Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[MrFox]

There's certainly a lot of grey area, and we can get lost into hypotheticals, but what happens with TR is real and tangible. We can compare different forms of exclusives and look at similar situations in the past. The criteria are matching the ones causing fan anger versus the ones that don't. It explains why Titanfall and Sunset Overdrive doesn't cause problems in the community, but TR does. The claim of equivalence doesn't fit the data at hand.

 

[Nisaaru]

I have problems calling this real and tangible when the game we talk about is due to in 15 freaking months. Until then the console battle could be decided and the X1 on official life support like the WiiU while they are already focusing on the next one.

 

[shredenvain]

I have problems calling this real and tangible when the game we talk about is due to in 15 freaking months. Until then the console battle could be decided and the X1 on official life support like the WiiU while they are already focusing on the next one.

I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence not so much. Death from 2nd place huh?

 

[Nisaaru]

I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence not so much. Death from 2nd place huh?

Yes, death from "second" place. Happened to the original XBox(24M), GC(22M) and WiiU.

 

[MrFox]

Real and tangible in the sense that it's not a hypothetical move. It happened. The journalists called it the big megaton of the conference, and it's based on "we don't know when it's coming out elsewhere". That seemed to be the goal and it worked perfectly. So the megaton is the lack of info about other platforms.

The fan backlash for such a move is not hypothetical, we can see it happening and progressing, no matter when the game is coming out, and no matter if it's going to be good or not.

This is going to resolve itself further and have a market impact, for good or bad, long before the game even has a story or a trailer. Because the highest value of the deal seems to be the fan base, and the franchise "brand value".

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yes, death from "second" place. Happened to the original XBox(24M), GC(22M) and WiiU.

Yup. Where you place in market terms doesn't mean your product is a success in profit terms because market share doesn't always equate to profits. Look at Apple who have just 15% of the smartphone market but have 65% of the profits. Microsoft could price Xbox One at $100 and chances are good it will have outsold PS4 in a matter of months but if it costs Microsoft $5Bn in cash then that's not success in monetary terms.

There is obviously some critical mass point in terms of console sales and associated attach rates that is important to acceptable profitability. They're likely looking at a lower attach rate (and Sony a higher one) because people with both consoles may not be buying PS4 over One games whereas lasagne they bought 360 games over PS3.

If profits are poor relative the effort of running the Xbox division then any company would have to look at that operation and question whether those x hundred people could be generate more profit if they were doing something else entirely. It's these brutal decisions that Sony have been making for the past 2-3 years, just outright stopping operations that aren't worth the effort in terms of the profit produced.

I don't necessarily agree that Xbox division is in trouble, in truth nobody knows because of the way Microsoft report their accounts.

 

[MrFox]

GAME has the PS4 version ready to preorder, and they claim TBD 2014. It's funny, some manager will get a call soon...
Futureshop in Canada and BestBuy also added the SKU, with a placeholder date of 2015.

http://www.game.co.uk/en/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-301163

 

[Dave Baumann]

GAME has the PS4 version ready to preorder, and they claim TBD 2014. It's funny, some manager will get a call soon...
Futureshop in Canada and BestBuy also added the SKU, with a placeholder date of 2015.

Seems some of the retailers set up a pre-orders just on the announcement of a title. This thread at Best Buy Canada has a bunch of PS4 pre-orderers asking to cancel after the XBOX announcement. Evidently BB has a pre-order program open as early as the initial E3 announcement.

 

[MrFox]

The exact same thing is happening at futureshop forums. Customers who have both consoles just want to swap it. But if they cancel the PS4 version to preorder the XB1 version, they are told that they'll lose the promotion that was linked to the pre-order (that promotion expired). What a great customer service.

 

[expletive]

There's certainly a lot of grey area, and we can get lost into hypotheticals, but what happens with TR is real and tangible. We can compare different forms of exclusives and look at similar situations in the past. The criteria are matching the ones causing fan anger versus the ones that don't. It explains why Titanfall and Sunset Overdrive doesn't cause problems in the community, but TR does. The claim of equivalence doesn't fit the data at hand.

It's not entirely real and tangible though because we don't know if this game exists, in the way it eventually will, without the backing from Microsoft. Maybe they don't green light another sequel, or maybe they do, but it's not as ambitious (e.g. to compete with an uncharted.) People are still assuming the Playstation lost a game, or lost this exact incarnation of it, but we can't be sure of either if the exclusivity funding didn't exist.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

People pre-ordered Duke Nukem Forever for 10 years, IIRC.

 

[Prophecy2k]

It's not entirely real and tangible though because we don't know if this game exists, in the way it eventually will, without the backing from Microsoft. Maybe they don't green light another sequel, or maybe they do, but it's not as ambitious (e.g. to compete with an uncharted.) People are still assuming the Playstation lost a game, or lost this exact incarnation of it, but we can't be sure of either if the exclusivity funding didn't exist.

This continuing and pervasive narrative of "Square Enix needing charity and handouts to be able to afford to develop their own games" is the most fascinating thing to come out of this whole TR exclusivity debacle.

Why on God's green earth any rational person would defer to this fundamentally illogical position I have no idea.

Is there a possibility that the TR sequel wouldn't exist without MS's green dollars? Yeah, sure.

Is there a possibility that big foot exists and is conspiring against the human race to takeover in 2027? Yeah, sure.

Both are possible, but both are equally unlikely.

 

[expletive]

This continuing and pervasive narrative of "Square Enix needing charity and handouts to be able to afford to develop their own games" is the most fascinating thing to come out of this whole TR exclusivity debacle.

Why on God's green earth any rational person would defer to this fundamentally illogical position I have no idea.

Is there a possibility that the TR sequel wouldn't exist without MS's green dollars? Yeah, sure.

Is there a possibility that big foot exists and is conspiring against the human race to takeover in 2027? Yeah, sure.

Both are possible, but both are equally unlikely.

You've resorted to hyperbole to make your point when, in fact, my post was a bit more nuanced as to why financial backing was needed or made sense for them.

In addition, no one said Square Enix needs handouts to make games. Games are green-lit on a case by case basis based on whether or not a particular title will be profitable, not if the company as a whole is solvent. If you were following this last incarnation of the franchise, initial sales were disappointing and only later in the year did it actually start to turn a profit. Investing in a sequel is by no means a low-risk proposition, especially if they want to invest in at AAA franchise levels to compete with the likes of Uncharted in holiday 2015.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...chieved-profitability-by-the-end-of-last-year

 

[MrFox]

Here's the fallout of Microsoft completely burning the meaning of the word exclusive with TR.

Aaron Greenberg have to say Sunset Overdrive is an exclusive exclusive. This is getting stupid, they have to say it twice now when it means what the word is supposed to mean in the first place. How far will this go? Let's see...

https://twitter.com/aarongreenberg/status/507730180136136705
"@Lieaire2005 Sunset Overdrive is a great new IP and coming exclusive this holiday"
"@aarongreenberg does Microsoft own the IP or insomniac? Because if insomniac owns the IP it can potentially come to the PS4"
"@Lieaire2005 No worries this one is Exclusive Exclusive!"

This one? As opposed to TR? He didn't answer the question. He has to reassure the fans that Sunset is not coming to PS4. Also note that the new wording "exclusive exclusive" for Sunset Overdrive is an IP which MS supposedly doesn't own, therefore the sequel can be multi-platform or even PS4 exclusive if Insomniac wants to. So it's an "exclusive exclusive", but it's not an "exclusive exclusive exclusive" like Halo.

The shepherd boy cried "Wolf!" and the villagers didn't come up the hill. He cried "Wolf! Wolf!" and is still ignored. Now he has to cry "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!" when he sees a real wolf.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's Microsoft ongoing problem of messaging. They may well have a new Xbox One strategy but the messaging remains the terrible mess we saw at E3 last year and it's at the point where consumers are doubting the message and wanting re-assurance and specific clarification.

Microsoft's bigger problem is they want/need to generate a perception of value in their product over their competitors but previously accepted tactics like announcing Game X is exclusive when it was timed is now backfiring on them. This is not helped by Sony being very transparent about the same issue. Yet if Microsoft don't do this, it's harder to differentiate themselves.

With their current accounted title line-up, they're between a rock and a hard place. Exaggerate the nature of exclusivity and add perceived value or be honest and admit exclusivity is limited and reduce that perceived value. But there is still value, it's still coming to Xbox One first.

But that's what execs are paid the big bucks for. There is no easy answer for Microsoft here and it'll be interesting to see if they continue on their current track or become a bit more honest.

 

[dobwal]

Yeah MS needs new definitions for third party exclusivity.

ME exclusivity = forever or might as well considered it so
GTA IV DLC exclusivity = some undisclosed number of months
MGS exclusivity = dependent on the particular title within the franchise and whims of the pub or dev involved.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Or people can stop making a big deal about the semantics of exclusivity and actually spend time thinking about something important.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Or people can stop making a big deal about the semantics of exclusivity and actually spend time thinking about something important.

I agree it's not the most important issue on the world, but communication is necessary (for informed choices) and doing it well also necessary. However, it's easily solved by the already existing lexicon of exclusivity terms:

"Exclusive" - this game is not coming to any other platforms.
"Timed exclusive" - it may or may not come to other consoles after a spell.
"IP Owned" - the game and all its sequels is not coming to any other platforms.

It's MS's fault if they won't use these terms. It's not like they're treading pioneering new ground and are trying to convey a new concept no-one's heard of before.

 

[Prophecy2k]

You've resorted to hyperbole to make your point when, in fact, my post was a bit more nuanced as to why financial backing was needed or made sense for them.

In addition, no one said Square Enix needs handouts to make games. Games are green-lit on a case by case basis based on whether or not a particular title will be profitable, not if the company as a whole is solvent. If you were following this last incarnation of the franchise, initial sales were disappointing and only later in the year did it actually start to turn a profit. Investing in a sequel is by no means a low-risk proposition, especially if they want to invest in at AAA franchise levels to compete with the likes of Uncharted in holiday 2015.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...chieved-profitability-by-the-end-of-last-year

And yet they green lit a sequel to Sleeping Dogs without needing handouts to do it. Likewise they churned out sequels to FFXIII that nobody asked for and nobody wanted, and they didn't need any external party to come in and foot the bill for that. TR is historically one of the best selling franchises in gaming, if the reboot didn't meet expectations its because the expectations themselves were ridiculous.

You also keep talking about TR going up against uncharted, and yet by all metrics the average TR title outsells uncharted titles. Granted its a multi-platform title, but it's also a similar type of game, and thus if Uncharted can be profitable selling in excess of 6m copies a game, then why shouldn't TR which sells about 6-8m? It's because SE is useless that's why. And their TR reboot only became risky because they over splurged on marketing and later realised that the market for the game doesn't much exist beyond the 6-7m long time fans of the franchise. So instead of doubling down and efficiently knocking out a sequel that said 6-7m fans can play, instead they make the next game in the series exclusive to the second worse performing core game platform in the industry. Once again, SE is clueless

 

[Dave Baumann]

And yet they green lit a sequel to Sleeping Dogs without needing handouts to do it. Likewise they churned out sequels to FFXIII that nobody asked for and nobody wanted, and they didn't need any external party to come in and foot the bill for that. TR is historically one of the best selling franchises in gaming, if the reboot didn't meet expectations its because the expectations themselves were ridiculous.

The part of SE that produces Tomb Raider is effectively Eidos, which they took over. There's no guarantee the mothership will just carry on with titles if they are not perfoming as expected.

As for expectations of the titles sale, these are directly tied to the level of funding already put into the development of the title. So, if a title isn't meeting expectations upon rlease then then to do a sequel you either scale back the development resources in-line with new expectations (based on the prior) or seek a partner to at least maintain the investment.