Does Microsoft Really Believe a Timed Exclusive Will Boost Xbox One Sales?

Microsoft has landed timed exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider, but does that mean gamers are going to run out and purchase the Xbox One?


Admin note: Folks, stop trying to drag everything here to a Sony vs MS debate. If you can only say something like "how Sony did with Destiny" or the like, your comment will get marked for trolling. You're not adding to the conversation, just generating more fuel for the fanboy conversations none of us want here.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars2901344d ago

They believe early access to COD DLC makes it the more popular platform. And among FPS fans they aren't wrong.

Still, just as there are more than just FPS to gaming, Tomb raider isn't an end all be all. More than anything, the fact MS tried an act of suggestive manipulation in the hopes of luring Tomb Raider fans to their console, ones who haven't bought their console already, doesn't sit well with most gamers. Nevermind "just" Tomb Raider fans.

DanielGearSolid1344d ago

COD isn't more popular on Xbox bcuz of the dlc. It's that advertising.

Same with Destiny and Ps4

MightyNoX1344d ago

They don't believe that, it's just the bottom of the barrel for them. If you read Philip J Spencer's interview, he says "Other companies would go ahead and publish on their own." ergo, he tried poaching other companies to stop them from coming to Playstation rather than investing in 1st party.

Square-Enix was the only one who took his deal. Judging by their current state (people leaving, underperforming games) I'm guessing he didn't have to try very, they might still be mad at Sony for dumping their shares.

NewMonday1344d ago (Edited 1344d ago )

the problem with timed exclusives is that the X1 library will keep losing value, in a couple of years it will be considered an under-powered multi-platform console struggling with price, basically a $400 Halo machine.

on the other hand the PS4 will be stacking exclusives of all kinds, if MS thought things are bad now..

Godmars2901343d ago

Square is the only 3rd party dev who has taken it to this level, so far.

Or rather, thinking of Bioshock and Mass Effect, the only 3rd party to do it so poorly. With both examples doing what they did in reverse, offering and announcing the first of a series as an exclusive, *then* making them multi.

I mean if this latest TR reboot had been announced from the beginning as an exclusive, people would still be mad, but they wouldn't be half as mad if not a third.

Army_of_Darkness1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

I wonder if all these ms exclusive purchases is just to show that hey, I'm already rich so I don't need to work from scratch on a new project when I could just buy it temporarily to make it seem like I did and fool all the unexpecting consumers, heheh!

MightyNoX1343d ago

@Godmars: the only one? I don't know....EA's giving MS Titanfall exclusivity as well as holding back PvZ: GW and Peggle 2 seems about the same.

choujij1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

I think we'll see soon enough that COD is mostly relative to where most gamers play, with probably a stronger audience in the western markets.

"Does Microsoft Really Believe a Timed Exclusive Will Boost Xbox One Sales?"

Part of me thinks they do, because it worked well in times past on 360. Now that the jig is up so to speak, I think they're going to learn soon (if not already after this week), that gamers have begun to see through that. I also believe they're still learning that trust when broken, is not something easily reestablished; at least not with gamers.

They are far better off establishing more studios and creating new IPs (real exclusives), that will compel gamers to buy their system.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1343d ago
AngelicIceDiamond1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

"the fact MS tried an act of suggestive manipulation"

Oh you mean buissness. Or money hat buissness.

choujij1343d ago

No, not business. I'm pretty sure he's referring to what appeared to be an initial act of deception on their part. Specifically, when they announced Tomb Raider was coming exclusivity to Xbox, when in fact, it's really just a timed exclusive (or in other words, first on Xbox).

Christopher1343d ago

I would agree with your assessment, Godmars290.

As far as 'fan service blame' that all rests on SE. The only issue I truly have with MS here is A) attempts to make it look something other than a timed exclusive deal and B) I wish they had instead put that money towards a new IP.

From a business standpoint, this is of course going to sell more hardware. The question is how much and will it cover the initial cost associated with this agreement.

rainslacker1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

That's the thing though. No one is really asking that question. "How much will it boost Xbox one sales?".

Obviously we can't know for sure until it happens, but for the time being, why not ask, "How much does MS expect it to boost sales?".

I know some people speculate it's so they can have a counter to UC4, but I find that highly doubtful. I won't get into my reasons why, as it's off topic.

Anyhow, back on topic, the amount of money MS spent on this deal would have to be something that they feel is appropriate to the number of consoles that they would sell. I'd hate to speculate on numbers here, as it would be meaningless, but in general thinking, I doubt the purchase price of timed exclusivity would be low enough to make less than 100K units boost in sales the only way they'd see a return, and that's looking at long term revenue from the person that purchased that system(they have an average of how much revenue they make per system sold).

So with all that, it begs the question, is a 100K(or whatever, we know it won't push more than 250K if they're lucky) boost in sales really that significant given the current differential? And if not, why isn't MS really looking at what they have to do to make up that discrepancy?

The real truth is that this game is going to sell most to people that currently own the Xbox. And it sucks MS spent money on it, because they would have been able to do so anyways.

Pogmathoin1343d ago

I do not think timed can harm it as those complaining are the ones who would never buy anyway. It will encourage those on the fence.

Spotie1343d ago

Unless those on the fence aren't fond of moneyhatting.

Or if they would prefer Microsoft invested more in their own studios.

Being timed exclusive CAN harm sales of the game, since at least some fans on other platforms won't be pleased.

tgunzz1343d ago

I think it will, and should gain purchases... Xbox gamers are going to get to play a great game first and for some time on xb1 (I know I will). This is what it's all about. 3rd party franchises produce some of the biggest games in the history of gaming. As a gaming brand you want to lock in on what you can. Tomb raider will simply be another great game that will add to the assortment of games during a season in which you won't be able to get anywhere else during that same time period (summer/xmas, etc). For the multi console gamer there is no issue, for the undecided gamer this is perfect, because the catalog of games (interest) is what helps grow the community even more, and for the specific console gamer, it's damn I wish my team landed that (hopefully they are going for something big like that). This is what it should be about. This module is an additional difference maker for all companies. Playing great games is the reason I get all 3 consoles. No one (imho) should be offended by this because of the choice to support one brand (especially if you are able/do own them all). I can understand the disappoint from any gamer who can only afford one console (be it wiiu/xb1/ps4). There will be content on one platform that you can't get on the other (timed or not). A big factor still remains, for the single console supporter, access to big 3rd parties games can still be enjoyed at later times...

Godmars2901343d ago

No. Not even Titanfall was done as messily as TR. It became XB1 exclusive before any formal announcements, presentations or trailers.

Things like PvZ just lend towards the believability of MS and their use of "exclusive".

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1343d ago
Eonjay1344d ago

Yes. Of course. Why spend money on it if they didn't?

Axios21344d ago ShowReplies(2)
headblackman1344d ago

it could if it was fifa, madden, or call of duty. but i don't knock their efforts and attempts at trying to find out what will change the tides for them. in fact i commend them for not throwing up their hands and giving up. so i say keep at it and keep searching for that game changer that will change it all for the better for them. same goes for sony.

ger23961343d ago

I don't think it will. It seems like they don't have faith in their 1st party studios. Why else would they pay oodles of money for a timed exclusive game?

headblackman1343d ago

what does getting tomb raider have to do with having faith or not in their own ip's? have you been paying attention to the xbox brand it's exclusive ip's over the year?? if so, you've seen the money that microsoft have put behind them. that shows pure trust in their games. this is just them trying to turn a tide with every and anything that they can. there is no harm in trying. if you try hard enough you just might figure it out.

rainslacker1343d ago (Edited 1343d ago )

Well, that really is the topic of the article. Will it boost sales?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing at all against MS trying to find ways to make it's console more appealing, I just don't see buying up 3rd party exclusivity...particularly a good use of resources to make that happen. I also don't believe the throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks mentality is a good business plan, and it only makes them look incompetent.

Phil Spencer said in an article yesterday that he wants MS to own more IP's. From this I'm assuming me means that he wants MS to create more IP's(i hope anyways). That to me is what they should be doing, and not trying to just throw money at a problem.

I also would prefer they start looking at their situation now and start trying to find ways that they can deliver exclusive content to their fans that will actually benefit them more in the long run. A perfect example of this is the whole Gears of War franchise. They spent a boatload of money making that game a success for Epic games. MS obviously benefited from it, but then Epic decided they wanted to move on, and by moving on, MS could have easily lost a huge exclusive IP to their brand. Instead, they had to purchase the IP from Epic for what is likely some ungodly sum...probably enough to create a huge AAA game because the IP itself is worth at least a billion dollars(although I'm sure Epic cut them a deal).

Someone in that same article I mentioned earlier stated that MS was smart to buy up 3rd party exclusivity, because it takes several years to create a studio, and produce AAA games. And that poster was right. But what he failed to realize, or mention, is that yes it takes a long time, but if you don't start sometime, it's only going to take longer. In the meantime, their competition is doing just that, and MS is spending money on games which they own nothing of except for a limited time for marketing purposes. It really derives no value for MS at all in the long run.

A lot of people put MS as an underdog in the gaming world, yet they held their own just fine last gen. They've had quite a long time to invest in 1st party studios, and had they done so from the beginning with the same fervor as Nintendo or Sony, they'd have a very diverse portfolio, a wide range of fans, and they wouldn't have to spend exorbitant amounts of money on securing 3rd party exclusives just to undermine the competition.

Robearboy1343d ago Show
Show all comments (75)
The story is too old to be commented.