Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[Phil]

Anyway, I don't see the fuss, the reboot wasn't that good, and the franchise itself has been on life support for years.

You think so? I still hold the clunky Tomb Raider 1-4 in high regard as far as games and atmosphere go, but anything post PlayStation generation was quite terrible. I felt the reboot was the first game in years that actually offered a very solid experience, solid gameplay mechanics that seemed on par with what NaughtyDog delievered with Uncharted.

My only flaw with the Tomb Raider reboot was perhaps part of the story, the fact that Lara as an inexperienced little girl moaned a bit too much, and that IMO - it falls behind what the original game delievered in terms of exploring, adventuring and "tomb raiding". With the reboot, to me, the shooting was a bit too much (even if the gameplay mechanics in itself were very good) - at times it felt too much survival game. I think I would have prefered a game that offered way more exploring and less shooting. Less is more in my book. Which is exactly why the original game was so great - battling wilde animals to apes, gorillas to some very small numbers of enemy soldiers is what made it such an atmospheric experience.

I definately prefer A to B to C ... to Z traversing, then being stuck on a singular island where you might traverse different areas twice.

All in all, as a game and from a technical perspective though, it was IMO probably the best Tomb Raider game in a long time. I'm not even going to compare it to the earlier Crystal Dynamic attempts which were just so bad - both from a story and from a gameplay perspective. This Tomb Raider was actually a very polished game (up on the same level as Uncharted) which IMO is a high feat in itself - even if you didn't like the story or the focus on shooting and survival.

 

[DJ12]

Critically and sales-wise it did well. Not as well as SE wanted but their expectations may have been unrealistic.

Or realistic based on the cost of development?

You think so? I still hold the clunky Tomb Raider 1-4 in high regard as far as games and atmosphere go, but anything post PlayStation generation was quite terrible. I felt the reboot was the first game in years that actually offered a very solid experience, solid gameplay mechanics that seemed on par with what NaughtyDog delievered with Uncharted.

I didn't enjoy the reboot, although I could feel how much better it was than the previous 360/PS3 generation games (All of which I got for free thanks to PSN+)

You say it's on par with Uncharted, but I never got that impression, I got the impression it was trying to be on par, but fell a considerable distance short.

 

[Dave Baumann]

My only flaw with the Tomb Raider reboot was perhaps part of the story, the fact that Lara as an inexperienced little girl moaned a bit too much, and that IMO - it falls behind what the original game delievered in terms of exploring, adventuring and "tomb raiding". With the reboot, to me, the shooting was a bit too much (even if the gameplay mechanics in itself were very good) - at times it felt too much survival game.

That's exactly what it was though, a survival game. The arc of the story is not the savvy adventurer that we know, but a young character that literally has to fight for her life in order to survive the situation she's in and ultimately start the journey towards the Lara we've known previously. Given the title the next one will push her on that arc a little more and we'll probably get more adventurin'.

Personally I loved the reboot. The shooting elements kept me engaged and wanting to come back for more and the adventuring elements gave me a perfect sense of nostalgia for the originals. It worked just right for me.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Or realistic based on the cost of development?.

I don't know that development time/cost equates to sales/profit. If a game has a costly development due to problems, rewrites or changes of direction, that's not going to be automatically reflected in sales.

I'm not saying that is what happened with the reboot although there were rumours about a prolonged, troubled project.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

 

[Cjail]

@Shifty Geezer

So it was all TBC at E3.
Do we know if MS' deal with Square predates E3?

P.S.
Sorry I ask but why did you feel the need to tell me that it was logical to expect the game to arrive on all consoles!?

 

[MrFox]

Business wise, The Guardian described the situation the same way I perceived it.

Microsoft's Xbox Tomb Raider deal: doubt, ambiguity and controversy
http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...phil-harrison-xbox-tomb-raider-exclusive-deal

They don’t want to give us this information. They don’t want to because the whole point of the deal is doubt and ambiguity. For Tomb Raider fans wavering over what console to buy, the suggestion that the series will only continue on Xbox One – or that Xbox will be the place to get the games, say, a good year before other machines – may be enough to encourage their commitment toward Microsoft’s platform. But if Spencer or Harrison show their cards too early and put a shelf-life on the deal, fans are able to factor that in; they can be rational.

 

[deathindustrial]

I enjoyed the reboot but it's barely a Tomb Raider game, way too many cases of "press X to continue down the corridor" moments masquerading as gameplay for that. It is purely "generic modern AAA adventure game" + "available long running franchise title", could have swapped the character model and called it "Prince of Persia" and I doubt anyone would have noticed.

I think it would have made more sense to fund something equivalent engine / gameplay wise but as a new IP using a contemporary and popular actor as the hook (i.e. Norman Reedus in "Silent Hills"). Instead this approach just generates animosity and, "Oh, I guess I will buy Uncharted instead" type reactions.

Perhaps this was the best that Microsoft could do (i.e. other publishers had no interest in limiting their sales)?

Cheers

 

[pjbliverpool]

So wait , you weren't going to buy it at full price anyway and your upset that its not coming lol.

£20 can be full prince on the PC for many games. But yeah, I'd probably wait until it hit that price if it didn't launch at that, it would likely be there within 3 months whichI'd be fine to wait since as I said in an earlier post, I don't really care when I play the game as long as I get to play it and there are other games to keep me busy in the mean time (which frankly, there are more than enough of). My wife on the other hand loves the franchise so may pay full price, wouldn't be more that £30 though.

If you want to play all the games you need all 4 platforms. I own 3 of the 4 and I don't care for the historic sony exclusives so that is the console I choose not to buy and now that money is sitting in my gaming account waiting to be spent on pc upgrades

There are already more awesome games than I have time to play on the PC so I'm not interested in extra console exclusives. That said there are certain franchises which I particularly enjoy on the PC and would be disappointing to not have access to any more. Namely, Tombraider, Assassins Creed, GTA, Doom, and perhaps a handful of others.

 

[joker454]

Personally I loved the reboot. The shooting elements kept me engaged and wanting to come back for more and the adventuring elements gave me a perfect sense of nostalgia for the originals. It worked just right for me.

Ditto, I thought it was exceptionally well done, about as good as a reboot could be.

Business wise, The Guardian described the situation the same way I perceived it.

Microsoft's Xbox Tomb Raider deal: doubt, ambiguity and controversy
http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...phil-harrison-xbox-tomb-raider-exclusive-deal

Everything about their wording to me implies timed exclusive. Like this comment:

“We have said very clearly that Tomb Raider will be coming holiday 2015 exclusively to Xbox,” says Harrison with a wry, deliberate smile.

Carefully worded but obviously a timed exclusive. I understand though that a controversy must be created to get people visiting gaming websites and all but I think it's something that is yet again being blown out way of proportion for the profit and benefit of others.

 

[MrFox]

Everything about their wording to me implies timed exclusive. Like this comment:

Carefully worded but obviously a timed exclusive. I understand though that a controversy must be created to get people visiting gaming websites and all but I think it's something that is yet again being blown out way of proportion for the profit and benefit of others.

Uh... my point (and the point of the article) is that the FUD is what makes the deal profitable, and therefore the truth about the time of exclusivity has to be kept secret. The truth would allow gamers to make a rational decision. FUD makes it impossible to decide.

"Tomb Raider will be coming holiday 2015 exclusively to Xbox"

If it comes out January on PS4, that would make it a stupid reason to choose an XB1 over a PS4, so the deal wouldn't have any impact on sales, no fear it might not come out, no uncertainty and doubt about when it's coming out.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

What's the shortest AAA game exclusivity window we've had? Can anybody remember?

 

[joker454]

Uh... my point (and the point of the article) is that the FUD is what makes the deal profitable, and therefore the truth about the time of exclusivity has to be kept secret. The truth would allow gamers to make a rational decision. FUD makes it impossible to decide.

"Tomb Raider will be coming holiday 2015 exclusively to Xbox"

If it comes out January on PS4, that would make it a stupid reason to choose an XB1 over a PS4, so the deal wouldn't have any impact on sales, no fear it might not come out, no uncertainty and doubt about when it's coming out.

My point is that the fud was gaming website generated, which is becoming the modus operandi of this gen. Or you could argue that Microsoft got smart and knew that the media would twist and contort whatever they were going to say, so they used the media as a fud generation tool knowing they would do exactly what they did to start false talk and outrage (ie, free advertising). Two can play at that game, so they may as well use those jackals for something beneficial to the company.

 

[AlNom]

What's the shortest AAA game exclusivity window we've had? Can anybody remember?

Mass Effect 1 was ~6 months (PC).

*shrug*

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yeah, I can't recall any really short windows.

 

[Inuhanyou]

People keep using "i dont see the problem, its a business/free market". Are you so blinded by that kind of nonsensical thinking that you don't understand your own(the consumer's) part of the deal?

 

[AlNom]

Yeah, I can't recall any really short windows.

Might have to look up some obscure title no one cares about.

I suppose Splinter Cell was 3 months to hit PC, but I don't recall if that was already something to expect rather than a quick 180. Not sure about GTA3 situation either, but it did take 6 months for the PC version to appear.

I only recall ME1 as that was right when EA bought Bioware, so suddenly multiplatform was open. Not sure anyone expected PC version, or at least not so soon (Gears PC was 1 year).

 

[Deleted member 11852]

People keep using "i dont see the problem, its a business/free market". Are you so blinded by that kind of nonsensical thinking that you don't understand your own(the consumer's) part of the deal?

I think there's a fair few people here who understand that making choices, like choosing one platform over another, will have consequences and one of those is that you won't get to play all the games you want to because of the reality of exclusives. Exclusives have been a thing for generations of games consoles, why would it change now. Is life fair? No. Will screaming, shouting or crying about it make it fair? Probably not.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Exclusives =/= Paid off multiplaform sequels.

I don't go into buying a PS4 edition of Tomb Raider HD only to find out the sequel was intentionally taken out of my hands. Because it literally would never have happened if not for MS's involvement with the money

Nobody has a problem with exclusives. Everyone should have a problem with sequels to multiplatform games intentionally walled off from other user bases because of moneyhats. Are users of those plaforms who EXPECT third party multiplats to be multiplatform supposed to be happy about that? You really expect them to just be singing the praises of SE because they can't play the game?

I bought TR 3 times at full price, for 360, PS3 and PS4, and now your saying 2/3's of my support was nothing. That's real nice. Don't treat people like they are idiots.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Exclusives =/= Paid off multiplaform sequels.

I don't go into buying a PS4 edition of Tomb Raider HD only to find out the sequel was intentionally taken out of my hands. Because it literally would never have happened if not for MS's involvement with the money

Nobody has a problem with exclusives. Everyone should have a problem with sequels to multiplatform games intentionally walled off from other user bases because of moneyhats. Are users of those plaforms who EXPECT third party multiplats to be multiplatform supposed to be happy about that? You really expect them to just be singing the praises of SE because they can't play the game?

I bought TR 3 times at full price, for 360, PS3 and PS4, and now your saying 2/3's of my support was nothing. That's real nice. Don't treat people like they are idiots.

They didn't take anything out of your hands. Have you even seen a screenshot of gameplay? As far as I know, there haven't been any. You haven't paid a penny for the product either. It is not yours. You did not own it. Nothing was taken from you. I suppose you could say they took away the opportunity to play it, even though that now seems they've just delayed your opportunity to play it. From everything I've read, it sounds like Microsoft is helping to pay for development and is directly lending a hand in terms of technical assistance. It is more of a business arrangement than a lump sum of money and some papers signed.

Also, when you buy a game, you're not paying for the sequel. You're playing for the game you're playing. You bought TR, not the sequel. What does a company owe you after you've given them money and they've given you the product you paid for?

Let me put it this way. Say I'm a big fan of the Super Game Company. I buy a whole bunch of their titles, which are multiplatform. Suddenly Super Game Company decides to make a new game, but for a platform I don't own. By your logic, would I be able to say, "Hey, I supported you by buying your games, and now you've taken them away from me." I mean, if buying one product means I've somehow entitled me to play another, then I should be able to make that argument. Why would it be different if it was a sequel in a series vs two different games? To me, when you buy a game, that's the game you're paying for. The company now has your money, and then can choose to do whatever they want with it. They can cancel that series and move onto a new one, change their business model (big titles, small downloadable titles, free to play), they can change platforms (console, pc, mobile) or go into a different line of business (games, middleware). I could buy forty copies of Tomb Raider, but there's no guarantee they'd even make another one. You might logically assume there will be another, and you might logically assume you'd have the right hardware, but that doesn't mean you're actually entitled to it. It just means your assumptions were wrong when things change.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Exclusives =/= Paid off multiplaform sequels.

Not my point, which was that third party paid-for exclusives have been a thing forever. And they will probably continue to be a thing for the foreseeable future. So a) I am astonished at the surprise like this is something new. And b) I learnt at a very early age that screaming, shouting and crying about life being unfair didn't make life fair, so I stopped doing that.