Xbox boss Phil Spencer makes case for Tomb Raider exclusivity deal

It dominated last week's Gamescom and sparked thousands of comments on the internet.

In the 24 hours after Microsoft announced Xbox exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider, forums raged. How could publisher Square Enix and developer Crystal Dynamics sell out? And wouldn't moneybags Microsoft be better off spending its cash on making its own games, rather than denying PlayStation and PC players the chance to play what will probably be one of 2015's biggest games?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
vishmarx1498d ago

You have exclusives that are made in house.

You have exclusives, like the recent Sunset Overdrive, where the developer gets to keep control of their product, so staying on one system makes sense.

You have exclusives, like Bayonetta 2, where one of the big companies helps fund the game which would have never been made otherwise.

With all of these I have no problem buying the game and is the reason I own all the major systems.

Then you have crap like this where one company pays to keep the game off other systems. This is complete anti-consumer shit. This is not helping the gamer. This is not creating exciting content for your fans. This is not making me want to support your company by hiring the most talented artist in the industry and giving them a chance to wow me. This is 100% complete mafia bullshit of taking out all competition and leaving me one single choice

jackanderson19851498d ago

you should really read the article

sonarus1498d ago

why? so we can pretend this wasnt microsoft throwing money at square enix? Lets pretend its about relationships:D

Hey money doesnt make the world go round. Love makes the world go round. If you believe that then maybe you've been watching too much my little pony

johndoe112111498d ago

Did YOU read that article??? That article is filled with so much pr bullsh!t my brain almost fried. None of the excuses he gave made a lick of sense and some of them even contradict each other. His answers were a joke and NOTHING he says would make anyone think anything other than Microsoft is a money hatting anti-consumer gaming industry destroying parasite. Maybe you need to read the bloody article again.

johndoe112111498d ago


You know, not only have I been gaming since the 1970's but iv'e been involved in the computer field for a pretty long time too and what a lot of people here and in the gaming industry don't realize is that this is what microsoft does with EVERYTHING.

Microsoft never competes, microsoft buy's out. When ever a company comes out with a great product. Microsoft never says "hey lets's go develop a product of our own and go compete", no, they would either buy out that company or it's closest competitor. MOST of microsoft software was acquired this way.

In fact I will go out on a limb and say that you can probably count the amount of software that microsoft developed themselves on 10 fingers. This is what they do. They have done it since the beginning and they will continue to do it in every thing they touch. Hence the reason I have said and will continue to say that microsoft is the bane of the gaming industry.

That is NOT the type of mentality we need in gaming, that type of mentality will destroy gaming. The more I think about them the less inclined I feel to support them. They thrive off of anti-consumer practices and they have no idea how to do it otherwise.

jackanderson19851498d ago

nobody is denying MS gave SE something... hell he admits they did.

It's about the reasoning behind it. Everyone knows SE has unrealistic targets for AAA games... MS are paying something (most likely advertisement and promotions) to keep the associated costs down with the game... rather than opt for some timed DLC, MS went for timed exclusivity

and PR bullsh**... he states outright they don't own the IP and the owners can do what they want with it... he even highlights Ryse and DR3 as examples of this.

Also he doesn't need to go into the deal breakdown because that's bad for business it's common sense... you don't share unnecessary details unless both parties agree and it's beneficial in some sense.

He also stated the reason is because MS don't have an action adventure game to compete against UC4... TR is it's UC4 for the period involved

nX1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

Vishmarx is completely right and he most probably read the article, there is no excuse for this deal. Maybe you should rethink your principles as this is not a good way of making business. They have more than enough money to build own IP's but instead they buy out franchises, wtf man?

Also Spencer gets pretty pissy during the interview when asked about the duration, I hope he realizes how much damage he has done. I for one will not support these kind of deals (just like I never bought a CoD mappack or microtransaction), I don't want gaming to become like that - it would be bad for all of us, you included!

uptownsoul1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

All I got out of this is that Microsoft doesn't own many IP's. And because of that they have to spend money to keep games off competing platforms. From a strictly business perspective, I don't know how Microsoft can make money this generation since third parties are going to drive up the price of exclusivity based on increasing price of making AAA games; the growing install gap.

NewMonday1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )


"This is not helping the gamer. This is not creating exciting content for your fans"

well said!

sad for XB1 owners because they gain absolutely nothing from this, in-fact they lose funding for a potential game just because MS wanted to temporary keep a game away from other platforms.

MS just proved they never change their policy, just momentarily delay them, and they will always go back to old habits whenever they have the advantage.

PS4 owners will play the game anyway after a few months, they will be busy playing Uncharted 4 to notice Tomb Raider is missing.

choujij1498d ago

This is why they're a cancer in this market. Rather than putting the money into creating more games for their own platform and userbase, they would rather spend it on keeping games away from other gamers for a duration. That's a lose-lose situation.

As a 360 owner since launch day, I will no longer support this company or their practices.

InTheLab1498d ago

I read it and in the article, Phil compares this situation with Dead Rising and talks up how they turned that into a major franchise, and it's probably the dumbest most Matrick-like thing he's said so far.

TR is a legendary franchise that has had a few bumps, but is nothing like Dead Rising, PvZ, Ryse, or any other small time franchise that MS has paid for. It's a stupid comparison and only muddled the points Phil was trying to make. TR being exclusive does not make it a more notable franchise no matter how many marketing dollars gets thrown out there....

I can appreciate him saying they straight up paid for the game and that Sony was presented with the same opportunity. I appreciate him saying he wouldn't go out and buy a sci-fi shooter (which is a lie...Titanfall) because he already has one of that genre. Lie or not, at least he owned up to it.

But what bugs me the most about his interview is his attitude that this is good for anyone but Xbox in the short term. All this does is prevent more fans from getting the game in a reasonable amount of time.

LordMaim1498d ago

What's kind of interesting/funny is that the companies that Microsoft cites as having made similar deals with in the past (Crytek for Ryse, Capcom for Dead Rising) are both having money problems in spite of, or possibly as a result of their deal. Now both games are going multiplatform anyhow.

Sounds like it should be a cautionary tale for Square Enix.

fermcr1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

I find most of these fanboy comments funny and stupid.

Doesn't matter how you put it, with all the justifications and excuses you want...

EXCLUSIVE means that a company PAYS A DEVELOPER to keep their game OUT of other platforms and exclusive to THEIRS. Simple as that.

Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft do it.

All of a sudden people are "shocked" because Microsoft did it. Stupid fanboys.

LeCreuset1498d ago


For what? I did, and I can say that most of it was excuse making about not wanting to invest in marketing a game appearing on other platforms. That rationale is easily defeated when you consider other AAA games like COD and Destiny, which conventional wisdom says will do more to move Xbox and PS systems, respectively, than this timed exclusive TR deal will do for XB1.

LeCreuset1498d ago

Here's the TL;DR of the article: We haven't invested enough in creating 1st party content so we have to money-hat 3rd parties.

"Do I wish I had an owned IP first-party action adventure game? Absolutely. But I don't right now."

"Totally. I'm a big fan of Uncharted and I wish we had an action adventure game of that ilk. We've started some, and we've looked at them. But we don't have one today of that quality. This is an opportunity."

DragonKnight1498d ago

I find that Phil Spencer tried to be as honest as he could about Microsoft's intentions in this interview, but it also paints them as a company that doesn't try very hard when it comes to creating their own IPs. They'd rather buy someone else's games than make their own.

I also find it telling how, on more than one occasion, he tries to throw CD or SE under the bus by implying that either SE came to them with a deal (leaving the idea of if they went to Sony and were turned down, or just went to MS first and weren't turned down completely open), or CD has been actively pursuing a relationship with Microsoft for 5 years and no one is saying why.

It's sad he mentions games like Dead Rising or Ryse because they're nothing like the situation with Tomb Raider. In the cases of both of those games, Microsoft may not own the IP but they may as well because they paid for the game or franchise to be created and they continue to pay for the game or franchise to remain off other platforms. At least for a time.

Many people have already said it. Microsoft should be using the money they have to CREATE new IPs. Actually COMPETE with Sony and Nintendo in that arena and give Xbox One owners a reason to keep their Xbox One. Not buy timed exclusivity and piss off millions of other users, while telling Xbox One fans that they can't be bothered to make their own IPs and that the IPs they buy will just end up on other, better platforms anyway.

Phil is doing a better job than the previous Xbox execs were, but he's still mired in that overall Microsoft "buy everything out" attitude. And if people don't think that that's a bad thing, just have a conversation with Rare.

badz1491498d ago

seriously, why are we still talking about this? the game is timed exclusive, end of story, no?

the case is simple. MS needs something huge and what other things bigger than acquiring a 3rd party exclusive? so, they got their hands on the best thing they could get at the moment which is TR because I don't think any other major publisher would want to have a smaller market for their already successful IP or there aren't any other IP that can make a similar impact. SE saw it as an opportunity to cut on spending and they took it with condition that it's timed.

I don't really see a problem unless they buy the IP altogether. it's still a multiplat but will just come later to other platforms but the way I see it, it's SE's loss. the game won't come out for another one and a half year while many other games will be released before it and in the end, TR's absence on the other platform won't be missed much. I doubt it will make any impact considering there are a lot heavy hitters on the way which will be bigger than TR could ever be!

Godmars2901498d ago

"He also stated the reason is because MS don't have an action adventure game to compete against UC4..."

Given that they've been in the gaming industry for as long as they have, do they really have any excuses as to why they don't have anything similar to UC themselves?

FamilyGuy1498d ago

At the end he basically just stated that they wanted something on their platform that would be a direct competitor to Uncharted 4 in that games release window. Thing is, it was already a multi-platform title so they were going to have it anyway. All they did was pay to restrict access on other platforms.

In the past we had the multi-platform title Prototype go up against the exclusive Infamous. They were similar games, to a degree, that released at similar times. There was no need and never has been a need to restrict access like this.

MS needs to build their own games, buying exclusivity on an *established* *multi-platformed* title is dirty. I don't even care about Tomb Raider, this is just a dirty tactic in general, no matter what game it is.

Example: If Sony bought exclusivity on Just Dance, CoD, Battlefield, Need For Speed, Mass Effect, Street Fighter, etc it would be the same issue. MS is HURTING the games industry.

Consoldtobots1498d ago

OMG it's tomb freakin raider people, WHO CARES????

I know I don't

u got owned1498d ago

Ok people stop with the whining and move on. What are we, 10 years old kids? The game is timed exclusive. You'll get to play it on your console of choice soon enough after it releases on XBO.

Can we please move on to other things, this is getting really old.

gangsta_red1498d ago

I love how this is still an issue!!

Not too long ago Sony fanboys yelled and screamed that MS had no exclusives. Now that MS is getting exclusive Sony fanboys are now screaming about the way MS is acquiring them.

You know what...

Nothing MS does will satisfy the Sony fanboys and if you think about it...why should it, since they'll just continue to throw out the most insane reasons as to why this exclusive deal for Tomb Raider is such a travesty and blight on the gaming community.

I swear it's beyond funny. One minute Sony fanboys have too many exclusive games to play the next they are fighting mad because they can't play ONE game.

Which is it...are their too many or not? Make up your minds!

DevilOgreFish1498d ago

Evidently to many people, this is a major part of the franchise which many seem to care about. Tomb Raider Lost artifact was a PC exclusive 14 years ago, and i could remember none caring two hoots about it as we slowly entered the 128 bit generation.

Had this game not sported next gen visuals, or been a sequel to a defunct reboot; I don't think many would have made such a fuss about it.



AngelicIceDiamond1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

I guess Phil Spencer's evil now.

Spencer said from the very beginning hes gonna do whatever it takes to get games and content to X1.

Phil's getting serious and its no telling what else hes gonna do in the future.

Anybody would know by reading this interview knows he answering in the best way possible. For a PR point of view anyway.

He can't flat out say "yes I underhandedly money hatted the game"

Or any of that fashion what else do you want the guy to say?

He's keeping it professional. Phils a really outgoing guy and will discuss anything improptu fashion. But when it comes to business acquisition's obviously he can't say OUTRIGHT what happened.

Phil knows we're not dumb. He knows that we know its money hat.

But Phil kinda works for a buissness and working for a buissness means you have to feed us that usual PR wall.

Eddie201011498d ago

Phil Spencer is becoming the biggest BS machine at Microsoft.

LeCreuset1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )


No, not evil. But he's looking less and less like the revolutionary, anti-Mattrick he was being hyped as. He knows what the problem is. He identified it in this interview when he says he wishes they had a game like Uncharted to roll out instead of buying a multiplat. But he still did it.

It's not like there's much disagreement here. His argument admits to what MS is being accused of by its critics. He just tries to justify it. That's where the disagreement comes in. He's taking the easy road for immediate results, much like his predecessors, at the expense of developing first party content.

Big retail releases, so far.




Dead Rising
Titan Fall

Big retail releases, so far, minus 3rd party:





DragonKnight1498d ago

@Angelic: The difference is that Tomb Raider was already coming to the Xbox One anyway. Phil was aggressive in ensuring it didn't come to the PS4 and PC. That's not getting the Xbox One games, it's taking games away from everyone else that you would have been able to play anyway.

If Phil is serious about games, then why isn't he putting that money into first party studios? What happened to all of that money that was allegedly invested in first party exclusive titles?

If anything, this move is of final benefit to Sony. Why? Because Sony demands that timed exclusive games from other platforms gain some kind of improvement on their platform when it eventually releases so as to be a game worth the money of PS gamers. Also, it means that Uncharted 4 will have no competition and likely gain even more sales due to that factor.

AngelicIceDiamond1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

@Creust Games coming soon and in the future

Fable Legends, Halo MCC and Halo 5,Rares new project Crack down reboot Phantom Dust, Ori And the blind forest, Killer Instinct, Forza and Project Spark Gears Of War and Screamride.

They have there own Ips obviously. I think MS is working with 3rd party to release games while strengthening on its first party offerings.

I give up bring logic here is so damn pointless is frustrating...

@Dragon have it ever crossed your mind that Don Mattrick sat on his ass last gen? Turning Rare into a Kinect Studio and depriving them of there talent? What happend to Kameo Elements of power 2? Oh that's right canceled because Kinect was invented. Fable a Kinect game? Come on...

Last gen he didn't invest in his own studios because well Halo and Gears were making them all the money. Therefor he sat there and didn't do a a damn thing 1st party wise or turned everything into a Kinetic studio.

Phil is cleaning up his giant mess when it comes to first party. You would think after all this years Their first party studios would be stronger when X1 was introduced. But nope last management didn't do his job nor didn't he care to.

Its not his fault first party is still falling behind.

So cut Phil some slack.

ABizzel11498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

So much BS, the smell is stuck in my head.

Honestly it's shady business, and all around foul of MS, but business is business as they say.

The main people we need to have interviews with are Square and Crystal Dynamics. At the end of the day it was up to them to say Yes or No.

ShinMaster1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

@ AngelicIceDiamond

Tomb Raider was already coming out to Xbox One anyway. This does nothing for his or Microsoft's image or for Xbox' first party line up.
He didn't bring a new game to Xbox by doing so. He just made it exclusive.

This makes no sense. Square Enix says that sales of TR were underwhelming and that it was only profitable once they released it across 5 different platforms, including the PS4 which sold double the amount of copies of the Xbox One.

So it makes absolutely NO SENSE for Square Enix to make it exclusive to the least profitable platform.

Phil Spencer needs to quit the "relationship" BS. It was a huge check. If you can't outright say it, then don't say anything.

choujij1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

@DragonKnight, LeCreuset & Shinmaster

I wouldn't bother with him. He's an Xbox fanboy masquerading as a neutral gamer:
Jun 15, 2014 ·

"Shenmue 3 PLEASE!! If MS makes it happen then there is no console war. The win would belong to MS."

The irony is, Shenmue 3 is a perfect example of a game that lacks funding, which could be published by MS.

It's unfortunate that some fanboys would rather ignore the facts and argue defending shady moves, such as the TR one.

I for one am glad Spencer is already showing his true colors. It reaffirms my decision to no longer support that platform.

Pogmathoin1498d ago

Again, does MS have an obligation to explain to sony fanboys? People spoke with the PS4.... Now MS is in catch up mode.... What do you expect?? They need to do this, whether or not it is a good/bad thing....

Gaming1011498d ago

While the deal may be pissing off a lot of non X-bone gamers, it's capitalism. Microsoft decided to throw money at Square Enix for exclusivity since they don't have an adventure game to compete with Uncharted 4, which will undoubtedly be the Adventure game of the year when it releases. From a gamer standpoint it may suck, but Sony may not be worried about it because if Uncharted 4 comes out alongside Tomb Raider, having TR come out on PS4 as well will likely detract from U4 sales since it's the same genre, and lets face it the last Tomb Raider pretty much ripped off Uncharted and Batman Arkham Asylum's game design, so a lot of people aren't likely to buy both TR and U4 in the same release window.

This is why I don't care, and neither should anyone else. U4 will dominate, I'll get TR the few months later or whenever it is that it comes out. No skin off my back!

Petebloodyonion1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

Like usual PPL. we hear the same complaint from the fans
about how MS are evil for every actions they make.
Yet Sony deny Destiny in Japan and nobody complains.

Heck Phil's evil cause he spitting Pr Bulls regarding the duration of the exclusivity But HEY!!! Sony's boss won't comment about if the game is time or full exclusive in Japan and he's ok!

Now let's all your raging hormones and analyse the situation for 1 min.

Heck Square has been vocals about how they weren't happy with TB's sales in the past and there's a reasons for it and it's call lack of hype and exposure.
You can blame MS for lots of thing but there's one thing they really excel at and it's marketing.
Something TB is sorely lacking.
so yeah MS can push this game as a AAA Uncharted killer and it might compete.
And honestly I love Uncharted but TB is in the same class too.

And remember, Sony would surely advertise and hype a direct competitor to one of it's main franchise.

mixolydian_id1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

Seeing so many rage about this is hilarious.

Sony made Tomb Raider fully exclusive to Playstation for a decade.

Hypocrisy at it's finest!

Like or dislike this!

Final Fantasy from 7-10... following years of other platforms
Metal Gear Solids

It's a timed exclusive! What about Destiny's DLC?

I say "Grow up" to the teens of N4g, that haven't a clue!

+ Show (31) more repliesLast reply 1498d ago
Funantic11498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

How's this different from Dead Rising 3 being exclusive? Sony fans should just demand their own exclusive version of Tomb Raider.

Golden_Mud1498d ago

So PC fans could still be treated badly ? this deals is bs at it's finest.

johndoe112111498d ago

You are just as delusional and clueless as phil spencer to think that its only sony fans complaining about this. This just goes to show how out of touch and clueless microsoft is when it comes to the gaming industry. T

LeCreuset1498d ago

Not to say that I'm completely fine with the DR3 deal, but are you really trying to draw a false equivalency between an eight year old franchise, just seeing its second console gen, that launched exclusively on 360 releasing a sequel exclusively on XB1 more than three years after the last iteration to an eighteen year old franchise, going into its fourth console gen, that debuted on multiple systems, that has made most of its money on PS releasing a sequel to a game they hyped as a reboot of the franchise and sold to PS gamers as recently as this year on PS4, which sold less on Xbox, as an XB1 exclusive?

That people weren't as upset at MS for the DR deal is evidence that this isn't just some hysterical hate for MS at play.

The only situation remotely comparable to this deal that I could imagine would be The Phantom Pain going exclusive after having released Ground Zeroes on multiple consoles.

lawgone1498d ago

John've been gaming since the 70's and you still behave this immaturely? Grow up man. Every console has it's exclusives. Why are you whining so much about this? Besides, it's just Tomb Raider.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1498d ago
ScorpiusX1498d ago

Come on you know you weren't going to buy it unless it was on sale or cheap, because like many of those that complained your heart and minds are set on supporting Uncharted 4 before anything released.

InTheLab1498d ago

So Uncharted comes along and suddenly, people hate Lara? And God of War comes along so to hell with Devil May Cry. And LBP,Ratchet,Sly comes along so who cares about Rayman. And Resistance and Killzone come along so forget Battlefield and CoD. And inFamous shows up so forget about Prototype. And since there's Gran Turismo, forget about NFS, Project Cars, and every racer out there.

That's the thing here. Sony has a answer to every major genre out there unlike MS and Nintendo but unlike MS and Nintendo gamers, we don't stop buying games simply because we have an exclusive for that.

No gamer in there right mind turns down more games.

And let's forget both version of TR sold better on Playstation while we're at it...

Why o why1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

Lol....the last TR sold well on the ps3...wouldn't be surprised if it sold the same or more than it did on the 360 I know the ps4 version oustold the x1 version. Ps3 gamers just had the option of both just like they did for most games last gen... dantes inferno was a blatant gow clone yet it too sold well and to be fair it was a solid game that I enjoyed.

Basically your point is weak and lazy

Ashlen1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

For me it boils down to this: Microsoft can't sell more consoles than Sony with just their own hardware, games and reputation, so they're just going pay to hinder Sony as much as they can. Basically, they're sore losers.

johndoe112111498d ago

That basically sums it up. "Let's just try and stagnate the gaming industry a bit because we're getting our a$$es kicked".

BG115791498d ago

At this point, I believe that Phil is showing is truth colors and nothing more. Those explanations are Don Matrick level. The move is Don Matrick level. The only thkng different is the reaction. It took them less than a day to react to the bad press.

k3rn3ll1498d ago

No SE can't sell enough games so they pitched to both platform holders this deal. And MS bit as they should have

cee7731498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

Don't forget PC as well Microsoft waged war against both of it platforms with rotr 🐸☕

johndoe112111498d ago


And exactly what proof do you have of that theory?

LiQuiZoN1498d ago

Genius Commment.

Completely sums it up.

Look at how Sony recovered last gen. They pushed Exclusives, In-house, Unique etc... They took the RISK in investment into new IP and it payed off. This isn't even a new concept. Sony has done this since PS1. Aquire 1st party devs, work closely with developers to produce games THEY FUND etc...

Microsoft is and always has been a parasite on the gaming industry. Nothing new here, but atleast lets all admit it.

For those who wish to support such business practices then by all means continue, but you aren't actually helping yourself. (although paying to play online XBL) should of told you that but since you payed for that you allowed a new anti-consumer industry standard to come in the place of free online as well.

You are only hurting yourselves.

HugoDrax1498d ago

For me this says it all, and clearly shows it will eventually be released on Windows PC, but not PS4. Look at this statement...

"I'm not trying to push gaming down on any other platform. Clearly, I'm not going to invest in something to make games great on other platforms. Windows stuff I will. But not on stuff on other consoles. That's 101."

It's business, and MONEY is what business is all about.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1498d ago
callahan091498d ago

"Crystal has been investing in that game and Square has as well, in Tomb Raider as a franchise, and wanting to put it at the highest level, with the big triple-A franchises out there, but that's expensive."

Here's what I'm getting out of Spencer's long-winded explanation (don't take that wrong, I'm glad he gave so much about how this happened): Tomb Raider (reboot) was extremely expensive to produce to get it to "AAA caliber". The game didn't make as much money as is needed to justify that expense. They WANT to continue making Tomb Raider as a AAA experience, but they aren't confident that they'll get a return on their investment based on the first one. Therefore Microsoft is putting a lot of money towards the investment of this game.

This is how it's smart of Square-Enix. They don't need to invest as much into the game, so it doesn't matter that the sales will be smaller by being on just one platform. They already expected sales to not be big enough, apparently. By doing this, they actually get a higher return on investment, because their investment is smaller, and they'll sell more on XBox as an exclusive than they would as a multiplatform title. If later on it can come out on PlayStation and on PC, then it's a no-brainer.

Now, I'm not so sure it makes as much sense from Microsoft's perspective... I think they were banking on people being excited about it being exclusive to Xbox, maybe even making it a system seller. But they didn't think it through all the way.

This backlash should have been predictable. People perceive this as the worst kind of money-hatting, and PlayStation & PC fans who have been playing the franchise since game 1, they are upset about having their game removed from under their noses, and they are NOT planning to buy an Xbox to play it.

So it kind of backfires from a Microsoft publicity and system sales standpoint, but it definitely looks like this will be a net positive for Crystal Dynamics & Square-Enix from a return on investment point of view.

NewMonday1498d ago

so a game that will be coming to PS4 will be better now? thanks MS!

and also because of this Uncharted could make an extra 100 million for lack of competition, Sony owes them a big favor.

k3rn3ll1498d ago

It hasn't always been on pc. There was quite a few years where it wasn't because Sony did the same thing MS did. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Sony didn't buy it this time because SE and CD demanded a pc release later.

Imalwaysright1498d ago

It's the third time I'm gonna post this link. The game was profitable and met SE expectations.

whybag1498d ago

"By doing this, they actually get a higher return on investment, because their investment is smaller, and *they'll sell more on XBox as an exclusive than they would as a multiplatform title*."

How do you figure it will sell more as solely on XBox? Unless you meant that will EARN more because the MS money will offset the lost Playstation revenue, that's a discussion that could have merit.

But as has been mentioned, the new TR line sells convincingly better on Playstation. They also run the risk of poisoning the well when they do release on Playstation, because of gamers that may remember the timed delay.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1498d ago
come_bom1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

"... one company pays to keep the game off other systems..."

You are completely full of crap. That's WHAT exclusive means. You can go around and around being offended and moaning, trying to justify that some companies do it differently then others, but basically exclusive means that a company pays a developer to keep their game out of other systems, and keep it exclusive to their system. Sony does it. Nintendo does it. If Microsoft does it you get offended?... simply because it's not your company of choice.

Fanboys!!! * facepalm and shakes head *

Microsoft where smart enough to get Tomb Raider timed exclusive... but dumb enough not to keep it a complete exclusive. Exclusive sell consoles, not timed exclusives.

DragonKnight1498d ago

No one is paying $400 for one game unless they have more money than sense. Tomb Raider won't be a system seller.

Spotie1498d ago

The point you and other xbox fanboys are trying hard to ignore is that there's a MASSIVE difference between investing money into building your OWN exclusives, and buying exclusivity of a preexisting IP.

Bloodborne was never a multiplat. It's not the same. Destiny is only DLC. Not the same. The closest is Dreamfall Chapters, and even still, that game doesn't have the history or strength of a franchise like Tomb Raider (and I'm not certain what consoles it's been on in the past).

According to you guys, Microsoft has all this money that they can toss around, while Sony will be bankrupt in a year. Why is it, then, that Sony is taking all the risks, while Microsoft plays it safe?

HanzoHattori1498d ago

I completely agree with you...
The Xbox Division as a whole isn't doing very well...
Xbox studios are shutting down...
Not very many new, FIRST PARTY Xbox IP's coming down the pipeline...
This move reeks of desperation and attention whoring...

qwerty6761498d ago

So what you're saying vishmarx, is microsoft should just help fund development for no reason and keep it on all platforms. ya that makes a lot of sense.

Square Enix has said they weren't happy with the return investment of Tomb Raider. They also said they didn't like how you make no profit while the game is in long development. No one was hardly talking about Tomb raider before this.

So tell me, what should Square Enix have done? They weren't making enough profit on the franchise. They could invest less money and make it into it a half baked game I guess?

Or they could partner with Microsoft, have them fund development and advertise the game. Microsoft gets a decent exclusive, SE gets better profits. Its a win win.

Yes you could argue the whole gamers lose out thing. But if you really want to get mad, get mad at the industry as a whole. Sony did the same thing to keep TR off Sega and Nintendo systems. They've also done it with various other titles.

Yes it sucks, but its the way it is now. And I understand why people are mad and they certainly should be. My problem is the people who are getting mad at just microsoft while supporting Sony being complete hypocrites.

vishmarx1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

Microsoft brings nothing to this industry other than dump trucks of money. They're in the video game industry for all the wrong reasons. Making and selling video games is a secondary part of the business model and that has been the case from day one. Originally it was a Sony denial tactic. As Sony fell on hard times and the X360 emerged as a successful product they used XBL to turn it into a marketing push where their real customers were advertisers and games were just the gateway to get people in the door looking at all the ads.
The XB1's original concept took this to the next level planning to have Kinect effectively mining data from within our homes while we lived around the system. Obviously the blow back was too great to continue that little project, but that was the original intent and Microsoft stated as much during a conference for their advertising partners.

Instead of this (which probably cost them $50M or better), Titanfall (which also likely cost them $50M or better) the stated NFL deal at $400M, and buying the Gears IP from Epic (likely a solid $50-$100M price tag) Microsoft could have funded over a half dozen of the biggest, most expensive AAA exclusives EVER.
They gave the NFL more money for a fantasy football app than Take 2/Rockstar spent on Grand Theft Auto 5. LET THAT SINK INTO YOUR HEAD when you excuse their lack of first party studios as "doing business"
Sure you don't build a first party stable overnight, but in MS' case when they hell are they going to start?
Forza is the only new IP they've generated and maintained worth a s*** in their entire time as a console first party. Everything else was bought, mismanaged, and typically shuttered.
Buying their way into the industry with the Xbox with Bungie, Lionhead, etc. is one thing. Sure, you need meaningful exclusives and that was the fastest way to get them. They've been in the console business for nearly 13 years now though. The proof is in the pudding. Microsoft has never shown a commitment to developing their own legitimate first party stable. They closed much of what they did start with the Xbox during the X360 generation because Sony's failure to deliver with PS3 allowed them to pick off former exclusives and have a comparable 3rd party library at a lower price, so they weren't needed. The only significant reinvestment they've ever shown in software development was for Kinect, which they've now pulled back on nearly completely as well.

qwerty6761498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

@vishmarx "Microsoft brings nothing to this industry other than dump trucks of money. "

so what you're saying is they shouldn't have copied Sony? cause they're one of the first ones to start this buying exclusives thing.

I do agree with your next part though. They started to invest more on entertainment features then games the last couple years. But a lot of that has to do with Don Mattrick who was a bonehead. and that guys gone. So to continue to harp on them about that is unreasonable.

And again a lot of what you complain about was in the Don Mattrick era. True they could have probably put more effort into their first partys. But Phil has said that's what they're going to focus on now. However you still need to make partners in the industry. Both Sony and Microsoft are funding devs to make their games exclusive on their system. They're doing it all the time. What me to list all the games Sony has made exclusive from third party devs?

And again about this Tomb Raider deal. If you look at Microsoft first party exclusives they have.

Racing - Forza
FPS - Halo
Shooter - GOW
RPG - Fable
Fighting - Killer Instinct
Adventure - ??????

they're still missing that AAA adventure game. And Phil has said they've looked at trying to get one, but none have come up yet. So for now he worked out a deal with SE, keep in mind they wanted this, people shouldn't be blaming Microsoft at all. Sony would have done the same thing. For some reason SE didn't like their return investment on the game. Why they thought selling 7m copies of the game a failure is beyond me lol.

kenshiro1001498d ago

You seriously can't believe the crap you wrote there.

-Foxtrot1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

Well Said

However he wants games like Uncharted which is why this has most likely happened

So instead of making it themselves they got a third party game as a timed exclusive instead

Phil is such a bullshit liar...honestly he's the best liar at Microsoft.

Godmars2901498d ago

Which is why I've been so perplexed that he's been held as the savior of the Xbox.

Or rather, since he was there when all the bad choices were made, helped to defend and cover them up, how, at the very least, was he ever considered to be an instant improvement?

Azzanation1498d ago

Do you know Sony dont make Uncharted, they own the company that makes Uncharted which going back afew years weren't even called Naughty Dog and were a 3rd party PC developer. Nintendo are the only ones that actually make there huge AAA games. Sony and MS get other studios to make them. Its no different if you own them or hire them, its the same thing.

LeCreuset1498d ago (Edited 1498d ago )

He's a better politician than others they've put in front of the public. But when you look at the substance of what he's saying he's just as full of it as the rest.

"This whole thing that, like we just somehow found something that Sony fans love and said hey, if we just drop millions of dollars then they can't go play the game, that's not how it played out."

But that's exactly what they did! He's so full of it. He's trying to make it like they just so happened to want to invest in the marketing of this game — could have been any game — and incidentally, as a result, PC and PS TR fans are denied the game. No! They deliberately targeted a game whose fanbase was composed overwhelmingly of PS and PC gamers to coerce them into buying an Xbox by holding hostage a franchise they had been playing for nearly two decades. That's the same reason they were not forthcoming about the extent of the exclusivity of the deal until the PR backlash forced Phil to tell the truth. This deal, for a game Xbox was already getting, is worth nothing to MS if they can't present the illusion of exclusivity to leverage it against non-Xbox TR fans.


Read the interview. Phil talks about Uncharted and makes it clear they aren't the same thing, which is why this deal is happening in the first place.