Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[eastmen]

Because gamers *always* say that Microsoft threw a bag of money for anything, everywhere, everytime, any case. If gamers are to be believed then the entire planet apparently is on the Microsoft payroll. In this case it's likely true but nonetheless it gets kinda silly hearing the same money bag reason time and time and time again. Something happens, "They were paid by Microsoft", rinse and repeat. Eventually it makes it hard to take gamers seriously.




I can't imagine what it would have cost to buy Tomb Raider outright. I don't think it would even be worth it really.

What's really funny is for those of us old enough to remember Sony entering the market they did the same exact thing. They bought many games on different platforms over the years and fought extremely dirty against their rivals. Except there is a large gamer base that grew up with sony as their first console experience and of course we are 4 generations forward in time.

People who claim M$ are evil and buy games and then in the next thread say oh its M$ will wait for it to hit pc also make me laugh because Sony on the other hand wont release their games on pc.

 

[Dave Baumann]

What is wrong with pointing out that Microsoft threw a bag if money, do we need to back that up?

To be perfectly accurate, technically, yes. You can certainly say that MS "threw a bunch of resource" at them, whether that takes the form of technical assistance, marketing benefits or cold hard cash is not known unless someone has made a statement.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

if they are that invested in TOMB raider then buy a cheap used xbox 360 for $100 bucks and play the new tomb raider.

That information wasn't available when people were forming their outrage. It's also still a lot of money to ask for one game when you already own a console capable of playing it.

 

[eastmen]

That information wasn't available when people were forming their outrage. It's also still a lot of money to ask for one game when you already own a console capable of playing it.

I'm sure my xbox one can play all the ps4 exclusives also but no one bitches about that. Time exclusives have existed since at least last generation and if not the generation before.

And full exclusives existed from the onset of consoles.

Gamers who want Tomb Raider in 2015 would have a full year to save up $400 for an xbox one or at that time it may be even less

 

[Inuhanyou]

if they are that invested in TOMB raider then buy a cheap used xbox 360 for $100 bucks and play the new tomb raider.

Its not like we are talking about thousands of dollars here. You can buy both next gen systems now for $800 total and there are enough xbox one exclusives that would make a $400 purchase worth while .

Or maybe, just maybe, you could not be an MS PR guy when talking about scummy tactics?

I don't want to buy another goddamned box to play a game that should be on my console, and has no reason to not be on there outside of simply paying off publishers. This actually puts me off buying a Xbox one, it doesnt make me want to get one more.

Ryse and titanfall are different. As they went back and made titanfall a full exclusive with EA behind Respawn's back out of desperation when MS really needed it after respawn thought it was only going to be timed. And respawn couldn't say anything about that. I hope they dont do that here.

If it is indeed timed(since i cant find any confirmation whether that's for the whole franchise or the game itself), its still shitty because your paying to delay full games now from coming to all platforms they were intended on. Real great. DLC should be the limit if your going to do things like that, not entire games themselves that a whole bunch of people are waiting to play.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm sure my xbox one can play all the ps4 exclusives also but no one bitches about that. Time exclusives have existed since at least last generation and if not the generation before.

I don't understand why this has to be repeated? It's not a difficult concept. No-one is complaining about games that are revealed as new and platform exclusive. It didn't happen with Ryse, Gears, LBP, Sunset Overdrive, yada yada. The complaint comes from people expecting a multiplatform game to remain multiplatform and finding that's no longer the case. It may very well be how Sony behaved 20 years ago, but most gamers looking at the market now are basing it on their experiences and not ancient history. Major games in development as multiplatform getting turned into platform exclusives is a rare thing. Ordinarily it's a timed exclusive which everyone is far more comfortable with. And that's also exactly what we have here! If MS had revealed the deal as, "play first on Xbox in 2015," and then explained to the media as soon as asked that it was a timed exclusive, the outrage would have been very little because everyone understands that sort of business. That's normal and in the range of experience.

I also don't understand your extreme double standard, how Sony securing some exclusive Destiny DLC is wrong but MS securing an entire game is okay. Tell a lie, I do understand it. It's the same partisan view so many have. Everyone hates when life is unfair except when it's unfair in their favour. A game or content being exclusive on the platform one owns is okay business practice, but on the alternative machine it's despicable and underhanded.

In conclusion to the thread, I dare say exclusives are more trouble than they're worth. Generate more bad moods and hostility and console warring than make for healthy, happy platforms and gamers. But then I've also argued that discrete machines is a redundant concept anyway and we could even be better off with just one platform, but that makes me even crazier and planning the downfall of gaming than everyone else! Better to have several machines and people fighting over differences than one community of unified gamers where everyone has every game...

 

[MrFox]

What's really funny is for those of us old enough to remember Sony entering the market they did the same exact thing. They bought many games on different platforms over the years and fought extremely dirty against their rivals. Except there is a large gamer base that grew up with sony as their first console experience and of course we are 4 generations forward in time.

People who claim M$ are evil and buy games and then in the next thread say oh its M$ will wait for it to hit pc also make me laugh because Sony on the other hand wont release their games on pc.

So... you're saying that... Microsoft is fighting extremely dirty against their rivals?

Are you for or against these extremely dirty tactics you speak of?

 

[Inuhanyou]

And shifty is correct. If TM was a new release, good on MS. They secured a new IP for themselves. No one cares because its new, there's no expectation there of continuation from previous precedents. But the prequel to Tomb Raiders was on PS3 and PC, heck the prequel was on the next generation just a few months ago! Yet apparently us other fans who contributed to the game's sales are not more important than MS's money bags.

That, i think, is the main issue!

 

[Scott_Arm]

What is wrong with pointing out that Microsoft threw a bag if money, do we need to back that up?

Of course they made a deal that included silence on when the deal runs out, that is half of it. I think it's cool that Phil didn't lie about it though he was hard pressed to deliver and answer.

The problem is the connotation. People say it like it's a bad thing for companies to spend their money. If Microsoft can buy a window of exclusivity or full exclusivity, then why shouldn't they? Tell me why it's "bad." And I don't mean how you feel about it. I want someone to explain to me why there are ethical or moral issues. Without an answer, all I'm getting is, "My feelings are hurt," or "I'm upset." Those are your own problems to deal with. If you feel wronged, and someone hasn't actually done anything wrong, that's your problem.

 

[Scott_Arm]

What's really funny is for those of us old enough to remember Sony entering the market they did the same exact thing. They bought many games on different platforms over the years and fought extremely dirty against their rivals. Except there is a large gamer base that grew up with sony as their first console experience and of course we are 4 generations forward in time.

People who claim M$ are evil and buy games and then in the next thread say oh its M$ will wait for it to hit pc also make me laugh because Sony on the other hand wont release their games on pc.

Why is buying exclusives playing dirty? As a gamer, I don't like it, but there's nothing wrong with it. It makes gaming more expensive for me, but the business is not a charity.

 

[AzBat]

I think what's funny is that it takes 2 to tango & yet Microsoft is basically getting all the hate. Square Enix & Crystal Dynamics are coming out smelling like roses comparatively speaking. We get everybody is upset with MS(fashionably so), why doesn't SE & CD get the same attention? Maybe you guys should quit buying all of SE games'?

Tommy McClain

 

[Dave Baumann]

I know that this will go down like a lead balloon among a lot of folks, but after reading the TR article at Kotaku, you can see the potential flip side - by giving technical assistance and resource up front this may result in a better title, that could be of the benefit to everyone if it gets released on more platforms.

And you can potentially point that to all exclusives - they help fund new titles (new IP or follow up titles), they can result in better games and they can help safeguard future titles (i.e. look at the recent issues with Crytek, not at all uncommon occurrence with game development houses).

You have to take the rough with the smooth.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If Microsoft can buy a window of exclusivity or full exclusivity, then why shouldn't they? Tell me why it's "bad." And I don't mean how you feel about it. I want someone to explain to me why there are ethical or moral issues.

That's getting into RSPCA territory. According to the rules of free market economics, there's nothing wrong with MS doing this. The ethics of free market economics are where the discussion of whether it's right or wrong lie, and that's outside the scope of this forum.

Those claiming it's 'wrong' or 'unethical' in this thread can only really go with their emotional response. It's not the right place to discuss that here. I know that's going to annoy you, but with my mod hat firmly in place, it has to be this way. People can say, "I think it's wrong," and, "I think it's right," but the reasoning can't really go into ethical or moral territory. Maybe you can take it up with some people in PMs?

 

[temesgen]

Fanboys Law states that I must first know the impact of live and late breaking gaming news for my system of choice before I can determine of the actions of the universe at this time are fair and in now way does this impact previous statements, conclusions private or public.

Its not a theory anymore folks its a law; soon we'll have a grand unified theory for everything.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Maybe you guys should quit buying all of SE games'?

There's been plenty of that outrage on the web too. Which is interesting. It's very rare that a developer gets abuse for going exclusive, which again points to the established franchise acquisition as significant in gamer's eyes.

Really though, this a discussion for something that hasn't happened! By reports, MS has not snatched TR away from other platforms for all time. So we should really talk about how exclusives are used, which is platform holders either using first-party studios or publishing indie games. No-one has gone nuclear over either of situations, so we should return to that talk. Or zip up the thread. If not for a jolly good argument, I don't see it providing much else to the board at the moment...

 

[Dave Baumann]

As if to echo my prior post, here is ARS Technica's comment:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-business-realities-of-microsofts-tomb-raider-exclusive/

 

[Malo]

I know that this will go down like a lead balloon among a lot of folks, but after reading the TR article at Kotaku, you can see the potential flip side - by giving technical assistance and resource up front this may result in a better title, that could be of the benefit to everyone if it gets released on more platforms.

It would have been released on xbone/360 anyway with a lot of buyers. I really don't see MS providing resources that will bendy the ps4/3 as well. I'd also assume that any extra effects or features they manage to get in there with their marketing agreement don't make it to any other platform, just like nvidia does with their programs on the PC.

Hell I wouldn't be surprised if something like TressFx becomes xbone only for it due to some "magic hardware" it has. Marketing shenanigans annoy the fuck out of me and I protest with my wallet but it works so it will continue to happen.

 

[London Geezer]

I'm sure my xbox one can play all the ps4 exclusives also but no one bitches about that. Time exclusives have existed since at least last generation and if not the generation before.

And full exclusives existed from the onset of consoles.

Gamers who want Tomb Raider in 2015 would have a full year to save up $400 for an xbox one or at that time it may be even less

No.
Sony/MS/Nintendo developing and financing their own studios, concepts and ultimately exclusive games is clearly and unequivocally different from buying out a game which was already being developed and advertised as multi platform.
And sorry, again, but asking a gamer to shell out $400 or whatever it is for a different console in order to play a game that was initially meant to be released on different platforms is, again, vastly different from asking them to buy a console to play real 1st/2nd party exclusives. It is also extremely condescending.

 

[Dave Baumann]

It would have been released on xbone/360 anyway with a lot of buyers. I really don't see MS providing resources that will bendy the ps4/3 as well. I'd also assume that any extra effects or features they manage to get in there with their marketing agreement don't make it to any other platform, just like nvidia does with their programs on the PC.

At the technical level I personally wouldn't assume hacking off technical capabilities on other platforms, as it wouldn't make sense.

But there are other benefits that can create a better game. Resources coming from an external party early in the development cycle can allow the developer to asses how they spend their internal resources - i.e.if they are getting technical assistance they may spend more of their resource allocation to art / assets as opposed to programming, etc. The net result to you may be a game that lasts 10 hours as opposed to one that lasts 8, as an example.

 

[Scott_Arm]

That's getting into RSPCA territory. According to the rules of free market economics, there's nothing wrong with MS doing this. The ethics of free market economics are where the discussion of whether it's right or wrong lie, and that's outside the scope of this forum.

Those claiming it's 'wrong' or 'unethical' in this thread can only really go with their emotional response. It's not the right place to discuss that here. I know that's going to annoy you, but with my mod hat firmly in place, it has to be this way. People can say, "I think it's wrong," and, "I think it's right," but the reasoning can't really go into ethical or moral territory. Maybe you can take it up with some people in PMs?

Fair enough, but if you have a thread of emotional responses with zero substance behind them, what's the point? The thread is asking why people are for and against exclusives. If they're not allowed to articulate why, how is that discussion going to work? I'm basically asking people to explain their feelings which are considered an acceptable contribution. When you start throwing things like "corrupt practices" around, it should probably have some justification.