Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[Prophecy2k]

I don't know if it wouldn't exist, but it might exist with a smaller budget. I'm sure SE could fund 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.

It might exist with a smaller marketing budget without MS' involvement. In terms of development I don't see MS having any influence over that at all. The game will be developed over a standard dev cycle, maybe will be in full production for 18 months. I don't imagine that MS' deal money was used to enlarge the scope of the game, but of course we'll see when the game releases.

Naturally however, these deals are about one thing... risk.

For SE signing a deal like this, it's down to them feeling sufficiently anxious about the marketability of their title and the kind of returns on investment they will see. By sharing that risk with MS, by signing a deal for them to put in some marketing dollars, they effectively mitigate that risk to a great extent.

The downside however is that they now have a smaller addressable market to which they are able to sell the title, so there's next to no reason for them to put any additional money into the development of this game, since it would invalidate the point of the deal. Equally for MS, it would make little business sense to pump significant additional money into the game's development, since more money =/= a better game, and the whole point of a deal like this from their perspective is that they leverage the power of an existing and popular franchise brand in an attempt to sell more Xboxes. So the only reasonable place to put any additional spend from MS's perspective is in marketing, since the addressable market for the game is smaller, and thus it makes sense for them to have to spend more to maximise game sales on Xbox platforms.

So given the above, I can't see any solid business justification for believing the game's development budget, scope or design will be impacted positively by this exclusivity deal. In fact there's more of a likelihood (however remote) that the opposite could occur.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It might exist with a smaller marketing budget without MS' involvement. In terms of development I don't see MS having any influence over that at all. The game will be developed over a standard dev cycle, maybe will be in full production for 18 months. I don't imagine that MS' deal money was used to enlarge the scope of the game, but of course we'll see when the game releases.

Naturally however, these deals are about one thing... risk.

For SE signing a deal like this, it's down to them feeling sufficiently anxious about the marketability of their title and the kind of returns on investment they will see. By sharing that risk with MS, by signing a deal for them to put in some marketing dollars, they effectively mitigate that risk to a great extent.

The downside however is that they now have a smaller addressable market to which they are able to sell the title, so there's next to no reason for them to put any additional money into the development of this game, since it would invalidate the point of the deal. Equally for MS, it would make little business sense to pump significant additional money into the game's development, since more money =/= a better game, and the whole point of a deal like this from their perspective is that they leverage the power of an existing and popular franchise brand in an attempt to sell more Xboxes. So the only reasonable place to put any additional spend from MS's perspective is in marketing, since the addressable market for the game is smaller, and thus it makes sense for them to have to spend more to maximise game sales on Xbox platforms.

So given the above, I can't see any solid business justification for believing the game's development budget, scope or design will be impacted positively by this exclusivity deal. In fact there's more of a likelihood (however remote) that the opposite could occur.

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

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.”

You can choose to believe he's lying, I guess, but he seems to be pretty open in interviews. They're clearly involved in marketing the game in their deal with Square Enix, but it seems like they're also investing in the game directly.

 

[DrJay24]

They're clearly involved in marketing the game in their deal with Square Enix, but it seems like they're also investing in the game directly.

Of course, how else would they get the exclusivity? That is in effect the "money hat". They hand over money, it lowers risk for SE since they no longer have to fully fund it and market it themselves.

 

[Strange]

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



You can choose to believe he's lying, I guess, but he seems to be pretty open in interviews. They're clearly involved in marketing the game in their deal with Square Enix, but it seems like they're also investing in the game directly.

He also said this about kinect.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/can...l-spencer-phil-harrison-and-more-to-find-out/

“We’re always trying to match what consumers are asking for,” he says. “I always want to make sure that we’re in tune with what current or potential customers are asking for from us. Right now, [dropping Kinect is] not the number one request from people. Usually it’s, ‘Where are the great games?’”

Guess what happens a few weeks after.

He's good at saying what he's supposed to say and good at not saying what he's not supposed to say, and outright lying is sometimes what he can "only" say (and people do give him a break due to the circumstances that force him to say such stuff, it really is understandable).
He's just better than others for not outright lying on stuff that they really shouldn't, doesn't mean he doesn't lie or purposefully not tell the entire truth.

 

[function]

But MS haven't dropped Kinect.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Yes, and lots of the new features and functionality (i.e. TV streaming to SmartGlass) is reliant on Kinect.

 

[joker454]

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.

I don't agree, but you probably expected that. It's right there in the announcement, 2015 exclusive, never did they say permanent exclusive anywhere. It's as if innocent until proven guilty has been throw out the window. MS are presumed guilty and now they must prove their innocence. What do they need to do, submit all their announcements in full legalese? Here let's give that a shot:

In pursuant of the announcement of our new game (the "ANNOUNCEMENT"), video game players around the world (the "GAMERS") will be subject to purchase our multi media product (the "PRODUCT") upon release in 2015 (the "CALENDAR"). The GAMER may pay for PRODUCT for use on the Xbox One video game console (the "CONSOLE") as forthwith described in this document (the "ACT") . The ACT is effective immediately upon public release to the GAMERS and is in effect only during the CALENDAR as applicable to the CONSOLE.

I mean c'mon all the media had to say was:

Microsoft announced Rise Of The Tomb Raider as 2015 exclusive for their Xbox One console. Whether or not this is a timed exclusive is currently unknown.

But no, that doesn't create any drama or outrage. Instead they go with:

M$ moneybags Tome Raider to the bit bin, destroys gaming.

The media is what is so transparent to me, this is how they operate now having taken clues from tv media which has been doing the same kind of thing for some time now.

You like to blame the media for getting the wrong end of the stick with MS

I blame the media with lots of people and companies, Sony included. They have been bashing Sony in the video camera world for artificially limiting their new A7s camera to not record 4k internally. Of course these clowns know that a full frame 4k sensor readout would cause that tiny camera overheat. But no they won't say that, instead it's Outrage! (tm), Consipracy! (tm) and all the usual drama. There they do it to Sony, here they are doing it to MS because that's what they do, they create drama, stir the hive, cause chaos and sit back and profit. It's all so transparent and so stupid to watch unfold.

 

[function]

Yes, and lots of the new features and functionality (i.e. TV streaming to SmartGlass) is reliant on Kinect.

If I get an Xbox One I'll be getting the Kinect version without a shadow of a doubt - I think MS will have plans to bring Kinect back to the foreground in a couple of years when their services and software are ready and the platform is more mature - but in what way is TV steaming to Smartglass Kinect reliant?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't agree, but you probably expected that. It's right there in the announcement, 2015 exclusive.

It's ambiguous. Yes, it could mean it's exclusive in 2015 only. Alternatively, it could mean it's exclusive forever and is releasing in 2015. That choice of words can be interpreted either way with all fairness. As written. When you hear Phil Harrison's announcement and emphasis, all the emphasis is on the exclusivity leading weight to the latter interpretation IMO. And most importantly, there's no need for ambiguous announcements or statements when there are simple, more obvious alternatives. "RotTR is playable first on Xbox." Job done. Everyone knows it's a timed exclusive, no media confusion nor gamer backlash.

There have been numerous announcements from MS that haven't gone down well. Ergo, they have a PR and communications problem. Alternatively they could blame the world for being broken and incapable of understand MS and change nothing themselves and hope everyone else changes, I guess...

 

[Scott_Arm]

It's ambiguous. Yes, it could mean it's exclusive in 2015 only. Alternatively, it could mean it's exclusive forever and is releasing in 2015. That choice of words can be interpreted either way with all fairness. As written. When you hear Phil Harrison's announcement and emphasis, all the emphasis is on the exclusivity leading weight to the latter interpretation IMO. And most importantly, there's no need for ambiguous announcements or statements when there are simple, more obvious alternatives. "RotTR is playable first on Xbox." Job done. Everyone knows it's a timed exclusive, no media confusion nor gamer backlash.

There have been numerous announcements from MS that haven't gone down well. Ergo, they have a PR and communications problem. Alternatively they could blame the world for being broken and incapable of understand MS and change nothing themselves and hope everyone else changes, I guess...

I think you're both right. Sometimes things could be more clear, but media types and commentators take those opportunities to write sensationalist stores that generate web traffic through controversy. Rather waiting for clarification, they speculate the worst and publish right away.

For example, there was a lot of rampant misinformation when the Xbox One was first announced, mostly created by pundits and people on forums. That misinformation spread around simply because people were not willing to wait for more details. There were some cases where Microsoft didn't have their story together and announced things that they obviously hadn't clearly thought out. There were other cases where the information was out there in full, but rather than look at the official Microsoft page, or FAQ, people were reading forum threads or puff pieces and running wild with information that was completely wrong.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I like this:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/15/6006185/gaming-balance-development-writing

 

[Inuhanyou]

But MS haven't dropped Kinect.

yes, they've only sent it off in a little boat with nary a farewell :smile:

 

[Dave Baumann]

...but in what way is TV steaming to Smartglass Kinect reliant?

Changing channels. You'll need the Kinect IR blaster to change channels remotely via the SmartGlass device - at least when they bring that to set-top boxes. Whilst its limited to the USB tuner you won't need it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think you're both right. Sometimes things could be more clear, but media types and commentators take those opportunities to write sensationalist stores that generate web traffic through controversy. Rather waiting for clarification, they speculate the worst and publish right away.

For example, there was a lot of rampant misinformation when the Xbox One was first announced, mostly created by pundits and people on forums. That misinformation spread around simply because people were not willing to wait for more details. There were some cases where Microsoft didn't have their story together and announced things that they obviously hadn't clearly thought out. There were other cases where the information was out there in full, but rather than look at the official Microsoft page, or FAQ, people were reading forum threads or puff pieces and running wild with information that was completely wrong.

I agree. But that basically means that the message has to be mind-numbingly obvious from the get go. You can't present an ambiguous message that's open to confusion and then trust people will look up the FAQ for a clearer understanding. When formulating a message, the people responsible for writing should have a pretty good understanding of how it's going to be received.

 

[mrcorbo]

Changing channels. You'll need the Kinect IR blaster to change channels remotely via the SmartGlass device - at least when they bring that to set-top boxes. Whilst its limited to the USB tuner you won't need it.

Not necessarily. I can control my cable company's STBs using their smartphone app, so I don't see why a Live TV app for the XBOne couldn't work in the same way if the cable companies were willing to allow it.

 

[function]

Thong Wread

Changing channels. You'll need the Kinect IR blaster to change channels remotely via the SmartGlass device - at least when they bring that to set-top boxes. Whilst its limited to the USB tuner you won't need it.

Oh, I'm behind the times. I thought that the TV streaming only applied to the USB tuner.

That's pretty cool. Watch any TV coming into your house. On your phone. On the toilet.

Now if they were to add TV recording to the device too ...

Damn. I'm starting to quite like the sound of some of this TV stuff now it's not behind a Gold paywall.

[Edit] OOps, OT, convo dropped. REMEMBER SATURN!!![/Edit]

 

[dobwal]

I agree. But that basically means that the message has to be mind-numbingly obvious from the get go. You can't present an ambiguous message that's open to confusion and then trust people will look up the FAQ for a clearer understanding. When formulating a message, the people responsible for writing should have a pretty good understanding of how it's going to be received.

It's not MS's job to spell out "exclusivity" so other platform owners won't feel left out. If anything that's the pubs job if minimizing sales loss on other platforms is of the upmost importance to them.

Exclusivity by definition does not stipulate a time frame. A game is exclusive to one platform until it is not. We're lucky we get any info on what "exclusivity" means in terms of timeframe because in a lot of cases in other markets it isn't spell out at all.

It would nice if MS and/or SE detailed the terms of their exclusivity agreement but it would also be nice if MS/Sony/Nintendo gave out their general timeline for price cuts and price points of their consoles well in advanced. They don't because it would negatively affect sales.

 

[Inuhanyou]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=875687

So....yeah. I guess we can say not coming to PS consoles now. What a cluster fuck.

 

[Scott_Arm]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=875687

So....yeah. I guess we can say not coming to PS consoles now. What a cluster fuck.

Maybe if you read the article linked in that neogaf post http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/08/13/xboxs-phil-spencer-responds-tomb-raider-exclusivity-questions

When I asked straight up whether Tomb Raider was a timed exclusive or a full exclusive on Xbox One, Spencer said that it “has a duration”. “I didn’t buy the IP, so I don’t own Tomb Raider as a franchise. Our deal obviously has a duration,” he clarified. “If I owned the IP it would be forever, but I don’t own the IP and I don’t own development of Tomb Raider on any other platform. So if you ask me, is Tomb Raider going to ship on another platform, I actually can’t give you an answer because I’m not the developer of the game.

I can talk about Tomb Raider coming to Xbox in 2015 exclusively, right - that’s the deal I have on the game, but I don’t own the IP.”

So why not be up-front about it and say that it was coming first to Xbox, rather than throwing the word “exclusive” out there when it could be construed as misleading? Is it fair to say that there are no plans, currently, for Rise of the Tomb Raider to appear on other platforms? “I’m not trying to duck the question - it’s just really not my place to discuss what they’re going to do,” said Spencer.

 

[DrJay24]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=875687

So....yeah. I guess we can say not coming to PS consoles now. What a cluster fuck.

Similar to Dead Rising can mean anything, MS published Dead Rising 3, not true for TR.