80°

The mysterious case of the Square-Enix non-exclusive

TotalBiscuit gives his thoughts about the non-exclusivity of Rise of the Tomb Raider.

wonderfulmonkeyman3534d ago

How long will this harping on about the TR deal go on?
Place your bets!

JD_Shadow3534d ago

Until someone gets the message that this kind of stuff shouldn't really be happening in the games industry.

Software_Lover3534d ago

But it hardly makes a dent in the news when Pc gets something exclusive (which rarely happens), or when PlayStation gets something exclusive, whether its a timed gamed or content.

Not saying it's right either way, but why doesn't the internet go crazy as people put it, when its for Sony? We see one article/blog on N4G and people just move on after that.

oasdada3534d ago

@software_lover

sony has their owns studios.. they dont shove money in the faces of already stablished ips

gaffyh3534d ago

@Software_Lover - The bigger issue here is that MS specifically tried to deceive people with the wording they used. Then had to back track to say it was timed exclusive. If it was full exclusive, it would still be annoying to many fans of the franchise because a lot of the fans are on PC and PS platforms, and they most likely outnumber the fans on Xbox.

Bayonetta 2 was announced as a full exclusive, and again people were really annoyed because it was multiplatform previously. So that negates your argument completely, because no matter what the game is, it tends to cause an issue if it was multiplatform before and is now exclusive to one platform, ESPECIALLY if the majority of the fans are on another platform.

Microsoft needs to stop doing this type of stuff. Pay for exclusive DLC if you want, but use the money hats that you use to buy "exclusives" to actually make new and interesting IP like Quantum Break that are full exclusive. The amount of bad PR they get every time they pull some shit like this just hurts their brand even more.

Software_Lover3534d ago

@osada

*established*

On topic: Says you. You would like to think that don't you. Everyone would. Like I said, I'm not saying it's right what happened but people need to move on. It happened, it's still happening on all sides of the argument. Too many emotions involved with these products for people to think clearly about the subject.

I tell people to boycott something if they don't like it. I haven't bought a piece of DLC with the exception of Crackdown when it first came out. That was a long time ago. I don't agree with DLC and I probably never will. I don't buy it. That is how I make my mark and take a stand.

I completely understand why Square did it, but even then I think they should've have released on PC at the same time as XBone. That is just me though.

Chris123534d ago

@gaffyh

How exactly did MS try and deceive? That's a story peddled by fanboys and sucked up by the simple minded. More toxic FUD.

DVAcme3534d ago

@gaffyh While it IS annoying that Bayonetta 2 is Wii-U exclusive, that one at least is understandable because Nintendo actually put money down for the game to get made, they didn't throw the money at Platinum to make an already-coming game exclusive. As for Sony, as far as I can recall, the only non-exclusive franchise that they had an exclusive game for was Metal Gear Solid 4, and that was more because of technical issues, since the game depended heavily on the Blu-Ray format, which the 360 didn't have. Every other exclusive game is either full-exclusive in-house or was is a 3rd-party exclusive that was meant as such from the beginning.

The situation with Tomb Raider is different in that it's a game that was meant to be multiplat and MS made the attempt to grab it for themselves. I'm POSITIVE they tried to make the game full exclusive, got at least timed exclusivity and then started using corporate speak to fool us into thinking it was a full exclusive to make us buy consoles. It's dishonest in the extreme, and shows that MS NEVER puts the gamers first. If they did, they'd just flat out say it was a timed exclusive instead of playing us for chumps. It's like something out of 1984.

@Software_Lover: PC gaming is its own beast and has its own niche, it doesn't compete with consoles so much as co-exists with them, and many types of games are tailor-made for PC(flight sims, MOBAs, MMOs, 4Xs). So when a game makes it only to PC, I can understand the reasons why. Sony's huge library of exclusives are either 1st-party in-house development studios or 2nd-party developers that have an intimate relationship with them. Microsoft instead is blatantly trying to steal multiplatform games away from both PC and Sony players.

Major_Glitch3534d ago

I wonder if the people saying this isn't a big deal would say the same thing if games like the next Halo or Zelda became a timed-exclusive of Sony's.
BTW, in case yall forgot, "timed-exclusives" was an invention of Microsoft. Before they came on the scene, any game that was labeled "exclusive" was actually "exclusive".

LeCreuset3534d ago (Edited 3534d ago )

@Software_Lover

"I'm not saying it's right what happened. Instead, I'll present a tacit defense of what happened by pushing for those saying it isn't right to shut up and move on, while also not missing an opportunity to once again present multi-billion dollar company Microsoft as a poor victim of unjust persecution."

Do you know why people haven't been this upset in other situations you would like to present as comparable? Because they're not. When you take a franchise that has been around for four console generations, over a period of eighteen years, and say it's now exclusive to the console that it has sold the least on, on the platform it has the least history on, that's going to cause a backlash from a lot of angry fans of the franchise you just threw the finger up to.

Big retail exclusives released to date:

PS4: Killzone, Knack, Infamous, TLOU.

Xbox: Forza, Ryse, Dead Rising, Titan Fall.

Big retail exclusives released to date, minus third party titles:

PS4: Killzone, Knack, Infamous, TLOU.

Xbox: Forza.

Could that be a reason some get called out more than others?

Imalwaysright3534d ago

@ gaffyh

If MS really wanted to deceive people then why would they come clean about it? This is not the first time this has happened. I still remember Ken Levine swearing that Bioshock would never be on the PS3 and no one from MS "corrected" him. Why is MS, the ones that do not have the responsibility to say if the game is exclusive or not and would benefit the most from being quite about it come out and openly say that is not?

Antnee5343534d ago (Edited 3534d ago )

@Software_Lover

Reason why no one makes a fuss over pc is they don't tend to get big exclusives. Usually small indies and the occasional triple a title. I'm not saying these are bad games lot of them are awesome I'm not going to lie lost a bit of my time to goat simulator lol.

The thing is also gaming on a console is much better experience, than sitting at a desk playing on a comp. Pc feels like work when I'm playing on it, as to when I'm playing on say ps4 I feel like finally off work time to just chill and play a game.

Your right. Even though I'm a big Sony guy I feel it's odd that all the hate is only ms, but I think it is because we get timed exclusive because sony gets timed exclusives on mostly indies that are good but the dude bro gamers don't want.

Also I can see why people are pissed because when you game sells more than double on ps4 than xb1 why make it exclusive there unless they took a big chunk of money for ms. (in case the definitely did do so.) If ms and se would come out and just say that they only made this choice because of X amount of money then everyone would be more chill. On that thought people should realize at the same time it comes out ps4 will be getting uncharted 4 so the better game will obviously be uncharted 4.

LeCreuset3534d ago

@Chris12

You won't be deceived, if you analyze comments coming from MS with the understanding that they are masters of prevarication.

Phil Spencer, after the Gamescom media briefing, when pressed on whether TR is a permanent or timed exclusive:

"We're saying what we said on stage: in Holiday 2015, Rise of the Tomb Raider will be exclusive to Xbox. That's the comment. We had a lot of similar questions around Titanfall and the structure of our deal is a business relationship that's frankly between us and Square Enix. I know Crystal Dynamics has issued a statement and we're going to stand by that. Xbox fans are going to be able to play Tomb Raider next holiday exclusive on Xbox."

http://www.computerandvideo...

That is classic prevarication, an attempt to deceive. Notice how he associates the deal to the Titan Fall deal, which has the effect of creating an association between the TR deal and the Titan Fall deal which is permanently exclusive.

Aaron Greenberg responded to Geoff Keighley's assertion that TR is "exclusive on Xbox for holiday 2015," by stating, "That is not what we said, CD also posted same," and linking to the same statement put out by CD http://tombraider.tumblr.co... that Phil Spencer referred to, previously.

MS, including Phil Spencer, engaged in prevarication until the deal became such a PR nightmare that it was no longer beneficial to do so. It was wholly in MS' interest to keep the lie by omission going, until that point. That's the only way the timed exclusivity deal would have been worth something to them. It has nothing to do with this easily debunked notion that a known timed exclusive TR is going to move a meaningful amount of XB1 systems. It's pretty apparent that CD wants to avoid launching TR on PS4 at the same time as Uncharted, because they don't think many people will buy TR in that scenario. For this argument of a known time released TR being a system seller for XB1 to work, checking off some imaginary box for XB1 to tout against Uncharted, one has to reconcile the at odds positions that people owning or wanting a PS4 when Uncharted 4 releases will not buy Tomb Raider immediately and the supposed strategy by MS to get these same people to pay a $400+ premium to be able to buy a game during that time that they weren't going to get, anyway.

It makes no sense. The deal isn't worth it, unless there is the illusion that consumers will permanently miss out on TR if they don't buy it on MS' systems. In addition to the backlash the deal has already received, the way CD and MS essentially tried to trick consumers into dropping hundreds of dollars on MS machine, by creating the illusion that TR would be permanently exclusive to MS, when they know the vast majority of those people would have no problem waiting until the game came to their systems justifies the backlash the two companies are receiving.

LeCreuset3534d ago

@Imalwaysright

"If MS really wanted to deceive people then why would they come clean about it? "

For the same reason they've reversed course on a number of other matters: their position was becoming too toxic for their bottom line.

They were essentially trying to trick people into buying their console, through the illusion of permanent exclusivity. They know that if they say "timed exclusive" all but an insignificant number of people are just going to say "Okay. I'll just play Uncharted 4 in the meantime." They wanted people thinking they have to get Xbox if they want to ever play TR.

It's like if the babysitter told you that your kids were being held hostage and you would never see them again unless you met a set of demands versus if the babysitter said "I'm taking the kids for the day." In the former situation you're compelled to do things you don't want to do to see your kids again, whereas in the latter it's like "Pfft. Okay. Whatever. Great. Now I can go relax and do some things I want to do."

700p3534d ago

Soo many people are crying. OVER VIDEOGAMES LOL

Imalwaysright3534d ago

@ LeCreuset

"their position was becoming too toxic for their bottom line."

How so? MS doesn't own the rights to the game.

It was SE that decided to make their game timed exclusive. Sure with the help of a big fat cheque from MS but their decision nonetheless.

It's SE responsibilty to say on which platforms the game will be on. It sure as hell isn't MS responsibility.

SE are the ones that have an obligation towards every single TR fan because they're the ones that own the IP. MS only obligation is towards Xbox fans and Xbox owners.

I fail to see how this would be a PR nightmare for MS and the Xbox brand. If anything is a PR nightmare for SE. If MS really wanted to trick people they would have kept quite about this whole matter.

gaffyh3534d ago (Edited 3534d ago )

@Chris12 & Imalwaysright - They specifically made sure that they never mentioned the word "timed" or made any mention of a duration, and it seems like they told Square they couldn't say anything either in their deal. There have been plenty of games announced as timed exclusives previously, at both Sony and MS conferences, and the wording has always been "first on PlayStation" or "first on Xbox". In this instance they decided to specifically try and deceive people with marketing speak, and the ONLY reason they went back on it was because they were getting very bad PR, and people suspected that the game was timed.

In Sony's conference, Activision mentioned "timed exclusive" soooo many times to make sure their fans knew that this content will be coming to all platforms eventually.

MS just makes themselves look worse and worse in these situations. What you'll find is PC owners are way more pissed than PS owners. I don't really care about this game, I will play it if I have time, but that said I haven't even played the previous game or definitive edition. But there are plenty of people that do like Tomb Raider, and this won't make them buy an Xbox One at all, in fact it will most likely make them boycott the game entirely. Also, it leaves holiday 2015 completely open for Uncharted on PS4.

Really dumb decision by SE, and they are mostly to blame, but MS doesn't come out of it looking any less bad. The deal had two parties, but I guarantee that MS put forward the restriction on saying whether its timed or say "exclusively on Xbox", when it's not exclusive. Just makes you think what else they are lying about.

LeCreuset3534d ago (Edited 3534d ago )

@Imalwaysright

Your reply is not only a non sequitur to what I said, but wrong on so many levels.

1) If MS offered money to SE for SE to screw over their fan base, MS IS responsible when SE takes the money to do just that, no matter what MS' reasons were for doing so. You can't just offer someone money to do something shady, then wash your hands of any responsibility.

2) Which is why people have been raging against MS, in addition to SE, over this deal. Where have you been?

3) Who's arguing that it's MS responsibility to list the platforms TR will be on? MS was pressed, repeatedly, on the nature of their "exclusivity" deal, which they do have a responsibility to be upfront about. Instead, they tried to deceive and obfuscate so that TR fans would buy their system, believing it was the only way to play the sequel to a game most of them bought on a different platform.

4) When that plan failed, MS saw that more people were inclined to say "screw SE and screw MS" than to go out and buy an Xbox for TR. MS has been on a campaign to rehabilitate the image of the Xbox brand. Phil Spencer is the symbol of that. With this deal, the narrative changed from "Bad Don Mattrick. Phil Spencer is righting the course" to people once again talking about MS' shady business practices and wanting first party lineup.

5) If MS really wanted to serve Xbox owners they would take that money wasted keeping a would-be multiplat game off of other consoles and invest it into additional first party content to provide a true exclusive rather than an excluded. The former being a game they invest in to make it available to their fans and the latter being a game they throw money at to keep it out of the hands of other fans.

Edit: @GaffyH

Exactly. While this is anecdotal, I've seen more Xbox owners and those interested in buying an Xbox say how they plan to either get rid of their Xbox or not get one they planned on getting than comments from people saying they plan to pick up an Xbox because of this.

@700p

Except, no one is crying. They're expressing their opinions. Come to the conversation with a more mature attitude and you'll find that you're afforded more than one opportunity to comment.

rainslacker3533d ago

Software_Lover you should really get out more. People complain all the time when there is exclusive content or games that get brought up by companies regardless of the company.

The reason most are complaining here is that the title is traditionally multi-plat but is now exclusive leaving a big part of it's fan base out in the cold unless they opt to buy a system they don't have or want.

Sure crap like this has been going on for a while. It's not right. But it's not just Sony fans who get upset about it, and when the implication keeps getting repeated over and over again like it's truth, it gets rather tiresome since you can't really prove your own argument.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 3533d ago
kenshiro1003534d ago

^

Um...maybe because they based Tomb Raider as an exclusive when it was timed.

Deep-throat3534d ago

I'm really tired of this subject.

It's timed, people. Move on.

TheMapleNerd3534d ago (Edited 3534d ago )

I agree with him on exclusives... or maybe i'm just so freaking jealous that destiny wont come to pc :C
All we get is a boring borderlands..

Software_Lover3534d ago

I thought it was coming to Steam?

TheMapleNerd3534d ago

They said everybody working there was a pc gamer.. but i think that's just to shut our pc mouth :P

3534d ago Replies(1)
Toiletsteak3534d ago

What is so mysterious about it, it is timed exclusive and thats that move on.

Show all comments (42)
70°

It’ll Be Fine, Right? Five Games With Unfortunate Release Strategies

Mark from WellPlayed writes about five game launches that were impacted by unfortunate scheduling.

Read Full Story >>
well-played.com.au
jznrpg348d ago (Edited 348d ago )

Zero Dawn sold really well so I’m not sure this belongs. The second game released next to a big game again and it hurt it some I forget what it was though, oh yeah Elden Ring .
But a good game is a good game to me I don’t care when they release personally but they do have to think about it when you want to get more people to buy it.

250°

The Tomb Raider Survivor Trilogy's Take on Lara Croft Deserved More Recognition

The Survivor Trilogy was a drastic reimagining of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider, and it provokes changes for the character that are truly fantastic.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com
isarai462d ago (Edited 462d ago )

Deserves less IMO, i think the 1st in the new trilogy was a perfect 1st step for the new direction. The next 2 games were half steps at best. Not only that, every character in the series including Lara is just annoying and doesn't make sense in terms of motive, like yes they have a motive, but none of it seems proportional to the lengths they are willing to go through for it. The most annoying thing is every one of the games say "become the Tomb Raider" yet 3 games later and we're still not there? No thanks. Then there's the mess of the 3rd game, massive skill tree that serves almost no purpose as there's literally only like 3-4 short encounters in the whole game, and they took till the 3rd game to finally manage some decent puzzles even remotely close to previous games in the series. Nah, the trilogy infuriated me to no end as a long time fan of the series, i hope we get better going forward cause that crap sucked.

Army_of_Darkness460d ago

The first in the trilogy was my favorite. I thought they were going into the right direction with that one until the second one came out and seemed like a graphical downgrade but the gameplay was okay. As for the Third, Graphics were really nice but it was kinda boring me to death with its non-stop platforming and exploring with not enough action! Well, for me anyway...

DeathTouch460d ago

Graphics on the 3rd one were abysmal. It’s more colorful and has more variety, but everything else was a noticeable downgrade.

The more open world with NPC quests was also handled very poorly, to the point I missed Angel of Darkness.

thesoftware730460d ago

I know it is your opinion, but she did progress as a character in each game, she even got more muscular and seasoned.

That is the thing, people first complained that there was not enough platforming and actual tomb raiding in the first and second games. Shadow remedied that and kept the combat elements.

3-4 encounters? huh? did we play the same game? there was plenty of combat and, the skill tree did matter, like being able to hang enemies from trees, set explosives traps on bodies, being able to counter, and that are just a few of the combat skills. The skill tree also had things like being able to hold your breath underwater longer, crafting upgrades, zipline upgrade, and climbing upgrades that all changed how you can approach situations.

Not knocking your opinion, but we definitely had different experiences. I had 98% completion on the shadow.

SoulWarrior460d ago (Edited 460d ago )

Sorry but i'm with him about the low number of encounters, the game throws loads of weapons and skills you're way with a comparatively low amount of places to actually use them, so they felt under utilised.

-Foxtrot461d ago

Yeah...no

It was awful, for THREE GAMES it was "become the Tomb Raider" where she went back to square one after each game. Not to mention after a huge reaction of killing someone for the first time she then becomes Rambo straight after and goes on a slaughter spree without a single other reaction. Her development was all over the place.

She was whiney, weak and in later game a little arrogant and selfish

Oh and the voice actress compared to the previous ones was not as good

Lara Croft deserved better and while they are decent games as they are, we deserved actual Tomb Raider games, we could have had better survival games if they just stuck with the original Lara Crofts origin about her plane going down. Surviving 2 weeks in the Himalayas...I'd have liked to seen that, who knows what mystical threat she could have faced in the mountains or underground some secret concealed cave.

Tacoboto460d ago

I thought Shadow of the Tomb Raider had better gameplay than Rise, but it annoyed me the most of the trilogy when I stopped to think about the story.

It's like they deliberately decided to make her unlikeable and did nothing to make the character you're playing as likeable or have even one sign of humility.

SoulWarrior461d ago

2013 I thought was a fine entry, but Rise and especially Shadow were painfully mediocre follow ups imo, I really didn't like how selfish and angry her character was in those two.

Terry_B460d ago

No. Please forget the crap completely.

northpaws460d ago

First one was decent, played through it twice.
Second one was okay, played through it once.
Third one was really bad, tried twice a year apart, still can't get through the first two hours, it is just really bad.

thesoftware730460d ago

Honest question, what did you find bad about it? the opening 2 hrs of Shadow were fantastic imo.

The opening was very similar to the first 2, what did you find really bad?

Not looking for an argument, just an honest question.

Starman69460d ago

3rd one just didn't feel like a tomb raider game. Possibly because the development was passed to another development team. Big mistake! Microsoft killed tomb raider making the first game a timed exclusive. Never recovered after that.

Show all comments (45)
200°

Get three Tomb Raider games free at Epic Games Store

Starting today, Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Rise of the Tomb Raider are free at Epic Games Store. The free game offers run until January 6 at 11 AM Eastern. Once you claim them, they’re yours to keep.

Read Full Story >>
gamefreaks365.com
CrimsonWing69841d ago (Edited 841d ago )

They're all solid games, but nothing quite matched the epicness of the first one for me. I think the 3rd one started off strong but once you got to that Peruvian area it took a massive nose dive for me.

lelo2play841d ago (Edited 841d ago )

You got to be kidding!
The first one was great at the time... but this latest trilogy of Tomb Raider games are also great.

LiViNgLeGaCY840d ago

I think he means the first one in the new trilogy.

CrimsonWing69840d ago

I meant the first of the new trilogy.

Furesis840d ago

yeah i remember liking the first one when it came out, so i tried the second one sometime after release and i just could not get into it, i couldn't finish it. So i might try the 3rd now that i got it for free but ehh. But i do remember enjoying the first one, i wonder if i'd feel the same way if i played it today? Better not taint those memories lol

ANIALATOR136840d ago

I was the same for some reason. Never finished the second one. I got like half way through maybe.

ActualWhiteMan840d ago (Edited 840d ago )

The first one of the latest trilogy is a masterpiece

Fishy Fingers841d ago

I'll take a copy of Shadow... Cheers.

Profchaos841d ago

Great games I've played them all on ps4 but it'll be good to finally try shadow on my rtx card.

Double_O_Revan841d ago

Trying to claim them and the store keeps crashing. lol.

gamefreaks365840d ago

EGS has been having issues all day.

RedDevils840d ago

Weird I don't has that issue.

Double_O_Revan840d ago

I finally got it after a while. But it was real bad for a while.

PeeShuter840d ago (Edited 840d ago )

Claim games by going to the website and login using ur credentials. I did the same as i couldnt use epic launcher. Also try reinstalling Epic Launcher I did it and it worked.

Double_O_Revan840d ago

I always go through the website. It was all just down for a while yesterday it seems.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 840d ago
Show all comments (19)