Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[orangpelupa]

lol that question and answer make me chuckle hahaha.

and unfortunately its quite common for companies to talk in indirect manner

its like when square enix open a branch in Indonesia. They say this is great opportunity for market blablabla great growth blablabla. Although the question was simple, what video game they will work on?

 

[temesgen]

Fantastic. They managed to make up a question for themselves about using indirect language and they answered it by not answering the question, using indirect language.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

In their defense this is the exact same language MS used for nearly 8 years with the 360 to much fanfare; namely calling things exclusive which really were simply delayed on other systems. The message is the same its just that gamers have moved onto the next cool thing, they'll going to have to learn to reinvent their PR bc what has worked historically isn't going over well this generation.

 

[eastmen]

I would be surprised it the duration is anywhere over 3 months.

6 months is what I would expect. 3 months wouldn't be worth it to MS. Think about it an early nov release means a Feb release on the playstations.

I would think a 6 month would work since it wouldn't hit the other consoles till the spring .

 

[Bigduo209]

Considering how good the PS4 is selling, it's a given that MS would have to pay out some serious cash to keep it off the competing platform.

That being said, I have to look at how they keep saying "the deal" has a duration instead saying "the game's exclusivity". That means this might be an exclusive where PS4/PS3/PC owners have to wait for a sequel (think Dead Rising), or the game will be Xbox-only for a year or more.

Or maybe this is all a smokescreen for MS's terms in their NDA, terms that restricts Square from even hinting of the game's appearance on other platforms. Knowing their console sales are almost half of the PS4 so far into this generation, they might be cracking down on their messaging of exclusivity to it more attractive for the XB1 (instead of their usual "First on Xbox" mantra).

But hey, it's all theories until proven otherwise...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

6 months is what I would expect. 3 months wouldn't be worth it to MS. Think about it an early nov release means a Feb release on the playstations. I would think a 6 month would work since it wouldn't hit the other consoles till the spring .

3 months would be the shortest timed exclusive I can think of. 6 months puts the release around May-June but if they delay it a little more, you hit the summer barren period where it could sell even more by virtue of having less competition.

 

[DrJay24]

6 months is what I would expect. 3 months wouldn't be worth it to MS. Think about it an early nov release means a Feb release on the playstations.

Worth what? You don't know what they paid. If all they want is a bullet point that they have Tomb Raider during 2015 holiday shopping season, 3 months is enough. It might also help SE save face and avoid going head to head with Uncharted.

 

[dobwal]

6 months is what I would expect. 3 months wouldn't be worth it to MS. Think about it an early nov release means a Feb release on the playstations.

I would think a 6 month would work since it wouldn't hit the other consoles till the spring .

Isn't there even a history of third party titles with a timed exclusivity of 3 months?

 

[MrFox]

To push consoles sales, I don't think it matters much between 3 or 6 months. The most important is that nobody can buy it for xmas. The console sales after january are very weak anyway.

But I would bet on 6 months. There's some incentive (other than console sales) to make it as long as they can, if only for their reputation. Otherwise if it's really short, considering all the fanfare about it being a "megaton", nobody will take MS seriously ever again.

 

[temesgen]

my guess is 6 months, although it would be helpful to know when their fiscal year ends as that might influence the dates for accounting window dressing.

 

[AlNom]

my guess is 6 months, although it would be helpful to know when their fiscal year ends as that might influence the dates for accounting window dressing.

March 31st, apparently.

 

[dobwal]

They could release in October and then release ports at the end of March. Gives you a holiday product launch with a following spring release for other ports. All with 6 months of exclusivity.

MS got 6 months of exclusivity with GTA BOGT in a similar fashion. Late Oct release followed by LCS for the PS3 during the April of the following year.

Or we could see the same thing as we saw with GTA LOD which spent 14 months as an exclusive 360 title.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I could see a PC port in 3 months and then a PS4 version (if one ever comes out) in 6 to 12 months. 12 months would have it hit the holiday season again.

What would be genius is if MS signed a co-development deal with CD/SE. Where the competing console only gets a port when a new version of Tomb Raider is released for the XBO so that the competition is always one version behind. It'd never happen, of course. But would be interesting if it did.

Regards,
SB

 

[Inuhanyou]

define interesting for those of us who are waiting

 

[rokkerkory]

I could see a PC port in 3 months and then a PS4 version (if one ever comes out) in 6 to 12 months. 12 months would have it hit the holiday season again.

What would be genius is if MS signed a co-development deal with CD/SE. Where the competing console only gets a port when a new version of Tomb Raider is released for the XBO so that the competition is always one version behind. It'd never happen, of course. But would be interesting if it did.

Regards,
SB

Don't give them any ideas!

 

[DieH@rd]

If I'm not able to play Deus Ex Universe on day1 on my PC/PS4, I'm gonna flip the fuck out.

 

[Nisaaru]

I don't think DX3's gameplay depth had been that mind blowing to deserve such a breakdown

P.S. The actual DLC comes close to DX1 though.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

define interesting for those of us who are waiting

Interesting for me, not for most others, I'd imagine. I really don't care about either console over the other. I'm just glad both are capable enough to offer a generation leap in graphics fidelity. The only thing I care about is watching the market dynamics, strategies, performance, and profit generation by respective companies. The numbers are far more interesting to me than who won or who is doing better.

As long as the consoles remain competetive enough that 2-3 console makers can survive to foster some form of competition in the marketplace, it's all good. When things get worrying is if it gets so bad that all competitors end up leaving and thus only 1 console manufacturer remains. Everyone should pray to whatever deities they worship that something like that never happens.

Regards,
SB

 

[Prophecy2k]

Interesting for me, not for most others, I'd imagine. I really don't care about either console over the other. I'm just glad both are capable enough to offer a generation leap in graphics fidelity. The only thing I care about is watching the market dynamics, strategies, performance, and profit generation by respective companies. The numbers are far more interesting to me than who won or who is doing better.

As long as the consoles remain competetive enough that 2-3 console makers can survive to foster some form of competition in the marketplace, it's all good. When things get worrying is if it gets so bad that all competitors end up leaving and thus only 1 console manufacturer remains. Everyone should pray to whatever deities they worship that something like that never happens.

Regards,
SB

Signing deals to deny one console's installed base of previously established third party content is like the opposite of competition. It's anti-competitive in my mind.

I certainly won't be praying to my deity for companies that make a habit of such asshole business practices to stick around in the gaming industry. In fact as a consumer, I feel that gamers would be better off without companies that play such games... make room for a new player who competes on software/hardware innovation and... well... you know... actually developing appealing games.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Signing deals to deny one console's installed base of previously established third party content is like the opposite of competition. It's anti-competitive in my mind.

I certainly won't be praying to my deity for companies that make a habit of such asshole business practices to stick around in the gaming industry. In fact as a consumer, I feel that gamers would be better off without companies that play such games... make room for a new player who competes on software/hardware innovation and... well... you know... actually developing appealing games.

So, I guess you don't want any of the consoles then since Sony, MS, and Nintendo have all done exactly that over the course of their console history.

Regards,
SB

 

[shredenvain]

Signing deals to deny one console's installed base of previously established third party content is like the opposite of competition. It's anti-competitive in my mind.

I certainly won't be praying to my deity for companies that make a habit of such asshole business practices to stick around in the gaming industry. In fact as a consumer, I feel that gamers would be better off without companies that play such games... make room for a new player who competes on software/hardware innovation and... well... you know... actually developing appealing games.

Yes The company responsible for the timed exclusive deal with Tomb Raider is evil!
Oh but it was fine when the "other guy" got the same deal with GTA for an entire gen.
Oh they also did the exact same thing with Tomb Raider 2 on there first console.
I could actually go on for quite a while listing non 1st or 2nd party games that where timed exclusives or true exclusives to the "other guy" you know the company that is apparently immune to criticism for using this exact same tactic to get a foothold in console gaming.
Seriously though you have a preferred platform and thats fine. Is it really that big of a deal that you would wish the competition to go out of business? Actually if we want to make things truly fair why dont we get them to outlaw any sort of exclusive software period.