200°

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

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

Read Full Story >>
gameskinny.com
Godmars2903541d ago

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

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

DanielGearSolid3541d ago

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

Same with Destiny and Ps4

MightyNoX3541d ago

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

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

NewMonday3541d ago (Edited 3541d ago )

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

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

Godmars2903541d ago

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

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

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

Army_of_Darkness3541d ago (Edited 3541d ago )

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

MightyNoX3541d ago

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

choujij3541d ago (Edited 3541d ago )

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

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

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

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

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3541d ago
AngelicIceDiamond3541d ago (Edited 3541d ago )

"the fact MS tried an act of suggestive manipulation"

Oh you mean buissness. Or money hat buissness.

choujij3541d ago

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

Christopher3541d ago

I would agree with your assessment, Godmars290.

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

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

rainslacker3540d ago (Edited 3540d ago )

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pogmathoin3541d ago

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

Spotie3540d ago

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

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

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

tgunzz3541d ago

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

Godmars2903541d ago

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

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

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3540d ago
Eonjay3541d ago

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

Axios23541d ago ShowReplies(2)
headblackman3541d ago

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

ger23963541d ago

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

headblackman3540d ago

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

rainslacker3540d ago (Edited 3540d ago )

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robearboy3541d ago Show
Show all comments (75)
70°

It’ll Be Fine, Right? Five Games With Unfortunate Release Strategies

Mark from WellPlayed writes about five game launches that were impacted by unfortunate scheduling.

Read Full Story >>
well-played.com.au
jznrpg354d ago (Edited 354d ago )

Zero Dawn sold really well so I’m not sure this belongs. The second game released next to a big game again and it hurt it some I forget what it was though, oh yeah Elden Ring .
But a good game is a good game to me I don’t care when they release personally but they do have to think about it when you want to get more people to buy it.

250°

The Tomb Raider Survivor Trilogy's Take on Lara Croft Deserved More Recognition

The Survivor Trilogy was a drastic reimagining of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider, and it provokes changes for the character that are truly fantastic.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com
isarai467d ago (Edited 467d ago )

Deserves less IMO, i think the 1st in the new trilogy was a perfect 1st step for the new direction. The next 2 games were half steps at best. Not only that, every character in the series including Lara is just annoying and doesn't make sense in terms of motive, like yes they have a motive, but none of it seems proportional to the lengths they are willing to go through for it. The most annoying thing is every one of the games say "become the Tomb Raider" yet 3 games later and we're still not there? No thanks. Then there's the mess of the 3rd game, massive skill tree that serves almost no purpose as there's literally only like 3-4 short encounters in the whole game, and they took till the 3rd game to finally manage some decent puzzles even remotely close to previous games in the series. Nah, the trilogy infuriated me to no end as a long time fan of the series, i hope we get better going forward cause that crap sucked.

Army_of_Darkness466d ago

The first in the trilogy was my favorite. I thought they were going into the right direction with that one until the second one came out and seemed like a graphical downgrade but the gameplay was okay. As for the Third, Graphics were really nice but it was kinda boring me to death with its non-stop platforming and exploring with not enough action! Well, for me anyway...

DeathTouch466d ago

Graphics on the 3rd one were abysmal. It’s more colorful and has more variety, but everything else was a noticeable downgrade.

The more open world with NPC quests was also handled very poorly, to the point I missed Angel of Darkness.

thesoftware730466d ago

I know it is your opinion, but she did progress as a character in each game, she even got more muscular and seasoned.

That is the thing, people first complained that there was not enough platforming and actual tomb raiding in the first and second games. Shadow remedied that and kept the combat elements.

3-4 encounters? huh? did we play the same game? there was plenty of combat and, the skill tree did matter, like being able to hang enemies from trees, set explosives traps on bodies, being able to counter, and that are just a few of the combat skills. The skill tree also had things like being able to hold your breath underwater longer, crafting upgrades, zipline upgrade, and climbing upgrades that all changed how you can approach situations.

Not knocking your opinion, but we definitely had different experiences. I had 98% completion on the shadow.

SoulWarrior466d ago (Edited 466d ago )

Sorry but i'm with him about the low number of encounters, the game throws loads of weapons and skills you're way with a comparatively low amount of places to actually use them, so they felt under utilised.

-Foxtrot467d ago

Yeah...no

It was awful, for THREE GAMES it was "become the Tomb Raider" where she went back to square one after each game. Not to mention after a huge reaction of killing someone for the first time she then becomes Rambo straight after and goes on a slaughter spree without a single other reaction. Her development was all over the place.

She was whiney, weak and in later game a little arrogant and selfish

Oh and the voice actress compared to the previous ones was not as good

Lara Croft deserved better and while they are decent games as they are, we deserved actual Tomb Raider games, we could have had better survival games if they just stuck with the original Lara Crofts origin about her plane going down. Surviving 2 weeks in the Himalayas...I'd have liked to seen that, who knows what mystical threat she could have faced in the mountains or underground some secret concealed cave.

Tacoboto466d ago

I thought Shadow of the Tomb Raider had better gameplay than Rise, but it annoyed me the most of the trilogy when I stopped to think about the story.

It's like they deliberately decided to make her unlikeable and did nothing to make the character you're playing as likeable or have even one sign of humility.

SoulWarrior467d ago

2013 I thought was a fine entry, but Rise and especially Shadow were painfully mediocre follow ups imo, I really didn't like how selfish and angry her character was in those two.

Terry_B466d ago

No. Please forget the crap completely.

northpaws466d ago

First one was decent, played through it twice.
Second one was okay, played through it once.
Third one was really bad, tried twice a year apart, still can't get through the first two hours, it is just really bad.

thesoftware730466d ago

Honest question, what did you find bad about it? the opening 2 hrs of Shadow were fantastic imo.

The opening was very similar to the first 2, what did you find really bad?

Not looking for an argument, just an honest question.

Starman69466d ago

3rd one just didn't feel like a tomb raider game. Possibly because the development was passed to another development team. Big mistake! Microsoft killed tomb raider making the first game a timed exclusive. Never recovered after that.

Show all comments (45)
200°

Get three Tomb Raider games free at Epic Games Store

Starting today, Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Rise of the Tomb Raider are free at Epic Games Store. The free game offers run until January 6 at 11 AM Eastern. Once you claim them, they’re yours to keep.

Read Full Story >>
gamefreaks365.com
CrimsonWing69847d ago (Edited 847d ago )

They're all solid games, but nothing quite matched the epicness of the first one for me. I think the 3rd one started off strong but once you got to that Peruvian area it took a massive nose dive for me.

lelo2play846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

You got to be kidding!
The first one was great at the time... but this latest trilogy of Tomb Raider games are also great.

LiViNgLeGaCY846d ago

I think he means the first one in the new trilogy.

CrimsonWing69846d ago

I meant the first of the new trilogy.

Furesis846d ago

yeah i remember liking the first one when it came out, so i tried the second one sometime after release and i just could not get into it, i couldn't finish it. So i might try the 3rd now that i got it for free but ehh. But i do remember enjoying the first one, i wonder if i'd feel the same way if i played it today? Better not taint those memories lol

ANIALATOR136846d ago

I was the same for some reason. Never finished the second one. I got like half way through maybe.

ActualWhiteMan846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

The first one of the latest trilogy is a masterpiece

Fishy Fingers847d ago

I'll take a copy of Shadow... Cheers.

Profchaos846d ago

Great games I've played them all on ps4 but it'll be good to finally try shadow on my rtx card.

Double_O_Revan846d ago

Trying to claim them and the store keeps crashing. lol.

gamefreaks365846d ago

EGS has been having issues all day.

RedDevils846d ago

Weird I don't has that issue.

Double_O_Revan846d ago

I finally got it after a while. But it was real bad for a while.

PeeShuter846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

Claim games by going to the website and login using ur credentials. I did the same as i couldnt use epic launcher. Also try reinstalling Epic Launcher I did it and it worked.

Double_O_Revan846d ago

I always go through the website. It was all just down for a while yesterday it seems.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 846d ago
Show all comments (19)