Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn

Just a thought - but if it upsets them, then maybe they shouldn't sign contracts specifically designed to mislead consumers?

At the end of the day, the modern games industry has a certain lack of morality and basic respect for it's customers:
- the idea of paying someone not to release a game.
- the idea of lying to your fans for some extra $$$.

 

I said it before, I think hiding the information about whether or not it's a timed exclusive is deceitful. Hush money is manipulative FUD.

Every time one of the console maker did that, there was confusion. If they said the truth immediately "play it first on...", and direct question from the press would be answered with "it's a 6 month exclusive", it would instantly kill the uncertainty, and this exclusivity deal would have little impact on sales. So the increased sales only works if they can maintain the fear uncertainty and doubt. If it's a forever exclusive, they might say clearly that the game is never coming on other consoles. But then the money becomes essentially a way to prevent a game from appearing on competitors, it doesn't provide more games, it shrinks the market, and the console maker is paying to compensate the lost sales from competitors, and the loss of reputation for annoying the fans. In that case the public would see it as by-the-book predatory practice. So the profitable move is hush money either way.

If they make people believe it's a forever exclusive, buyers will get the console thinking it's the only way to play their favorite game, just to learn a few months later that they were misled. It's no surprise the gamers who were misled before are now increasingly paranoid about these statements.

 

Well, the logic must be that people will use this to contemplate buying a XB1 over a PS4 (for those that haven't decided yet). Halo, Tomb Raider, Forza (with all the other multi-platform 3rd party games) is a compelling argument.

It does taste a bit sour though, as Tomb Raider has always been on PlayStation consoles. What makes matters worse is that we got the first part as a multi platform game and it sold more on the PS3/4 too. Then the sequel gets announced for next gen consoles and a few months later - bang - Xbox exclusive.

Fans will undoubtedly be angry at the moment - and I do wonder if this deal will ultimately be a good thing for the franchise or not. If it ends up being timed (meaning it will come to the PS4 soon after), I don't see the impact being too big. However if it stays exclusive for a considerable amount of time, I do wonder what kind of sales the game will get on the Xbox.

 

I disagree, there is a long history of titles that were released on the 360 that were announced as exclusive which eventually made there way to PS3. Historically DLC exclusivity has been come with the type of clarification you mentioned above. What's different this time is the we are finding out now that its a timed deal. All that said nobody should be surprised, MS has paid for timed deals before nothing new here.

 

So what I've learned in this thread is you can throw around terms like hush money, corrupt practices, lack of morality, bribery, steal, throw a bag of money and you won't have to justify any of it. If enough people are upset, they must be right. Ethics and morals don't mean anything. Being upset that you won't be able to play a video game is grounds for accusation. If you don't like something, then it's wrong. That would be a fantastic world to live in. I hope you teach your kids to behave that way. No one should ever have to suffer disappointment. Disappointment is a crime committed on you by someone else. Never mind that any normal human being suffers small disappointments on a daily basis, and learning to deal with it is part of becoming an adult. And yes, not being able to play a video game because it's exclusive is a small disappointment.

You can also throw a tantrum and act like a baby as a complete knee-jerk reaction to something that isn't even true (game turns out to be a timed exclusive), and then pat yourself on the back in the end for believing you were fighting for some principle that is unexplained.

 

Wow. There's very little here that isn't an attempt to ridicule other posters, is there?

 

Nope. If people are going to act outraged and throw around words like that, they should have to back them up. I shouldn't be able to accuse a company of corruption, just because I'm upset I can't play a game.

 

Who talked about corruption?

BTW, my post above is about the secrecy of timed exclusives and third party exclusives being perceived as predatory practices. That includes Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. I wasn't talking about any game or console in particular.

In this thread we're supposed to express if we're personally for or against exclusives... and more importantly why. Obviously ethics is a central part of our answers.

 

Well, I'll simply say it again; I think Microsoft was smart in securing this. Sure the outrage is big, but ultimately, I think it will prove to be better [for them] this way, then if they hadn't. What I'm more wondering about is, what impact this will have on the franchise. Still early days though - if this is timed (and ends up on PS4 and if yes, when) or not is still a crucial question that will determine what and how big any impact of this deal is IMO.

 

Although we'll get dribbles at various stages, the major marketing and bundling push will happen a year away from now and will the people that they are trying to attract to the platform really remember or care about the outrage occurring right now?

 

Wow, man what a response from the peanut gallery here. Really appreciate Scott_Arm for saying so much about what I wanted to say regarding the Tomb Raider news. I haven't really answered the OP question, but will now. I like console exclusives, it helps differentiate the different consoles. It also helps me validate my purchase too since I can only afford to buy one. Will I be upset if something like Batman Arkham or Red Dead comes out on the other guy? Oh yes, but I'm not going to spaz out on the discussion forums or the Internet & rage about self entitlement. I'll either buy or rent the console to play them on or I won't. I'll let my wallet speak for itself. One last thing, if Microsoft has to do this in order to stay relevant & keep their system from dying a Dreamcast death then I'm all for it. There's no way they can get internal studios up to speed for a new title next year, but after next year I don't see many more 3rd party exclusives like Tomb Raider going forward. If we don't see anymore news I think we can retire this thread. I think all has been said.

Tommy McClain

 

I don't think there is a dilemma to begin with.
If there were no exclusives, there shouldn't be more than one console.

As for the TR outrage, grow up...
Even if it does come out as an xb1 exclusive, that is the way things work.
If MS has the money to make that deal, they'll do it. Nothing unethical about it.
It is a free market society we live in after all.
If you want to moan about it, there are a lot more serious issues to do it over, other than the disappointment some might feel if they won't play a game on their favorite console.

 

The pseudo-elitist "I'm smarter than you all - harr harr - because I'm not at all invested in any game franchise or gaming product" sentiment from the individual posters in this thread is pretty embarassing.

People get invested in games and franchises they enjoy and care about. Get over it!

It's not fanboyism. It's the human nature of people who are naturally enthusiastic about a hobby they enjoy.

If you do not share their enthusiasm, nor let yourself get invested in the games or gaming franchises that you play, then good for you (or rather sucks to be you, tbh).

Please refrain from further stinking up this thread with juvenile posts, in an off-hand attempt to insult people's intelligence.

In the end, more people bought a PS4, or own a PC than an XB1, and so those that only own the former have every right to feel a little annoyed at their access to a franchise they've always enjoyed on their chosen platform, has now been taken away from them with this deal from MS.

Sure we find out it's only a timed exclusivity deal, and that will lessen the grievance somewhat, but most reactions seen in this thread imho have been measured and entirely rational given the popularity of the TR series. It's the post that attempt to berate and demean people for caring about a franchise that I find most irrational.

 

Agree with Prophecy.

Is it unethical for MS to make a deal like this? Of course not!

Is it just a bit shit that CD agreed to alienate a huge chunk of their installed fanbase (myself included) to get some quick cash? Yes, and don't tell me how I should feel!

 

How much do you think this cost MS? $50M?

 

PS4 owners will simply come up with their own talking point to counter the XB1 fans who say we get it first. All they have to say is I'm waiting for the DE version, better visuals is worth the wait.

/S

Seriously opinions on this are going to be like noses, everyone has one but more often then not the interpretation (bad or good) will be a function of which platform you own. I honestly don't mind waiting, I am just now getting around to playing LTOU on PS4 there are plenty of good games to play and lots more coming. I can wait, TR DE was a good game but I wouldn't have bought it new, I was always going to get it used. Waiting is not a big deal for me.

 

I think you overlooked "evil".

Disappointing. The thread that is - not the oversight I'm very disappointed the exclusive isn't definitive. I guess that was a little too much $$$.

 

What is wrong with pointing out that Microsoft threw a bag if money, do we need to back that up?

Of course they made a deal that included silence on when the deal runs out, that is half of it. I think it's cool that Phil didn't lie about it though he was hard pressed to deliver and answer.

 

Because gamers *always* say that Microsoft threw a bag of money for anything, everywhere, everytime, any case. If gamers are to be believed then the entire planet apparently is on the Microsoft payroll. In this case it's likely true but nonetheless it gets kinda silly hearing the same money bag reason time and time and time again. Something happens, "They were paid by Microsoft", rinse and repeat. Eventually it makes it hard to take gamers seriously.

I can't imagine what it would have cost to buy Tomb Raider outright. I don't think it would even be worth it really.

 

if they are that invested in TOMB raider then buy a cheap used xbox 360 for $100 bucks and play the new tomb raider.

Its not like we are talking about thousands of dollars here. You can buy both next gen systems now for $800 total and there are enough xbox one exclusives that would make a $400 purchase worth while .