Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[BRiT]

This is going nowhere.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Full Phil Spencer interview and explanation. Would have been nice to have this the day it happened...

 

[Dave Baumann]

He just went about the answers in a very verbose, indirect way.

Just looks like a transcripted spoken interview.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The other aspect to the reaction had to do with the wording of the description of the deal, which was specific. People were wondering whether this game would eventually launch on other platforms. What is the nature of the exclusivity you've secured?

Phil Spencer: I don't own them building Tomb Raider on other platforms, so I'm just not the person to talk to. I can't talk about the franchise that way. I can talk about the deal I have.

So exactly what is the deal you have?
Phil Spencer: I have Tomb Raider shipping next holiday exclusively on Xbox.

Is that Xbox One only?

Phil Spencer: Let me clarify that one. It is Xbox 360 and Xbox One. I want to be clear on that. It is on 360 and Xbox One, and people should take that away. I'm not trying to fake anybody out in terms of where this thing is. What they do with the franchise in the long run is not mine. I just don't control it. So all I can talk about is the deal I have.
I know obviously 360 and Xbox One. I know that part of it. I don't know where else Tomb Raider goes. I don't.

But do you have a timeframe you've agreed upon in terms of the exclusivity you have? Do you have the exclusivity for a certain amount of time? That's what our readers are asking us to try to find out.

Phil Spencer: Yes, the deal has a duration. I didn't buy it. I don't own the franchise.

Alternatively...

The other aspect to the reaction had to do with the wording of the description of the deal, which was specific. People were wondering whether this game would eventually launch on other platforms. What is the nature of the exclusivity you've secured?

Phil Spencer: It's a timed exclusive coming to XB360 and XB1. The game will only be available in 2015 on Xbox. Crystal Dynamics can pursue any other business opportunities after this.

I don't know anyone who in ordinary conversation would come up with such convoluted, obtuse ways to answer a straightforward question that lends itself to a straightforward answer using industry standard language. If that's how Phil Spencer talks naturally, MS may want to replace him as a mouth piece. Comments to that article show the usual 'politician' references to someone not giving a simple answer. Gamers like straight-talking.

 

[Billy Idol]

Alternatively... I don't know anyone who in ordinary conversation would come up with such convoluted, obtuse ways to answer a straightforward question that lends itself to a straightforward answer using industry standard language. If that's how Phil Spencer talks naturally, MS may want to replace him as a mouth piece. Comments to that article show the usual 'politician' references to someone not giving a simple answer. Gamers like straight-talking.

I understand it that way: they have a timed deal. He will not speak about the duration, as this is business. After the deal expires...he really doesn't know what SE is doing with the game...maybe release it on an other platform, maybe not (similar to the first Bioshock). And he don't care!

That is crystal clear to me...telling the duration of the deal, automatically damages the value of the deal.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Like I say, it reads like a spoken interview. You don't always hit the points and know the single line when you've got people firing the questions at you - who knows how / where this was conducted as well.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That is crystal clear to me...telling the duration of the deal, automatically damages the value of the deal.

He hasn't obscured the info, but he could have presented it in a far more transparent way. It took EG four questions to finally get the essential info that there was a duration on the exclusivity. The length of the duration isn't important as it's assumed to be 6-12 months as the industry norm, and a far longer duration would be unlikely as it'd hurt the value of the game on other platforms.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Like I say, it reads like a spoken interview. You don't always hit the points and know the single line when you've got people firing the questions at you - who knows how / where this was conducted as well.

I don't disagree, but as part of MS's PR, I'd advise a different front-man who can present content in a way that gamers like. Other interviews like Yoshida and Mattrick are much more to the point. Yoshida's interview here is accompanied by lots of positive comments about his approach, and I agree with them that he seems very approachable. Compare that to the comments that accompany Spencer's interview. Several highlight PR speak and dodging the answers. MS's position isn't going to be helped if their communication is struggling to get through, whether that's because of wording or presentation, both of which I think they're struggling on.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

He just went about the answers in a very verbose, indirect way.

The oddest thing about that whole interview was the way he assumed control and ownership of everything at Xbox, i.e the amount of times he refers to things Xbox decisions as "I.." as opposed to "we..". There are are a few "we" uses but they're far outweighed by I.."

"Now, obviously if I'm going to partner on it, I'm a platform holder, I'm hardly going to invest to go make the PlayStation version of any game"

"I don't own the IP. So then when certain people start talking to me about, well, what is the future of the Tomb Raider franchise, it's not really something I can talk to. Just like if you were going to ask me what's going on with Dead Rising 6, I don't own that."

"Again, I don't own it"

"I don't own the Ryse IP, but I was able to invest with Crytek to turn it into a franchise, which isn't easy to do for a studio on their own. I don't own it."

"Why would I ever block them from doing something with a game they own?"

"I didn't buy the studio. It's not mine."​

And on and on. This is stark contrast to just about every other executive speaking for their management team out there, including Satya Nadella, who will use "we". I've seen a few people who when promoted who are no longer "we" and become "I" and it's interesting to see the change in his perspective. It's like he is Xbox and not a person.

 

[dobwal]

I don't disagree, but as part of MS's PR, I'd advise a different front-man who can present content in a way that gamers like. Other interviews like Yoshida and Mattrick are much more to the point. Yoshida's interview here is accompanied by lots of positive comments about his approach, and I agree with them that he seems very approachable. Compare that to the comments that accompany Spencer's interview. Several highlight PR speak and dodging the answers. MS's position isn't going to be helped if their communication is struggling to get through, whether that's because of wording or presentation, both of which I think they're struggling on.

Probably because in most instances most companies wouldn't have to field such questions. If Honda paid Harmon Kardon for exclusive use of their audio in their automobiles, they wouldn't be fielding questions from or on behalf of concerned BMW owners who aren't happy with the circumstance.

Most owners wouldn't even feel the need to question Honda, they would direct their questions and frustration to Harmon Kardon. Why, because they are not customers of Honda.

I don't even understand why MS or Phil feel the need to address the issue, they should simply point out they are working on the behalf of the Xbox userbase to secure content as best they can in an effort to make the platform as attractive as they can.

Simple as that or may be add the caveat and state that their job isn't to elucidate their exclusivity agreements to non or non potential xbox users. As most of the consternation from the market is from those wanting TR:R on something other than the Xbox platform.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Simple as that or may be add the caveat and state that their job isn't to elucidate their exclusivity agreements to non or non potential xbox users.

That would go down fabulously well!

EG: Our community of gamers wants to know what the nature of the exclusive deal is.

MS: Well they can sod off. It's not like they're going to buy our console anyway! We can and we did. Suck it up.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Alternatively...
I don't know anyone who in ordinary conversation would come up with such convoluted, obtuse ways to answer a straightforward question that lends itself to a straightforward answer using industry standard language. If that's how Phil Spencer talks naturally, MS may want to replace him as a mouth piece. Comments to that article show the usual 'politician' references to someone not giving a simple answer. Gamers like straight-talking.

Except that there may be no timeline or even definitive plans from Square Enix to do a PC or PS4 version. Hence, he can't comment on it. He may only know that SE "might" do it or "might not" do it.

What is interesting to note is that he even commented that Microsoft would be willing to help SE fund the development of a PC version (but likely not to the same monetary extent as the XBO version). He would have no issue with revealing whether it will come to PC or not and whether it would be delayed with regards to the PC or not. Yet he can't even comment on that.

That really seems to hint at him not knowing whether Square Enix has decided what if any platforms to port it to. Square Enix are likely going to see how much they make from the sales and then decide if they can afford to make a port. Assuming the contract allows them to make Rise of the Tomb Raiders for anything other than PC. Again nowhere does Phil come out and say Rise of the Tomb Raiders could appear on another platform, only that they don't own the IP and that Square Enix are free to release Tomb Raider games (no specifics) on other platforms.

Also the wording doesn't indicate that Rise of the Tomb Raider might go console multiplatform. Only that Microsoft has no control over what platforms Tomb Raider games will be on in the future. That could include Rise of the Tomb Raider or it could be a future yet undeveloped title. He constantly stresses the IP remains Square Enix's to do with in whatever way they want...similar to Titan Fall, Dead Rising 3, and Sunset overdrive. Yet none of those games he compared it to will ever make it to PS4, however, future games in the franchise might...maybe...

And as I speculated before. Square Enix were the ones shopping around looking for help in finishing and/or co-developing the game. It sounds like MS were the only ones to step up and accept SE's advances. After all why would Sony step up since they already have Uncharted and Tomb Raider will be releasing in direct competition to it?

At the end of the day I don't think we'll ever know the full details of it. At least in this case the developers weren't blindsided by their own publisher (similar to Titan Fall) but appear to have gone into it knowingly and with full support (similar to Dead Rising, Sunset Overdrive).

It'd be nice if they could get official comments from Square Enix Eidos with regards to this whole situation.

Regards,
SB

 

[Dave Baumann]

Re-opened thread in light of new interview and moved posts from "What should MS do next" thread. Will close again if discussion goes downhill.

 

[Scott_Arm]

You guys are very hard to please. Seems like a pretty straightforward interview to me.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It sounds like MS were the only ones to step up and accept SE's advances. After all why would Sony step up since they already have Uncharted and Tomb Raider will be releasing in direct competition to it?

I don't know if Sony think about game acquisitions like that. Despite the fact that SOE are developing H1Z1 they had the DayZ creator at their Gamescom conference. If you end up with two great, similar games due out the same time that gives you options, particularly if one slips and even if one doesn't, you can just space them out by a couple of months.

Look at their treatment of Major League Baseball and MLB The Show. The former is third party and the latter first party and they've always both had prominent billing on Sony sites. I'm not saying Sony are some super altruistic entity, but they do an outstanding job of giving the appearance of a company that just wants to enrich the diversity of their games library, even if they sometimes cannibalise sales of first party franchises.

I think it more likely that they just didn't feel the need for another game in that release window rather than they were worried about it competing with U4.

 

[MrFox]

Except that there may be no timeline or even definitive plans from Square Enix to do a PC or PS4 version. Hence, he can't comment on it. He may only know that SE "might" do it or "might not" do it.

Right. SE might not have any plan of tripling the sales of this popular title as soon as the contract is expiring. It's perfectly conceivable that they hate money.

The reason fans want to know when this deal expires is so they can make an informed decision about their purchase. Nobody's asking MS when it's coming out on PC/PS4, nor any specifics, they're asking how long is this deal.

 

[djskribbles]

Except that there may be no timeline or even definitive plans from Square Enix to do a PC or PS4 version. Hence, he can't comment on it. He may only know that SE "might" do it or "might not" do it.

You can't be serious?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I don't know if Sony think about game acquisitions like that. Despite the fact that SOE are developing H1Z1 they had the DayZ creator at their Gamescom conference. If you end up with two great, similar games due out the same time that gives you options, particularly if one slips and even if one doesn't, you can just space them out by a couple of months.

Look at their treatment of Major League Baseball and MLB The Show. The former is third party and the latter first party and they've always both had prominent billing on Sony sites. I'm not saying Sony are some super altruistic entity, but they do an outstanding job of giving the appearance of a company that just wants to enrich the diversity of their games library, even if they sometimes cannibalise sales of first party franchises.

I think it more likely that they just didn't feel the need for another game in that release window rather than they were worried about it competing with U4.

Sure but what if the conditions from Square Enix Eidos was that they required 5 million, 10 million, 20 million, or some other high dollar figure in order to finish the game for your platform. Otherwise they would stop development as they need to focus finishing their core Japanese IP games.

I suspect Square Enix Eidos likely approached the console makes with regards to Deus Ex as well, but was no console maker was willing to pony up the support that would have been required for that.

All speculation obviously without any word from them. But I wouldn't be surprised if some titles have been cancelled internally by them. But that's normal par for the course for any publisher (Titan Fall almost got canned if EA are to be believed). It's only when a high profile title gets the axe (and it has happened in the past) that the public actually notices. Only this time instead of the title potentially getting axed, it instead got outside help.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Right. SE might not have any plan of tripling the sales of this popular title as soon as the contract is expiring. It's perfectly conceivable that they hate money.

The reason fans want to know when this deal expires is so they can make an informed decision about their purchase. Nobody's asking MS when it's coming out on PC/PS4, nor any specifics, they're asking how long is this deal.

Again you all keep missing the most important thing. If they cannot finish the title it doesn't matter how many units it "could" sell in the future. Especially when it took so long for the previous title to recoup the costs associated with developement, distribution, and marketing. And especially when there is a distinct possibility of it taking even longer to recoup the investment.

And from the bits and pieces that Phil let drop, the development budget for Rise of the Tomb Raider might actually exceed that for the previous game, making it an even bigger gamble for a company that isn't on the firmest financial footing. Which shouldn't come as any surprise considering the extra effort that will be required for next gen titles.

Is this 100% what is happening? No. But it's certainly far more plausible than, Microsoft want to be dicks. Or how much money Microsoft would have to spend to prevent an obvious (to forumites only apparently) multiplatform blockbuster from releasing on the console it sold the most titles on. It's only because it is risky, expensive, and SE aren't on firm financial ground that this is even possible for MS in the first place.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sure but what if the conditions from Square Enix Eidos was that they required 5 million, 10 million, 20 million, or some other high dollar figure in order to finish the game for your platform. Otherwise they would stop development as they need to focus finishing their core Japanese IP games.

Then there's no incentive for Sony to pony up because they have this great game called Uncharted 4 (I hope!).

People are looking at Microsoft as the 'bad guy' (absurd, I know) here but Microsoft's position vis-à-vis consoles sales relative to PS4 and lack of first party studios may have put SE in the driving seat. Cancelling projects is something that happens and it would have been easy to do this. I wonder how desperate Microsoft were/are?