Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[Prophecy2k]

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

The bolded is intentionally opaque. It could simply mean that they send over a MS-employed producer to oversee development on the project (which often happens).

It's wrong to assume from that that the game wouldn't exist without MS' input. That's an unreasonable assumption to make imho.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Where was the number to your suicide hotline when board was melting down due to Destiny getting DLC exclusive content for PS4?

I agree the reactions of some have been over the top but people are entitled to their opinions...

Did that actually happen? If people were melting down over that, I'd say the same things. I have an Xbox One. I'm planning on getting Destiny and that DLC is not available to me. I don't care. It's just the way it is sometimes.

 

[Scott_Arm]

The bolded is intentionally opaque. It could simply mean that they send over a MS-employed producer to oversee development on the project (which often happens).

It's wrong to assume from that that the game wouldn't exist without MS' input. That's an unreasonable assumption to make imho.

I don't know if it wouldn't exist, but it might exist with a smaller budget. I'm sure SE could fun many Tomb Raider games, but they're probably only willing to fund as much money as they can turn a profit on. Whether they have a billion dollars lying around is kind of irrelevant.

If SE didn't think the funding and other terms would be beneficial, why would they make the deal? They can't be so stupid to cut off all those PS4 sales for no reason at all.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My point is that the fud was gaming website generated...

It was announcement generated. The Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt came from gamers being told that RotTR was only coming on XBox. That wasn't the truth, it was coming to other platforms too (eventually), but the communication was at best ambiguous and when asked for clarification, spokespersons confirmed the worst-case scenario.

Horse's mouths from 38 minutes : http://uk.ign.com/videos/2014/08/12/ign-live-presents-microsoft-press-conference-gamescom-2014

"Coming 2015, Exclusively to Xbox"
"We're incredible excited to have Rise of the Tomb Raider come to our platform in twenty-fifteen, exclusively." (emphasis Phil Harrison's)

We have 'our platform' singular, and the previous description of the game being realised through the power of next-gen hardware, so there's no reason to read that as XB360 + XB1 either.

And we have, "coming to our platform exclusively." Compare that to Sony's timed exclusive announcements

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP9BBbfTGsk
28 minutes
"So, just to recap. The Tomorrow Children and Rime are first party games and fully exclusive to PS4. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter...8 games, all come first to console on PS4."

Sony's announcement is transparent, MS's is not.

You like to blame the media for getting the wrong end of the stick with MS, and sometimes they are at fault, but the responsibility of effective communication lies with whomever is trying to get the message across. The fact that the media doesn't mess things up with Sony and Nintendo announcements proves MS is failing to get their message across in a way people readily understand. The need to improve their PR so this sort of confusion doesn't happen. It comes across as if they are trying to manipulate messaging. eg. Ambiguously say 'coming in 2015, exclusively' to give them impression that the game is 100% exclusive where in fact it's coming in 2015 on XB and in 2016 on other platforms. Even if that wasn't deliberate, it paints MS in a poor light and why they need to get their PR into order.

 

[Scott_Arm]

And people just need to relax and learn to control their emotional outbursts before the have all the details, like everyone is expected to do in their daily lives. I do think the announcement was intentionally ambiguous, which is not a smart idea. People are going to have questions, so you may as well just answer them up front. You're not going to get away with leaving things unclear, especially with gamers who need to know everything RIGHT NOW, all of the time.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Here's a rather brilliant article from GamesIndustry on the topic of the Tomb Raider deal. I think they've totally hit the nail on the head with this one:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-14-microsofts-chequebook-warfare-is-bound-to-fail

Microsoft's chequebook warfare is bound to fail.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Here's a rather brilliant article from GamesIndustry on the topic of the Tomb Raider deal. I think they've totally hit the nail on the head with this one:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-14-microsofts-chequebook-warfare-is-bound-to-fail

Microsoft's chequebook warfare is bound to fail.

I do agree with this for the long term, but in the short term Phil Spencer has to do something.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

I do agree with this for the long term, but in the short term Phil Spencer has to do something.

They definitely do. I should imagine there's plenty of developers making unannounced games that are being sold to Sony/Microsoft. I genuinely believe Microsoft will be buying up a few in the not too distant future.

Another thing from the article, why Tomb Raider? You gotta wonder how many other publishers/developers were approached first. I'd guarantee COD received and offer or two.

 

[Scott_Arm]

They definitely do. I should imagine there's plenty of developers making unannounced games that are being sold to Sony/Microsoft. I genuinely believe Microsoft will be buying up a few in the not too distant future.

Another thing from the article, why Tomb Raider? You gotta wonder how many other publishers/developers were approached first. I'd guarantee COD received and offer or two.

My guess would be they have a limited budget for this kind of thing, and they basically went out and we were working on this kind of deal with many different partners and this is the one that happened to work out.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

My guess would be they have a limited budget for this kind of thing, and they basically went out and we were working on this kind of deal with many different partners and this is the one that happened to work out.

Agreed. I think that's absolutely true.

It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next year. I suspect this is their first step, or at least the first contracted/agreed step.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Here's a rather brilliant article from GamesIndustry on the topic of the Tomb Raider deal. I think they've totally hit the nail on the head with this one:

Except the focus is on this one title/deal and extrapolates it as a course of "not investing in new IP" whilst completely ignoring things like Sunset Overdrive, Project Spark, Quantum Break, etc.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Except the focus is on this one title/deal and extrapolates it as a course of "not investing in new IP" whilst completely ignoring things like Sunset Overdrive, Project Spark, Quantum Break, etc.

Only one of those is from a first party. I just worry that Microsoft have too shallow a foundation.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Only one of those is from a first party. I just worry that Microsoft have too shallow a foundation.

Doesn't really matter that its first party or not, they are willing to spend and nurture new IP.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

What's the point in IP of you've nobody to make the games?

 

[Dave Baumann]

What's the point in IP of you've nobody to make the games?

They don't know the IP, they are helping the developer to develop the IP. Why do you need to "own" development studios when there are enough independent developers out there that can develop content and work on your platform - all of these are published by Microsoft.

 

[Scott_Arm]

They don't know the IP, they are helping the developer to develop the IP. Why do you need to "own" development studios when there are enough independent developers out there that can develop content and work on your platform - all of these are published by Microsoft.

It'll be interesting to see how it works out. The get the Tomb Raider deal done. If the sales disparity continues it might get hard to make that deal later. I'd say the problem comes when there's 40 million PS4s out there and only 15 million Xbox Ones. You run into the problem where getting published by Microsoft might not seem like the greatest idea. I'm sure Microsoft will continue to be supported by multi-platform games, but finding 3rd party exclusives will get tougher. For exclusives they'll probably have to rely more on first parties. So in the long-term, I think they'll have to work on getting some more games developed internally so they have good exclusives in two or three years. That's something they'd have to start now.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

They don't know the IP, they are helping the developer to develop the IP. Why do you need to "own" development studios when there are enough independent developers out there that can develop content and work on your platform - all of these are published by Microsoft.

I agree that Microsoft appear to be doing exactly this, but is it the correct method? I'm not so sure. It was definitely fine when they were market leaders and had a machine with better multiplatforms... That's all changed and I think it has caught them by surprise. I don't think they'd planned for Sony to dominate so early in the generation.

Like Scott states above, they need to plan in the long term, but they also need some more immediate steps to recover ground. They're definitely trying and I'm certain this won't be the last of what we hear this year.

Tomb Raider isn't really the beginning, the system has almost completely changed since that initial vision - all for the better too. I guarantee that Microsoft will build their foundations with by buying up developers or creating new ones like they did with 343. It's a shame they didn't pick up the remnants of Sony's Liverpool studio. It's also a damn shame they let Bizarre die - those guys made some incredible games.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Well, this article popped up at what seems to be an incredibly appropriate moment in our conversation.

http://kotaku.com/how-xbox-is-changing-its-dudebro-image-1622137520

Good insight into the type of games Microsoft will target and some more insight into Phil Spector's thinking.

 

[Dave Baumann]

It'll be interesting to see how it works out. The get the Tomb Raider deal done. If the sales disparity continues it might get hard to make that deal later. I'd say the problem comes when there's 40 million PS4s out there and only 15 million Xbox Ones. You run into the problem where getting published by Microsoft might not seem like the greatest idea. I'm sure Microsoft will continue to be supported by multi-platform games, but finding 3rd party exclusives will get tougher. For exclusives they'll probably have to rely more on first parties. So in the long-term, I think they'll have to work on getting some more games developed internally so they have good exclusives in two or three years. That's something they'd have to start now.

If it came to it, Microsoft Publishing can rely on the PC market as part of the deal as well.

Interesting "new" IP is rarely consistently generated by the same small pool of people, it comes from diversity, and you can't just continue buying different development studios, or expanding current ones. Realistically you want your first parties generating your "staple diet" for the platform - Gears is a good example; developer has an idea, MS works to nurture the idea, its successful, has a good run on the platform, MS's purchases the IP and continues development in-house as it is now a "staple".

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Well, this article popped up at what seems to be an incredibly appropriate moment in our conversation.

http://kotaku.com/how-xbox-is-changing-its-dudebro-image-1622137520

Good insight into the type of games Microsoft will target and some more insight into Phil Spector's thinking.

I think this comment is interesting:

It's interesting - from a first-party standpoint we haven't really had a great shooter on the box yet

They're definitely acutely aware of what's going on. I also think he's doing the right thing by including more indies, it's just I'd love to see them try something Sony haven't.

I don't have a bad word to say about Spence, I just think he "gets it". I know he's just another corporate suit, but he seems more genuine.