Top
210°

30 Big timed exclusive games that didn’t cause outrage (like Rise of the Tomb Raider)

Ben Salter of MMGN: Let’s not pretend time exclusivity is a new practice. It can be beneficial for the game and the platform, and we used to just accept it. It became more prevalent last-generation, and helped the Xbox 360 establish itself, but the PS2 followed a similar formula. While the concept of a “timed exclusive” only arose with some of the early hits on Xbox 360, the practice is much older. But without the speed of online communities and social media, publishers didn’t need to be as transparent and gamers weren't as vocal about it as they have been with Tomb Raider.

Here are 30 games that launched exclusive to one console that were released on another around a year later, proving Rise of the Tomb Raider’s release schedule is nothing new.

The story is too old to be commented.
OB1Biker1146d ago

Genuine question here:
Were these games revealed with no particular exclusivity and then re revealed and marketed as 'x console' exclusive like TR is instead of just : First on 'x console' or the like ?

Tedakin1146d ago

They always said it was exclusive holiday 2015 and that's it.

1146d ago
OB1Biker1146d ago (Edited 1146d ago )

Personally I have no problem with timed exclusive even if I find them annoying and useless on any platform. The thing is its always been ambiguous for this game and even now still is on Ms site presented as 'exclusive game' stamped all over it. 'holiday 2015' can be seen as just a release window and we now know it's actually a year and not just for the holiday.
And if you watch E3 2014 reveal there was no exclusivity reference so I think that's a reason why people got pissed off.

Tedakin1146d ago

I like the 7 disagrees. It's funny when people on this site disagree with facts.

FITgamer1146d ago

No. When it was revealed at E3 2014 they never mentioned anything about exclusivity. It was announced a few months later.

tinynuggins1146d ago

@fitgamer

When they revealed it at the ms conference at e3 2014 did you see the ps4 or ps3 logo anywhere? Just because they didn't announce the exclusivity at the reveal, doesn't mean that wasn't the plan. It's not a big deal.

4Sh0w1146d ago (Edited 1146d ago )

Tedakin its called double standards.

If sony had RoTR exclusive there would be a ps parade in the streets of n4g, with fanboy blogs telling us of SE/CD love of sony.

Some say they dont like this strategy like with SF5 or ROTR but the outcry only seems to be loud when Microsoft does it...pfft thats when SOME act so "concerned".

Nothing new here, just a bunch of entitled gamers crying ovet spilled milk. Personally there are a couple ps4 games I wouldn't mind playing but you'll never hear me act as if I'm entitled to them 'cause thats why the sony created a ps4 -If I really want it I need a ps4. A timed exclusive is even more consumer friendly 'cause you just have to wait...if you cant then once again microsoft has only done what they are suppose to do= compel you to buy an X1. Haters will hate. -I'm gonna just enjoy the game 'cause I got an X1.

itBourne1146d ago

I don't really care as much as others about tomb raider, but almost every game on this list was released later on a different console, not intentionally held from that console. Shit some are across platform generations lol..

donthate1146d ago (Edited 1146d ago )

Why would it matter if it was announced as an exclusivity or not, matter if it was later?

The fact of the matter is that the game was a multi-platform game, that got funds to make it exclusive plus other benefits.

I think focusing on the announcement instead of the fact of what it is, a paid exclusivity, is just a fanboy ploy to say one is fine and the other is not, when it really is just a double standard.

It is what it is, and no amount of twisting will change facts. If you think otherwise, we can all see you are a fanboy. Deal with it!

@FITgamer:

Did Tomb Raider appear at the Sony conference?

No?

It shows that MS was cozy with Tomb Raider!

In fact, MS did the right thing in allowing SE/CD to announce the PS4/PC version in advance unlike the competition. MS/SE/CD has been extremely open about this, and commend them for that.

FITgamer1146d ago

@Tedakin @donthate

MGS V was also announced at Microsoft's E3 conference. Obviously not exlusive. So we should just assume every game announced at Sony or Microsoft's conferences is exlusive? Seems logical. /s

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1146d ago
RocketScienceLvlStuf1146d ago

You are correct.

And most of these games where either new at the time or hadn't been on a console before which is alot different

gangsta_red1146d ago (Edited 1146d ago )

Doesn't matter, stop moving the goal posts to make excuses for practices you and others keep saying are bad for the industry or such when a certain company does it. Most of the games on that list were also not "funded" or "co-developed" as you like say in other comments.

The point is that these types of deals have been going on forever, makes no difference if the IP is new or established.

1146d ago
Monkey5211146d ago

See... this is where I would disagree with you gangsta. Existing IP's have an existing fanbase that are now alienated. It totally makes a difference and that's why the reaction was more extreme.

gangsta_red1146d ago

@Monkey521

So there's no fanbase on said "____" console of a game either?

Gamers aren't alienated since more than likely the game (like TR) will be releasing to other consoles later on down the line. Unlike say a SFV, where a company has completely locked out an entire fanbase that enjoyed the game on their 360 consoles.

Monkey5211146d ago

@Gangsta, How does that not alienate the fanbase? A year is a long time to have to wait for a product that you really want. It makes most consumers feel like after-thoughts. Btw, I personally think SFV is a terrible deal as well. It's the exact same.

FlexLuger1146d ago

"Btw, I personally think SFV is a terrible deal as well. It's the exact same."

I think SFV is even worse. As xbox owners wont get to play it unless they buy it on PC. At least they will be able to get it via W10 store and add the achievements score to their existing xbox accounts.

SuperStatePro1146d ago

Rocket - I'd like to thank you and the rest of the ps4 trolls for making such a big deal out of this exclusivity deal and this game in general on N4G. The buzz and hype is nothing but free publicity for MS/Crystal and is only going to increase the sales of this awesome sequel. Can't wait!

AngelicIceDiamond1146d ago

@Rocket "And most of these games where either new at the time or hadn't been on a console before which is alot different"

Ok so you, me and others NOW understand it was just new games or timed exclusives AKA buissness, it took some digging to find all the major acquisitions that happend back then and I commend the arthur for that. Listen, "TIMED EXCLUSIVE" a term that didn't really exist up until last generation. But a practice that's been happening since forever. over 15 years later we understand that NOW. That logic doesn't count unless you were a hardcore game blogger and hit the forum back then.

"new games" Not an excuse the first TF is only on Xbox consoles and ppl freaked tf out and it was made by an established third party distributer. Back then nobody cared if it was a new game from an established company or timed game established Ip we simply didn't care there was no "internet breaking". Again unless you did early days of blogging and were on forums 15 to 20 years ago.

I'm sure Dreamcast fans broke the internet when they found out Sonic Adventures 2 hit the Gamecube version with better color and extra content.... AKA the "Definitive Edition" Another term this industry made up.

The TR hate that happened a year ago is still and never will be justified. This article proves that.

NukaCola1146d ago

Rocket is right. This is a majority list of games that were either announced and released as exclusives, then they went multiplat later or they were remade for newer gen systems. Most of these took time to recode for other systems.

Let's just get this BS straight here:

TR was never announced as an exclusive.
It was a multiplat game with a sequel now exclusive because MS paid for the time, not the production.
This game series sells best on Playstation. With a year delay and far less Xbox Ones, this game will not sell what Square needs against giants like COD and Fallout 4, and then be bottom bargain prices when it comes to PS4/PC next Christmas where 100 other games will overshadow it.
Square took MS cash because of greed. MS wanted an "Uncharted" and was honestly a waste since UC4 isn't coming out this year. I think this is one of the shadiest deals with time exclusivity.

gangsta_red1146d ago (Edited 1146d ago )

@Nuka

Rocket is not right, TR was never announced by Square as a multiplat either.

"This is a majority list of games that were either announced and released as exclusives, then they went multiplat later"

Which means they were timed exclusives. And also could mean that Sony, Sega, MS or Nintendo could have money hatted those games to appear on their system first.

"this game will not sell what Square needs against giants like COD and Fallout 4,"

Of course it won't...all of a sudden...funny this was never brought up when Uncharted was on the road map before being pushed out. Maybe MS provided Square help "funding" the game. This way Square doesn't lose any profits in case it does fail as you and others are predicting (hoping).

"Square took MS cash because of greed."

Square took MS's money because that is what business does. The same way Capcom took Sony's money, the same way Hello Games took Sony's money, the same way other businesses have been taking big corporations money in exchange for whatever favor from the beginning of time. Lets not start being holier than thou all of a sudden.

"I think this is one of the shadiest deals with time exclusivity."

Why? Because it's not coming to the PS4 first? I love the use of "greed', "shady" when it comes to practices that have been going on since gawd knows when. Then when talking about other instances this has happened in the past it's always, "that's different", "new IP", "bigger fanbase". It's any and every excuse to make one side look as terrible as possible while forgiving the other of the same practice.

RocketScienceLvlStuf1146d ago

@gansta.

I'm tired of saying that the deals are totally different.

TR was money hatted.

SFV would not exist without sony developing and funding it. There is only two choices. Either no game at all or exclusive to PC and PS4. Because Sony made it possible. not the case with TR.

NMS is also different. They are an independent studio. Most indie's this generation choose PS4 as their first release due to the fact they can't develop two versions at the same time and they choose the console with the most sales. It has nothing to do with Sony.

NukaCola1146d ago

@Gangsta

You are so wrong brother. Like Rocket is trying to tell you, TR was bought flat out with fat loads of cash just so MS had it's Uncharted for the holiday.

"Which means they were timed exclusives."

No it does not. A timed exclusive refers to a deal made for it to be so for marketing purposes. Is ZOMBI a times exclusive to WiiU? No, it was a WiiU exclusive and now a newer version is releasing for other systems. Is the RARE Collection a timed exclusive? No it's just a rerelease. You are trying to define it to fit your gain, but you should understand the difference between "publishing" and "marketing" and I will tell you that this:

"Maybe MS provided Square help "funding" the game."

... straight up not true. That would be publishing. This game is bought on a timed deal for marketing only.

SFV is PS4 exclusive because Sony funded the game and made it happen.

Sunset Overdrive is a X1 exclusive because MS supported the games development financially.

Bayonetta 2 exists because Nintendo put time and money into ensuring it could be made.

^^^ 3 examples (to include you worshiped Microsoft) who did it the ethical and right way.

But when it comes to this ONE GAME, all we are talking about here is just Tomb Raider, Microsoft game money to Square Enix to have exclusive rights for 1 year just to combat Sony's third person action adventure title.

Main points:

1. TR should of been announced as an exclusive from the start.
2. The series should of been exclusive to X1 as opposed to MS stealing the sequel out of the middle of a probable 3-4 part story.
3. MS did NOT publish it or make this deal prior to release.

I do NOT care if Tomb Raider was now on X1 only or wherever. It is clearly the way they and SE went about doing it. SE admitted they pissed off a lot of people. You must know this is not about hate or jealousy. It is about ethics and just illustrates that this "art" we love as gamers, get treated like leveraged children in a divorce case.

( I HOPE I AM WRONG BUT... )

When this sells poorly with Fallout 4 storming the charts and a year passes with Holiday 2016 loaded with much more important games than TR, and this series takes a serious hit, the ones who lose are the gamers all around. Not knocking Xbox and I think Phil is kicking ass. But this is a Don type of move. Real scumbag like by both MS and Square.

maniacmayhem1145d ago

***SFV would not exist without sony developing and funding it.***

LMAO! Street Fighter 5 would not exist without Sony?!

Capcom's best, number one IP wouldn't exist without Sony? I know even you can't believe such a lie.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1145d ago
Thatguy-3101146d ago

The problem is that you hear more of an outcry when a big part of the marketshare is left out. There are more players on ps4 so when third party exclusives are made for the xbone your going to hear it. The reason we didn't hear about it during the ps2 gen was simply because that console was dominating and the majority of gamers where using it is as their console of choice. Third party exclusives and time exclusives have always been part of the industry.

AngelicIceDiamond1146d ago (Edited 1146d ago )

Allot of these games are from older gens, indie arcade or early 360 days. Back in the PS1, 2 and even early PS3 and 360 days nobody made and outrage over those games and types of deals. MS is simply doing what industry has been doing since day one, both are for that matter.

The infancy of the internet is the main factor back then there was no Twitter, Facebook or any real open media to talk straight to the developers just forums where the hardcore were voice there concerns but even they were the minority. But this day and age gamers are aware of deals being made behind the scenes.

Look at COD fanbase. They are the "average" gamer and even though they follow mainly COD they're still aware of the buissness behind it. Older generations they wouldn't even bat an eye.

If something like Shenmue was exclusive on X1 this day and age it would of gotten the same flak. Rewind back to March 2003? Gamers at large didn't care.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1145d ago
Sonyslave31146d ago

Man it funny how time exclusive is a bad thing if it xbox one but not when it the other way around.

lelo2play1146d ago (Edited 1146d ago )

Yep, Microsoft are the Devil. Everything they do is bad, but if other companies do the exact same thing, then it's good business.

Tedakin1146d ago

People hate on MS for the Tomb Raider thing. If you're gonna hate, hate on Square. They took MS's money ;)

skydragoonityx1146d ago

But we all know m$ started this trend

PlayableGamez1146d ago

I am guessing you didn't read the article...

AngelicIceDiamond1146d ago

@Spawn Consider how wrong you are you just proved everyone's point.

Its not just MS that's been doing this.

ShaunCameron1146d ago (Edited 1146d ago )

^^^Must have forgotten about Sony and the OG Tomb Raider games. Or even Final Fantasy. Or Nintendo and Street Fighter 2.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1146d ago
Xavior_Reigns1146d ago

Well speaking from my own experience, I never knew several of these games were "timed" until they eventually popped up at the store displays. The gaming media wasn't anywere as big as now so a lot of peeps were clueless and/ or didn't care.

kstuffs1146d ago

The Internet was much less accessible than it's today.

ShaunCameron1146d ago

And who knows what kind of outrage RE4 got had the Internet been more accessible in 2004-2005.

Show all comments (59)
The story is too old to be commented.