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.

[MightyNoX]

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.

[SpaceRanger]

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.

[Gazondaily]

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.

[SpaceRanger]

@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.

[Haru]

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

[hades07]

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.

[BecauseImBatman]

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.

[DragonKnight]

@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.

[SoulWarrior]

@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_red]

"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.

[BecauseImBatman]

@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.

[Gazondaily]

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?

[Godmars290]

@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_red]

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.

[r2oB]

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).

[Imalwaysright]

@ 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.

[gatormatt80]

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.

[Godmars290]

@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.

[Eonjay]

"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_red]

@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-]

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.

[miyamoto]

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.

[Godmars290]

@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.

[DragonKnight]

@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.

[TricksterArrow]

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.

[r2oB]

@ 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.

[MysticStrummer]

"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.

[Imalwaysright]

@ 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?

[jb227]

@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.

[magiciandude]

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.

[gatormatt80]

@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.

[donthate]

@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.

[Imalwaysright]

@ gatormatt80

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

[DragonKnight]

@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.

[Imalwaysright]

@ 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.

[r2oB]

@ 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.

[Godmars290]

@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.

[DragonKnight]

@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?

[magiciandude]

@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-_]

@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.

[Imalwaysright]

"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_red]

@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.

[4Sh0w]

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.

[gatormatt80]

@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.

[Ezz2013]

@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.

[Godmars290]

@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.

[nosferatuzodd]

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

[freshslicepizza]

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.

[LexHazard79]

Lol...now no one liked the reboot.

[poor_cus_of_games]

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.

[SilentNegotiator]

Passionate, passionate money.

[avengers1978]

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.

[GordonKnight]

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!

[kreate]

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.

[Bennibop]

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.

[Gazondaily]

"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?

[DragonKnight]

"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.

[TwoForce]

@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.

[Bennibop]

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.

[thisgamer503]

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 Yerbouti]

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.

[Gazondaily]

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).

[RocketScienceLvlStuf]

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.

[Gazondaily]

@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?

[pivotplease]

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.

[windblowsagain]

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.

[Serg]

@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.

[kaizokuspy]

@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.

[Revolver_X_]

@septic

At times you can make great points. But in this ROTR case, you are just trying to hard. SFV is more close to Titanfalls situation. With Titanfall, MS did help with a lot, just like Sony with SFV. ROTR is just straight buying exclusivity. I think the majority of people responding to you got over it a long time ago. But the fact is, people like you refuse to call it what it is. Then your big counterpoint is, Shenmue. Look at its stretch goals dude. You honestly think that's enough to fund Shenmue 3? While I do find it a little crappy to use Kickstarter as a way to gauge interest in an IP, it's well within the rules of Kickstarter. Sony will be massively funding Shenmue 3. You'll be lucky to see it on Xbox at all.

[ShinMaster]

@ Septic

"we're repeatedly told how SFV was possible only because of Sony helping them"

Ok, back in 2013, Yoshinori Ono, game director of SF, said that they didn't have the R&D budget or staff to make a new next-gen SF sequel. http://goo.gl/I0C1CV
Capcom wasn't letting it happen any time soon. So after they made a deal with Sony, we're at least getting the game now.

Meanwhile, around the same time, Square-Enix came out and said that RotTR was already "well into development". They didn't really need help from Microsoft. http://goo.gl/t71ogG
And the game had become profitable by the end of that year.

There's a difference.

[DigitalRaptor]

Wait... what?

Sony is porting the finished Shenmue III PC version to PS4 via their third-party productions team. They are paying for the game to come to their platform and will be marketing the PS4 version. They are not contributing to core development (PC version) nor contributing ideas to YS Net. They also have received credit of having the game announced on their stage which is very good for the success of the Kickstarter campaign and for their own PR coming away from E3. And believe it or not, Shuhei Yoshida and Mark Cerny (basically people tied to PlayStation) are good friends and associates of Yu Suzuki and this is as much a personal favour to a friend as it is business.

You cannot at all compare that to the way in which exclusivity of ROTR was acquired by Microsoft and presented as an "exclusive" that they are passionate about, all the while it being a big stinking lie that people like Aaron Greenberg kept insisting was not. Talking about Microsoft's passion for ROTR only extends to them being glad that they can call it exclusive for a certain amount of time until the truth comes out.

ROTR partnership (money hat) was as sterile as it gets. PR statements like this are damage control. Shenmue was bringing back an incredibly niche, but heavily requested Japanese game back from the dead for the creator and his fans more than anything else. Street Fighter V is closer to the Tomb Raider deal, and even then it's different.

[RocketScienceLvlStuf]

"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"

No. It was multiplatform at E3 2014. Then Microsoft came along and paid for exclusion.

[BecauseImBatman]

Cause we all know what goes on behind closed doors at MS and Square. There is no indication that they didn't have this deal a long time in the planning. It was on MS stage at E3 (no announced platforms so your reasoning is ridiculous) and what if they just wanted to save the announcement for Gamescom ? No one has any idea what was going on regarding this deal so don't pretend like you do.

And as for your comment about SFV deal being completely different... Square didn't make there money back initially with Tomb Raider so it makes sense they'd make some sort of deal with MS. If Rise of the Tomb Raider wasn't successful as a multi plat then we'd very unlikely be getting another.

And we all know intent behind your comments cause you hate xbox and are trolling in every xbox related article so any opinion you have goes straight out the window I'm afraid cause you can't control your fanboy bias.

[RocketScienceLvlStuf]

If you did your research. You would know that it was available for pre order on PS4 after the announcement.

That sure seems like it was multi platform to me.

It wasn't successful yet 2/3's of the sales came from playstation.

By the time it was an exclusive. It was already well into development so they didn't "need" microsofts money. MS just money hatted. That is all their contribution.

They make quick deals that way. The same way Titanfall was only made a full exclusive right before the consoles release. They wrote a quick cheque.

[tinynuggins]

@RocketScience Do you have a link by chance where square announced tomb raider as a multipat? The only announcement of platform I've been able to find is the one from gamescom last year.

[BecauseImBatman]

Any bloody retailer can put up a pre order placeholder. Don't give me that, Amazon France still have Bloodborne for PC on pre order.

"By the time it was an exclusive. It was already well into development so they didn't "need" microsofts money. MS just money hatted. That is all their contribution."

It could have been exclusive all along but they had not yet announced it. Stop talking crap as if it were fact. You don't know the ins and outs of the titanfall deal either... your just making these assumptions and holding MS accountable. That's like me going "Well I'm gonna assume Sony had nothing to do with the development of Bloodborne and they just payed for that to release on PS4 only, not even PC. Now FromSoftware have just spit in the faces of all the Dark Souls fans"

We now gonna accept the fact Sony are moneyhatting Shenmue and FF7 remake for a period if MS did so with Rise of the Tomb Raider ? Just accept every company does these sorts of deals, been done since the beginning of mainstream gaming. You can call if moneyhatting but don't go imply Sony aren't doing the same thing, it's the same result. Troll.

[gangsta_red]

Every retailer puts all new announcements for every game available on all consoles unless it's an established 1st party game. That is no indication at all that the game was multiplat.

You really think Gamestop, Best Buy and any other retailer has the inside scoop on games currently being developed?

And about SFV, as Death pointed out.

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

With your logic this means that Capcom was already in development for SFV until Sony came along and dumped boatloads of cash to make it exclusive right?

I love how no one "needs" MS's money, but for some reason fall head over heels for Sony's.

[pivotplease]

Yeah the difference is were comparing a huge multi-million selling game like TR that is obviously pupular in the West to titles that are considered more niche and have popularity globally. How could Sony be "moneyhatting" when we've already seen and heard of their contributions. They are making games possible that needed help getting off the ground. A sequel for TR was always going to be possible after the success of the reboot. The truth is MS wanted a game to temporarily combat Uncharted on the PS4 and they have said this a few times. It is essentially paying for exclusion whereas the other cases are paying to have a game made despite financial and commercial adversity.

[Revolver_X_]

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

A link saying in 2013 it was for next gen "platformS."

Taken directly from Phil Rogers.

"support more platforms and try new things"

http://herocomplex.latimes....

Another article in 2013 claiming TR sequel to be "well in development".

@RedRanger

"Sorry for the confusion! We're still in early planning stages and will share more at a later date," added Ono.

That was taken from your link. Early planning stages doesn't equal "well into development". Early planning stages is when budgets are figured. With Capcom being in financial trouble, we shouldn't have to put two and two together for you, or do we have to?

[ShadowWolf712]

For everyone wanting "proof" that it was a multiplat:

Does Yoshida thinking it was coming to PS4 and not knowing it was timed exclusive until the Gamescom announcement count?

http://www.ign.com/articles...

[demonddel]

Yeah you all are so right when Microsoft do this tactic it's money bags being drop off but when Sony does it it's all about for the luv of gaming and it's fans

[javauns]

you should know by now sony does no wrong, they have a game thats exclusive in kickstarter and its perfectly fine. if micro did that they would be greedy money grabbing, and whatever else they could come up with.

[TheHaloGuy]

Your comment comes across as awkward. If it feels a little awkward to you when you type/say it, it's 100X more awkward for us.

[showtimefolks]

well I hate the 3rd party exclusives whether it's done by Sony or Microsoft. one fan base is left hanging even though we did support the last entry in the series very well

septic

this is what I have read that Capcom needed funding to do steel fighter 5 whether that came from Sony or another publisher

tomb raider was happening regardless, square was in no need. Microsoft paid money to compete with uncharted 4 IMO

I won't be buying tomb raider in 2016, there are so many games in fall 2016 that tomb raider will be lost and will be in bargain bin.

so Microsoft had better wrote a huge check because I doubt that tomb raider will do well on ps4. so far fall 2016

the last guardian
next cod
next assassin creed
mass effect 4
ff15
horozon
next assassin creed
star wars from dead space studio or next battefield

I imagine how big of a check it took. gta 4 dlc took 50 million so can we assume this was a 200 to 300 plus million check?

but like I said before I hate this practice and this will only get worst. both ms and Sony will try to out do each other and fanbase on both consoles will suffer

if anyone supports this practice than they are not for gamers. as a gamer you shouldn't get extra pleasure knowing that gamers on other consoles won't be able to play it

man sometimes I wonder how fanboys really are. and I am not calling you a fanboy septic

I am just talking in general

twoforce

brother I am just a gamer, I own one console(ps4) not because I hate Xbox, because I just don't have the time to play. with family work I barely get maybe an hour or 2 at max. there was a time I loved the long games but now long games scare me

I don't like fanbiys whether they are supprting ps4 or Xbox one, end of the day it's very short sighted opinion by them. to them only exclusives matter and they get extra pleasure with the word exclusive to their favorite console

I rather awesome games be played by as many gamers as possible. I don't get any money from Sony for supporting them nor do I become extra happy because something is exclusive

and I know I am in the minority with this thinking. so you have every right to disagree with it, I am simply stating my opinion and like many on yhis site think no my opinion isn't a fact

[TwoForce]

I understand . But the reality, it can not be avoid. To be honest, the fanboy war caused by us because it's our emotions, rage,cry, arrogant and so on. I'm not saying you fanboy or anything. It's just that we human are capable of doing worst things.

[starchild]

@ showtimefolks

I agree with you. I don't like this practice no matter who is doing it. Platform holders might benefit from these kinds of deals, but gamers in general do not benefit.

Whenever these kinds of deals are made we get fed a load of BS about how "this game wouldn't have been possible without this partnership" or "we share a common vision" or "the passion of so and so was instrumental to the creation of this game". It's all a bunch of PR speak and I'm always going to be highly skeptical of it. While such talk might sometimes have elements of the truth it's generally highly exaggerated.

[Jayszen]

The entire article is just spin on what was a purely financial decision. It is hard to believe that Microsoft had any more 'passion' for a franchise that has been played on both consoles for a number of games now but in particular always sold more on Playstation,on which Tomb Raider had been always available since PS1. Yes, Sony had a strong competitor in the 'Uncharted' series, but this is hardly relevant as even after the reboot of the series in 2013, again the game sold the most on Playstation consoles and especially of the new-gen consoles, on the PS4. This clearly means that regardless of the fact that fans had both 'Uncharted' and 'Tomb Raider' to choose from on the PS4, most were just happy playing both and did not see either game as superseding the other.

The fact is that Microsoft did not want to bother creating a new IP that belonged exclusively to the Xbone but was happy to just pay to withold it from the majority of players who had supported the IP through the years. SE, fearful of the competition from 'Uncharted 4', which at the time the decision was made was due to also release in Holiday 2015, decided to take the money.

It makes no sense to reveal that the game is coming to PS4 at this time other than because sales have been less than expected on Xbone and by annoucing that PS4 gamers will have to a wait a further year, both SE and Microsoft hope to persuade those who are impatient to buy the Xbone version and by extension a new console. If both SE wanted to be candid to fans of the IP, it could have stated the same the outset rather than just three odd months from release.

ROTR will now release on Xbox One at a time when so many huge multiplatform games are coming, Fallout 4, Battlefront, COD BO 3, Just Cause 3, and so on. Only the most rabid fanboy will hold that none of these releases will eat into the sales of ROTR. In addition, now that 'Uncharted 4' has been delayed to Spring 2015 and possibly even Holiday 2015 (you never know...), SE can also discount sales from those PS4 gamers it did not piss off as 'Uncharted 4' is shaping up to be the best iteration yet.

I will buy it on the PS4 but I will now wait until it is even cheaper as on this one, SE deserves as liitle of any gamers money as it can get. If I can wait for a year, what is a few months more on top?

[Christopher]

***We knew it would, in the short-term, disappoint fans***

I don't think 1 year is "short-term".

***Tomb Raider isn't the first franchise to be exclusive to a specific platform, as Titanfall, Street Fighter and Plants vs. Zombies can all attest to that.***

Two of those are completely new IPs. Tomb Raider and SFV are signs of a huge issue with the industry as they are extremely well-established as being available on all current platforms. Now, suddenly, they're either only on just one or timed for release by 6 months to a full year.

Do not compare what is happening with Tomb Raider and SFV to what happened with Titanfall or PvZ:GW. They didn't have an existing fanbase on the other platforms. They were completely fresh.

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

Too bad the passion of the millions of gamers you are holding out on weren't enough. I guess Microsoft has more passion than all those fans?

C'mon, we know exactly what this is. Stop talking BS about passion. It's all about money and business, not about passion.

[Revolver_X_]

I seriously want to get ROTR on PC upon release, but I may not. It's like Randy Pitchford on ACM. Quit talking to us like we're stupid. Either admit it or shut up about it already. PS fans want to get over it and then you open your mouth trying to justify it again. We know ROTR was already well into development in 2013. If MS really cared about TR, they would force Square to make TR next gen only and really push the limits of the X1, and make it a spectacle of a game. But they can't. Why? Because MS isn't helping develop the game. The game was already well underway. They wrote a check, that's it.

[rainslacker]

Wish I could give you mods a well said.

On the other hand....not sure you deserve all those bubbles.:-P

[Ashlen]

I assume all the "passion" is Microsoft humping them in the butt for a few bucks and a year of exclusivity.

But seriously, could they have said more nothing?

[umair_s51]

I think Tomb raider 1 year exclusivity is interesting, and everyone will eventually get to play it as well

[grumpygamr]

Wow Square is scrambling for acceptance. Thwre almost apologizing. They are really scared by this deal they made.

[rainslacker]

I wouldn't say they're really screwed by it. I don't think the reasons of they want to make the IP excel by removing it from the install base that actually buys it the most...that reasoning seems really asinine. Can't see how that line of thinking that it would somehow become a stellar IP just because it's exclusive to the Xbox brand for a year. Sure, exclusivity can cause that to happen, but realistically, those games were actually stellar games to begin with...like Bioshock or Mass Effect. As much as I enjoyed the reboot, TR just isn't in the same league as those IP's. As we saw, it did absolutely nothing for Titanfall.

[fermcr]

Fanboys == Hypocrites.

If a 3rd party game gets announced exclusively for their console of preference, great... if it's the other way around, all hell breaks loose.

[starchild]

This is true, a lot of people are flip-flopping hypocrites.

I'm consistently against it. I don't think 3rd party developers should be making exclusives for any one platform...especially games from established series that were always enjoyed by people on multiple platforms.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of exclusives in general. I think the ideal situation for gamers would be if all games were available on all platforms. Imagine if we had to buy multiple brands of Blu-ray or DVD players just to play all our favorite movies. It would suck, right? But that's exactly what we have to deal with in gaming.

[OB1Biker]

I see no problem with 3rd party games exclusivity from both sides as long as everything is Chrystal clear from the start.
TR was announced first with no mention whatsoever of exclusivity.
then Ms announced it later as an exclusive.
then on twitter 'its timed'
etc all in all only gamers who regularly follow gaming news know it will be coming to PS4 next year, but someone who is not informed visiting xbox official site to find out will believe TR is full exclusive and never coming to PS4.

http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/x...
scroll down on the page and tell me this is not misleading (exclusive game)

I just think everything should be clear.
btw I dont know why people compare TR with SFV, one is timed the other one is full console exclusive so different deal altogether.

[tee_bag242]

This. I tend to agree with you. 3rd party exclusives are like a cock-blocking mate.

Both Sony and MS are guilty of the same practices here. The rest of the details these fanboys are squabbling over is just semantics.

[_-EDMIX-_]

100% agreed! The disagrees are just fanboys, period. They are both doing the practice, regardless of who went to whom, they clearly still made a decision to pay for a timed game.

SFV is no different then Tomb Raider.

Capcom may have needed the money more then Square easily, but Sony didn't actually need to fund jack.

The only thing Sony is doing is paying to have it timed based on its exactly what MS would have done as MS was already paying for Capcom games to be timed during this gen with Dead Rising 3.

So though they have different reasons for why they are timed, they are both timed none the less.

Neither Sony nor MS own the IPs. Unless MS buys Square and unless Sony buys Capcom, they are but merely paying to have a game temperately.

Mind you, I don't disagree with the concept that Sony is paying for SFV's development as Capcom likely couldn't afford it with their questionable structure, just like the couldn't afford Dead Rising 3's, just like they can't afford Monster Hunters.......

Its at a point where the either need to only do games they can afford to make or seek to actually be bought out because its clear their bad choices last gen is catching up with them.

http://www.ign.com/articles...

You don't hear this type of news with Square, they very much can afford to make many, many titles with no help from outside sources, they do so because they choose to do so, after last gen, its clear that Square is seeking no publisher to get their main games done unlike gen's prior.

My issues with 3rd party exclusives are that, if your not seeking to sell your IP, why are you publishing with a developer known for just that?

It hurts the name of the publisher (first party) as it means that "first party" is not really true regarding this company. ie MS.

They are a first party publisher by name only, their practice states otherwise as they've supported and published titles of IPs they don't own...I would consider them something near second party then 1st.

Sony titles don't just appear else where after being published by them.

Another issue with this is the spending of the first party, I'd rather them spend that money on titles that will build the brand vs enable a company like Capcom to continue is bad practices...

How many times have they gone to Nintendo or MS to publish a title of theirs? Sooooooo why are they even considering themselves 3rd parties? they might as well seek to be bought by one of the 3 and call it a day.

They seek to outsource games to anyone, they could care less about quality, I'm at a point where if they got bought out I could care less, they don't deserve to be in control of their own IPs, they are getting THAT BAD, they've over time diminished the quality and once good name of once great amazing ips.

[ITPython]

Why doesn't M$ use the money to instead make their own exclusives? Paying a company millions to keep an entire multiplat game off rival platforms for a whole year is a very dirty move and a trend I hope doesn't become the norm this gen.

[fermcr]

Sony does the same thing. Do you complain about them?

Hypocrite much!

[grumpygamr]

I think it's funny. There are so many great games coming out at same general time. Poor tomb raider is gonna be buried by star wars, fallout, the list of more atractive games coming out is huge. Good luck Tomb Raider.

[rainslacker]

Because it costs more and there's no guarantee that the IP will actually do well.

[_-EDMIX-_]

They did it a while lot last gen, they only stopped for a bit near the ending, but for the most part, 2006-2011 or so we got lots and lots of timed games by them from Dead Rising, Lost Planet, Bioshock, Star Ocean etc.

So in the next few years they might ease off. I thought MS would spend more focus on IPs they own this gen, and clearly I was wrong, they are focusing on IPs they don't own more then even last gen as even last gen it didn't start soooooo early to do timed games, out of the gate MS was paying for timed game after timed game.

[kazman]

the fact you still say the Bone speaks volumes about you and who you are

[2v1]

Microsoft is like the plague , avoid them.

[BG11579]

@Ezzz, sorry to barge in the conversation but, as an example between SF3 third strike and the first Sf4, 8 years came to past. When SF4 was announced, everyone was surprised and hyped.
Fighting games are not like story wise orientated games. Fighting games even if they end up successful are still considered has for a niche target audience. It success depends on the community.

[BlackPanther]

I can't wait to play this game. I'm getting it before Fallout 4 as this game will take less time to complete and I don't expect the MP to be good as the last installment was garbage in that regard.

[Gazondaily]

MP for the game is hardly going to be the main attraction for this. I don't think many care for it for TR.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Do we know for sure RTR will have an MP element? I kinda hope it doesn't. I think some kind of Co-op PvE would be better suited just my two cents.

[christocolus]

Right. I never bothered about the MP. My friends and I only played the story some of my pals didn't even know the game had mp . Lol. but if CD is able to pull off a better mp in ROTR then maybe I'll try it cos i actually find the mp in some adventure games very interesting&fun i.e TLOU .

[Revolver_X_]

Cd didn't do the MP in TR last time. The team behind Deus Ex, did. Seeing as how their busy, I doubt it will have Mp at all.

[ShowanW]

Microsoft's Passion = $$$ & Marketing Muscle

So Rise of Tomb Raider would of been made, but Microsoft pockets (passion) helped to make RotTR a BIGGER more ambitious game...

Are people really this sour over a video game?
Before anyone knew that Uncharted would be delayed, they dogged Tomb Raider and said that it would suck anyways and blah blah..

Now that adventures of Mr. Drake has been delayed (can't wait for UC4), people are throwing tantrums that RotTR isn't gonna be on PS4 this year.

Hypocrites much people.

[BlackTar187]

I dislike this move because of the fan base they turned on are the bigger supporters thru history but that said if MS money made this game bigger and more ambitious then i have very little issue with that.

i probably will play this game around march or april of 2016 since there is just o many games to make TR a priority.

FTR no one said it would suck dude. People say that post fact but can't prove that. TR sold better on all ps systems compared to Xbox so i think that line is made up by you.

[Gunstar75]

The same could be said about capcom. There are lots of xbox gamers who love Steet Fighter but will perhaps not get to play it.

What about bungie getting in to bed with Sony on Destiny content? Bungie are where they are purely because xbox owners supported their output. Now they are treated like second class customers.

All is fair in love and game wars!

Absolutely fair enough if you condemn the practice in general, but there seem to be a lot of gamers with very selective ways of judging the practice when it comes to MS's activities

[Shinox]

@Gunstar75 "lots" of xbox gamers was an exaggeration to be honest with you , last time i checked the gab between SF community in XB and PS the difference turn out to be HUGE ( and painfully un-comparable if that's the right word to use )

[rainslacker]

Now they just have to show in the final product how the game is bigger and better, and what exactly MS passion translated into. If the game is just a sequel of the last one, and offers nothing new or significant over the last one, then the whole thing seems rather meaningless.

being a sequel, I just expect the same game but improved where it needed it. A better story, and maybe less lulls in the story.

[VoiceMale]

Why is it that ppl always try to turn having money as a bad thing for Microsoft....
Then they turn around and praise Sony for sales.?
its a third party agreement and none that i know of so far are funded by love hugs or kisses
All and i repeat all third party deals evolves money...
Every console in history as far back had have them and all console in the future will as well......get over it and move on....
We get it MS = evil

SMH.....this is why we can never have nice things on N4G...

[BlackTar187]

who are you even talking to?

[gangsta_red]

It's basically a bitter response to people who feel entitled. It's as if they deserve it more than another group on a console.

I don't understand this "bigger fanbase" theory when applied to TR. Just because it sold slightly better on PS4 could mean that at the time there were no other new games available, there are more PS4's in the wild, that doesn't mean TR has a bigger fan base on PS4.

It's more made up theories to prop up a console and downplay the competition.

[BlackTar187]

Gangsta it also sold better on ps3 to xbox 360. So i don't get hwat you're saying.

it sold better on ps3 then 360
Sold better on Ps4 then Xbox 1

For cpmparision
VGchartz(Sorry)
PS3:2.42 Million
360:1.86 Million
PS4:.93 Million
Xbox one:.35

Total:
PS:3.35 Million
Xbox:2.21

So over 1 million difference.

PS4 has more games then Xbox one <==== that is a fact and irrefutable and that time frame had just as many games and more then xbox one. So i don't see your point. TR sold better on PS consoles always has and probably will again once it releases on ps4 in a year and a half.

[Death]

@BlackTar,

It happens. Look at Bungie and the way they handled Destiny. SF5 isn't even coming to the Xbox One from what we have been told. That is worse than a one year agreement for a franchise that has always been multiplatform.

[BlackTar187]

Yea but by all accounts SF5 wwasn't going to come for either a very long long time to any console or not at all. Not saying what i believe but that is what has been said.

TR is and was always coming out.

Hey if MS money made TR better then i have no issues with that at all and i'm actually happy for it. I got all the consoles i'll play the game on xbox and not on ps so it's not really a huge issue for me just like to have my trophies since i primary a ps4. But again if the money made the game bigger and more ambitious then i 100000% support that.

[shadowwizard]

Microsoft's Passion = money, as simple as that

[Gazondaily]

And Sony's passion = love, life, gaming, and the drive to make everything better for gamers everywhere. <3

[christocolus]

You nailed it. Lol . Well said bro. Can't wait to pick this game up along with Halo, Starwars, Gears and Rare replay this holiday. I'll pick up MGS and fallout 4 later in december or sometime in January. I'm going to be broke. God help me.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

@Septic I think you missed a few like: free Kool-aide to all and we take your money only because we have to not that they want to.

[Gunstar75]

LOL @ Septic
You hit the hypocrisy nail on the head!

What's fit for the goose.........

[mt]

for squreenix it is all about money. it is all about money.

[tinynuggins]

Is that a bad thing?

[GNCFLYER]

Uncharted took the place that tomb raider held with me so I don't care.

[Indigon]

Passion = bag of dollars.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I would be very passionate for a bag of dollars.

[tinynuggins]

Think about how much better your game could be with that extra bag of dollars to use towards resources.

[starchild]

It always comes down to money in these kinds of exclusivity deals. Even if you believe the PR spin about "partnerships" and such, it all comes down to money.

How does Sony help Capcom if not by way of money? Even if you say "well Sony sends engineers and developers to help out"...well those engineers are only going to be doing that job because Sony is paying them money to do so.

In fact, even the first party studios themselves were acquired by--you guessed it--money. It all comes down to money.

[tee_bag242]

Well said! It's just semantics . They are both guilty of the same thing.
Seeing fanboys talking about the moral high ground is cringe worthy

[TwoForce]

Sometimes, these companies have their own reason.

[cyber_daemonx]

Stupid release date tbh, especially now Sony have delayed Uncharted. Tomb Raider is sandwiched between COD Blops 3 and Star Wars Battlefront, and also releases the same date as Fallout 4 lol. Not to mention Halo 5, Assassins Creed, Fifa etc all around the same period.

But thats what happens when you only release titles at the holidays at the expense of the rest of the year.

Looks like TR is gonna get lost in the xmas rush.

[rainslacker]

Game will probably sell alright. Obviously it would have sold better had it been multi-plat. I think it will probably see good long term sales, but initial week sales will probably not live up to "expectations"...whi ch is just a way to say that they want it to sell X amount it's first week to get a head start on making their money back. SE and every other company knows that the longer a game is out, the sooner it takes for people to lose interest in it. ROTTR is going to end up getting a lot of it's sales from the bargain bin and sales.

[cyber_daemonx]

Hmmm maybe. Think TR sales are gonna be 'dissappointing'. It may do ok in the long term, but I don't think it will be earth shattering.

Considering how Squeenix want TR to be on a par with the heavy hitters a'la cod, gta etc, making the game timed exclusive and releasing it slap bang alongside Fallout 4 in the middle of the holiday rush is a stupid decision imo. MS must have stumped up a lot of cash in compensation for lost potential sales.

Ah well time will tell.

[arbitor365]

microsoft cant fix their situation by throwing money around. Not this time. They are losing more money on the Xbox one than sony ever lost on the PS3. Wasnt it a 2 billion loss for their xbox division alone this fiscal year?

[Death]

They made a profit like they have since 2008. Where are you seeing a loss? I'm all for making stuff up to prove a point, but shouldn't it at least be believable? Making 1.8 billion in gross margin is a far cry from losing 2 billion. http://www.microsoft.com/in...

[JeffGUNZ]

lol What? Where are you coming up with this Arbitor?? Xbox one is outpacing 360 when 360 was at this "age" in its console life. They just released an article how Xbox Revenue is up!

[PFFT]

And Sony is close to bankruptcy and up to their neck in debt so who cares?!?!?!

[AGShow]

Now I just want to know who is making the PC and PS4 versions... Is it Crystal Dynamics doing a proper build or some third part porting it over?

Also waiting a year, is it a $60 PS4 version of the game coming out this year? Or a special edition with all the extras and maybe some updates (graphics, physics, animations)?

[ScorpiusX]

My opinion they didn't show enough passion, all they did was waste resource for a cheap deal. Seeing how little passion they showed . I will return the same passion and rent the game, so they can witness these kind of deals are garbage. here's hoping they see a massive lack of sales to be cautious next time.

(what a bunch of fools @ MS)

[MasterCornholio]

I'm actually happy that they didn't do that otherwise I wouldn't be able to play the game on my PS4.

:)

Not trying to anger anyone but the deal isn't as bad as it appears. At least others will be able to enjoy the game although much later. I have the same mentality with games like No Mans Sky and Final Fantasy 7.

[ScorpiusX]

It just grows old , they're always blowing cash on stupid shit and are always the only ones that do so . This money could've paid for a few project at first party studios or even 2nd party .|
They need to either go all in or not go at all, enough with these BS lifeline or short term deals.

[Death]

1 year is a short term deal? Isn't that the same deal we seen with Destiny DLC and Sony? Sony did it with Call of Duty too. Not to mention SF5 which was paid to stay off the Xbox. If you want to pull the fool card it will be on both platform holders, not just Microsoft.

[MasterCornholio]

@Death

The deal with COD isn't a year though. As for Sony paying to keep SFV off Xbox that isn't true. You should read more of Onos interviews.

It was either an earlier release but exclusive to two platforms or a much later release and the title being avaible on additional platforms.

"If you want to pull the fool card it will be on both platform holders, not just Microsoft."

Why did you think I mentioned Final Fantasy 7 and No Mans Sky? Your telling me that those were deals with Microsoft?

[gangsta_red]

Of course Ono would say Capcom doesn't have the funds and there's no plans for SFV. But then a few months later they announce SFV with a playable demo of Ryu and Chun Li, you really believe that development wasn't already being made between Sony and Capcom.

Ono didn't want to spill the beans and kept the collaboration for a sequel to Capcom's most popular IP a secret just like any other dev/producer does when they're asked when a game is being released.

Sony paid Capcom to keep SFV off Xbox, you can say "help" and "funded" all you want but those are just happy terms to use when talking about Sony, but for MS it's called "money-hatting".

[MasterCornholio]

@Gansta

Better check your dates.

"A fan asked Ono on Twitter if he was secretly working on Street Fighter V for next-generation consoles, to which the designer replied, "I don't have R&D budget and staff."

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

He said that July the 13th 2013.

Street Fighter V was revealed at PSX.

Which was on December 8 2014.

http://www.theguardian.com/...

Your claiming that it was only a few months after when they showed off gameplay. Which is completely false since it was more than a year since Ono said that.

You really should check your facts before making those claims.

[Speak_da_Truth]

I want the game on Ps4 but will I pay $60, $40 or even $30 for it when it comes out a year later?? Heck No! I'll either rent it on gamefly or buy it used. Also I was one of those people who bought the game on Ps3 and Ps4 day one but like others have said I'll show my own passion by not supporting the game.

[Death]

I'll pick up a second copy to make up for it in the fall. ;)

[Speak_da_Truth]

Lmaoooo then you'll need to buy a shit ton of more copies because i don't think I'm the only one taking this approach.

[Death]

One for me and my kid is about as far as I can go. Maybe a copy for my brother.

[JeffGUNZ]

They will probably release a Year One deal with all the DLC and whatnot for a discounted price.

[rainslacker]

Not sure what I'll do. I'll have a X1 come this holiday, but I'm more interested in the actual exclusives for it. I liked the first game well enough, but I'll probably just buy it when I feel like playing it. If that happens to be after it releases on the PS4 then I'll get it for that since I do prefer the PS4. I'm in no rush, so if I even play it two years after release I'm still good.

For me, it's not really about trying to make a point, it's just that the first game, while good and a solid game, didn't grab me in such a way that I feel like getting the sequel day one.

[MCTJim]

Wow, lots of folks in here without an X1. Lets all spin it and make MS the bad guy...oh wait.... Stay out of these types of articles if you have not interest other than to fan the flames.

I'm glad they came out and said they were passionate about helping with the game. So many negative stories always written by taken out of context sentences...its mind blowing.

we get it..Sony Good...MS Bad...no matter what they do.

[rainslacker]

To me, SE done screwed up. MS and Sony don't really factor into the equation when it comes to SE disregarding a large percentage of the fan base on this game.

[Condemnedman]

See this thread is full of made up facts by bitter people. Sony saving sf5 ms killing tr! Any way you enjoy sf5 and I'll enjoy not playing it and you can play tr in about a year or so.

[iliimaster]

day one for me boys good thing im able to own all systems

[Xbonewone32015]

Games like this are why i bought an xb1.

I personally preferred the last tomb raider to the uncharted series. Personal taste though.

If you want to play tomb raider, nothing to stop you buying an xb1.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

When all you guys hate on either Sony or MS, you make yourselves look ugly.

[brokenbracket]

Why would anyone buy an entire console for one game? That's like me buying a ps4 just to play Uncharted. As good as Uncharted is, it'll never warrant $300 to $400 alone.

The only reason I plan on buying an XBone is because I'm a gamer, through and through. I bleed games (weird, I know, I've seen a doctor, nothing they can do about it). If you love games as much as I do, you'll own both XBone and PS4... and a PC, which I just built. The XBone is next on my list. But not because of Tomb Raider lol. That's ludicrous.

[ebreda]

If there's one good game I can't get anywhere else, that's good enough for me.

It's not like you're spending 20k in a console. It's 300 bucks for god's sake. For something that will last 5 years. Get over it.

[jmac53]

If passion equals how much money Microsoft forked over, I totally understand.

[Xbonewone32015]

How much money did Sony fork over to buy out naughty dog you think?

But oh wait, it's Sony, so it's different. Right?

Smh.

[Jayszen]

Sony owns Naughty Dog, Microsoft does not own Square Enix. See the difference?

[IIFloodyII]

Probably not much, considering Naughty Dog had been working with Sony since 1995 and wasn't that big in 2001 when Sony bought them.

[Rachel_Alucard]

All this projection and I doubt anyone will ever take you seriously when your name is based off a desperately made running joke.

[Xbonewone32015]

@Jayszen

Sony didn't own naughty dog either until they bought them out.

Money talks. For Sony and MS. Take your blinkered glasses off.

[asadachi]

square would call them the best company in the world if microsoft paid them to. same goes for sony.

[Youngindy21]

It was stupid of Square Enix to reveal the PS4 release date before the Xbox One version launched. That being said, if Microsoft wants to compete this gen, they need to get 3rd party developers to develop long term exclusives for the Xbox One and not stupid 1 year exclusives like with this new Tomb Raider game.

[IIFloodyII]

I thought TR comment sections would improve after they confirmed it's not a full exclusive, but it seems to have got worse. Well media blackout time again, thanks fanboys!

[brokenbracket]

I'm not saying Tomb Raider will be the worst game ever to hit shelves, in all honesty, it might even be quite good. And that's the sad part about it. You can talk about how it might flop, this and that... the simple fact of the matter is that regardless of how good or how bad it might be, it could have been that much better without the exclusivity being involved.

I personally love Tomb Raider. One of the first games I can remember playing on my first original Playstation. Those crazy tigers that took me forever to get past with the spikes coming out the wall as I ran from one of the tigers. I even loved the last iteration they recently did back on the PS3. But with it only being available on Xbox for an entire year, no single PS3/4 owner will remember this game in a year's time. It would be interesting to see how many Xbox players picked up The Dark Below DLC for Destiny after that exclusive time period. The problem with it being a year long exclusive is that there are 365 days between release and when the exclusivity runs its course. That's 365 days of other games that gamers will be enjoying and will get hooked on that will make them completely forget about this game. We're talking about Star Wars Battlefront, Uncharted 4, Fallout 4, The Division... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. We could be talking about a new Red Dead Redemption this time next year, a new Dead Space installment, or, LOL, a new Half Life if God is willing!!!

My point is, Square Enix shot themselves in the foot because they'll never make as much money off this game as they could have, and they'll lose a lot of fans in the process. Go ahead, ask me, am I going to buy Tomb Raider when the exclusive period ends... the answer is no. As it will be for millions of other gamers.

[brokenbracket]

I love disagreement, lmao. So you're saying Square Enix will make more money because of the exclusive? Because I was basically saying they'll lose money in the long run from doing the exclusive... regardless of what platform it's on. It doesn't matter. I'm sure Microsoft threw a bunch of money at Square Enix, but I don't think it was any where near the range of what they could have gotten had it been available for Sony and Microsoft fans. So tell me again how you disagree with that statement...

[JokerDem]

The Tomb Raider Deal is bad because Microsoft is doing it and
the Final Fantasy VII Deal is good because Sony is doing it.

We already know by now how N4G works I mean look at the bubble system, some of the trolliest commenters on the internet even have a ton of bubbles ffs.

[SmielmaN]

It's hilarious how the guys with the most disagrees have the most bubbles. And they constantly use them to make boat loads of off topic comments. Guys with 10 bubbles trolling on about shenmue and SFV is way off topic. But somehow they never get hit back down because they submit a ton of articles, usually from their own site.

The comment system on this site is a joke.

On topic: of course Square is going to spin the money hat as MS showing "passion". They are in full damage control. I wish I could see the preorder totals for ROTR as I bet they announced it would hit other platforms to keep the game from being forgotten. It's the only reason a company would announce its "exclusive" then tell everyone it's coming out on multiple platforms before it's released at all. It's like saying "hey we know you are all upset we made this exclusive deal and we realize it was a huge mistake because our preorder #'s are not good and we are going against a lot of huge games. We realized the gamble isn't looking good so we want you to know you can all play it, just be patient while we take our foot out of our mouth and our head out of our ass". Obviously the money hat wasn't big enough to keep them from announcing it will be multiplatform and they clearly see that the risk of losing a few hardcore Xbox supporters is not worth the risk of losing a lot of hardcore PS supporters. IMO.

[SmielmaN]

Me too

[DJustinUNCHAIND]

All comments point to hypocrisy and double-standards.

[DLConspiracy]

Both these companies buy exclusives. REGARDLESS of the reason. It's still a game either side will have to wait to play. OR in some cases never get the chance to play. I can't wait for the spinning when FF7 does the same thing on PS as RotTR does on XB.

[xfrgtr]

lol, pa$$ion

[ajax17]

Damn. You beat me to it!

[Rookie_Monster]

Who cares at this point. All the post is all about how Square Enix is betraying PS gamers and yai yadi yah. I remember Sony prevented Games like Batman Arkham Knight and Destiny, both western games, from releasing on XB1 in Japan and also had a timed exclusive for Ghost Buster in Europe last gen. Also don't forget they somehow got injustice and Ultra Street Fighter 4 on PS4 to prevent it from being ported to XB1 if you guys really wanted to go that route. If it isn't for Backward compatibility, there would never be any chances XB1 owners get to play those games on their platform.

If you want to play the next gen Tomb Raider, you can get it this Fall on Xbox One, wait 6 months to get it on PC, or wait out a year on PS4. We are beating a dead horse guys with these same articles and replies. Too much hypocrisy is going on here.

[AutoCad]

You really want to play this game,go buy an xbox one or play it on the PC you have..Isnt that wer most people play the xb1 exclusives anyways.

[22CobraKing]

The PC comes in 6 months and the ps4 version is coming 1 year later

[FallenAngel1984]

People criticizing Microsoft for buying exclusives, albeit timed exclusives, need to remember that Sony had similar business practices during the PS1 and PS2 era. Even Nintendo had aggressive methods of achieving exclusives during the NES and SNES era.

[22CobraKing]

Let's get some things straight
1. Microsoft is not passionate about the series if they were then were is the support from past tomb raider games from Microsoft.
2. I don't believe Microsoft really helped they just gave them money to make it timed exclusive. If they did helped many say if you put so much $ then why is it on the competitions console.
3. They made it timed exclusive so that it could compete against Uncharted 4. I bet they knew that tomb raider is a well know ps game they would snatch it to bring ps fans into Xbox.
4. They think it will make gamers buy an Xbox 1.

[jay2]

Bull***t. you dumb t___s. TR started live console wise on ps4 and pc, should have made it a timed ps4 exclusive, oh well a years extra wait i guess!

[Scottyxboxoneandps4]

@jay2
Actually tomb raider started out on the sega Saturn then playstation. But you being clever and all, should have known this no?

[JMyers]

PA$$ION more like.

[DDOS-DelDaemonicOSes]

It is obvious that Ms bought TR exclusivity for having a comparable exclusive to Uncharted 4 that was originally planned for release around the same time... it was exceptionally REASONABLE of Ms to compete that way, it was FANtastic of Ms to provide that for their customers, and fair to PS4 owners who would have had Uncharted 4 to play (and probably tout as better), while waiting until the next year to play TR and while benefiting from reviews and patches of the 2015 version.

Sony's failure to deliver their holiday games (AGAIN) this year is what's responsible for insulting Sony fans this holiday, because they don't have a comparable title... they're so insulted that they then even fault TR for competing next year with UC4, yet that too was Sony's fault... because of Microsoft buying timed exclusivity, TR on PS4 would not have been released the same year as Uncharted 4, if not for Sony's failure to deliver.

[22CobraKing]

I think Sony did the right thing to delay uncharted 4 to 2016 because look at all the multi platform games and exclusives coming out around the same time. I bet Tomb Raider will be overshadowed by games like Black ops 3, Fallout 4 and Star Wars battlefront.

[Subaruwrx]

I believe that MS and SE were passionate about making a good business deal - whether or not that turns out to be the case remains to be seen. What I didn't appreciate was the fact that MS, with Phil Spencer leading the way, tried to imply that ROTTR would be a X1, X360 console exclusive much like Ryse and Dead Rising and would not be coming to Playstation: "Now, obviously if I'm going to partner on it, I'm a platform holder, I'm hardly going to invest to go make the PlayStation version of any game. It is a business. So when we go invest with a partner on a big franchise, we're going to come with certain needs we have out of the relationship." http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

[SuperStatePro]

The needs being a 1 year delay for sony consoles...

[Trekster_Gamer]

Loved the reboot, loved the remastered reboot (aside from the price).

Day one purchase!
This fallout 4, Halo 5 and Star Wars BF. There won't be enough hours in the day... Lol

[cd1]

Exclusivity deals happen, the only way of avoiding it is to own all platforms. Personally I can wait, there's plenty to be play until next Christmas - its a bumper year! :D

[Scottyxboxoneandps4]

It makes me laugh, how many people on here think they know the ins and outs of these deals. And I'm sorry to say but you Sony fans are the worst hypocrites I have ever encountered in all my life!!!
Seriously, you guys should get an award for this stuff!!! Lol!!!!

[Zero109]

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 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.

[CantBeStopped]

Ok here's the first problem with your post, SF5 will be available for PC so not exclusive, the second problem is you claim to not be a fanboy yet you point out why everything Sony is bad while shilling for Microsoft, pretty much wreaks of fanboyism. Its fine if you want to shout from the roof tops you love Microsoft just dont try and pretend you aren't the very same fanboy you claim to hate.

[Zero109]

TR is also available for PC/PS4 but at a later date. Is SFV coming to X1? That's a no (Capcom already confirmed it). I just call bs when I see it.

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 and Titanfall/MS announcing BC for X1/DX12 improving X1 performance. More than half of the comments are fueled with hate/ridicule/downplay for MS.

I'm not fanboy of any company (go through my comment history and you'll see I've gotten on Nintendo/Sony/MS/Ubisoft/Capom /SE/EA/Rocksteady and etc whenever they've pulled some bs as well).

PS4 games perform better. MS online and social features are better. Sony DVR/shareplay is better. MS BC is better than PS Now. Sony has more (and imo, better overall exclusives). I've stated these things before and I'm a gamer, not a fanboy. Some of you simply sh*t on MS for no apparent reason (even when it's something good for gamers and the console).

You'd have to be blind to not see the downplay and double standards happening on this site (on the internet in general).

[urwifeminder]

Thanks MS for making this happen what a great passionate company you are .

[TheVigilanteCode]

The ONLY reason this ever went exclusive was to get toe to toe with Uncharted being in the same release timeframe. I don't think Naughty Dog deliberately postponed it to Spring 2016 to troll these guys (would have been amazing if true LMAO). Spencer even confirmed it shortly after the announcement, in an interview with Eurogamer.

"In part is it about having an answer to Uncharted 4? The comparison between the last Tomb Raider and Uncharted has been made.

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

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

Now the funny part is that this game is releasing on the same days as Fallout 4. It's going to get butchered as Fallout sells on all platforms really and most sales on Xbox 360 for lastgen fallout games. Now that mods have arrived (for both consoles) and Fallout 3 is given for free with EVERY Fallout 4 copy with Xbox One (to be played using backward compatibility) . the sales are gonna be abysmal for Rise of the Tomb raider so much that they're gonna roll together X360 and X1 numbers and call it "Rise of the Tomb Raider sold xxx units on the XBOX PLATFORM" like they always do for console sales data.

Now the CEO of Square Enix Americas & Europe, Phil (no kidding) Rogers says that "Microsoft’s passion for Tomb Raider is amazing" ?

Translation - "Square Enix's passion for $$$ is amazing".

[CantBeStopped]

What they call "passion" I call a suitcase full of money but hey whatever helps them feel better about the bad decision they made.

[GNCFLYER]

It had to be a lot for them to ignore the PS4 with double the install base.

[Bronxs15]

I don't get what all the commotion is for. It's not that different or surprising from last gen. Microsoft likes to show people some of the appeal and benefit of gaming on their system. You get great content sooner than with the other guys. For example. See mass effect 1 on 360 and even BIOSHOCK on 360.

[PistolsAtDawn]

I can't wait for this game, the more I hear about it the more that it seems like it's taking all the right steps....

[ilikepizza]

Preordered and paid off the day before e3 lol. This will be the best game on ps4 next holiday. This not being effects people how? Either you buy it or don't,why are people going so deep. Most people here judging by the post don't own an Xbox one so what's all the fuss about.

[beereal360]

Only game on ps4 I would play is uncharted but part 3 was lame so that's up in the air. Xbox is where it's at . Better games and service not even close

[Donnywho]

I'm starting to believe the guy because I don't see how this is going to pay off. But then again, I'm starting to realize that the more this becomes an issue, the better it probably WILL pay off. So, well played Sir?

[DLConspiracy]

When love, hugs and goodwill are currency, then developers and publishers won't need money. Until then. I guess these companies survive on hardwork and cash. Just like all the consoles have done for years.

[Bronxs15]

Uncharted was my favourite series of last gen. It's evidenced by uncharted 1 and 2 being the only 2 games that have platinum trophies out of my looong list of games.

Then the tomb raider reboot came along and it's right up there. It's better actually in many ways. The way you upgrade weapons and different skill points. Hunting animals and completing different tombs and challenges unlock awesome new abilities. Just as cinematic as uncharted but a little more open in how you attack enemies.

If you like the uncharted games and have a ps4 or xb1 and have not played tomb raider definitive edition get on it!!! You will love. Your jaw will drop with awesomeness. It's basically like an more awesome uncharted. I said it

I'm glad to see that naughty dog took some ideas as well. It's clear CD took the uncharted games and tried to and in my option succeeded at making a better uncharted game. Now it looks like ND is ready to respond and one up CD Cus uncharted 4 looks awesome. But I think RotTR will have some amazing moments as well

[OnceUponAGoat]

Well the exclusivity has resulted in Square shooting themselves in the foot, and not only that, it also left a sour taste in the non XB1 fans.

[jwillj2k4]

If MS really put money behind this game you'd be damn sure it would be a real exclusive. That is the difference between tr, bb, and sfv.

If square didn't ha e the money to complete it, Ms is not going to I've them money to finish it on 3 platforms, just 1. Thats how you know these are duck tales. Ms has "exclusivity passion".

No one would make a stink about it if interviews like these didn't exist trying to make it seem like something it isnt.

[MilkMan]

Look, I'm not upset about taking cash for exclusivity, everyone does it. What I am upset about is this particular IP.
Square-E, is full to the brim with triple talking vice presidents and PR people.
They say it takes minimum three titles for a new IP to establish itself, but then ran to take Microsoft's money, because bottom-line) they had zero faith in the sales of Tomb Raider's sequel.

They gone on record saying they expected COD numbers for an IP that was essentially dead. The character of Lara Croft was popular as ever, but the game series hadn't had a decent game in about a decade.

This was unrealistic even for a ten year old expectation.

Your biggest user base, was the PlayStation, yet you shun these folks and take the money from the competition. This is a win for Microsoft, and an excellent business decision since they have nothing that can compete with the likes of Uncharted.

But for a year?
What kind of pay check did Microsoft give S-E to compensate sales and re-sales for a whole year? Id love to see that check, because I am sure whatever it was, S-E lost money.

Uncharted trilogy re-master is the answer to this exclusivity deal. I hope we are all in agreement there. Something to tide us over until Uncharted 4 arrives.

S-E, never should have buckled the way they did. Its bad form.
and if they felt the need to take money, they never should have agreed to a year deal.

It was a bad decision on their part.
and it leaves a bad taste on gamers and most importantly fans of the game collective mouths.

[Picnic]

It is a touch disappointing that Rare couldn't work on making an Uncharted like adventure (they could call it the next Perfect Dark if they like) instead of Microsoft relying on third party games to fill that Uncharted sized gap. However I don't begrudge Microsoft having timed exclusivity. I understand them seeking it. I also understand that having the financial and developer support of just one console company can substantially improve your game from what it otherwise would have been and give the Tomb Raider name an extra sense of specialness that it is valuable enough to be wanted as an exclusive for a while.

Sea of thieves looks nice as a multiplayer game and everything but I hope that they can incorporate a strong single player game in there- or do a spin off adventure full of fighting off pirates in the jungle, that kind of thing.

I don't care about Halo at all and aren't even all that interested in Gears of War.

[peshkavusCA]

It's always about money. You can use any smart wording but it all comes down to money ;) Sony or MS.