I don't believe anyone is 100% a dick.Is this 100% what is happen? No. But it's certainly far more plausible than, Microsoft want to be dicks.
Tomb Raider exclusivity fallout thread *spawn
- Thread starter dumbo11
- Start date
- Status
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That's part of the problem here, Sony is perceived one way when reality is a completely different matter. Your MLB case is a perfect example of this, let's just say that was *far* from a level play field on the Sony platform and leave it at that. Yet in your example you paint Sony as a benevolent company that is there for the enrichment of gamers. Sony are a company just like any other, we really shouldn't be getting into revisionist history here.
I'm quoting you again here in case anyone missed it previously. Nicely worded, I don't know when it became a the job of a company to work against themselves.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Except you missed the point of my post. Let me quote it and this time underline the operative point so you can spot the implied smoke and mirrors.
DSoup said:
That would go down fabulously well!
EG: Our community of gamers wants to know what the nature of the exclusive deal is.
MS: Well they can sod off. It's not like they're going to buy our console anyway! We can and we did. Suck it up.
Your words not mine. Its all PR, so they can word it as nicely as they want.
Good PR isn't about making everyone happy and warm. Apple's PR on its walled garden app store has never been about making the adovocates of an open market ammendable to their solution.
I don't know what anyone expects of MS. In an effort to relevant, what do you expect a company on the verge of losing its prominence in this space to do? Sit on its hand?
One thing MS has its plenty of money and buying prominent exclusives is probably one of the most worthwhile investment a platform holder can make. Cleveland Cavs fans weren't too happy about losing Lebron James, but its not the Miami Heats' job to make sure the Cav fans are okay. Its the Miami Heats job to win as its what their fans expects and its MS's job to keep the Xb1 market viable, which best serves their own userbase. Miami could of simply drafted player after player every year until it found a top notch player. Instead they went and signed one of the better players in the league as a free agent. In reality, MS has done relatively the same thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. No-one's asking him to comment on SE's plans. Only that they secured a timed exclusivity deal. I repeat, it took four questions from Eurogamer before he mentioned there was a duration to the deal. It comes across as though Spencer was trying to avoid admitting to that. If he knew it was a timed exclusive and he didn't want that info getting out, he'd have given exactly these answers. So either he was evasive just because that's how he communicates, or it was deliberate. Either way, it didn't sit too well with some.
That's subjective. There were obviously two-way discussions. Whether SE asked for help first, or MS offered it first, we won't know. Not that it matters. It was a mutual business partnership, but a very curious one for the franchise.
Yeah I was emphasizing it for others as you had a great example for it. People need to realize that there is some serious revisionist history going on here and that appearances can be deceiving.
I don't think it is curious at all. From a historical perspective, others have already pointed out that the franchise hasn't been blind to before. However, we've been speculating about whether the title could have been in trouble from a financial perspective, and Phil's comments clearly highlight this. Look at this particular comment:
The operative word there is continuing - he's not even talking about an incremental spend from the prior title, he saying they need a partnership to even maintain equivalence.
Guilty. Using that sentence on-topic was an incredible privilege.Been watching Guardians?
So even though we found out, on the day of the announcement, that the game (a year out from release) could end up on other platforms, Phil Spencer is now getting knocked for taking four questions to answer rather than one. Another great example of the gaming communities relentless self-absorption.
Stop treating executives like celebrities. They're sales people.
The interview suggests a partnership and that the dev wanted someone to help carry the load. Interesting topic in terms of understanding where the industry is at. On a personal level, I don't care either way, and I don't see why anyone else would. Maybe Square Enix's financial would give a hint if anyone is up to date on that. Maybe they were not willing to carry the risk of a sequel after the first did not perform to expectations.
Stop treating executives like celebrities. They're sales people.
The interview suggests a partnership and that the dev wanted someone to help carry the load. Interesting topic in terms of understanding where the industry is at. On a personal level, I don't care either way, and I don't see why anyone else would. Maybe Square Enix's financial would give a hint if anyone is up to date on that. Maybe they were not willing to carry the risk of a sequel after the first did not perform to expectations.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's not about treating people like celebrities or about business. If you don't want to reveal a piece of information, both parties should agree this in advance and stick to it. But you need nail the message. This is what we can say and this is what we can't.
The goal of the announcement was to enhance the image of the Xbox platform but it's had the reverse effect, because the message - in the current tradition of Xbox - was ambiguous and unclear.
There are no circumstances where evasiveness is going to be perceived as a positive character trait. The interview cleared up some things but Phil Spencer come across like a used car salesman. How's the engine? The tyres are fine. How's the engine. Yeah, there's gas in the tank.
Answer the f***ing question or say you can't.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.
I strongly disagree that he should comment on the PS4 release of the game.
Of course he won't.
Now it's SONY and SquareEnix's job to tell us whether the game will be released on their platform and when. Certainly not MS's job.
Unless part of the deal is that SE can't talk about it, which would be pretty crappy.
They can't stop Sony releasing info on the game and assuming SE will still be working on the ps4 version of the game at the same time as the XO version (in order to release it 6-12 or however many months it takes), then they should know when the game will eventually come out on ps4 and make things clear.
Of course he won't.
Now it's SONY and SquareEnix's job to tell us whether the game will be released on their platform and when. Certainly not MS's job.
Unless part of the deal is that SE can't talk about it, which would be pretty crappy.
They can't stop Sony releasing info on the game and assuming SE will still be working on the ps4 version of the game at the same time as the XO version (in order to release it 6-12 or however many months it takes), then they should know when the game will eventually come out on ps4 and make things clear.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
'Is the exclusivity timed' was the key question. This can be answered without referring to any other platforms and which nobody would expect Microsoft to comment on.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.
I've spoken about Phil Spencer as a business entity and his impact on the business. His approach in that interview came across as evasive which only antagonised parts of the market they're trying to sell to. MS can either carry on with that strategy, or change it with a more comfortable front-man. The latter choice will improve their relations with the core gamer.
Whether they want to do that or not is their choice, but I see nothing wrong with the observations of an interview and its response from its audience. It's all part of MS's messaging and this is IMO another piece of evidence that they messaging isn't working.
This. It's as if people are dealing with this situation as a binary choice between MS saying,
"It's exclusive on XBox in 2015."
or
"Although coming first on XBox in 2015, it'll be out on PC and PS4 within 6 months."
Few seem to grasp the middle ground, where MS just had to be transparent with their information without having to talk about the competition at all.
"It's coming first on Xbox in 2015."
Or even,
"Coming to exclusively Xbox in 2015,"
...and when asked for clarifcation...
"We've a timed exclusive where it launches first on Xbox in 2015."
Whether it comes on other platforms or not is not MS's concern and no-one's asked them to confirm it's coming to other platforms. Just confirm if it was a perpetual exclusive or timed. They're apparent unwillingness to confirm that is a head-scratcher.
It may not be in their interest, but it's in the consumer's interest, which then makes it in MS's interest if they piss those consumers off. MS can choose not to give that info, but they have to face the natural consequences of that choice, which is either outrage if gamers fear they'll never get to play the game on their console where they expected to, or annoyance that MS are being obtuse. Sony's announcement of its exclusives was transparent - "these are forever exclusives, these are play first on PS4."
Had MS gone that route, they'd have lost the idea that they had a perpetual exclusive (which they've lost anyway since the media pressed them for clarity) but they wouldn't have annoyed a lot of gamers and generated bad publicity. Personally I think they picked the wrong strategy.
Had MS gone that route, they'd have lost the idea that they had a perpetual exclusive (which they've lost anyway since the media pressed them for clarity) but they wouldn't have annoyed a lot of gamers and generated bad publicity. Personally I think they picked the wrong strategy.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Naaaah... he's being evasive and he knows it.
I would accept one "misheard" question leading to an erroneous answer, but no one would do that 4 times in a row.
IIRC, the first release of Tomb Raider barely got them in the black, but the definitive edition got them lots of profit. They mentioned it during one of Square Enix's quarterly results.
The IP's brand had suffered a lot throughout the past 8 years, so this was a big budget title carrying some sort of negative hype, without any support from a console manufacturer for the marketing money it deserved. As good as the game might have been (which it was), I don't think it could be the instant success that S-E was apparently expecting.
But after the great critic reception and getting console owners to see how great the graphics were in the definitive edition, there was already great anticipation for the second installment of the remake. The gaming world right now likes the Tomb Raider franchise a lot more than the gaming world in early 2012.
That said, I find it very hard to believe that Crystal Dynamics was having trouble getting funding for the second installment. The first game got the franchise in gamers' hearts and gave S-E a profit. The second game is expected to have a much better paved road.
He's getting knocked for giving four non-answers before admitting he was never going to answer the first question.
We all know why he didn't want to say when the game will be out on PC and/or PS4. He doesn't want to say how long people will have to wait before getting a version for their platform. He wants people to feel compelled to buy the xbone on the perspective that getting Tomb Raider could take years before being available for their current platforms. It's an understandable business decision like any other.
But if he wanted to pass as an honest person (which he did want, looking at his thoughts on Uncharted), he should've just answered the question the first time instead of the fifth.
I wonder if all this is Phil Spencer still trying to put out the fire caused by Don Mattrick's continuous fuck-ups.
- Status
