Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[Silent_Buddha]

Besides Angry Joe doing his entertaining thing do we even know if the game could be produced without this money injection? Wasn't Square Enix in financial trouble?

Yes, they aren't in the best financial shape although they are slightly better off this year than last year. There's a chance they can't sustain high development costs currently for franchises from their Eidos acquisition. Harder to justify to Japanese investors than a more traditional Square-Enix title.

I'd also keep an eye out for whether there is ever another true AAA continuation of the Deus Ex series. Deus Ex: HR was critically acclaimed and sold well but there's no word on whether there will be a sequel released for it, or if it ends up being canned due to insufficient development funds. It may also end up being exclusive to whatever console maker will fund the development of the game. I'm not sure I see Sony or Microsoft stepping up to fund that game, however. So Nintendo may be its only chance to get developed. Or if Tomb Raider (or another SE game) does well enough to raise the funds to finish it.

Purely speculation, of course. But many people have been waiting for some word of a sequel and it's quite telling that despite being the older game, Tomb Raider is getting a sequel first. Again likely because no other console maker wanted to pony up the funds necessary to finish the game.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 7537]

Althought most people raging weren't going to buy the game anyway, is also quite unfair to compare this with Bayonetta 2 or Bloodborne. Is not the same. MS haven't funded this game. RofTR was announced for PS4 and PC and now they are taking the game away. Is a shitty move and it's a trend i hope it isn't followed.

 

[temesgen]

WRT the development cost forcing studios to consider exclusivity agreements, how much money would SE potentially save by only making TR for XB1? The hardware is essentially the same, granted there is ESRAM on one and not the other but these platforms are more similar than in any previous generation. Wont DirectX and OpenGL be the biggest difference? How much does it cost to port art from from set of tools to another?

I ask because I genuinely am curious about the potential savings versus the lost sales due to the smaller install base of XB1 and the relatively anemic hardware sales in recent months.

For the record I still think its timed bc I think the cost of exclusivity could be significant.

 

[djskribbles]

WRT the development cost forcing studios to consider exclusivity agreements, how much money would SE potentially save by only making TR for XB1? The hardware is essentially the same, granted there is ESRAM on one and not the other but these platforms are more similar than in any previous generation. Wont DirectX and OpenGL be the biggest difference? How much does it cost to port art from from set of tools to another?

I ask because I genuinely am curious about the potential savings versus the lost sales due to the smaller install base of XB1 and the relatively anemic hardware sales in recent months.

For the record I still think its timed bc I think the cost of exclusivity could be significant.

FWIW, I believe Kageri (who is an insider at GAF) said that financial issues were not the reason that it's an XB1 exclusive.

Also, as I've said before, this was a MP title up until E3.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125066039&postcount=5124

So something between E3 and GC turned this into a (timed?) XB1 exclusive.

 

[Inuhanyou]

The game was announced for 'next gen platforms' if you recall. Now i dont know about you guys, but 360 and Xbox one are not both next gen platforms. Don't act like Microsoft are doing some god's gift to people or try and explain it away like "oh, but microsoft is funding this title!" Fuck no they aren't and CD said many months ago that SE was backing them for the sequel. Say it for what it is. They are locking a game franchise that was previously for everyone by throwing gold at SE and no other reason besides that.

If a person can look someone in the eye and say they support corrupt practices like that because they love the Microsoft business and Xbox so much they're willing to simple accept such a thing, atleast i'll know where that person personally is coming from.

People can act like Joe or whatever else is not as refined or cultured as their delicate sensibilities would require when they are angry, but atleast they(people like joe) tell the truth and don't act like some god damned corporate apologists every single time something in the industry like this happens. It was the same with the DRM and always online bullcrap, and i was sick of it then.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

WRT the development cost forcing studios to consider exclusivity agreements, how much money would SE potentially save by only making TR for XB1? The hardware is essentially the same, granted there is ESRAM on one and not the other but these platforms are more similar than in any previous generation. Wont DirectX and OpenGL be the biggest difference? How much does it cost to port art from from set of tools to another?

I ask because I genuinely am curious about the potential savings versus the lost sales due to the smaller install base of XB1 and the relatively anemic hardware sales in recent months.

For the record I still think its timed bc I think the cost of exclusivity could be significant.

It's not so much how much money is saved. It's how much money is needed to finish developement.

So far MS have gotten exclusives in a variety of ways.

Sunset Overdrive - allowing developer to keep IP while publishing the game.
Ryse - Funded the game.
Dead Rising 3 - Funded the game. No prohibition on PC version.
Titan Fall - Provided the funds necessary to finish development of the game. No prohibition on PC version.

Likely no prohibition on PC version for Ryse (obvious as it was originally a Kinect required title) or Sunset Overdrive either. But developer's couldn't justify the cost of a PC version for simultaneous launch. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sunset Overdrive on PC at some future date similar to Dead Rising 3.

Considering Square-Enix Eidos' financial situation it wouldn't be surprising if it was a similar situation to Titan Fall. Except with Tomb Raider, the developers couldn't justify the cost of a PC version. MS would obviously have not wanted a PS4 version if they were funding a significant portion of the development, but are highly unlikely to have prevented a PC version from coming out.

That says nothing about what platforms may have originally been planned for the title. Only that Microsoft were the only ones to step up and provide funding to finish the game. Or they offered the most funding for finishing the game. If that is the case, then similar to Titan Fall this will remain an Xbox One console exclusive (although potential for a future PC version), but any future titles will be open to all platforms, provided they can fund the development of the title independent of MS, Sony, or Nintendo.

Regards,
SB

 

[onQ]

You know if I wasn't me I would believe that I was a Time Traveler.

 

[temesgen]

Does anyone know what the sales for TR 2013 were? or better the total sales across all platforms for the original and DE version of the game? I'm guessing SB or whoever suggested that the development cost was prohibitive was likely correct. TR was probably pretty expensive to make I know I was pretty impressed with the production qualities in the TR DE version for sure.

If SE made that big investment in the game and only got into the black a year later that would make a sequel very hard to justify. Hence focusing on one platform could help bring that cost down and if I am MS having a title to fill in the blank where UC sits on PS4 would arguably be worth the development cost.

One thing I am pretty sure of deals like this will be pretty important to XB1 bc from what I can see their first party efforts while arguably as good or even better in some instances compared to what is available on PS4, the actual number of titles is less and genres are not as varied. It certainly answers a talking point anyway "Playstation has Uncharted...", "well XB1 has TR, I always like those games going back to the PS1 days...", that has to be worth something for MS if for nothing more than the perception that their first party efforts are largely shooter remakes.

 

[Inuhanyou]

It was 7 million a few months ago. We do know that SE had insane financial targets for the first few weeks though. 6 million in the first 2 weeks was their target

 

[temesgen]

It was 7 million a few months ago. We do know that SE had insane financial targets for the first few weeks though. 6 million in the first 2 weeks was their target

7 million is good number, how much did they spend developing that game???

 

[messyman]

If ROTR was exclusive to Xbox from the beginning, MS would have said so at E3.

 

[Dave Baumann]

It was the same with the DRM and always online bullcrap, and i was sick of it then.

You don't have to be a "corporate apologist" to have appreciated what these were actually intended for and actually disappointed that rants such as these forced a interesting concept to be dropped.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I disagree with you on this. I don't think it matters that previous games were multi-platform.

One only needs look at the empirical evidence. Did the internet get all angry at No Man's Sky exclusivity? Sunset Overdrive? All those other exclusives? No. Did the internet get angry at TR exclusivity? Yes. What's the difference? The latter had a strong history of multiplatform release. Ergo, regardless of individual assessment, for a lot of people past history and availability of games is defining their expectations and attitude and response towards exclusivity.

It's worth noting that exclusive DLC does get some anger, but it's much milder because it's not as significant a loss as losing the entire game. Platform bias doesn't enter into it much as some may like to think. Platform bias is only really in presence in people's response based on the hardware they own, as the interpretation of exclusivity is tied to whether one is affected or not. eastmen is angry at the missing Sony DLC as he doesn't own a Sony console, but he's okay with TR exclusivity because it's coming for his platform, and vice versa PS4 owners. As the number of PS4 and PC owners greatly outnumbers the number of XB1 owners, and the scale of the game exclusivity is extended from the usual 5-10% of DLC to 100% of the whole game, the response is that much greater from the public.

 

[onQ]

One only needs look at the empirical evidence. Did the internet get all angry at No Man's Sky exclusivity? Sunset Overdrive? All those other exclusives? No. Did the internet get angry at TR exclusivity? Yes. What's the difference? The latter had a strong history of multiplatform release. Ergo, regardless of individual assessment, for a lot of people past history and availability of games is defining their expectations and attitude and response towards exclusivity.

It's worth noting that exclusive DLC does get some anger, but it's much milder because it's not as significant a loss as losing the entire game. Platform bias doesn't enter into it much as some may like to think. Platform bias is only really in presence in people's response based on the hardware they own, as the interpretation of exclusivity is tied to whether one is affected or not. eastmen is angry at the missing Sony DLC as he doesn't own a Sony console, but he's okay with TR exclusivity because it's coming for his platform, and vice versa PS4 owners. As the number of PS4 and PC owners greatly outnumbers the number of XB1 owners, and the scale of the game exclusivity is extended from the usual 5-10% of DLC to 100% of the whole game, the response is that much greater from the public.

I seen a few people that was upset about No Man's Sky.

 

[Rurouni]

Like I said before, I'm fine with exclusive as long as the IP is owned by the platform holder. The reasoning is simple, if the platform holder doesn't own the IP, the game could jump ship to any platform, thus hard to follow the series. If it becomes multiplatform, then great.
Although I would prefer all games to be multiplatform, but it's probably unrealistic.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...b-raider-xbox-exclusivity-deal-has-a-duration

Xbox boss Phil Spencer has confirmed to Eurogamer that Microsoft's controversial exclusivity deal for Rise of the Tomb Raider "has a duration".

Technically, taking the quote verbatim, he's talking about the TR franchise and not RotTR. But this bit is pretty explicit -

Is there a time limit on the exclusivity period?
"Yes, the deal has a duration. I didn't buy it. I don't own the franchise."

That fits in with what we expect from this business, both by sheer cost of full-time exclusivity and by traditions of the market. The only real difference seems to be phrasing. Ordinarily timed exclusives are announced as "play it first on this platform".

As a timed exclusive, TR wouldn't really come into this thread which is about content that can only be played by buying a particular box.

 

[Phil]

Edit: Decided to move my post to the Tomb Raider topic. Seems more appropriate overthere.

 

[London Geezer]

Well I'm upset about TR because I just want to play it and the deal essentially barring me from playing it on the console it sold the most the last time around, really f'ks me off. End of.

 

[Nesh]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...b-raider-xbox-exclusivity-deal-has-a-duration

So....anyone else who wants to make assumptions about why a permanent exclusivity made sense?
Well it didnt make sense. We were pulling arguments our of our asses to explain a permanent exclusivity that didnt exist and had low probability of becoming reality.
Time exclusive it is most likely and it makes a whole more sense

 

[Malo]

I bet it really pisses off Microsoft and others who try to make these deals then feel they're obligated to answer the roaring crowds to know exactly all the details.