then it is really possible that this is a timed exclusive and by the time PC got TR, most bug will already exterminated 
Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn
- Thread starter dumbo11
- Start date
- Status
Interesting you say that.
Storytelling is an incredibly important part of human evolution and mental health. It's linked to imagination, creativity, problem solving, empathy, and every time we get through a satisfying story, we get a big jolt of cortisol and oxytocin. Very few experiences trigger a lot of oxytocin, and it is directly linked to the feeling of love, intimacy, and empathy. So you could say a feeling of affection to a pet produces the same brain chemical, and it's no surprise so many people are attached to books, films, and games. We are wired this way.
Exclusive games like Heavy Rain, TLoU and Journey are among the best examples of interractive art causing an incredible release of oxytocin, arguably moreso than any book or film because of it's interractive nature.
http://dowser.org/the-missing-link-storytelling/
http://futureofstorytelling.org/video/empathy-neurochemistry-and-the-dramatic-arc/
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/04/art-of-immersion.html
I already addressed the reasons why they would go with an exclusive title.
But once again
1) Upfront cash is better than hoping you make more later on.
2)2015 we get uncharted on the ps4 which will be a direct competitor to tomb raider. xbox one doesn't have a popular game directly competing .
3) joint advertising can lead to higher game sales.
You said nothing of the sorts earlier and also these points are hypothetical and points that someone else mentioned in another thread unless you are the same guy using multiple accounts
MS would be paying the publisher. SE, not the dev.
If SE were going to take €20 per unit sold, recompense should be something of the order of money x expected units - benefit in having money up front. If SE were looking to make €200 million from TR, why would they sell it for far less to MS?Quite possibly. The phrasing is about keeping it exclusive to encourage people to get XB1's to play the game, but the cost of actually securing lifetime exclusivity would be very large. Probably better business sense to secure silence of other versions and give the impression of lifetime exclusivity for a lower price over the period it'd matter most (Xmas bundles and advertising 'only on Xbox' to help push units), then let the other versions release to cover the glut of sales. The purpose of the deal for MS is to make XB1 more desirable and shift units. The benefit to SE would be to make more money than they would otherwise, or make money faster with an up-front payout.
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1865802&postcount=8
post number 8 in the thread I mentioned these points as reasons why you didn't enter the thread until post 17. So I can understand why you might have missed my post.
THe only new comment I made was about uncharted
MS would be paying the publisher. SE, not the dev.
Quite possibly. The phrasing is about keeping it exclusive to encourage people to get XB1's to play the game, but the cost of actually securing lifetime exclusivity would be very large. Probably better business sense to secure silence of other versions and give the impression of lifetime exclusivity for a lower price over the period it'd matter most (Xmas bundles and advertising 'only on Xbox' to help push units), then let the other versions release to cover the glut of sales. The purpose of the deal for MS is to make XB1 more desirable and shift units. The benefit to SE would be to make more money than they would otherwise, or make money faster with an up-front payout.
Wait so you think the ps4 would have pushed 10m units by itself ? That is a bold number.
Also remember MS has an advertising budget and making tomb raider only on xbox one adverts would still be like money to square since they would be forced to advertise on their own if they went ps4/xbox one route.
I would think the deal would cost less than 50m for ms and if its timed exclusive maybe less
If MS's were publishing then the would be dealing with the dev directly, in this case It looks like they are dealing with CD still though. However, having someone effectively support the development costs without having to make capital outlay yourself before seeing results is financially beneficial from the risk point of view hence a deal such as this can be attractive even if there is the potential for a lower total return over time.MS would be paying the publisher. SE, not the dev.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm confused, you're talking like Proteus wasn't made available because of a curation policy but it's there. Are there actually any games which have not been released on PlayStation 4 or Xbox One because of Sony and Microsoft curation policies or are we just shaking our first at the curation gods in the sky for the hell of it?
Nothing springs to mind?
Well, Core claimed that it would take longer to develop on Saturn (which is quite believable). But of course, there was an agreement between Sony and Core/Eidos as well.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Quote:
How can limiting your franchise to a small subset of the market help make it one of the biggest brands in the whole market?!
I'm not even entirely sure that's the case. MS are generally more than fine if an Xbox console exclusive also makes it's way to the PC. It is entirely up to the developer these days. See - Titan Fall and Dead Rising 3 for example. Both heavily funded (DR3 completely funded by MS) and available on PC at launch or shortly after launch.
The fact that it isn't even going to come to PC (According to Square Enix currently never. It's a real exclusive and not a timed exclusive) seems more of a Square Enix decision than a Microsoft one.
The Tomb Raider situation may be similar to the Titan Fall situation in that Square Enix wanted to launch Tomb Raider but were unwilling to take the risk of funding it and launching it alone. Therefore they required significant investment from a 3rd party in order for them to make the game (in Titan Falls case, significant 3rd party investment to finish the game).
And probably similar to Titan Fall, only Microsoft was interested in providing the amount of money that was being asked for by Square Enix. Only in this case, unlike Titan Fall, Square Enix themselves decided that there would be no PC version (Unlike Titan Fall and Dead Rising 3).
I suppose if you consider Sony unwilling to fund the game in order to see it completed as Microsoft paying for exclusivity, then that's one way of looking at it. But it could just be a case of Square Enix not launching the game if noone helped fund a large portion of it. And Microsoft being the only console maker willing to pony up the cash that Square Enix was asking for.
And if that had not happened, then the next Tomb Raider either wouldn't have been made, or wouldn't have had the same polish and scope as the previous Tomb Raider, which is (in)famous for not making a profit until a year after release. This due to them not investing as much money into development as the previous game.
In other words, Microsoft are paying to have the game made when the publisher might otherwise not make the game or almost certainly not fund the game to the same degree as its predecessor.
Anyway, it's certainly a possibility.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I agree it's a smart move. However it could backfire. Console gamers are now used to having a game appear exclusive for one platform only for it to appear on the other later on.
The intention here is obviously to drive sales of Xbox One but if those who don't have a Xbox One console are willing to wait in the hope it'll come out later on PC and PlayStation 4, even if this never happens, then there may not be the surge in Xbox One sales Microsoft hope. By the time PC and PlayStation 4 owners are realise this could be a genuinely non-time-limited exclusive they may well have moved on to other games.
Although a possibility, I consider that unlikely. Are SE's finances really that bad that a pretty dependable 2 million sales (and more likely 4+ million) didn't warrant the investment on their own?
I also can't see why Sony wouldn't support development costs seeing as it did so well on PS.
Still, that's all conjecture. I'll just agree that my original assumption has plenty of room to not be valid. Although they still aren't making their brand one of the largest in the world by exclusivity.
It almost certainly is. They already demonstrated that console owners are willing to pay full price for remasters of older games, which also means that selling them a new game one year late with some tweaks and dlc content would be a cakewalk. Looks like "Definitive Editions" is the next big thing in the console world, so just wait for the definitive edition to be released later on all platforms.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Although a possibility, I consider that unlikely. Are SE's finances really that bad that a pretty dependable 2 million sales (and more likely 4+ million) didn't warrant the investment on their own?
I also can't see why Sony wouldn't support development costs seeing as it did so well on PS.
Still, that's all conjecture. I'll just agree that my original assumption has plenty of room to not be valid. Although they still aren't making their brand one of the largest in the world by exclusivity.
And it looks like I'm probably correct.
http://www.gamepur.com/news/15798-m...der-not-square-enix-means-full-time-xbox.html
Which implies that it is actually being published by Microsoft and not SE. Although things are still a bit muddy and people are still trying to get clarification on the issue. So it could still be SE.
But if you read what Crystal Dynamix are saying
http://tombraider.tumblr.com/post/94529480860/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-update
It seems pretty evident the game was likely only made possible through heavy investment from Microsoft and that there's a chance it wouldn't have been made otherwise. Or least not to the same extent.
In other words, it sounds a lot like what was said by the developers about Dead Rising 3 during its developement and why it was exlusive and in that specific case published by Microsoft.
And agreed, still too little information, just people shouldn't jump to conclusions that MS bought exclusivity. Unless you mean funding a game = buying exclusivity. Which in the past was called 2nd party games.
Regards,
SB
- Status
