemotional is failing to understand human nature, while equating the loss of an expected franchise to new IPs announced as exclusive is failing to understand the very clear difference between the two.

There are a lot of exclusives I'd like to play, but can't because I don't have the right platform. Lots of Sony and Nintendo exclusives, and some PC ones.

But you know you won't play those games when you buy your console. When you buy a console, you also expect to get access to Madden/FIFA, COD, AC, and other significant multiplatform titles with a history of being available to all platforms. If you buy a console with that expectation and then find that games are being withheld from it, you are faced with a different prospect.

In fact, I'd go so far that this would, if taken further, lead to anticompetitive laws. Let's imagine MS secured exclusivity for those previous all-platform games. There'd be a legal case for anticompetitive behaviour.

I'll ask here as well - how many times in gaming history has a previously multiplatform title with good precedent (let's say three iterations) become exclusive for business reasons and not creative or the natural death of a platform? I don't recall any, but maybe there have been?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I guess Tomb Raider now gets added to the exclusives list...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-08-12-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-exclusive-to-xbox-one

As a primarily PC gamer, it's rather disappointing.

I guess it kindof makes sense, allowing SE+MS to compete against uncharted... but it still sucks .

I never got tired of promoting the new Tomb Raider as one of the best games of the past 5 years.

If this is a timed exclusive, I'm good.
If microsoft actually paid their way to get all the titles of the reboot into their hands, then I'm not playing any of the next Tomb Raider titles.

It's a shame that microsoft is resorting to anti-consumer tactics to try to force people to buy their consoles, instead of spending the same money into new and refreshing IPs that could bring up their brand popularity. After all the crap they put themselves through this year, it seems they still don't get it.
It's another shame that Crystal Dynamics doesn't value this IP and their fans enough to avoid this sellout.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It's the difference between not getting something you weren't expecting to get, and not getting something you were expecting to get.
Fans of the franchise expecting to play the game bought their console platform expecting to continue it. They have now been told they won't have that option and will have to buy a £300 console to play the game. This is very different to not getting to play Sunshine Overdrive or No Man's Sky which were revealed as exclusive and set everyone's expectations.

The level of emotional response comes from how much these fans were invested in the franchise, which goes to show people really liked where it was going. The developers choosing MS's money instead of the fan's money and loyalty as they see it incites a sense of betrayal.

Expecting people to be unemotional is failing to understand human nature, while equating the loss of an expected franchise to new IPs announced as exclusive is failing to understand the very clear difference between the two.

Expecting people to be unemotional about videogames is reasonable. It's a video game, not something that's important. I actually don't like exclusives. I think it would be better if everyone could play everything. That's just not how it works. Companies have money. They can do what they want with it. It's not evil. They can spend money and set up their own studios, keeping some of the best talent in the industry exclusive to their company. How is that any better than paying for a window of exclusivity, or full exclusivity? If you really want the next Tomb Raider, buy a platform to play it on (maybe later when it's cheaper), or forget about it and play something else.

 

[Cjail]

The developers choosing MS's money instead of the fan's money and loyalty as they see it incites a sense of betrayal.

Most likely it's Square that took the decision since Crystal Dynamics is owned by them.

 

[DJ12]

I love FF as much as the next nerd, but do we really need to play a game again just with better graphics?

The story is what's important, the graphics don't really matter.

Anyway, SE/Crystal Dynamics have done what they thought best, I'm guessing the sales of Tomb Raider were less than stellar on the PS4 compared to the install base so they started to worry given that the PS4 is going to "win" this generation by a mile.

But if this is a sign of what MS can buy then as a PS4 owner I'm not worried. The last game was OK, but I couldn't spend more than five minutes with any of the others on the last generation. The franchise is one stinker away from death in my opinion.

 

[orangpelupa]

the announcement of TR exclusivity is shocking for me. I though i can play it on my PC -___-

When MS announce Titanfall is Xbox One exclusive but also release on PC, i was happy. I though "Wow MS finally changed! they really going to stop lying every year about their support for pc games". Then come this TR exclusivity news

Hopefully by making TR x1 exclusive, crystal dynamics can release something truly marvelous for X1 in various term (graphic, features, etc).

 

[function]

MS can't pull games for 2015 out of thin air.

They *have* to buy exclusivity. They might have leanred, but games still take time to make.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I love FF as much as the next nerd, but do we really need to play a game again just with better graphics?

The story is what's important, the graphics don't really matter.

Anyway, Crystal Dynamics have done what they thought best, I'm guessing the sales of Tomb Raider were less than stellar on the PS4 compared to the install base so they started to worry given that the PS4 is going to "win" this generation by a mile.

But if this is a sign of what MS can buy then as a PS4 owner I'm not worried. The last game was OK, but I couldn't spend more than five minutes with any of the others on the last generation. The franchise is one stinker away from death in my opinion.

My guess is they thought they'd get crushed on PS4 by Uncharted 4, so they signed a time exclusivity window for Xbox One. They know Microsoft will promote the hell out of it to their users, where Sony would spend their efforts on Uncharted.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Expecting people to be unemotional about videogames is reasonable. It's a video game.

People are emotional about everything! If they care about it, they get emotional, whether video games or chucking/kicking a bit of leather around a big grass field.

They can spend money and set up their own studios, keeping some of the best talent in the industry exclusive to their company. How is that any better than paying for a window of exclusivity, or full exclusivity?

Because securing a previously multiplatform title goes against expectation.

If you really want the next Tomb Raider, buy a platform to play it on (maybe later when it's cheaper), or forget about it and play something else.

That's perfectly fine. However, everyone who's already bought a PS4 didn't have that choice because they weren't made aware of it. Expectations were that you'd be playing TR on PS4, and all evidence pointed to that fact making it a very reasonable assumption. Now people with a PS4 aren't getting that game, and have to pay £300 to play it.

 

[Scott_Arm]

But you know you won't play those games when you buy your console. When you buy a console, you also expect to get access to Madden/FIFA, COD, AC, and other significant multiplatform titles with a history of being available to all platforms. If you buy a console with that expectation and then find that games are being withheld from it, you are faced with a different prospect.

In fact, I'd go so far that this would, if taken further, lead to anticompetitive laws. Let's imagine MS secured exclusivity for those previous all-platform games. There'd be a legal case for anticompetitive behaviour.

I'll ask here as well - how many times in gaming history has a previously multiplatform title with good precedent (let's say three iterations) become exclusive for business reasons and not creative or the natural death of a platform? I don't recall any, but maybe there have been?

I don't feel entitled to anything. If I pay for a previous iteration of a game, nothing else is owed to me. Nothing. I paid for that game, and that's what I got. If I can't play the sequel, too bad.

Also, anti-competitive laws? You've got to be kidding me. Is buying a game studio anti-competitive? Is poaching talent anti-competitive? Is exclusive DLC anti-competitive?

 

[Scott_Arm]

People are emotional about everything! If they care about it, they get emotional, whether video games or chucking/kicking a bit of leather around a big grass field.

Because securing a previously multiplatform title goes against expectation.

That's perfectly fine. However, everyone who's already bought a PS4 didn't have that choice because they weren't made aware of it. Expectations were that you'd be playing TR on PS4, and all evidence pointed to that fact making it a very reasonable assumption. Now people with a PS4 aren't getting that game, and have to pay £300 to play it.

All I can say about this is cry me a river. Get back to me when you have something important to complain about. People get upset playing recreational soccer. I find that embarrassing too.

I also have no sympathy for people who jump the gun and get upset about things before the details are made clear. There's a good chance this is a short timed exclusive.

Also, I have no sympathy for early adopters. If you buy a console before any games are out, you're sure to miss out on things. A smart buyer waits to find out where to play the games they really want.