Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

So it was all TBC at E3.

Not that I know of.

Do we know if MS' deal with Square predates E3?

Nope.

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!?

Because every previous version of the game had! I reach into my pocket and pull out a ball. It's blue. I reach into my pocket again. Again, a blue ball. Then I pull out another blue ball. Then another. Then another. I reach into my pocket to pull out another ball. What colour is the ball going to be?

Tomb Raider has been multiplatform ten times. I'd say that looking at that trend and a market that has shifted more and more away from 3rd party exclusives, to not conclude the sequel to TR, that sold best on PS3, would be coming to PlayStation, is illogical.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Microsoft have nothing to do with funding TR, or technical assistance, or publishing rights, or anything of that vein. The game was fully funded by SE, CD was creating it themselves, and that's how they stated it was right after TR was finished last year.

Trying to retroactively turn this into a Bloodborne or Bayonetta situation is ridiculous and reeks of desperation on multiple accounts. MS have nothing to do with creating ROTR. What they do have to do with, is paying money out of their pockets to keep it from other people.

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.

As i said. Third party exclusives =/= third party paid off sequels. And i don't frankly care what you learned. If you want to be someone who gets taken for a ride and is happy with that, good for you. I don't care. I'll make my own issues known.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Microsoft have nothing to do with funding TR, or technical assistance, or publishing rights, or anything of that vein. The game was fully funded by SE, CD was creating it themselves, and that's how they stated it was right after TR was finished last year.

Circumstances may have changed. CD may have had trouble developing for next-gen platforms. SE may have found they had less money to spend on the project than they hoped. You can be sure that MS does provide financial and technical support for RotTR now.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Microsoft have nothing to do with funding TR, or technical assistance, or publishing rights, or anything of that vein. The game was fully funded by SE, CD was creating it themselves, and that's how they stated it was right after TR was finished last year.
....

That's not what the articles I've read have suggested.

“Right now we have a relationship with Square and Crystal on publishing the game,” Spencer confirmed. “The exact details of what publishing means and when it gets done are part of that deal - I’m not trying to be opaque about it. We will clearly spend money on marketing the game, there’s no doubt about that. And we do [that] on games where we have very little to do with development, and with games that we fully develop. And we will definitely be spending money on developing the game - I want to make sure that it’s as great as it can be.”

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/08/13/xboxs-phil-spencer-responds-tomb-raider-exclusivity-questions

 

[MrFox]

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.

I kind of agree on some level. But I wouldn't make any blanket statement about what can and cannot be achieved as consumers. Manifesting our opinions at the right moment have quickly killed the aggressive online DRM. The argument being thrown by the proDRM crowd was also "it's always been here, it's inevitable, life's not fair accept it, stop crying like babies, etc..".

What's clearly different here with TR is that it's simply not an important fight, it has no long term impact on the industry, it's barely a minor inconvenience happening once in a while. It would be different if it was becoming very common, it would be scary. I do empathize with fans of the franchise very much, they have the right to be angry, but it's just one game among hundreds, so personally I don't care beyond maybe writing 3 or 4 posts on B3D and move on.

With that said, expressing our opinions about industry movement has been powerful in the past only as long as it's truthful, demographically representative (and not a vocal minority), and not "screaming and crying". That provides enough data for analysts to calculate if such a move is profitable or hurts the bottom line. So with TR, if this move is still more profitable despite the expected angry fans, then the opinions expressed have no value and are a waste of time. Sadly I think this is exactly the case here. The deal was already made, it's both too late and unimportant. But there's nothing wrong with fans expressing their anger.

 

[Scott_Arm]

... But there's nothing wrong with fans expressing their anger.

Have to disagree here. I can understand some disappointment. People could come out and say, "Hey, I'm a big fan. Please think about releasing the game on PS4. I'd love to play it." Instead, you get anger and negativity. You can appeal for the game in a more positive way. The gaming community is largely seen from the outside as immature, entitled, negative and socially-inept. This kind of behavior doesn't help, and shouldn't be acceptable, especially from figures in the community like journalists and youtube commentators. Straying off topic though.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Circumstances may have changed. CD may have had trouble developing for next-gen platforms. SE may have found they had less money to spend on the project than they hoped. You can be sure that MS does provide financial and technical support for RotTR now.

If that's correct, then...i hope they dont ask for full exclusivity later. We don't know how long the contract is for to begin with. To be permanently locked out of the sequel to one of my favorite games of last year because MS is loosing would be a shame.

I'm definitely not one who would support this going forward. And i definitely hope other publishers dont start making deals like this with it becoming commonplace, no matter who asks. Its anti consumer in my opinion.

 

[Dave Baumann]

If that's correct, then...i hope they dont ask for full exclusivity later. We don't know how long the contract is for to begin with. To be locked out of the sequel to one of my favorite games of last year because MS is loosing would be a shame.

And "MS is losing" is the only thing you can see?

The flip side may be that this is the rescuing of the franchise if they couldn't continue to fund development (after all, we all know about the comments concerning the financial success of the prior); would you rather nobody have the opportunity to play it? Or even have the rights for the entire IP up for grabs?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Manifesting our opinions at the right moment have quickly killed the aggressive online DRM. The argument being thrown by the proDRM crowd was also "it's always been here, it's inevitable, life's not fair accept it, stop crying like babies, etc..".

I do not believe for a second that Microsoft changed their policies because of the so-called "on-line" backlash. They sold 80 million Xbox 360s and across the core Western gaming sites (GAF, IGN, C&VG, Gamersyde, GameInformer, Eurogamer etc), there were a few thousand loudmouths. There always are and it's why the term "vocal minority" exists. Microsoft changed DRM tact because a) after their comms snafu they likely sat down and realised they hadn't thought everything out and b) because they had tangible data, like pre-order numbers, showing the policy was unpopular in real terms. Microsoft have been taking shit online for loudmouths for 30 years and they've never paid a damn bit of attention to those.

The reason I'm making this point is because I don't believe that the current online discussions taking place around the internet, again by a vocal minority, will have any effect on what publishers and developers do. If Microsoft gave away free beer, they'd be people complaining that they wanted another brand of beer. People just like to bitch and complain and the internet lets people do with this easily and without consequence.

But there is consumer power it, it's called voting with your wallet. If everybody who isn't an Xbox owner wants to protest this, then don't buy the PS4 or PC versions. That will send a real message for SE to not do this again.

But you can bet your arse that publishers collectively know that a statistically insignificant number of people will do this. Look at the backlash over WATCH_DOGS. Lots of people said they'd boycott the game and it sold fantastically. Publishers know that this online hullabaloo is all hot air. And like somebody posted, it's creating buzz about their game.

 

[Wynix]

And "MS is losing" is the only thing you can see?

The flip side may be that this is the rescuing of the franchise if they couldn't continue to fund development (after all, we all know about the comments concerning the financial success of the prior); would you rather nobody have the opportunity to play it? Or even have the rights for the entire IP up for grabs?

I'm not sure how making the game exclusive to the platform with half the userbase of the competition can be considered rescuing the franchise, at most it's postponing it's demise.

 

[temesgen]

I do not believe for a second that Microsoft changed their policies because of the so-called "on-line" backlash. They sold 80 million Xbox 360s and across the core Western gaming sites (GAF, IGN, C&VG, Gamersyde, GameInformer, Eurogamer etc), there were a few thousand loudmouths. There always are and it's why the term "vocal minority" exists. Microsoft changed DRM tact because a) after their comms snafu they likely sat down and realised they hadn't thought everything out and b) because they had tangible data, like pre-order numbers, showing the policy was unpopular in real terms. Microsoft have been taking shit online for loudmouths for 30 years and they've never paid a damn bit of attention to those.

The reason I'm making this point is because I don't believe that the current online discussions taking place around the internet, again by a vocal minority, will have any effect on what publishers and developers do. If Microsoft gave away free beer, they'd be people complaining that they wanted another brand of beer. People just like to bitch and complain and the internet lets people do with this easily and without consequence.

But there is consumer power it, it's called voting with your wallet. If everybody who isn't an Xbox owner wants to protest this, then don't buy the PS4 or PC versions. That will send a real message for SE to not do this again.

But you can bet your arse that publishers collectively know that a statistically insignificant number of people will do this. Look at the backlash over WATCH_DOGS. Lots of people said they'd boycott the game and it sold fantastically. Publishers know that this online hullabaloo is all hot air. And like somebody posted, it's creating buzz about their game.

I think you are correct at E3 some publishers were even uncomfortable discussing the impact of DRM bc MS hadn't even discussed it with them yet....

I don't think angry PS4 fans are going to turn MS from this strategy and in some ways publishers will be willing to embrace it bc they don't want to see one platform gobble up everyone else. Having options does raise development cost but it holds Sony and MS accountable wrt policies.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm not sure how making the game exclusive to the platform with half the userbase of the competition can be considered rescuing the franchise, at most it's postponing it's demise.

Right. And ER rooms shouldn't resuscitate injured people. They're just prolonging people's inevitable death

 

[London Geezer]

Right. And ER rooms shouldn't resuscitate injured people. They're just prolonging people's inevitable death

That's a strange and erroneous analogy....

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That's a strange and erroneous analogy....

Scenario 1. Not enough money to fund development = franchise dead.
Scenario 2. Microsoft help SE/CD with the development = game released, more profits for SE/CD, next game is multi platform.

 

[MrFox]

Scenario 1. Not enough money to fund development = franchise dead.
Scenario 2. Microsoft help SE/CD with the development = game released, more profits for SE/CD, next game is multi platform.

But a franchise is not a person, only a company is.

*rim shot*

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Where are those car analogy's...

A wheel fell off the SE/CD wagon. Microsoft turn up with a spare wheel.

You're welcome.

 

[AlNom]

Wheel of.... Fortune :O

 

[MrFox]

A wheel fell off the SE/CD wagon. Microsoft turn up with a spare wheel.

You're welcome.

Actually MS offered a spare wheel in exchange of burning the Sony wagons.

Wheel of.... Fortune :O

OMG *slow clap*

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Actually MS offered a spare wheel in exchange of burning the Sony wagons.

Well, they set fire to every other car on the highway. Making it easy for the SE/CD wagon to get moving and providing some much needed light during dark times of internet self-importance.

 

[MrFox]

Well, they set fire to every other car on the highway. Making it easy for the SE/CD wagon to get moving and providing some much needed light during dark times of internet self-importance.

It would still be dark because of all the smoke from the fires. Your analogy doesn't work.