Top
410°

Square Enix CEO tries to justify Rise of the Tomb Raider Microsoft deal

MWEB GameZone writes: "Square Enix CEO explanation of the Microsoft Tomb Raider deal raises even more questions.

Did Sony show less passion and dedication to the Tomb Raider brand? If the deal boils down to who threw more money at Square Enix, then just say so."

The story is too old to be commented.
DarkOcelet1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

I really think it was obvious what MS was trying to do here. They were trying make a game on their platform to rival Uncharted 4 because of how close they were in term of the genre so they did the exclusivity deal.

But now since Uncharted 4 was moved to 2016. Things are a bit different for them now and they no longer need to compete for the time being.

And TBH i think MS would have had a hard time because Naughty Dog is on a whole another level entirely.

HanCilliers1207d ago

Give that man a Bells.

Nailed it.

Septic1207d ago

Yup its obvious that MS don't have their equivalent of Uncharted; I think Phil Spencer even came out and admitted as much right after the announcement of this deal.

"And TBH i think MS would have had a hard time because Naughty Dog is on a whole another level entirely."

Yeah I mean, ND are on a whole different level and they are at the top of their game so who could possibly challenge them, aside from Rockstar? In many ways, its a smart move and probably the only move available to them at the present time.

Septic1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

In fact, Phil Spencer spelled it out clear as day:

“Do I wish I had an owned IP [intellectual property] first-party action adventure game?” said Spencer. “Absolutely. But I don’t right now. This is one that fits well.”

Spencer revealed that he’s a fan of the PlayStation-exclusive Uncharted series, and that Microsoft has tried to make something comparable in the past.

“I’m a big fan of Uncharted,” said Spencer, “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 [partnership with publisher Square Enix] is an opportunity.”

How often will you get someone come out and spell it out so succinctly and honestly in this industry? He is being COMPLETELY frank here. But that does not mean Square Enix are lying if they feel MS' commitment to them. That commitment stems from what Spencer has said but its commitment nonetheless.

http://venturebeat.com/2014...

At the author of this article:

"If the deal boils down to who threw more money at Square Enix, then just say so. "

Anyone with half a brain knows that money is the main decider of these kind of deals. It has been for almost all third party deals. But with money comes marketing and exposure, things that some companies can provide. So why is the author is struggling so much to understand this established practice? Has he never come across this before?

MrSec841207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

@DarkOcelet:

Try being the operative word. ;)
What's funny is MS are trying to do what they can to copy Sony's last position, meanwhile Sony's studios continue to bring that level of experience, while also branching into new avenues with games like Horizon Zero Dawn.

SCE's developers just keep trying new things or to raise the bar within existing genres.

Rise of the Tomb Raider certainly doesn't seem on a par with what Uncharted 4 is trying, it's just a marginal evolution over the last TR game from what we've seen.

MS needs to start thinking for themselves and actually invest in IPs that show they're capable of this.

Septic1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

"SCE's developers just keep trying new things or to raise the bar within existing genres. "

Realy? Because SCE were the ones who actually bought out Tomb Raider 2 as a lifetime exclusive preventing it from appearing on the N64 and Saturn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Sony are a lot older in the industry and MS did make missteps but clearly this gen they have showed that they are trying. But that goes over the heads of some people who have selective amnesia on these points.

"MS needs to start thinking for themselves and actually invest in IPs that show they're capable of this."

It looks to me like they are doing this now.

Septic1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

Sorry, Sony bought out timed exclusivity of Tomb Raider 2 (not lifetime) for THREE years lol. Lol, the irony its...just...wow.

http://replygif.net/i/880.g...

pedrof931207d ago

[email protected]

Yeah they bought it, 20 years ago.

MrSec841207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

@Septic:

"Realy? Because SCE were the ones who actually bought out Tomb Raider 2 as a lifetime exclusive preventing it from appearing on the N64 and Saturn."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with either the here and now or what I said.
I said Sony's developers just keep trying new things and raising the bar.

I'm talking about games actually being made internally.

"Sony are a lot older in the industry and MS did make missteps but clearly this gen they have showed that they are trying. But that goes over the heads of some people who have selective amnesia on these points. "

MS came in the 6th gen, Sony had only had one console gen prior to this.
MS has had other platform holders to learn from, they could quite easily have built up studios of their own, prior to entering the game market, but they didn't, not really in the way that Sony and Nintendo have.

This generation MS have been very poor on the exclusives front, since Sunset Overdrive (a game developed by Insomniac a 2nd/3rd party studio) there's been nothing exclusive to XB1, prior to that there was only Kinect Sports Rivals and before that the only 1st party exclusive was Forza 5, nothing original there at all.

MS haven't done a thing so far with their own studios and they most definitely haven't shown they're serious about actually supporting their own platform with their own internal studios, by trying new things.

No Microsoft are not trying.
To try you must actually act, recently they've made some empty promises, the most interesting looking game at E3 made by a 1st party studio was Rare's Sea of Thieves, which isn't an XB1 exclusive, because it's also releasing on PC.
Recore is being made by Keiji Inafune and Armature Studio (who are privately owned).

Outside of Crackdown (an existing IP, with little or no prestige) and Phantom Dust (same, little or no prestige) there's nothing in the way of 1st party made exclusives on the horizon.
Yes MS has 3rd party games on the way like Scalebound, but gamers have no confidence in anything "exclusive" staying that way when it comes to Microsoft and to be honest this is all in all a very small amount of games.

Hell MS have lost nearly as many exclusives to the PC than they themselves have actually made with their own internal studios.

MS not trying, they need to do more.
Buying a 3rd party title to be an exclusive makes sense when you're the dominant platform holder within the market, because pretty much all of the people that want to play that game are already Playstation owners, MS buying TR for a time makes no sense because those gamers aren't XB1 owners, accept for a small number of people by comparison.

I see no examples of MS thinking for themselves, not when they aren't coming out with a wide variety of new IPs that they themselves have actually developed, Sony are, Bloodborne is an example of that, same goes for Uncharted last gen, Infamous, Killzone, this gen Horizon Zero Dawn, Killstrain, rumored games from legit sources with current validity like Shinobi602 who's mentioned Sony Bend's game, Gravity Rush, Tearaway Unfolded, Dreams, Sony Japan's rumored huge new Action RPG, Puppeteer, etc, I could go on, but the point stands Sony already does this, MS doesn't and you haven't provided anywhere near the number of examples that Sony has for MS.

Septic1207d ago

@MrSec

"Which has absolutely nothing to do with either the here and now or what I said.
I said Sony's developers just keep trying new things and raising the bar."

No it is DIRECTLY relevant. As you critique MS for conducting deals like, the company you are praising is did the exact same thing MS did now.

***MS came in in the 6th gen, Sony had only had one console gen prior to this.***

That's a gross over-simplification. The PSOne was released at an absolutely crucial time in the industry. That is ONE WHOLE GENERATION that they were ahead of MS. They conducted similar third party deals but also swept up a lot of talent in a comparatively young industry.

***To try you must actually act, recently they've made some empty promises, the most interesting looking game at E3 made by a 1st party studio was Rare's Sea of Thieves, which isn't an XB1 exclusive, because it's also releasing on PC. ***

So because Sea of Thieves is coming to PC it means they aren't trying? What does Xbox exclusivity take away from this?

***Outside of Crackdown (an existing IP, with little or no prestige) and Phantom Dust (same, little or no prestige) there's nothing in the way of 1st party made exclusives on the horizon. ***

Prestige? Is this a new goalpost now? What do you mean little or no prestige? The first game is held by fans in high esteem which is why so many people are excited about the latest game.

Phantom Dust?? You say SCE try new things, here is an example of a niche game and a very bold move to revive a cult classic and you accuse MS of not trying new things or taking risks?

***Buying a 3rd party title to be an exclusive makes sense when you're the dominant platform holder***

No that is complete bull. You are justifying it because Sony think, hey it makes sense because lots of people own our consoles? That's absolutely ridiculous. So Microsoft do it for money, Sony do it for the greater good of the masses?

***I see no examples of MS thinking for themselves, not when they aren't coming out with a wide variety of new IPs that they themselves have actually developed***

And this is where your blatant hypocrisy comes out.

***Sony are, Bloodborne is an example of that***

So Bloodborne is an example of that but Recore from Inafune is:

"Recore is being made by Keiji Inafune and Armature Studio (who are privately owned). "

So?? You praise Sony for Bloodborne but brush off Recore? ANd you deride MS for not trying anything new?

And THEN you say:

***same goes for Uncharted last gen, Infamous, Killzone, this gen Horizon Zero Dawn***

Lol what?! So Gears, Forza and Halo don't matter but Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone do?

*** I could go on, but the point stands Sony already does this, MS doesn't and you haven't provided anywhere near the number of examples that Sony has for MS.***

You have literally contradicted yourself and made my points for me.

When MS comes out and tries something bold with Kinect and fails, when it adapts and then supports games like Sunset Overdrive, D4 and others you look at the sales. Then they have CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED games like Forza Horizon 2, you brush it off?? Or Killer Instinct coming back? No?

THEN you have games like Crackdown ,Recore, Scalebound, QUANTUM BREAK, Sea of Thieves, RARE REPLAY (for £16 quid),Cuphead,Gears and you ignore the above and focus on Halo 5 Guardians and Forza 6- both games that look absolutely promising and fan favourites to make a point.

-Foxtrot1206d ago

I don't think you can complain about how Sony got Tomb Raider II

The first game was on the SEGA Saturn first and the sequel would have been but the developers saw that the Saturn was a sinking ship and bailed. That's what gave them the motivation to go onto the PS1

It's not like an audience was on the N64 at the time so the PS1 was the best choice with it's existing fanbase with the first TR game and the fact it was very popular back then

I don't think that would have been all about money

Very different circumstances back then.

DragonKnight1206d ago

It's pretty obvious what happened. Microsoft approached SE and said "We understand you think Tomb Raider was a failure. Let us show you how pa$$ionate we are for Tomb Raider. If you give us one year of exclusivity, we guarantee you our pa$$ion will be obvious. Our pa$$ion means your $ucce$$."

It's the idea that MS' money will mean a level of success SE wants and didn't get with the first Tomb Raider game. It's not going to work that way, but that's the likely expectation.

gatormatt801206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

I think it's pretty obvious why this deal was made. ROTTR was originally not timed exclusive and was set to release on PS4 around the same time as UC4. I think SE probably realized that, if given a choice, most PS4 gamers would more than likely choose UC4 over ROTTR.

That and of course MS's money are the real reasons I believe SE accepted this deal with MS.

donthate1206d ago

I think people have forgotten that Tomb Raider reboot actually broke even and garned minimal profits for SE:

http://www.gamingunion.net/...

If I was the head of that, I would revise the budget to make sure it makes a profit.....

I also don't understand why we are crucifying one company for doing timed exclusivity, while not another that has shown no indication that it even is "timed" i.e. it could not come.

Large multiplatform games like SFV and TR, has a large following on all platforms and appeard practically on all platforms.

The people with the double standard and hypocrisy disgust me!

gatormatt801206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

@donthate

That thought of TR is old, and outdated. The Tomb Raider reboot went on to become the best selling in franchise history and became profitable even exceeding expectations.

http://m.ign.com/articles/2...

http://www.gamesindustry.bi...

Death1206d ago

@donthate,

Sony saved Capcom by helping them from the goodness of their hearts. Sony could have made a better game than SFV, but they felt it was better to charitably give to Capcom so they could rise out of the ashes their company is in. Capcom was so moved by Sony's selfless actions that they decided on their own to make SFV a Playstation exclusive.

Microsoft is an evil company that money hats exclusive agreements like TR.

See the difference? Sony gives with absolutely no intentions of getting something back while Microsoft tries to buy their way around.

As soon as you realize this, n4g isn't that bad a place to hang around.

morganfell1206d ago

I could respect Square Enix if they simply came out and stated, "We were offered a monetary incentive that, for the good of the company and gaming, we could not turn down." That I can buy into and even applaud.

I do not have an issue with the deal between MS and Square. I do not. What I have an issue with are the need for such thin lies. Anorexic really. I do not know what is more insulting. The lie, or the fact SE believe people so ignorant that even the most unbelievable lie, the mosty poorly constructed tale will suffice.

I am not going to ask you to find the square root of an irrational number. Pi anyone? No, I just request you make very simple deductions based on the firsthand information which we have just been provided.

1 - "What we saw in Microsoft, which is probably not as well known, is that Microsoft's passion for Tomb Raider us just amazing for us."

By simple one setp deduction, Sony's passion for Tomb Raider isn't at the level that SE deemed worthy.

2 - "... the ultimate goal in mind was to bring Tomb Raider into the upper echelon of gaming's top brands."

This is my favorite. By simple deduction Sony is not capable of bringing Tomb Raider into the upper echelon of gaming. So SE is asking, or they will be asking, that next holiday season PS4 owners purchase a subpar title. A title that isn't owrthy of the upper echelons of gaming because Sony and the PS4 are not capable of upper echelon gaming.

I might also add that the Dragon Quest exclusives just announced for the Sony platforms as well as the DS are, by simple deduction, substandard games since Sony is not capable of elevating these games properly. Why would I want o purchase such titles?

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 1206d ago
plut0nash1207d ago

Agreed. Tomb Raider was great in 2013. I struggle to see how they'll top that.

gamer78041207d ago

SE's mistake was to make Tombraider too mainstream. Sure it sold well because of that but the game was good, just not as good as it could have been. It sounds like this second game is making strides to bring back some of what made Tombraider, Tombraider.

If it stays true to its roots, Tombraider is a very different game than Uncharted, which i hope one day it will be again.

I_am_Batman1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

Are you saying they can't top Tomb Raider (2013)?

I'm playing the game right now for the first time on PS4 and honestly there are so many things to improve on.

I'm enjoying the game for the most part but I think there is some very bad game design at some places.

First of all there is like 20x as much ammo as you'd ever need lying around in every corner rendering a significant part of the upgrades completely useless. The ai is pretty bad on normal (haven't played other difficulty settings since I'm on my first playthrough). Other than that the characters seem really flat and the puzzles could be better too.

The core gameplay and the setting is pretty awesome though (besides the melee combat).

For a reboot it seems like a good game but there are a lot of things they can improve in the sequel imo.

kneon1207d ago

For starters they could work on the abysmal multiplayer. I'm sure it will improve, they certainly couldn't make it any worse.

Imalwaysright1207d ago

Phil wanted a game like TR in their 1st party portofolio and since they don't have one they paid for TR timed exclusivity.

MasterCornholio1207d ago

The game will never be in their 1st party portfolio. In order for that to happen they have to develop the title internally.

Insomnia_841207d ago

Correction:

Phil wanted a game like Uncharted and since they don't have one they paid for TR timed exclusivity.

Death1206d ago

In all honesty I'm not a fan of companies paying to make games and/or content timed exclusive. The only thing worse is paying to keep games off other consoles.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1206d ago
italiangamer1207d ago

Give this man a stripper clean from STDs. You nailed it.

remixx1161207d ago

Well the big home Phil said it himself, he was upset he didn't have an action adventure game to rival uncharted.....bout 1 1/2 months after that quote he announces the tomb raider deal.

.....Dragon Quest XI......that is all.

DarkOcelet1207d ago

Lets be honest here, even if DQXI/Persona V/Disgaea V/JRPG titles came to the Xone. They wont sell, so it will be a loss for the publisher/developer.

PS4 is the home for JRPG games now.

italiangamer1207d ago

On the Xbot brand the only types of games that sell are shooters and some racing games. And this has been proven countless times. By the way PlayStation was ALWAYS the home of JRPGs in general (along with Nintendo), but honestly every type of game genre sells well on the PlayStation brand. Dont make me do a list because otherwise I will finish tomorrow morning lol

Antifan1207d ago

Or, MS knew they hardly have any AAA exclusive games coming in 2015 compared to the competition. Halo and Forza, that's it. So, ms taking advantage of SQ's poor financial status, they grabbed TR for a couple million dollars. I don't think it had anything to do with UC4, that's was just icing on the cake.

MasterCornholio1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

"They were trying make a game on their platform to rival Uncharted 4 because of how close they were in term of the genre so they did the exclusivity deal.
They were trying make a game on their platform to rival Uncharted 4 because of how close they were in term of the genre so they did the exclusivity deal."

Your probably right about that even Phill said it himself.

"Phil Spencer, boss of Microsoft’s Xbox division, spoke to Eurogamer after the announcement, explaining that the deal helps plug an Uncharted-size hole in the Xbox line-up, even if Rise of the Tomb Raider releases on other platforms at a later date. "

http://venturebeat.com/2014...

However I will say this. Xbox always had a game like Uncharted and it's called TombRaider. Even if it wasn't exclusive they still had a game like Uncharted.

Septic1207d ago

Plus bubs for helpful. Thats the link I was looking for.

isa_scout1206d ago

I think Phil was speaking about the quality of Uncharted when he said they didn't have a game like it. Tomb Raider may be in the same genre, but it's a long way off from Uncharteds quality level. I loved Tomb Raider Reboot enough to buy it twice, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that actually played both franchises and thought Tomb Raider was better. I think that eventually MS will need to develop internally an IP that can compete with the Uncharted franchise or hang up competing with ND period. I know I wouldn't want to be the deveoper tasked with taking on ND.

starchild1206d ago

I like the Uncharted series a lot, but I did like Tomb Raider 2013 better than Uncharted 3. I like Uncharted 2 better than both of them though.

Genuine-User1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

I think the issue at hand is an ethical one. PlayStation fans have the right to feel disappointed given the long history between PS and TR. However, Square Enix also the right to do as they please with this franchise.

Death1206d ago

Gamers tend to be very self-centered and don't see much past their own needs and wants. Sony was originally releasing Uncharted in 2015. Uncharted also happens to be the biggest competitor to the Tomb Raider franchise and is regarded as being the better series. Releasing Tomb Raider against Uncharted isn't exactly ideal. Making a one year deal with Microsoft benefited Square in two ways. They received help making/publishing the game and they also moved the release to a better launch window with less direct competition. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why Square made this deal.

Bathyj1207d ago

I found the whole saying passion 43 times in a three paragraph interview to be little more than PR speak. Honestly, if you interchanged the word passion with marketing, it would make more sense. MS aren't bringing anything except money and exposure. The passion for Tombraider lies on another console. Look how the last game sold and where it sold if you don't believe me.

nitus101206d ago

Reminds me of the game at this URL: http://www.bullshitbingo.ne...

I tried refreshing a few times but I did not see the word "passion". I do think it should be added if it isn't already.

RocketScienceLvlStuf1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

Behind all this talk and spin we know what happened.

Square and Crystal dynamics didn't choose to cut off the platform in which 2/3's of the last game made it's sales because of Microsofts "Passion".

It was because of money. Plain and Simple.

This game doesn't look a whole lot different from the first game. It is a sequel after all. So what has Microsoft added exactly?

SuperStatePro1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

They added fanboy tears and excuses like yours to the mix, which is frankly pretty entertaining. Money well spent, in my opinion..

BecauseImBatman1206d ago

"Square and Crystal dynamics didn't choose to cut off the platform in which 2/3's of the last game made it's sales because of Microsofts "Passion"."

Apparently they did and you can say it was money hatted or whatever but guess what your just speculating and guessing cause no one ever know what really went on to create this deal.

"It was because of money. Plain and Simple."

Just like it was with Bloordborne and SFV... money is what makes there games and it's what MS and Sony provided.

"This game doesn't look a whole lot different from the first game. It is a sequel after all. So what has Microsoft added exactly?"

You must be blind...

RocketScienceLvlStuf1206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

Bloodborne and SFV where being co funded and more importantly co developed by sony. So no it clearly wasn't just money.

Microsoft aren't developing the game.

"Apparently they did and you can say it was money hatted or whatever but guess what your just speculating and guessing cause no one ever know what really went on to create this deal."

Are you really saying to me that Microsoft paid no money to Square for the timed exclusivity. You are a naive fool if you really believe that.

gangsta_red1206d ago

"So what has Microsoft added exactly?"

They added a game that was anticipated by a lot of gamers to their library first for Xbox One.

And judging by all the salt from the salt mines TR is a bigger deal than people like to lead on.

Why else would people go from "can't wait to play it" to "I hope it bombs" so quickly.

"So no it clearly wasn't just money."

That makes NO SENSE, if those games are being co-funded it IS about the money.

You are just as naive if you think Sony didn't walk into Capcom's office and dumped a crap load of money on their table for them to make SFV for their system only and keep that game off of other systems.

It's hilarious to see the double standards of people here. It's okay for Sony to money-hat because they "funded" the game. Capcom needed help funding the biggest franchise in the fighting game genre, their number one IP?...sure.

RocketScienceLvlStuf1206d ago

@Gangsta.

Like a typical xbox fanboy you have chosen to pick the part of my comment that suits your argument.

You ignored the crucial part where I said. More importantly they are co developing bloodborne and SFV. So it isn't "Just" money.

Microsoft aren't developing TR at all. It was multiplatform at E3 2014.

Anybody denying Microsoft paid square are deluding themselves

gangsta_red1206d ago

Oh yea, it was multiplatform...even though it was never announced as multiplatform and i remember your reason you thought it was this was because retail sites listed it as such.

When No Man's Sky was first announced retail sites also listed the game for every system too. We all know how that turned out.

"Anybody denying Microsoft paid square are deluding themselves'

And Sony was looking to cut off other consoles with SFV. You can't deny that either no matter how many excuses you like to make in order to have Sony appear as the good guy.

Sony PAID to keep SFV off of other consoles. Co-funded is a neatly PR term you and others like to use to justify that practice but slam MS for the same with TR.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1206d ago
Zero1091206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

Though @Septic has stated most of it, this page shows the clear hypocrisy for MS when doing something exclusive or better compared to Sony:

"Some are seriously blinded by faith in a company. Both companies do exclusive deals. Both do exclusive games/dlc/marketing and etc. Stop hating MS for doing the same thing Sony has also been doing.

You honestly think SFV wouldn't have been made without Sony? They made several versions of SF4, multiple DLC and so on. They have money. Even if they needed help, they couldn't have went to both companies for it (but they went straight to Sony and quickly struck an exclusive deal). Who knows what else happened behind the scenes. But the facts are, both companies do exclusive no matter what anyone thinks or how it "really" happened.

I'm not a fanboy of any company, I just call out things as they are. A lot of people on here and on the web downplay MS when they do the same thing (exclusive deals or marketing) or try to improve upon mistakes (especially with the recent BC they announced... it's a super good and awesome feature and is loads better for gamers than PS Now (which you have to pay and stream the game) and that's a fact).

MS gets an exclusive (or even a timed one) and it's lines like "they threw money to get this exclusive" but when Sony does it, it's "Sony gets another exclusive Hooray". Go back and look at the comments for Sunset Overdrive/DR3/ Titanfall/MS announcing BC for X1/DX12 improving X1 performance. More than half of the comments are fueled with hate/ridicule/downplay for MS.

MS are really trying to improve themselves (they are in fact) and it's just sad when blind faith halts you from giving credit when credit is due. You'd have to be blind to not see the downplay and double standards happening on this site (on the internet in general)."

DarkOcelet1206d ago

I will just leave this here and tell me what you think about it :)

http://www.gamespot.com/art...

gangsta_red1206d ago

@DarkOcelet

And you believe that? Perhaps Ono was downplaying the fact that at that time Sony was already in negotiations with Capcom making SFV for PS4 and keeping that game out of the hands of all gamers and he simply didn't want to let the cat out of the bag.

Ono also says that SF4 is only in development for 360/PS3...but now there's a PS4 version planed..

I mean seriously...Street Fighter...the biggest game in Capcom's library of IP's, supported for over 8 years with updates, DLC, extra modes, extra characters and the headliner of every fighting game tourny around the world.

And you think Capcom doesn't have the funds for another entry?.

Capcom didnt give Ono the funds or budget because Sony had already stepped in and dropped boat loads of cash on Capcom's desk.

Azzanation1206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

TR was suppose to compete with UC4 however its not a big deal as MS could have delayed TR to come out when UC4 does, however they delayed Quantum Break instead, another promising AAA that could be just as good as UC4 and that will compete with it instead.

SF5 had no budget and Sony helped out, how do you think they helped out? Money? Tomb Raider wasn't in Squares interests since it didn't reach expectations last gen. MS jumped on a perfectly good opportunity to secure a years worth of TR on there console.

Money solved both SF5 and TR.

DarkOcelet1206d ago

Actually it did and a sequel was on the way whether it was a timed exclusive for Xbox or not. Crystal Dynamics themselves said that btw.

1206d ago
Azzanation1206d ago

@SurvivorOne

If you have to include the Remasters considering they had to Remaster the game to reach expectations which is never a good sign. The PS4 only sold half a million more then the X1. This whole Tomb Raider sells MORE on PS is very over-exaggerated

Zero1091206d ago

@DarkOcelet
Personally, I thought it was the dumbest idea to release 3+ versions of the same game... which used marketing, disc distribution, money etc. I'm sure SFV was in the works for more than a yr based on this article.

So you and others will believe Ono with no questioning. But when Phil/MS or SE says their actual thoughts/reasons for something... you get responses like the ones on this site. "They threw money" "They aren't really passionate about TR" "It's only to compete with UC4" "MS evil corps. etc".

Even though Capcom has lied on several occasions, this one instance is justified and should be taken as the absolute truth? I'm not saying it is or isn't but Ono/Sony say something it's fine/truth but when Tabata/Phil say something it's not fine/far from the truth.

You can't honestly say these contradictions aren't happening.

CantBeStopped1206d ago

Well I agree with the Naughty Dog part anyway.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 1206d ago
Sillicur1207d ago

Probably just more money for Square Enix. They try to explain but fail in my opinion :)

HanCilliers1207d ago

It's a bit insulting how SQ CEO justifies the deal.

Septic1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

Why is it insulting exactly? Business deals like this are quite common no? I'm not defending them btw but I just want to understand the strong reaction for this against other announcements. The CEO says:

"[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."

Is he lying? Are MS not committed to TR (for whatever reason)?

Yes it is a case of money talks but its the same for almost all third party deals.

So is he lying?

ShaunF581207d ago

Another case of Money talks.

DonkeyDoner1207d ago (Edited 1207d ago )

i think they want TR franchise dead sooner

Lamboomington1207d ago

Don't know if you realize that the timed exclusivity only means a better game on each platform, as opposed to developing both together the whole time.

SonZeRo1207d ago

What a load of crock. MS threw more money at them I guess for the console exclusivity deal. I can say many mean things about how those questions were answered.

FallenAngel19841207d ago

The only reason Square Enix would want to momentarily deprive PC and PlayStation gamers of Tomb Raider is because Microsoft paid them to. What's strange is that they went ahead with the deal and still choose to give release windows for when ROTR is released on other platforms before it even release on Xbox platforms.