Top
800°

Square CEO on Rise of the Tomb Raider Xbox One exclusivity & Microsoft's passion

Of all of the surprises we saw during E3 2014, perhaps one of the biggest ones was the announcement of Rise of the Tomb Raider and the fact that it would be an Xbox One exclusive. A lot has happened between since then, including confirmation of when the game will arrive on PS4, but there was still Square's side of the story and why they chose to make Rise of the Tomb Raider an Xbox One exclusive for a year.

Read Full Story >>
examiner.com
The story is too old to be commented.
MightyNoX1153d ago

The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing it seems.

Considering all the exclusives announced for PS4 (with Dragon Quest 11 revealed tommorow) your bosses in the east have all but abandoned the Bone, Mr. Rogers. So this 'passion' talks comes across as...awkward.

SpaceRanger1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

Yeah I think by passion they meant "passion to give us money for the project". Money which I doubt was utilized for building the actual game (something that a lot of people try to pass off as fact), but rather just to keep it exclusive from other platforms.

Edit:
Honestly though, even if it were to come out for PS4 or PC this holiday...I wouldn't buy it. Fallout 4 and Battlefront take my spots for top games to buy this end of the year! And since not everyone can afford to buy several games during the holiday season, I'm sure that a majority of the people agree with me.

Septic1153d ago

People seem to be very quick to lambaste devs or MS regarding money-hatting but chose to ignore the points behind it. I mean, we're repeatedly told how SFV was possible only because of Sony helping them.

But what about this from Square Enix:

"Having been working with us on previous games in a lesser sense, they’ve been supportive. [However], for Rise of the Tomb Raider, they’ve just brought this passion and belief that has really enabled us to blow people away. People should feel that about Microsoft. Their commitment to Tomb Raider is just amazing for us,"

"Honestly though, even if it were to come out for PS4 or PC this holiday...I wouldn't buy it. "

Well not everyone shares your tastes. Tomb Raider is a big title and a lot of people will be buying it at release.

SpaceRanger1153d ago

@Septic

"People seem to be very quick to lambaste devs or MS regarding money-hatting but chose to ignore the points behind it. I mean, we're repeatedly told how SFV was possible only because of Sony helping them."

Exactly. What points? You mean to tell me that Rise of the Tomb Raider was only possible because of Microsoft's support? SFV is a whole different situation as you've stated. Unless I missed something, thank you for proving my point.

"Well not everyone shares your tastes. Tomb Raider is a big title and a lot of people will be buying it at release."

Ok? Good for them. Like I said, I myself wouldn't out of preference.
They don't need to share my tastes for the majority to realize that there are plenty of other top name games that have come out and are coming out later this year. Just because there's a lot of games doesn't mean that everyone is going to buy each one.

Haru1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

I think I won't buy it either, I didn't really like the rebot that much beside the pretty graphics the game was bland, plus there are too many great games coming out this christmas and early next year

hades071153d ago

I dont feel like the majority of people agree with you. I know a lot of people picking up Tomb Raider because they loved the 2013 one so much.

BecauseImBatman1153d ago

It's okay when it's Bloodborne and SFV but Tomb Raider, nope. MS are evil...

Is anyone really surprised ? With the cost of games at an all time high to develop, third parties sometimes have to make these deals early on in a generation to survive. Square Enix didn't make there money back on Tomb Raider till the definitive edition on the PS4 and X1. Is it really surprising they would make a deal with MS that benefits them both.

DragonKnight1153d ago

@Septic: Come on, you have to see the corporate talk in that. When you look at Rise of the Tomb Raider and you see how it's pretty much exactly the same as its predecessor, what did Microsoft actually bring to the table in terms of "passion" that couldn't have been brought to the table without them?

I'm saying the same thing about SFV. Capcom, if they had the funding on their own, could have made SFV exactly the same without Sony's "passion." But the difference here is that without Sony SFV wouldn't have existed. There's nothing to suggest that Rise of the Tomb Raider wouldn't have existed without Microsoft.

Also @SpaceRanger: Microsoft's money is likely being used for marketing and distribution purposes, not "just to keep the game away for a year" that wouldn't be enough for a company like SE. They know that the Tomb Raider franchise sells best on PS, they are in the middle of a huge PS push with games like FFVII, World of Final Fantasy, Nier, etc... MS would have had to make it very enticing and presented them with a very good reason to forgo profits from 2 other platforms for an entire year. Considering that marketing and distribution budgets are sometimes twice the amount of development budgets, I can see SE accepting the money for that reason.

CaptainSellers1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@Batman

The difference here is that Bloodborne was developed by From Software in partnership with Sony Japan and is a completely funded exclusive, Street Fighter is somewhat similar to this but where Capcom approached Sony to help make the game, as a result there is no X1 version.

Tomb Raider is a lot different, it was never announced as an exclusive nor was there a shred of evidence to suggest so, it was then money hatted to make it a timed exclusive, plus Phil himself said he would never fund a game on another platform, so how much MS helped with the actual development is unknown.

This is why the reception has been a lot more frosty, SE and CD really didn't help with the uproar either.

gangsta_red1153d ago

"But the difference here is that without Sony SFV wouldn't have existed."

SFV is no different. I can't believe people will talk about MS PR and corporate talk but will swallow spoon fulls of Capcom/Sony's PR about SFV.

Street Fighter is Capcom's biggest selling IP. They have been turning out new editions, add-ons, DLC, tweaks, patches for more than 8 years for SF4. The game is a headliner at EVO and other multiple high profile tournaments around the world. It IS the premier fighting game of the world.

You would have to be a special kind of gullible to even consider Capcom not having funds to make a SFV possible.

Sony came in and dropped boats loads of cash on Capcom and even more so than MS did for TR to make sure that SFV appeared on PS4 first.

And I find it hilarious how many people on this site are not going to pick the game up anymore because they're not interested in it all of a sudden.

It's basically Titanfall all over again.

BecauseImBatman1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@Captain
And how do you know it was moneyhatted ? Just cause they didn't say anything doesn't mean they weren't part of the development from the get go and marketing costs alone is a huge help toward Rise of the Tomb Raider being successful. You don't know the ins and outs of these deals...

Look you can be bummed by the exclusivity all you want but you can't go round say it's fine for Sony but when MS are doing it, it's moneyhatting. It's double standards and the results are the same both Street Fighter and Tomb Raider were multiplat and now both sequels are exclusive for a period anyway. We dunno if SFV will ever get released on Xbox.

Septic1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

All I see is, MS support Square and that = money hatting. Capcom and Sony = helping the game being built (because SF would be dead without Sony right?) and Shemnue and Sony, where we pay for the Kickstarter = what exactly?

So is it fair for me to say that we can critique Sony for any failings regarding SF:V?

1153d ago
Godmars2901153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@Septic;
Rise of the Tomb Raider as an 'exclusive' exclusive will always be tainted because 1) its a direct sequel of a multiplatform reboot, and 2) it was officially shown off and announced prior before being announced as an exclusive. At the Spike awards show which was really little more than a commercial. By contrast SFV started off as being a rumored exclusive, then when it was officially announced it was as an exclusive. In one case Square was very likely still shopping around Tomb Raider as either multi or exclusive, where Capcom had already closed the deal.

Regardless, neither deal favors fans of either series who only own one system, have a preference, but at the very least how this deals came about shows who was more organized. And MS and Square, by TR being a limited exclusive with such a detail being leaked on the heels of the announcement, certainly weren't.

Its not that MS money-hats, its that, by multiple example, they seem to be so damn bad at it. At least as far as long term results are concerned.

@Dragonfly1982:
At the very least, I doubt that its going to give the windfall in console sales that MS is hoping for.

gangsta_red1153d ago

I love how MS money hats and it's bad for fans...even though at least the game TR is coming to other platforms later.

Unlike SFV, which is not coming to any other console platform (supposedly). And there was a strong SF community for the 360, and yet all i read is moaning and groaning that MS is "money hatting", "bad for the industry", "Square turning their backs on the fans."...but on the flip side,

"Sony saved SFV", "It's different with SF", "Capcom approached Sony", "there would be no SFV without Sony". It's hilarious how some of you want to shrug off the same practices Sony does (Timed DLC, 3rd party exclusive marketing) but focus on how bad it is when MS does it.

You guys will make up everything and anything to have Sony be the savior of games and MS the devil of the industry.

r2oB1153d ago

Titanfall - Microsoft was willing to provide Respawn with the tools to help them make the game the way they wanted (dedicated servers AFAIK). Since Respawn was not going to let Microsoft own the IP, Microsoft settled for console exclusivity. This is understandable, Microsoft actually provided something that otherwise wouldn't have made the game possible (since apparently Sony declined the offer).

Bloodborne - Sony co developed the game. They didn't merely optimize the game for their platform, they actually assisted in creating the game from scratch. Obviously their assistance was vital in the creation of the game, hence it being exclusive.

SFV - Capcom did not want to (not saying they couldn't) front the required money for the development of SFV, at least the way Ono wanted to make it. He has stated that it would require a lot money, and hinted that Capcom was unwilling to fund it completely. Sony was approached, a deal was made, and they are helping with the funding of the game. The game would not be made without Sonys help, in this case funding. Obviously Sony cannot own the IP, so the only other possibility would be console exclusivity.

How are any other above scenarios like Rise of the Tomb Raider? There has been no reports of Microsoft funding the game (a la SFV), no reports of Microsoft co developing the game (a la Bloodborne), no reports of Microsoft providing anything that would otherwise prevent the game from existing (a la Titanfall). The only thing they have brought to the table is "passion" (whatever that means), and assistance with optimizing the game for the Xbox One (which goes without saying, and hardly worth console exclusivity). The most likely scenario is that they paid Square for the timed exclusivity (in other words, paid to keep it of the PS4). I'm not judging the merits of the deal (whether it's right or wrong), just pointing out the differences between this deal and that of Bloodborne and SFV (and Titanfall since Gangsta_red mentioned it).

Imalwaysright1153d ago

@ DragonKnight Are you trying to say that MS should have creative control over a game that is being made by a studio owned by SE?

There are more ways to show passion like Phil stating he wanted to help make the franchise great or help funding TR which Phil said MS was doing or help market the game which MS is probably going to do as well.

@ Dragonfly1982 TR is also a big gun.

gatormatt801153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

I don't understand why people continue to compare ROTTR and SFV as the same. One was announced as a multiplatform game then months later turns exclusive, then later confirmed as timed exclusive. The other was announced as console exclusive and remains that way today. One had a tricky, sneaky, and deceiving ad campaign behind it as well, but I suppose that's more MS's doing instead of SE. The other came right out and said straight out that SFV would never, in any iteration, be on Xbox. Once again comparing these games as the same is ridiculous.

Godmars2901153d ago

@gangsta_red:
MS's money hatting has been bad for the industry, because of the exact reason its forced Sony to do the same in defense.

And while by all real points Sony did it before money hat was a term, benefits came with it. Notably the PS1 and the numerous leaps in terms of game production, story development as well as lower costs to consumers and publishers. MGS and FF7 would not exist in the states they're known today without the advancements Sony provided which as byproduct turned those and many other franchises exclusive for nearly two console generations.

But when MS came in and did things like buy GTA DLC, they did nothing which became a "general" benefit. Rather they appealed to greed while eventually dividing even their own community between those who could and wanted to pay and those who didn't. They even limited tech development except, again, when it generally favored them and at a cost.

Eonjay1153d ago

"Of all of the surprises we saw during E3 2014..."

The very first sentence is incorrect. The deal was announced at GamesCom 2014. Not E3.

gangsta_red1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@Godmars

"because of the exact reason its forced Sony to do the same in defense."

LMAO! Wow, it is truly amazing how far some of you go to paint Sony as the victim.

Sony has been money-hatting games along with Nintendo and Sega, waaaaay before MS even stepped on the scene. All I am reading is, "it's okay when Sony does it" from the lot of you.

And those benefits are because Sony went in the direction of CD's/DVD. It was basically doing the right thing at the right time and staying ahead of Nintendo who had a choke hold on the industry.

Sega also had a CD-Rom gaming system, you mean to tell me that those games like FF7 or MGS wouldn't have been made even with other game systems on the market, (Turbo Grafix, Saturn). You are making more excuses to try and make Sony the hero by saying they had to do it to benefit us gamers.

PS and PS2 were the more popular systems and FF7 and MGS benefited from that alone, not because of the advancements Sony made alone. Sony benefited more from the huge mistakes Sega and Nintendo made which is a whole different story all together.

"Rather they appealed to greed while eventually dividing even their own community between those who could and wanted to pay and those who didn't."

No idea what this even means except that once again you are trying to make MS the evil greedy empire that cast a corporate shadow over the industry.

"They even limited tech development except, again, when it generally favored them and at a cost."

What?! How did they limit tech development when the first Xbox was more powerful than the PS2, offered a more robust online and had a HDD built right into the game console?

@R2oB

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Eurogamer followed up with Square Enix, which issued the following statement:

"Yes, Microsoft will be publishing Rise of the Tomb Raider on Xbox. Microsoft has always seen huge potential in Tomb Raider and they will get behind this game with more support across development, marketing and retail than ever before, which we believe will be a step in continuing to build the Tomb Raider franchise as one of the biggest in gaming."

soul-assassin-1153d ago

honestly....i wouldn't touch an online EA game this side of xmas, nobody learned a lesson yet? (and im a huge star wars fan, i can wait several months til its fixed) fallout 4 & tomb raider for me.

donthate1153d ago Show
miyamoto1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

I thought SE and MS learned its lesson from the FFXIII mess it made but Microsoft money is a very powerful moving force indeed.

People should really understand the intentions, situations, context and reasons why MS do these money deals then form their opinion.

We all know Rise of the TR deal with MS is to counter Uncharted 4 but it looked like U4 Holiday release was just a placeholder and MS fell for it.

MS should have known better that PlayStation 1st party titles does not compete with big 3rd party titles during the holiday season since PSOne days.

Looks like "marketing deals" is the new "exclusive" now.

Godmars2901153d ago

@gangsta_red:
Was talking about MS sticking with DVD on the 360. The technical limitations that introduced and had to be compensated for with updates, larger HDDs when they were over charging for 20GB and 40GB drives and even new system models. But if you want to go back to MS limiting the first Xbox the way they did, failing to consider movie functionality for the DVD drive, something which put the PS2 over the top and could only be introduced via an Xbox kit people had to buy, then that's fine too.

And I don't think of MS so much as evil, but rather entitled. That as a company they've become victim to thinking that since they provide products as service - something they came up with - that they're entitled to profits beyond simple and once normal one-time consumer transactions. That's where XBL Gold came from with the 360, it was also the idea behind the XB0's original DRM policies. Policies which MS where slow to change and eventually remove because they thought that they were entitled to them.

DragonKnight1153d ago

@gangsta_red: Have you ever once considered that because Capcom A) Was on the verge of complete bankruptcy and B) Kept releasing new versions of SFIV (which aren't free) that that's why they wouldn't have the funds to bring out SFV. You remember Deep Down? That's another Sony/Capcom project. And, I'm totally sure that Rise of the Tomb Raider, a game which MS approached SE for exclusivity on but isn't helping develop, is exactly the same as SFV, a game which Capcom approached Sony for and suggested a co-development partnership. Totally the same thing.

@Septic: You didn't just use the Shenmue Kickstarter as a dig against Sony. Tell me you didn't just do that. Yu Suzuki, AND Sony both said that Yu wouldn't allow any company to fund the title. For what he wanted, Kickstarter was his only option. He wasn't satisfied with any company and wanted development funds to be strictly independent.

@Imalwaysright: Passion when you can't have creative control is making the game fully exclusive, it's funding development, it's making the game synonymous with your console. Rise of the Tomb Raider was already in development before MS bought that one year exclusivity. Tomb Raider is great without Microsoft, in what way are they passionate about making it great when it's already great? The re-release of the previous Tomb Raider game was very successful and didn't need Microsoft to be so. Passionate is a corporate buzzword. Microsoft doesn't give a damn about the franchise, they care about a game they can have exclusively for a year. Rise of the Tomb Raider does not, currently, look to be any different a game than Tomb Raider was. So how has Microsoft's influence made it "great" when it looks to be more of the same? Even MS' marketing is going to fail it as the constant need to put "Holiday 2015" tells everyone that the game will be out on other platforms.

So basically the fruit of Microsoft's "passion" amounts to a game that everyone knows is multiplatform based on Microsoft's own marketing and a game that's pretty much the same thing as the previous game. Dat passion tho.

TricksterArrow1153d ago

SFV was never exclusive. PC was announced from day one, . Tomb Raider though was announced as an exclusive title, with a lot of avoidance to basically state the truth: that it was not.

This screams shady deals all over.

r2oB1153d ago

@ gangsta_red

I would expect Microsoft to heavily support with marketing a retail (more so than other multiplats) considering they treated the game as an exclusive. As card as support from a development standpoint. I'm going to bet they mean support with optimizing the game for the Xbox One, as opposed to actually developing the game, which are two different things. Exclusives like Bloodborne, and console exclusives like SFV and Shenmue involve Sony in a fundamental way, whether it be co development of the actual game (not just optimizing) or funding of the game development (when another publisher isn't willing to make the complete investment). Microsoft has had some third party exclusives in this manner too, Titanfall and SSO come to mind, where they were an integral part of the game. Face it, Rise of the Tomb Raider isn't that kind of deal. The actual game itself would not be any different without Microsofts money and help (with the exception of a better optimized Xbox One version as opposed to a Xbox One version without their help, but the game itself would have been the same).

Sony fans seem to understand the difference between the deals, where Xbox fans either do not understand the difference or are in denial. When was the last time Sony tried to convince gamers a multiplat game was an exclusive? They seem to be more transparent with using terms like "first on Playstation" or "console exclusive". If I recall correctly, Tomb Raider wasnt labelled as a "holiday exclusive" until after gamer backlash of it being labelled an exclusive.

MysticStrummer1153d ago

"I dont feel like the majority of people agree with you."

The majority of an install base pretty much never buys any given game. The majority didn't buy GTA5 despite the fact that it's the best selling single title ever, and Tomb Raider won't get anywhere near those numbers.

Imalwaysright1153d ago

@ DragonKnight

MS isn't in the position to make an IP they don't own fully exclusive to their console. They probably wanted to make that deal but SE has the final word. Also It wouldn't make sense for MS to change TR formula (even if they could) since they wanted exactly a game like it in their 1st party portfolio. They don't have one and that's why they made a deal for TR timed exclusivity.

I agree that TR 2013 was a great game but there is always room for improvement mainly the mp. We all know that is expensive to develop games and MS help funding TR will only make it better. It sure as hell won't make it worst.

Also, if in your opinion MS only cares about the one year deal why are they helping fund TR? A game that they know will be multiplatform. Why not just pay for the timed exlusive deal?

jb2271153d ago

@Septic

Here's a quote from Darrell Gallagher, boss of CD when asked whether or not Rise of the Tomb Raider would've existed w/o MS' involvement:

"I wouldn't say that," he said. "If you look at Tomb Raider, it's been around for 20 years, so I do think that Tomb Raider would still be around [without Microsoft]."

That's from the horse's mouth, and one of the few moments of clarity & honesty regarding the situation. While I'm sure that MS helped CD & Square monetarily, I still have no definitive proof that those gains will be passed on to benefit the title itself. I agree that many fans hold a bit of a double standard w/ the SFV situation (I personally disagree w/ the practice of funding third party games full stop, regardless of whether or not the properties are in financial trouble) but they are different situations in that Ono did say that the game wouldn't have existed w/o Sony & Gallagher said their game would have existed w/o MS. Either way I wish Sony & MS would give up the practice of keeping other companies' franchises afloat and just focus their developers & budgets solely on first party fare that wouldn't have existed otherwise. I won't be supporting Rise when it does hit the PS4, I'll be buying used in order to support my feelings about the industry. Street Fighter isn't my bag so I wouldn't be picking that one up either way but I'd most likely do the same if it was something I'd typically buy.

magiciandude1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

It's difficult to know any reason what's good for the gamers or not this generation. Both companies are behind this, except it's okay for SFV but not for TR, and no logical explanation is given, just excuses and irrational fanboy dialog.

SFV would exist regardless of Sony's slick strategy. SF is one of Capcom's biggest franchises, so they would make it happen even if they have to beg another major publisher to team up with or go as far as launching a Kickstarter campaign for the funds. A third-party game's existence is not entirely down to Sony's money-hatting powers, but you can keep dancing around the subject and rigging the code of ethics for Sony's favor until you're finally blue in the face.

The real difference is TR will launch on PS4, but this cannot be said for SFV. In addition, Square-Enix has a lineup of Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy games exclusive to Sony and Xbox One will never get any of those games. MS is still on the short-end of the stick even with the timed exclusive game.

Oddly enough, PS is getting a lot more leverage in terms of cross-platform marketing and timed exclusive DLC this generation. Fanboys have ragged on MS for the entire previous generation over these concepts, but now it's confusing what's really acceptable or not, for whatever reason. We've entered the twilight zone of gaming and it's very revolting.

gatormatt801153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@Iamalwaysright

Didn't Phil Spencer say that MS would never help fund a game that would appear on a rival console? So if we take that statement as true and apply it to TR then one would think MS isn't actually funding ROTTR. The truth is no one besides MS and SE know exactly what the details of the deal were. All we know is MS is publishing it which saves SE a ton of money on manufacturing and producing all those copies.

donthate1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@jb:

What I am seeing is, one person is being honest. TR has been around for 20-years, it will still be around without MS.

Then you look at Sony/Capcom, and the Street Fighter has been around for over 20-years as well. Why is suddenly that SF would not be around if it was for Sony?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

How disgusting this is?

One company is straight up being honest, and it makes sense while the other is straight up lying, but hey "we believe them right" despite proof of otherwise right from the horses mouth:

"According to Sponichi Annex, Street Fighter 5 is still years away from release, but Capcom is looking to put it out on the PS4 and Xbox One, at least as far as home video game consoles are concerned."

This was in June 11 of 2014!

http://www.eventhubs.com/ne...

You all can click disagree as much as you want, but it anyone with a modicum of brain can see the hypocrisy and double standard. It would just highlight the bias on this site that has been going on for over a decade now by mods and their "friends" messaging each other to censor and steer the site.

1153d ago
Imalwaysright1153d ago

@ gatormatt80

That statement could be applied to TR if Phil hadn't come out and say that MS was helping fund TR.

DragonKnight1153d ago

@iamalwaysright: "Also, if in your opinion MS only cares about the one year deal why are they helping fund TR?"

So they can get the one year deal. They aren't helping fund the development of the game, it began development pre-E3 2014 and wasn't announced as the one year exclusive until Gamescom 2014. If they are funding anything, its the fees associated with publishing such as marketing. Phil Spencer said they'd never fund the development of a game that wasn't exclusive to their platform. No one would. That's paying for your competition to get the game as well.

Imalwaysright1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@ DragonKnight

"So they can get the one year deal." So paying for the timed exclusive deal and publishing the game wasn't enough? If that's true (wich I seriously doubt) then SE was the clear winner in the deal they made with MS and MS was the clear loser.

Last time I checked TR is still in development and money and is still being spent. Who is to say that the money that is currently being spent doesn't come from MS pockets?

"If they are funding anything, its the fees associated with publishing such as marketing."

Well then someone should tell that to the head of the Xbox division because he clearly believes that MS is helping fund TR.

r2oB1153d ago

@ magiciandude

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself. You said SFV would have existed without Sony even if Capcom had to beg another publisher for additional fund, which is exactly what they did (well, not beg I presume). Capcom was not going to fund SFV (as implied by Yoshinori Ono, Who is SFV executive producer), so they struck a deal with Sony for additional funding. You can speculate all you want as far as how Capcom might have gotten additional funds, but two things that are facts is 1) Capcom was unwilling to fund the game themselves and 2) with Sonys help, Ono had the funding to make SFV.

And there are logical explanations for both SFV and Tomb Raider exclusivity. Let me break it down for you since you either fail to understand or are in denial.

Sony is funding a portion (don't know how much) of the development of SFV. Since they are funding the actual development of the game, logically, they require it to be a console exclusive.

Microsoft is not funding the development of Tomb Raider. They are just paying a sum of money (don't know how much) to keep it off the PS4 for a year. Since they are giving Square Enix money, logically, they require the game to be timed exclusive.

Once again:
SFV - exclusive because Sony is paying for some of the development
Tomb Raider - exclusive because Microsoft is paying for exclusivity.

Godmars2901153d ago

@donthate:
Tomb Raider was coming within a certain span of time by indication of Square showing off a trailer before announcing its exclusivity.

And yes; this is Square - as in FF15 with at least three different reveal trailers over the course of eight years *and* still no release date - we're talking about, but still, they said and made a commitment towards making the game.

On the other hand, when SFV was only rumored to be in development, Capcom was talking about years before anything solid would be forthcoming. Sony offering to help make it for exclusivity cut that time down dramatically.

Again, one game was know for a fact to be in the works, while the other not so much until it received outside backing.

DragonKnight1153d ago

@iamalwaysright: I want you to think about what you're saying. Your logic says that Microsoft think they are funding the development of Rise of the Tomb Raider. This would mean that Microsoft are paying for the development of a game that is NOT exclusive to their platform and WILL be on their competitors platform at Microsoft's expense.

And that sounds reasonable to you.

This after Phil said they'd never bankroll a game for their competitors, you're saying they are and the ONLY thing they are asking for for doing this is a year of exclusivity.

That makes sense to you.

Even though all of that flies against Business 101, you think that because money is still being spent on development of a game coming out in a few months (money that was already budgeted well beforehand), that that money is coming from Microsoft and they just don't really care that that money is going to be used to make a game that will appear on their competitors platform. Because Microsoft is known for being charitable with their competitors.

Really?

magiciandude1153d ago

@r2oB

"Do you realize you just contradicted yourself."

No, it has been said that SFV wouldn't exist at all without Sony's money. The game would still exist one way or the other if Capcom wanted it to. TR would've also existed on both systems at launch if Square-Enix wanted it to.

"Microsoft is not funding the development of Tomb Raider. They are just paying a sum of money (don't know how much) to keep it off the PS4 for a year. Since they are giving Square Enix money, logically, they require the game to be timed exclusive."

MS has a hand in optimizing the game for the Xbox One hardware, so they did get involved with the development of the game at some point. They at least did a little more than just throwing away money for some timed exclusive just for the sake of keeping it off the PS4.

Like MS was slick for scoring TR, Sony was slick for scoring SFV, and their fans are justifying it while roasting MS to the stake at the same time. And this might ultimately be Capcom's choice, but the same applies to Square-Enix for TR as well. If this timed exclusivity is MS's fault, then SFV's seemingly permanent exclusivity is also Sony's fault. The finger pointing game works both ways.

Fanboys also had history with bashing Nintendo for Bayonetta 2 exclusivity. Anyone willing to justify their bashing will give another, and entirely different, agenda-driven excuse.

Enough with dancing around the subject. Just admit that we're talking double standards. And Sony has done straight-up money hatting in the past. Now they're doing what MS did last gen with timed exclusive DLC for CoD (something fanboys also ragged on MS for). They're just as capable as MS and very likely will do it some more.

So, apart from the fact that you don't like waiting an additional year for TR, why is this money hatting wrong? Apart from the fact that Xbox fans don't like not getting SFV at all, why is this right?

Why is Bayonetta 2 wrong?

Why is timed-exclusive CoD BO III DLC right?

You can go on and on...

_-EDMIX-_1153d ago

@Septic-"People seem to be very quick to lambaste devs or MS regarding money-hatting but chose to ignore the points behind it. I mean, we're repeatedly told how SFV was possible only because of Sony helping them"

???

Why do you keep saying that yet disregard that I've stated many, many, MANY TIMES with you that they are both timed games? I stated this a year ago about BOTH DEALS!

Both have excuses are "why" its "exclusive" but at the end of the day, Sony didn't buy the SFV IP and MS didn't buy the Tomb Raider IP, thus....its timed.

I see no reason why someone who owns the IP wouldn't use it, it is capcom's to use.

If they want it on XONE, they will put it on XONE as ultra, mega, hyper etc.

You keep making it sound as if you've ONLY heard this or that...

Sooooooo you NEVER got a reply by me telling you SFV regardless of what Capcom has stated is timed?

Really now?

I think your legit just making up arguments for the sake of it.

"People seem to be very quick to lambaste devs or MS"

Yes...and your very quick to ignore that people like me have stated both are timed regardless of the reasons behind being timed.

Again...Sony didn't buy the SFV IP, Capcom stated soooooo many times that game XYZ is exclusive only for it not to be, they are not ones to really seek credibility from.

MS are no different, they've done these deals before almost ALL last gen.

MS finds any reason to justify a reason for a um "exclusive" also known as the classic MS timed game.

Mind you, even with Capcoms' shady history with timed games, SFV being timed makes sense as Sony actually rarely does timed games and we all publicly know about Capcom's finical situation. Sony won't just fund a huge SF game for nothing and its likely if it couldn't get made, they would just seek MS to make it like they did Dead Rising....thus Sony saw this as a us or them situation.

Mind you...last year Capcom was open to being bought out, Square might claim the couldn't make it....but their last Tomb Raider titles state otherwise, Capcom factually is on rocky ground and I'm starting to doubt it will last the whole gen as a publisher, they will seek to get bought out.

Imalwaysright1153d ago

"And that sounds reasonable to you" No it doesn't and I thought that TR would never be released on the PS4 because of it however Phil did say that MS was helping fund the development of TR and TR is a multiplatform game. My guess is that the X1 version will end up having a substantial exclusive DLC.

Also just want to say that budgets are never set in stone and more often than not are or should be adjusted. How many games this generation were delayed and how many games that should be delayed were released?

gangsta_red1153d ago

@God

"Was talking about MS sticking with DVD on the 360. The technical limitations"

Storage ROMS had no direct impact at all on developing games for each system and as you can see there were a few games that had to be spread across multiple DVD's for the 360 alone.

"that introduced and had to be compensated for with updates, larger HDDs when they were over charging for 20GB and 40GB drives and even new system models."

We can also talk about Sony's own issues with their new models, having games that required the HDD add-on and so on. I'm sure we can find dark spots on every video game companies track record if we spent the time. Doesn't mean that MS is the evil empire you are trying to make them out to be.

MS stepped into the game real late and didn't have the privilege of being at the front gate of the golden age of gaming when all this seemed new. So it's really easy to point the finger and say they didn't bring anything nostalgic to my gaming memories.

"But if you want to go back to MS limiting the first Xbox the way they did, failing to consider movie functionality for the DVD drive, something which put the PS2 over the top and could only be introduced via an Xbox kit people had to buy, then that's fine too."

And how exactly did that put a dark cloud over gaming? Especially when media features for Xbox 360/1 get crucified on the internet when anyone from MS brings it up. And it was a great feature for the PS2 and one of the greatest reason I had a PS2, but how does that impact gaming?

"And I don't think of MS so much as evil, but rather entitled. That as a company they've become victim to thinking that since they provide products as service - something they came up with - that they're entitled to profits beyond simple and once normal one-time consumer transactions."

WHAT!?! I seriously have no idea what that even implies. That a company that provides services feels entitled? So they feel entitled because they are providing services and expecting profits from something they worked hard and long to give a customer?

"That's where XBL Gold came from with the 360, it was also the idea behind the XB0's original DRM policies."

And that is what Sony, Amazon, Google and every other company that provides services adopted from I guess. MS started all of that too right? And Sony just had to follow suit, don't you think the smart business move would be to offer free online...like say Nintendo. How crushing of a blow would that have been for PS4. But they didn't and everyone got right in line and paid. There must be some reason Sony did that.

"it was also the idea behind the XB0's original DRM policies. Policies which MS where slow to change and eventually remove because they thought that they were entitled to them.'

Policies that we are slowly seeing in a lot of areas already with this huge push towards all digital. The fact that Sony is slowly feeding you this very rice pudding and making you learn to like it while you stick your tongue out at MS is the funniest part of this conversation.

4Sh0w1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

Lots of excuses to make Microsoft/SE/CD the bad guys, the truth is had Sony done it there would be a ps celebration....'meh hard to feel bad when I know the folks who complain the most are just mad 'cause Micro snagged ROTR instead of Sony.

gatormatt801153d ago

@magiciandude

There is nothing wrong with Bayonetta 2 exclusivity either. I don't think anyone is truly mad at Nintendo for that. It's a well known fact Bayonetta 2 wouldn't have existed without Nintendo.

TR would've been made with or without MS's help.

Ezz20131153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@gangsta_red

**** "Sony saved SFV", "It's different with SF", "Capcom approached Sony", "there would be no SFV without Sony". ****

Do you have any prove that say otherwise ?!
Any thing that prove Capcom didn't approach Sony ?!
I'm not saying this being exclusive to Sony was right though
because i hate moneyhating multiplat games
It was wrong thing from Sony and Microsoft.

BTW about Your comment on people are now saying they won't bother with TR

I only speak for my self when i say i won't bother with it because i didn't enjoy the reboot
and what i have seen from ROTR videos didn't grap me.

Godmars2901153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

@gangsta_red:
"Storage ROMS had no direct impact at all on developing games for each system and as you can see there were a few games that had to be spread across multiple DVD's for the 360 alone."

BS. The lack of space directly effected major releases like Halo and Forza. You didn't have a HDD or the space on one, it effected how and what you could play. Ultimately, between major updates which were treated as relaunches and making downloading almost mandatory, it effected how the Xbox developed as a console.

So again - BS.

"Especially when media features for Xbox 360/1 get crucified on the internet when anyone from MS brings it up."

How is it that you don't understand the negative impact that XBL Gold had on the console as a media center? The example of Netflix being exclusive to the brand for nearly a year becoming an embarrassment because as soon - before - that deal was done when it went on the PS3, the PS3 became the #1 platform for the service. The 360 rated at the bottom of the user base up to and until the XBL Gold requirement was removed.

"And it was a great feature for the PS2 and one of the greatest reason I had a PS2, but how does that impact gaming?"

It didn't. As a DVD movie player that was cheaper yet higher rated than the average standalone player, it impacted the wider general market.

"WHAT!?! I seriously have no idea what that even implies. That a company that provides services feels entitled?"

You're not even seeing the issue. MS wanted revenue for things that were already being provided for free, or required a separate subscription in addition to the one they wanted. Again, read the above example of Netflix and how that backfired on them.

Honestly, I feel like I'm on treading over old ground, surprised only at how willfully ignorant you're coming off. Yeah, an HDD was added to the PS2, flopped hard and was only used for a few games. But that was Sony's lame effort to appease online demand with an five plus year old console. It wasn't them insisting that their under three year old system didn't need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray while compensating for the lack there of.

nosferatuzodd1153d ago

I'm not buying this game it's the principle
If this crap doesn't sell well on the Xbox then it's going to flop on the ps4 just for their arrogance and greed everyone I know said their not buying it

freshslicepizza1153d ago

microsoft at times is very good at marketing big titles. this is one area sony was criticized heavily last generation when games like twisted metal and starhawk failed at the box office. aside from a very few studios like polyphony and naughty dog sony didn't market games very well on the ps3. this may be a reason why insomniac left being exclusive to them.

but one has to wonder why sqaure-enix thinks microsoft is what is need this generation to help propel tomb raider into the like of halo marketing status. they are essentially giving up 2/3rd's of their potential sales by alienating the ps4 for a whole year.

i guess one thing we have to consider is the shape of the company. capcom complains about their state of affairs and why they need sony to help get street fighter going. perhaps square-enix is in worse shape then we think and they too need help. microsoft will pay the bills for all marketing and maybe some other support.

either way you look at it whether it's street fighter or tomb raider, none of it is designed to be in the best interest of consumers. microsoft is basically preventing ps3 owners from ever enjoying it and ps4 owners for a year. meanwhile sony is basically preventing any xbox owner to ever play street fighter v. this is why they are called exclusives, timed or full. they are designed by nature to exclude others, yet we try and validate it when we really shouldn't be.

LexHazard791153d ago

Lol...now no one liked the reboot.

poor_cus_of_games1153d ago

Well said spaceranger. Star wars and fallout are 2 games that I'm looking forward to more than tomb raider. I'll probably pick it up early next year when I've got the time.

SilentNegotiator1152d ago

Passionate, passionate money.

avengers19781152d ago

Why are people still calling Tomb Raider exclusive... It's been announced for PC spring 2016, and PS4 holiday 2016... And I bet the PS4 version comes with additional content when it does come out.

GordonKnight1152d ago

I glad I have all three consoles. This makes it to where I'm never trying to justify why I don't need to purchase a game that's exclusive to another console.

The power of three consoles!

kreate1152d ago

sony doesn't throw money around to keep something exclusive for 12 months.

that's why its not ok when Microsoft do it.
becuz the game was gonna come out anyways regardless but becuz u threw some money, now the game is only come out on 1 platform for a limited time.

http://www.engadget.com/200...

http://www.psxextreme.com/p...

http://www.engadget.com/200...

I think what mirosoft does is anti-consumer but very effective from a business standpoint.

+ Show (52) more repliesLast reply 1152d ago
Bennibop1153d ago

Its almost like he is protesting to much how great Microsoft have been. It seems like a poor business decision when Tomb raider has a strong association to the Playstation brand and worldwide PS4 has outsold X1 nearly 2:1.

Septic1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

"Its almost like he is protesting to much how great Microsoft have been"

How is he protesting? He just stating MS' passion for the franchise.

". It seems like a poor business decision when Tomb raider has a strong association to the Playstation brand"

Is it a poor business decision? Because I'm hearing sentiments to the contrary from some who say:

1. We don't need Tomb Raider because of Uncharted. Right so what's the issue then? Not much of a strong association if the title is an after-thought on the platform.

2. One year is too long- apparently the game has an expiration date? The 2:1 worldwide market would surely buy it would it not?

3. How much did MS pay for this deal? It could have been a hefty amount for all we know. Do you think sales will bomb on the PS4?

DragonKnight1153d ago

"How is he protesting? He just stating MS' passion for the franchise."

He's not protesting but, what passion? MS has never shown passion for the series beforehand. The franchise never received any kind of significant push from MS in the past. I'm thinking that it's just an easy title for them to get exclusivity for as opposed to something like Hitman or FF. Though I'm wondering why they didn't try going for Deus Ex.

TwoForce1153d ago

@Septic Dude,are you nuts ? I can give a example Sony have two major publisher. Sony Japan Studios and Sony Santa Monica are publisher and developer. They're help some small companies and it belong Playstation console only. Like Journey, demon Souls, bloodborne and more.

Bennibop1153d ago

The sheer amount of times that he points out how passionate Microsoft are about tomb raider (they care more) insinuates this.

1. I have never mentioned uncharted, many people are unhappy that a series that has such a long history with playstation will be out of reach for twelve months. I own an x1 however I would not buy one just for this game.

2.12 months is overly long but that is more to do with people moving on to other games.

thisgamer5031153d ago

It's funny how many of you support Sony/Capcom with SFV yet despise this deal. You believe Sony and Capcom's ilk without even questioning yet scream bullshit when these companies announce their reasons. Maturity at its finest

Sheikh Yerbouti1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

If Square's decision wasn't cold, it was definitely unthinking. They traded the passion of PS4 owners for the game for the pa$$ion of Microsoft. The announcement for PS4 and these ridiculous comments shows they are backpedalling.

@thisgamer503
I think SFV is just as bad, but no where near as stupid. If Halo was multiplat and went PS4 exclusive, then THAT would be a similar situation. Still longstanding franchises should NEVER, EVER go exclusive, timed or otherwise. It is arrogant and far from customer-centric.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1153d ago
Septic1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

How is this talk awkward?

"Considering all the exclusives announced for PS4 (with Dragon Quest 11 revealed tommorow) your bosses in the east have all but abandoned the Bone,"

What about his bosses in the West; the market where a title like this is predominantly marketed for? The market where this is will be marketed towards?

"So this 'passion' talks comes across as...awkward."

Why? What do the sales market have to do with passion?

. "What we saw in Microsoft, which is probably not as well known, is that Microsoft’s passion for Tomb Raider is amazing."

Clearly you've struggled to understand what the article is about. It isn't about sales, or about the PS4 (shoch/horror). Its about MS and their partnership with Swaure and how it has facilitated the development of Tomb Raider. Ultimately it, like almost all third party agreements boils down to cash but you have completeld misconstrued the article to further your agenda and I would love to see how you justify that (don't lie this time btw).

RocketScienceLvlStuf1153d ago (Edited 1153d ago )

You seem to be defending against everyone's points hard.

How many times do you need to be told the tombraider and street fighter deals are totally different.

For the last time. Street fighter V could not be made with out sony. Capcom stated themselves years ago they didn't have the funds for another Street fighter. Sony are co funding and more importantly co developing the game.

All the PR speak about Microsoft being "passionate" about tombraider goes out the window when the facts are. TR was multiplatform at E3. Then 2 months later it was an exclusive. The game was already deep in development. All Microsoft did was pay for exclusion. They where clearly not involved during development otherwise it would have been exclusive from the get go.

Septic1153d ago

@Rocket

So Square are lying and you know better. MS' passion for the franchise can extend beyond helping development on the game you know that right?

So tell me, what did Sony do with Shenmue? Why are they getting credit for that?

pivotplease1153d ago

From what I've read, Sony and Shibuya are helping with marketing, production, publishing and even development as well. Could be wrong about development, but the other forms of help are huge financial endeavours no matter what way you look at it. That and designating a chunk of their E3 show to publicity for the kickstarter likely boosted the fundraiser a notable amount (perhaps even by a few million of what was made). So I don't see what grounds you are downplaying Sony's contribution to Shenmue.

MS might be helping tomb raider for select marketing and publishing only (a game that clearly never needed financial help to begin with and this is why these statements seem suspicious) but I'm not going to assume anything like many others are doing and leave it at that.

windblowsagain1153d ago

Noticed it a few times. But you really are an avid fan of MS.

I'm not for a few reasons.

I was going to purchase a 360 long ago now, started looking up 360/PS3 at the time. Noticed the hate directed to the unreleased PS3. Hate Hate Hate. Held off on both consoles.

A friend had one, it died. Got another and then the whole rrod started coming. Docs proved MS knew.

Then I noticed a little game called Uncharted. Caught my eye and I then enjoyed a PS3.

Nobody is saying some MS employees don't love games and want the best for fans.

But the TR deal comes across badly.

The reason for me is the first tomb-raider and all the rest that followed came on the PS console.

Though you don't want to talk about it, sales matter. It shows how much customers want the game on their console.

TR always had this on PS and is the reason it has always sold better on a Sony system.

I would say the same regarding SFV, although again sales are 1.5mill more on ps3 vs 360.

But passion is making your own games, new i.p's. Heavily investing to bring new titles to your system. Even buying developers shows this. instead MS tried in vain for people to buy kinect, tv tv tv. It's a tv system with games.

Serg1153d ago

@Septic

You are thinking what Sony wants you to think. Sony only has a marketing agreement with YsNet and are porting the finished game to the PS4, they have no creative input or stake in the actual development of the game. They do not own the IP. If you want an example, look at Call of Duty. Microsoft is no longer allowed to advertise the game, only Sony does with a big fat PS4 logo next to it. But because of the fact that it was announced on a Sony stage, it is lumped in with Sony in most peoples minds without Sony doing much at all.

Sony started their end of the agreement by giving Shenmue III time on their biggest stage of the year. Which is why the misinformation spread like wildfire that Sony are somehow responsible for this game. They wanted to be, but Yu Suzuki stated that he didn't want a huge corporation looking over their shoulders and decided to go Kickstart the game instead.

Shenmue III was not announced for any other platforms but PS4 and PC. But it could come to other platforms which is stated right there in the Q&A section of the Kickstarter page, which you would know, if you had bothered to check. Meaning Sony has no deal in place what so ever to prevent the game coming out on other platforms. The current platforms announced were solely decided by the developer.

kaizokuspy1153d ago

@septic, if passion was anything more than money, I am sure SE would have mentioned the help with finding or development. Otherwise what are you left to say? Oh yeah, "passion" it's a buzzword and deflection at its finest. Why is it a bad deal? Well they shot themselves in the foot as when the game does release multiplat a year later their sales will be nowhere near where it should've been. All the money MS provided to keep it exclusive is good for Xbone owners, but will further stymie growth from a promising franchise reboot that won't translate well. So when you have the option of Fallout 4, battlefront, forza, and new cod looming on the horizon, the new tomb raider will not sell as well as it could. When a game doesn't sell as well as it should/could it hurts gamers bc the next round of tomb raider exclusivity and other deals like it, will not come to xbone again and will hurt the games who only play that console.