Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn
- Thread starter dumbo11
- Start date
- Status
I wrote 'most intelligent option with TR'. They had other options not using TR. There are pros and cons to each. The deal made sees MS secure a noteworthy title over the Christmas period and CD get marketing prominence for potentially very little cost to either party (MS already had a budget for Holiday marketing, and they can just spend that on TR TV slots instead of some other game, so the cost for TR is possible extremely low), and CD's TR sales aren't going to be diminished by U4. All in all, it seems quite sensible. the only backlash came from PR with the deal, not the deal itself.
Alternatively, they could have invested in indies as you say, and then got some title(s) of which there's no existing fanbase and brand strength to help sell the console over Holiday 2015. Maybe they'd have landed a title that became a huge system seller, or maybe they'd have just got a mediocre game that failed to make a splash. See LO and BD on 360 for examples of big exclusive IP that didn't achieve a lot - it happens.
TR's perhaps a more cautious strategy, but it's far from bad.
Given MS have already stated they are providing engineering input I believe the result be a better title for the XBOX One. The additional funding may result in a better title - which everyone could benefit from later.
So, yeah, I don't see why this wouldn't result in a better game.
Billy Idol
Legend
Don't they provide every big budget title with engineering input?
djskribbles
Legend
They did with Diablo III and Destiny for sure.
That's the job of any ISV relations group, but there are degrees of support that will be given for any particular title. I would wager that a deal such as this would account for NRE budget for ISV assistance as part of the overall deal budget; likely with MS staff on-site of some period of time.
shredenvain
Regular
First already wrote a long reply and delted it having phone trouble.
I am not going to retype everything again. Look I really dont appreciate you implying that I am being emotional or that I am some sort of fanboy. I never implyed that about you in my earlier posts. I like you never mentioned any console by name. I only listed titles that I could think of that were timed exclusives regardless of platform. It is pretty convenient that you get to pretend you are not specifically talking about Tomb Raider and it's timed exclusivity by labeling your post hypothetical. I am not defending any company like you are implying.
I dont feel that the common practice of companies purchasing timed exclusives needs defending. I dont have to pretend like the past doesnt exist or somehow count.
I would think calling a company (Hypothetical or not) an asshole would be considered emotional. I find it extremely ironic you complain that I am making assumptions about you then turn around and do the same to me. If a company purchased timed exclusivity for a game that I liked I would be patient and wait for it to land own a platform I own or I would use the time between now and holiday 2015 to save up the cash to buy the platform it comes out on first. I would not go on a forum and say negative things about the companies involved in the timed exclusivity (hypothetical or not). I guess I am just a console warrior though and strawmen and such because I dont believe in badmouthing game companies or consoles when something doesnt go the way I like it. My position doesnt involve having a selective view of console gaming history past or present.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
If I misrepresented you in my post by implying you were emotional or fanboyish (not my words) then I apologise as my post wasn't intended to cause offence. It's just that your responses very much came across that way, since you took my original post - which was inarguably a hypothetical statement, dealing only with the predatory behaviour of gaming companies - and equated it to me "calling for the death of a company" (your exact words). It was hyperbolic and indeed a strawman argument.
Honestly though, I don't know why you would be so sensitive about anyone condemning a company for its actions. That's our right as consumers. It feels like you're humanising corporations which is fundamentally unnecessary. These are not people but organisations that exist to serve the needs of their consumers/service users in order to expoit them and make money off them. That relationship ideally should be mutually beneficial for a company to be successful (i.e. said company keeps its customers happy). If a company does things which aren't seen as beneficial to the consumer or service user (or even potential customer/service user, since these are arguably even more important to a company for its growth) then I see no reason why a consumer cannot call a company out for it. Calling MS an asshole for striking deals that only serve to punish non-users of MS HW, is not emotional but an simple observation based on a perspective. If you don't agree (and you may not because you may not be interested in the money-hatted title in question) then that's you're prerogative, just don't feel you have any right to tell other how they should respond or react to such a move by a corporate entity.
Can I ask you then, since you feel companies should be immune to criticism, when Sony were in their hurbis launching the PS3 at $599 and making seriously disrespectful statements about consumers working two jobs to buy a PS3, did you not once raise your voice in criticism of them or their PR messaging? If no that I honestly find that hard to believe.
Companies should not be immune to criticism. As even humans are not, so why should MS, Sony nor Nintendo enjoy that privaledge exclusively? It's not a rational stance in my opinion.
MetalSpirit
Newcomer
I could not agree more.
The past counts? Not really! We cannot change the past. But we can just learn for the future.
Past situations should be taken to learn what not to do. Not as excuses to do the same!
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Absolutely agreed.
What does one company's questionable dealings, 10-15 years ago, have to do with an entirely different company's dealings today? Answer: nothing... It's irrelevant.
So I'm not holding a selective view of gaming history. I'm making a criticism of any company that wants to behave like an asshole to the detriment of gamers today, in the current gaming market (since in terms of the games I as a gamer will have access to play, that's the only time period that's relevant to me).
If a company today has not learned from the mistakes of other company'sin the past then I would argue that it's because NOT ENOUGH gamers have spoken up about it in criticism of their actions in the past. Consumers should not have to lie down and take it up the rear end by corporations that make short-sighted moves, seeking only to grow their bottom line.
I just want to point out there's a thread where we expressed our emotions about exclusives in general.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=65452
shredenvain
Regular
I am not offended man. Everything is cool. As for your question. No I do not feel companies are above criticism under all circumstances. Example Ms E3 2013 24 hour check in. Another Example Sony E3 2005 trying to pass off CGI as Killzone 2 gameplay. I had absolutely no problem with Sony launching the Ps3 at $699. I could not afford a Ps3 at launch, but I do thing the OG Ps3 brought alot of value with a blu ray drive and almost full Ps1 and Ps2 BC.
As far as the TR timed exclusive situation goes I dont see the issue. If Ms would have bought lifetime exclusive rights to the game I would understand. I just view game companies buying timed exclusivity to title as a normal routine practice. Look at UT3 it was a timed exclusive for the Ps3 and it came to the xbox360 about a year later. I dont remember anyone freaking out about it. One practice I would criticize is the way in which nintendo forced all devs to make their games timed exclusive on the NES. That is an example of bad business practice, but on the flipside if Nintendo didnt go with that policy console gaming might not have recovered from the crash. I hope you understand I just dont see the big deal about timed exclusivity.
shredenvain
Regular
Thank you. I have read most of it. Im sorry if your are implying my posts dont belong in this thread. I am not trying to start trouble with anyone here. I love this place.
Pfft. There is nothing questionable about the practice 10-15 years ago and there is nothing questionable about it now.
The simple "act of upsetting you" doesn't automatically translate into a business arrangement being unethical, illegal, immoral or however you want to negatively categorize it. The interests of yourself and the companies you do business with, may not always align forcing one to part ways with the other. That's life and common in a competitive environment.
I see many complaining out how this practice shuts out a part of the market. But, there are readily accepted practices, that no one relatively complains about, that have a far greater impact on shutting out a gamers from a portion of good games.
The ongoing existence first party devs practically means that talent as well as very good franchises will always be locked away from a portion of marketplace. How many timed exclusives of well known third party multiplatform titles have ever existed? Probably no where near the level of great quality first parties titles that have been produced over the years. Its not like Destiny's hype within the PS4 userbase has nothing to do with the fact its from the makers of Halo or its limited to previous 360 owners. Its not like its impossible to want to play Zelda or Metroid if you have never own a nintendo console. In this day and age, good games are well known regardless of platform.
I bet you there are plenty of XB1 owners that would be willing to trade TR exclusivity for UC4, 1886 or Bloodborne on the XB1.
For PS4 owners who fancy TR, this surely does suck. But so did the closing of the Krispy Kreme near my house because the store wasn't generating enough revenue.
Last edited by a moderator:
This false equivalence is getting old.Did MS create the TR franchise, buy CD or develop the IP? I don't see PS4 owners being upset that Halo isn't on the PS4.
Being upset has nothing to do with who created what. Its a matter of the prevalance of the practice. If it was easy to engage in exclusively securing well known and popular multplat franchises it would common place and readily accepted.
I am not saying its equivalent, im saying that that securing franchises around first party devs is far more prevalent and does far more to lock up franchises to platforms. No one is upset because it common place. But ultimately whats 3, 6 or 12 months in comparison to never. Or a handful of short lived exclusivity agreements in comparison to dozens of exclusive franchises that have spanned generations.
If we spent the last 20 years with universal support being the standard on consoles, the argument that "we developed the IP or franchise" or "we bought the dev" would hardly be a justification in alot of people's minds.
The only reason we havent seen these types of exclusivity agreement with popular titles as widespread is because they are not economical. MS, Sony and Nintendo invest in first party devs because its ultimately cheaper since its long term ownership versus short term renting.
Nevertheless, console exclusivity in any form negatively impacts the gamers who dont own 100% of all consoles.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's completely fine to express criticism of a company when they do things we don't like. I am surprised by the amount of people, forum goers I mean, that are upset about this Tomb Raider deal. I don't see it as a big deal, but others clearly do. So that's that.
But a deal like this should have been and should continue to be expected going into the future. MS is an underdog right now and needs to secure exclusives (timed or not) in order to differentiate its machine from the competition. Since their hardware isn't as powerful this time around they need to release compelling content that can only be found on their system in order to attract buyers. They lack enough 1st parties to cover the bases so they will need to turn to 3rd parties. If MS offers enough cash to go exclusive I bet a few of them will. From a sales perspective timed exclusivity might be the best they can get. I won't be surprised if they make more deals like this.
And if Sony's able to continue on the path they're on I expect them to do the same.
And I really hope this Tomb Raider game is successful for Crystal Dynamics. They are a developer I've admired for a long time now and they're still around and kicking is just awesome to me. I hope the new TR game is a success for them so that one day maybe we can get a new Gex, Pandemonium, or Kain/Raziel title.
But a deal like this should have been and should continue to be expected going into the future. MS is an underdog right now and needs to secure exclusives (timed or not) in order to differentiate its machine from the competition. Since their hardware isn't as powerful this time around they need to release compelling content that can only be found on their system in order to attract buyers. They lack enough 1st parties to cover the bases so they will need to turn to 3rd parties. If MS offers enough cash to go exclusive I bet a few of them will. From a sales perspective timed exclusivity might be the best they can get. I won't be surprised if they make more deals like this.
And if Sony's able to continue on the path they're on I expect them to do the same.
And I really hope this Tomb Raider game is successful for Crystal Dynamics. They are a developer I've admired for a long time now and they're still around and kicking is just awesome to me. I hope the new TR game is a success for them so that one day maybe we can get a new Gex, Pandemonium, or Kain/Raziel title.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
I actually think it isn't coming to the PS4, as stunning as that might seem right now. It's coming to PC, though.
That's my thinking as well. The way they keep phrasing the deal makes me think that. It will be interesting to see the meltdown that will happen if/when that happens. Nothing that Microsoft or Crystal Dynamics have said says it's coming to Playstation at all.
Tommy McClain
- Status
