Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

[dobwal]

I actually think it isn't coming to the PS4, as stunning as that might seem right now. It's coming to PC, though.

I doubt it.

MS nor Rockstar would reveal the length of the exclusivity agreement for the gta 4 DLC even after its release on the ps3.

In all probability they are being vague because their agreement limits their ability to clearly lay out the terms.

Heck, Rockstar and take 2 didnt even acknowledge the possibility of a ps3 port until they announced a ps3 release three months prior or 11 months after the 360 got the first dlc.

Here is a quote of aaron greenberg addressing rumors of ps3 getting the dlc

"It's not possible as far as I'm aware, but that would be a good question to ask Rockstar. Rockstar and Xbox have only said there are exclusive episodes coming this fall to Xbox 360. I might put that up for a bit of wishful thinking on their [Sony's] end."

Nevertheless the dlc was released on the ps3 even though it took almost a year for either party to acknowledge the exclusivity agreement was timed. Even then it was done indirectly.

The is no benefit of being unclear when exclusivity is permanent but there is a benefit when its timed exclusive. The benefit is creating a perception that waiting for the exclusivity to end might not be a viable option for those who playing TR is a must.

 

[djskribbles]

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

And nothing would suggest that it's not coming to PS4 either. However, this strongly suggests that it is:

Does the exclusive to Xbox have a duration? Is it timed? How long is the duration? Can we expect a PlayStation 4 or PC release in the future?

Yes, our deal with Microsoft has a duration. We aren’t discussing details of the deal, and are focused on delivering a great game on Xbox One and Xbox 360.

Were the fans considered when making this decision? Are Crystal Dynamics and Square Enix aware of the franchise history with PlayStation and on PC?

Of course. We did not make this decision lightly. Our goal is to build the best game that we possibly can, and our relationship with Microsoft will help us realize our vision for the game.

Why didn’t Microsoft, Square Enix or Crystal Dynamics say upfront it was a timed exclusive? Why all the indirect language?

We certainly didn’t intend to cause any confusion with the announcement. The Microsoft Gamescom stage was a great place to make the initial announcement, but not necessarily to go into details.

Obviously they can't speak on the details of the deal. But if the deal specifically said that TRoTR will remain a console exclusive, why would they mention PlayStation in their FAQ?

Considering the history of Tomb Raider on PS and how well it sells on the platform, I think the only way that it remains console exclusive is if it sells extremely well on XB1, and MS writes another big check; I don't think the former is gonna happen.

And FWIW, insiders at GAF have said that it's coming to PS4 eventually, and it only makes sense.

 

[Prophecy2k]

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.

Don't get hung up on my terminology. "Questionable" in this context was intended to mean, "open to question or dispute". I already established earlier that deals like this are NOT an issue of morality, ethics nor legal legitimacy. I don't think I've seen anyone who is pissed off at this deal trying to argue that... Once again another strawman.

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.

This practice does NOTHING ELSE, other than shutting out a portion of the market. That's its sole purpose and intent. It doesn't bring anything additive as a side feature. It's simply a practice intended to cut off access to a game to owners of a specific platform. That's why it's so abhorrent in my mind. Since it adds nothing, only takes away.

Sure it's business and not illegal/unethical/immoral/blah/blah. Doesn't mean it's not entirely a shitty or anti-consumer practice.

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.

Lol Sorry dobs, but this is the weakest attempt at a false equivalency yet.

Are you trying to argue that first party developed original IPs, that wouldn't exist otherwise, are equatable to platform holders paying to deny other platform owners' access to already established third party games? One has to employ some mighty impressive mental gymmnastics to believe this is true.

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.

This entire debate is rooted in companies and their dubious practices, and gamer's and their expectations.

Gamers who are annoyed at the TR deal are so because this is a franchise with a history of being multiplaform. PS and PC gamers bought the very last one in the newly rebooted series, and they are now informed that they are being denied access to the sequel, until the terms of MS' moneyhat have expired.

No self respecting XB1 owner should hold any expectation to ever see Sony's first party content on their console of choice. The people you decribe either don't exist or already own a PS4 anyway, as they bought one in anticipation of Sony games being released on their box (who'dda thought eh?).

For PS4 owners who fancy TR, this surely does suck...

Finally you get it, and that's the point of the debate. But not only PS4 owners dobwal. PC gamers are also being denied the title too.

But so did the closing of the Krispy Kreme near my house because the store wasn't generating enough revenue.

Welp! I gues you don't get it then after all. Since this thing is nothing like that thing you just mentioned...

 

[MetalSpirit]

To all those defending the companys perspective and not the consumer perspective (in which fans were defrauded (as in deprived of a right)), I propose a little mental exercise.

Lets make some word swapping.

Lets trade the word Microsoft with Samsung

Console with Fridge

Tomb Raider with Coca Cola.


Now:

SAMSUNG made an exclusive deal with the Coca Cola Franchising.

For at least one Year, Coca Cola will be exclusive to those with Samsung Fridges. Others will have to make due.


Now... how would you feel about this?

Exclusives are OK... Third Party exclusives are OK...
But 18 years old multiplatform Franchises with fans all over, thats just not something we as clients should enjoy. Thats just not good for anybody.

 

[function]

This practice does NOTHING ELSE, other than shutting out a portion of the market. That's its sole purpose and intent. It doesn't bring anything additive as a side feature.

Not quite. While it certainly does shut out a portion of the market, it's main purpose is to grow MS's portion of the market from the undecideds who have gone onto the next gen. The additive side feature is that the game will be better - technically, at least - on the consoles that it does appear on.

The Xbox One version in particular will now be the lead platform and get a level of optimisation that it wouldn't have previously. The game now has the chance to be a technical showcase for the Xbox One, rather than a lower priority also-ran.

Everything in the renderer should be fine tuned for that there pesky esram, for a start ...

 

[function]

To all those defending the companys perspective and not the consumer perspective (in which fans were defrauded (as in deprived of a right))

Defrauded?

And which right where they deprived of ...?

 

[Scott_Arm]

To all those defending the companys perspective and not the consumer perspective (in which fans were defrauded (as in deprived of a right)), I propose a little mental exercise.

...

Defrauded? Deprived of a right? Insanity.

 

[MrFox]

Not quite. While it certainly does shut out a portion of the market, it's main purpose is to grow MS's portion of the market from the undecideds who have gone onto the next gen. The additive side feature is that the game will be better - technically, at least - on the consoles that it does appear on.

The Xbox One version in particular will now be the lead platform and get a level of optimisation that it wouldn't have previously. The game now has the chance to be a technical showcase for the Xbox One, rather than a lower priority also-ran.

Everything in the renderer should be fine tuned for that there pesky esram, for a start ...

Do we know if they are rewriting an engine for this game on XB1, or is it still their multi-platform engine?

Maybe it's like when the PS3 became the lead platform for some studios, it was more difficult to code for, but it was much easier to port to 360 than the other way around. So maybe this will help SE bring the two consoles closer to parity in a way that would apply to all their future games. The delay would also allow the PS4/PC version to be made without pressure and without the trouble and expense of concurrent development. Supposing the esram is causing them to rewrite a fundamental portion of code, normally it would impact other platform if they want the code base and look as unified as possible. So if the ports are done later, no big deal, and the team can be smaller.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I think in most cases coding to the ESRAM is likely to be at worst neutral for other platforms.

 

[function]

Do we know if they are rewriting an engine for this game on XB1, or is it still their multi-platform engine?

Maybe it's like when the PS3 became the lead platform for some studios, it was more difficult to code for, but it was much easier to port to 360 than the other way around. So maybe this will help SE bring the two consoles closer to parity in a way that would apply to all their future games. The delay would also allow the PS4/PC version to be made without pressure and without the trouble and expense of concurrent development. Supposing the esram is causing them to rewrite a fundamental portion of code, normally it would impact other platform if they want the code base and look as unified as possible. So if the ports are done later, no big deal, and the team can be smaller.

Not sure it'd even need to be a complete rewrite. Game engines are constantly evolving, and it'd help MS to have some evolving with their system as a higher priority rather than a lower one.

Just something like using a buffer configuration optimised for the esram (which can take a fair bit of analysis and planning) and organising main memory accesses in a favourable way could help a lot. If CD want to do a DX12 "to the metal" renderer that'd take work too - work that MS might pay for and assist heavily with. Going from 5 platform to 2, likely with unlimited technical assistance for one of them, would probably make some things a lot easier and make bigger changes less risky.

And as you say, this work might improve performance on the PS4 (and PC) too. The PS3 -> 360 example would seem to fit.

 

[MetalSpirit]

Defrauded? Deprived of a right? Insanity.

Im my native Language, Portuguese, these words have clear meanings. But although the definition of right is the same, the one of defrauded (defraudado) is not (although they translate directly).

So, I´ll explain the Portuguese meaning of the word. And this was what i meant to say.

Defraudado: Frustration that happens when expectations are not met. Usually when people feel cheated.

In this case fans feels cheated, and by this definition I used the word defrauded.

But after consulting the definition of defrauded, you only seem to use it associated with fraud. Which was not the case.

Sorry about that! Never meant to even imply that.

As for Right, the definition seems to be the same, although context and interpretation may differ.

Right: "something that one may properly claim as due".

So, agree or disagree, I believe that 18 years of support of a game, even after terrible games like Angel of Darkness allows fans to claim that these games were due to them. After all, weren´t for them, the Franchise could have been canceled in the past (I´m one of them, and I own all games on PC).
And I could say the same for all those that bought the first game of the series reboot on PC and PS4. They were expecting a sequel after the investment, so I can say they were also properly claiming the sequel as due.

I´m sorry for the misundertandings. Language can be a problem sometimes.

 

[MrFox]

Yeah, the word "defrauded" have legal implications, and it's not the case here.

The expectation to have the sequels available on all platform was reasonable. Some gamers are angry or feel cheated, but it doesn't mean they were owed anything. I remember some similar fallout when MS bought Rare, some Nintendo fans were furious, but it's still a legal business deal between two companies.

 

[dobwal]

Don't get hung up on my terminology. "Questionable" in this context was intended to mean, "open to question or dispute". I already established earlier that deals like this are NOT an issue of morality, ethics nor legal legitimacy. I don't think I've seen anyone who is pissed off at this deal trying to argue that... Once again another strawman.

Terms like "predatory", "paid off" and "hush money" has been lobbed at the MS in this very discussion. So there nothing strawman about my point.

Lol Sorry dobs, but this is the weakest attempt at a false equivalency yet.

Are you trying to argue that first party developed original IPs, that wouldn't exist otherwise, are equatable to platform holders paying to deny other platform owners' access to already established third party games? One has to employ some mighty impressive mental gymmnastics to believe this is true.

Yep. Because there is nothing inherent about the exclusivity of first party titles. Its not a technical limitation (third party wares deal with multiple hardware support just fine) nor is it a market reality of one platform's userbase rejecting the wares of owners of a competing platforms.

Its a business practice used as a tool to motivate hardware sales. Office exists just fine supporting multiple OSes even through its produced by MS. Google business is mostly sustain by multiple OS support of its wares even in presence of Android and Chrome. Nothing about Sony/MS/Nintendo as a platform owner excludes them from supporting multiple competing consoles with software other than the console platform owners choosing not to operate in such way.

A manufacturer owning the IP is irrevelant. Owning the IP simply allows for exclusivity not the other way around.

Gamers who are annoyed at the TR deal are so because this is a franchise with a history of being multiplaform. PS and PC gamers bought the very last one in the newly rebooted series, and they are now informed that they are being denied access to the sequel, until the terms of MS' moneyhat have expired.

No self respecting XB1 owner should hold any expectation to ever see Sony's first party content on their console of choice. The people you decribe either don't exist or already own a PS4 anyway, as they bought one in anticipation of Sony games being released on their box (who'dda thought eh?).

Welp! I gues you don't get it then after all. Since this thing is nothing like that thing you just mentioned...

I get it just fine. People are complaining because of what represents a rarely used tool to lock their access to a title. Its rare use simply means gamers aren't as desensitize or conditioned to it as other forms. But whats problematic with this particular form is problematic with all forms and its because its a method of exclusion. Exclusivity is not meant as a benefit to general consumers as its serves the manufacturer's self interest. So if you believe that exclusivity in this form is anticompetitive then its exclusivity in its most practiced form on consoles is anticompetitive.

So, if you want to have a real discussion about exclusivity and its negative impact on gamers in general then the discussion should include its most prevalent form. 15-20% of gamers aren't multi-console owners because of games like TR. Its a rare circumstance thats often short lived. People mostly own multiple consoles because they want to play some combination of first party titles on different platforms. And the cost barrier to overcome exclusivity of the first party form can be measured in billions of dollars.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Terms like "defrauded"

That's been explained as a translation error... Kudos to MetalSpirit for identifying and clarifying that.

 

[dobwal]

That's been explained as a translation error... Kudos to MetalSpirit for identifying and clarifying that.

Sorry MetalSpirit. I'll replace the term with "paid off" and "hush money".

 

[MrFox]

Terms like "predatory", "paid off" and "hush money" has been lobbed at the MS in this very discussion. So there nothing strawman about my point

I used 2 out of those 3 terms, I'm in a good position to explain what I mean if necessary. You really should quote me, it won't be a strawman argument if the post you quote contains those terms in context. (I refuse to use paid off, it's too easy for someone to twist it out of context).

When I said "predatory", it's not a technically correct word for what I want to say, but I mean "the business value of the exclusivity is to remove a game from a competitor's platform". Predatory in the sense that it removes something from other platform, and doesn't add something to their own platform. This requires discussion and not everybody agrees.

I use "hush money" as a shortcut for "a contract in which the actual secrecy of the time of exclusivity can be considered the most beneficial part of the deal, therefore part of the reason for money/resources" which we always felt was the basis of timed exclusivity. We can only speculate based on their cryptic explanations, but the reasons are easy to figure out. I provided an article from The Guardian which elaborates on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...phil-harrison-xbox-tomb-raider-exclusive-deal

Exclusivity is not meant as a benefit to general consumers as its serves the manufacturer's self interest. So if you believe that exclusivity in this form is anticompetitive then its exclusivity in its most practiced form on consoles is anticompetitive.

Making games AT ALL isn't meant as a benefit to general consumers as any investment exists to serve the shareholders interests. Being nice and respecting consumers is a business tactic too, so is being consistently clear, direct and brutally honest, as can be seen with the success of the PS4. The goal remains to gain money or market share. But as consumers, we will decide which tactic is the one we prefer. Some gamers are angry enough that they will vote with their money... elsewhere...

There's much more complexity to exclusives than the simple fact that they are exclusive. It's not anti-competitive to make games for your platform, and invest in more studios. The problem here is mostly about fooling around with gamers expectations to lure them into buying one platform over the other.

For example, CoD would never be expected to become exclusive to anyone, people trust them to stay multi-platform. There's no doubt Uncharted is a PS4 game, and there's trust that it won't be shifted to another platform anytime soon, so we know for sure we'll be able to play the next installment. TR is an ongoing multiplatform franchise where the value of the game is more in the brand and the existing fan base than the actual game. That's why it angers the fans, expectations are being manipulated for profit, and the fear that the franchise could shift platform, depending on whoever gives them a deal, is cause enough for distrust now. This is nothing like Titanfall, which was a new game, everybody think it's nice that XB1 got Titanfall as an exclusive, and many PS fans agree that MS investing in Titanfall was a respectable move. It doesn't even matter whether Titanfall is timed or not, the appearances are important because they instill trust, and for TR they really blew it. The franchise is now considered in peril if we follow the fans reactions.

 

[Sonic]

Yep. Because there is nothing inherent about the exclusivity of first party titles. Its not a technical limitation (third party wares deal with multiple hardware support just fine) nor is it a market reality of one platform's userbase rejecting the wares of owners of a competing platforms.

Its a business practice used as a tool to motivate hardware sales. Office exists just fine supporting multiple OSes even through its produced by MS. Google business is mostly sustain by multiple OS support of its wares even in presence of Android and Chrome. Nothing about Sony/MS/Nintendo as a platform owner excludes them from supporting multiple competing consoles with software other than the console platform owners choosing not to operate in such way.

A manufacturer owning the IP is irrevelant. Owning the IP simply allows for exclusivity not the other way around.

Please explain this position better. I don't see how Office, being a suite of productivity software, is a good example to use in comparison to video games. You're correct in that it's a business practice used as a tool to motivate hardware sales, but seem to fail to reason that it's a necessary one console manufacturers take to sell their hardware. That's the inherent thing about 1st party titles. They are needed to advance sales.

 

[zed]

Please explain this position better. I don't see how Office, being a suite of productivity software, is a good example to use in comparison to video games.

I assume they mean
person A buys a xbone to play halo5, halo5 comes out exclusive on ps4 person A is pissed off
person B buys a ps4 to play uncharted4/GT7, uncharted/GT7 comes out exclusive on xbone person B is pissed off

i.e. ppl buy consoles in the expectation they will be playing game X in the future

 

[dobwal]

Making games AT ALL isn't meant as a benefit to general consumers as any investment exists to serve the shareholders interests. Being nice and respecting consumers is a business tactic too, so is being consistently clear, direct and brutally honest, as can be seen with the success of the PS4. The goal remains to gain money or market share. But as consumers, we will decide which tactic is the one we prefer. Some gamers are angry enough that they will vote with their money... elsewhere...

There's much more complexity to exclusives than the simple fact that they are exclusive. It's not anti-competitive to make games for your platform, and invest in more studios. The problem here is mostly about fooling around with gamers expectations to lure them into buying one platform over the other.

You're right there is nothing anti competitive with building exclusives first party titles in the way Nintendo, MS and Sony goes about it. Neither is buying exclusivity in the way MS did it. Anti competitive practice is the act of reducing competition. Exclusivity in the console world is usually used to promote competition.

But building franchises and buying franchises both can be used as anti competitive practices.

Hiring individuals and starting a first party dev group is hardly considered an anti competitive practice. But, if MS started first party dev groups and used to their war chest to effectively and significantly drain talent from third party pubs and other platforms holders, that action could be used to describe as an anti-competitive practice.

Hiring dev groups to place under your first party banner is hardly considered an anti competitive practice. But, if done on a scale large enough that drastically affected competitors it would be.

Buying limited exclusivity for a well known franchise in and of itself is not anti competitive as it would have to be done at a scale to affect competing platforms in away that significantly make them less competitive.

And yes, you don't want to upset the market as a whole. But you also can't be beholden to gamers who aren't part of your userbase.

Halo was a highly anticipated game coming to the Mac from a highly respected Mac developer. MS not only snatch the game away from Mac gamers, it also practically snatched away the Marathon franchise which a lot of Mac gamers loved. Mac gamers were surely upset. Rare serves as another but less successful example. But I'm sure it upset quite a few Nintendo gamers.

Hiring away Kojima from Konami or if Naughty Dog pulled a Bungie and decided to work with Microsoft Studios would probably piss off a ton of people. But MS would be or would have been crazy not take advantage of those hypothetical opportunities or past opportunities I just listed. Because, they offer/offered the ability to significantly strengthen/strengthened the Xbox brand and for the most part people tend to "get over it".

 

[dobwal]

Please explain this position better. I don't see how Office, being a suite of productivity software, is a good example to use in comparison to video games. You're correct in that it's a business practice used as a tool to motivate hardware sales, but seem to fail to reason that it's a necessary one console manufacturers take to sell their hardware. That's the inherent thing about 1st party titles. They are needed to advance sales.

There is a strong belief that exclusive first party titles are needed because they are used as a standard tool within the console market. But video games exist just fine on PCs and smartphones without a first party exclusive strategy prominently employed by hardware manufacturers.

AMD or Nvidia could jump into the video game software development business, but there is no requirement that deems it necessary for them to lock their titles behind their gpus. I'd bet most PC gamers cringe at the possibility of that happening.