410°

Will Rise of The Tomb Raider's Timed Exclusivity Harm the Franchise?

Poli Games Discusses whether or not the Time Exclusivity and competitive holiday season is ultimately hurting the games chances at being successful.

Read Full Story >>
thepolinetwork.com
BlackPanther3178d ago

I can't see how it will be doomed. It looks even better than the last one which will mean it will be a highly rated game. It will sell well this holiday I suppose and even more on PC and PS4 next year.

And by the time it hits the PS4 we could be looking at 40+ million potential customers.

Poli_Games3178d ago

Yeah ill be getting this probably on Ps4 next year. Hopefully by that time theres like a GOTY edition with all the dlc.

Cindy-rella3178d ago

Ill get the better version and potentially the best version of rise of the tomb raider next year on ps4. The ps4 is way more powerful than the xbox one so with a longer time to optimize the ps4 version on its powerful hardware i expect a better version with high production value to entice people to buy the game. I cant wait for the ps4 version

donthate3178d ago

cindy:

I expect the game to be a port so the only increase is raw processing power. They probably won't bother optimizing it too much, because it will already be good.

The biggest value is likely getting a cheaper game or all the DLC included.

Thunder_G0d_Bane3178d ago

@Cindy,

Could you possibly say ps4 more in one paragraph?

Chanogram3178d ago

@Poli
Thanks for not being a fanboy idiot. After reading Cindy's reply below, then re-reading yours, it was refreshing. I hope everyone who buys this game, on any platform, enjoys it.

WowSoChill3178d ago

Microsoft's Tomb Raider Exclusivity will hurt the Franchise but Sony's Timed Exclusivity with Street Fighter 5 will not because that's how it works around here on N4G you got that?

damn peasents

FITgamer3178d ago

I'll pick it up on PC when it's below $20, just like the last one.

magiciandude3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

MS has been working with Crystal Dynamics for optimizing the game on the Xbox One. They are getting the game to perform at 1080p among other good things that fanboys can't stand hearing about. :)

This isn't hurting the franchise. What this will hurt, however, is Sony as they have no exclusives lined up for the biggest time of the year for gaming. MS should actually work like this with more developers. I can see them winning over other major AAA releases as the lead platform.

Rookie_Monster3178d ago

@cindy,

It seems like you are wishing it would be like the x360 version of the game compared to the PS4 version but that won't happen as the game was optimized for current gen spec and is already at 1080p. Sure a couple if DLCs might be included for the PS4 version but that is about it. Just logic really.

DragonKnight3178d ago

@WowSoChill: "Sony's Timed Exclusivity with Street Fighter 5"

SFV is not timed exclusive, it's fully console exclusive. It will not be on the Xbox One ever. And according to Capcom, it won't hurt the franchise because they chose to make it exclusive so as not to dilute the tournament scene with too many devices.

suckingeggs3178d ago

Hurt the franchise? I I dont think so

Hurt this chapter in the series? most definitely.. By the time it releases this year there going to be missing out on maybe 28-29 million extra customers

Really bad decision

SonofGod3178d ago

@Cindy-rella

Goood for yooou

Poli_Games3178d ago

@m0lton Oh boy this is the second time this week i've been called a fanboy. First i was called an xbox fanboy and now a Playstation fanboy. I just want to let the record show i own an Xbox1, PS4, PC, and a WiiU (its my brothers but, i use it sooooo much more then he does) Any way i just want to apologize if you took me for some fanboy.

You see I'm probably waiting on this game for the fact that Fallout 4, Halo 5 and Battlefront are going to devour my time this holiday season. Oh and college of course! So i rather wait till its affordable or sometime of GOTY edition. For the sake of my wallet.

Lastly @molton (sorry if i disrespected your name by using letters instead of numbers) At the end of my video here i go on to say that i don't agree with what Sony and Microsoft are doing by buying out Multi platforms and turning them into exclusives, timed exclusive or otherwise.

gangsta_red3178d ago

@DragonKnight

"It will not be on the Xbox One ever."

If we know Capcom's history then we know that won't be true as they did the same with Street Fighter 2 until Super came out. Capcom still owns the IP and could very easily throw Hyper in the title and release it on Xbox One later.

"they chose to make it exclusive so as not to dilute the tournament scene with too many devices."

Dilute...? There's really only two consoles SF is featured on and the tournament scene mainly used 360's.

Capcom chose to make it exclusive because Sony dumped bags of cash on their desk.

DragonKnight3178d ago

@gangsta_red: "If we know Capcom's history then we know that won't be true as they did the same with Street Fighter 2 until Super came out. Capcom still owns the IP and could very easily throw Hyper in the title and release it on Xbox One later."

Not even remotely the same thing. For one, Street Fighter 2 is an ancient game, collections are rarely ever exclusive and no one would expect them to be. 2. Capcom insists there will only be one version of SFV and this is backed by their financial situation, which I will elaborate on in a minute.

"Dilute...? There's really only two consoles SF is featured on and the tournament scene mainly used 360's."

1. These are Capcom's words. They are the ones who said they don't want multiple device options for tournaments, they want a unified experience. 2. 360s were used for exactly one SF game (expansions are counted as the same game because, well they are the same game just with additions), and the 360 was the lead console of that generation, but don't assume that that means it has a bigger following on Xbox because it doesn't. It's simply a matter of efficiency.

"Capcom chose to make it exclusive because Sony dumped bags of cash on their desk."

Would be true if that's how it happened, except that's not how it happened. Capcom have stated repeatedly that they approached Sony and asked for their help, Sony confirmed this. The reason they approached Sony was because if they didn't, they weren't satisfied with when the game would release. In other words, the game would still have released, but because they aren't in the best place financially (we know this due to those articles talking about how they only had less than $200 million in the bank) it would have been a considerably longer wait, and likely much less content before we saw it.

Capcom wanted help from Sony, so to expect Sony not to have conditions attached to said help would be naive. Microsoft wanted exclusivity and SE didn't need the help, that's the difference.

gangsta_red3178d ago

@Dragon

"Capcom insists there will only be one version of SFV and this is backed by their financial situation, which I will elaborate on in a minute"

You actually believe what Capcom says? As cynical as you are with all other games and the gaming media the PR statements of what these big devs/publishers say to the public, I am really surprised that you would take Capcom's word at face value.

"Would be true if that's how it happened, except that's not how it happened. Capcom have stated repeatedly that they approached Sony and asked for their help, Sony confirmed this."

Please provide a link to support this.

And even if there is a story that says this, you believe this? Square said that MS has given more support with development, marketing and retail with the new TR. Do you believe that from them?

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

Why would Capcom need Sony's help? Sony's help in supporting their number one most profitable franchise? The number one fighting game in the world? A game that has been going on for over 8 years and has had numerous updates, DLC, new modes and new characters without the aid or support of Sony.

Capcom still owns Street Fighter, not Sony. If you think that Capcom can't add a Hyper, Super or anything else in front of SF and not release it on other platforms then it's actually you who is being naive.

Sony needed a huge IP that would be supported for years like SF4 on their system alone, to be used in tourny's around the world (like the 360) and that would not only be good promotion but great marketing for their system alone.

There's an article saying that Capcom didn't give Ono a budget for the next SF.

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

That doesn't mean Capcom didn't have the money. It's safe to assume that Sony had already dropped the bags of cash on Capcom's desk and was developing SFV. Also notice how Ono states there would be no SF4 on the new systems, this is also not true. So why believe Capcom now when they have lied before many times in the past?

Sony money-hatted the game, the same way MS did for TR. Sony was smarter by locking this version of SF down.

DragonKnight3178d ago

@gangsta_red: "You actually believe..."

My cynicism is always tempered by reality. Capcom doesn't have the money to make multiple versions of SFV, they barely had the money to make SFV on their own in a timely manner. That is the biggest evidence there is to take them at their word about it. They've never said about any other SF game that there wasn't going to be multiple versions of the game, but they have about SFV.

"Please provide a link to support this.

And even if there is a story that says this, you believe this? Square said that MS has given more support with development, marketing and retail with the new TR. Do you believe that from them?"

So you want me to provide proof, that you will then say is irrelevant because since you don't believe it it's obviously not true? But here you go, straight from Ono himself.

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

"When we first began working on what's next for the vision of the Street Fighter franchise, we reached out to PlayStation," Ono said through a translator."

"It was clear to match the passion of Street Fighter fans around the world, we needed the combined strength of both Capcom and PlayStation," said Ono."

And no, I don't believe MS are funding development because Phil Spencer said he would never fund a competitor's game, and that's exactly what he'd be doing if he funded TR because it's coming to the PS4 in a year. That's Business 101.

"Why would Capcom ..."

So you think that just because Street Fighter is Capcom's number one franchise it means they always have butt loads of money to fund development by themselves? You do remember that Capcom was on the verge of bankruptcy just a year ago right? And that's WITH SFIV and all of its versions being multiplat.

"Capcom still owns..."

Who cares if they own it? You do know what contracts are right? Keep holding on to the hope if you want to, but it makes you the naive one. All evidence, including the very nature of the business deal, proves that SFV is not coming to Xbox One. I suggest you learn to deal with it.

"Sony needed a huge IP..."

No they didn't. Again, Capcom approached them. A multiplatform SFV would still be mostly a PS4 game due to the fact that PS4 is the lead console this gen. Sony was in a win/win situation no matter what happened. They didn't need SFV at all, but why not make a deal for its exclusivity when the dev themselves come to you with that as a proposal? Sony has Destiny DLC locked down, that's the long haul support game for them. Doesn't matter if it's tourney or not.

DragonKnight3178d ago

Part 2: "That doesn't mean..."

Again, Ono said THEY approached Sony, and that link is absolutely saying they didn't have the money. It in fact says it in the very headline. Also "no plans" is not the same as "this is a real partnership, there will never be a version of Street Fighter V on any other platform." Plans can change, contracts can't unless there is mutual agreement.

"Sony money-hatted the game, the same way MS did for TR. Sony was smarter by locking this version of SF down."

If by money hat you mean listen to Capcom's proposal, agree to it, and then draft a contract then yeah. But that's not money hatting. MS approached SE, not the other way around. Spencer is on record saying he'll never fund a competitor's game, so we know that if Spencer had any inkling that the game was going to PS4, then MS is not funding development. TR was announced initially as multiplat and MS bought exclusivity. That didn't happen with SFV and you have provide no evidence to the contrary. All you're doing is saying "I don't believe Capcom, so it's factually coming to Xbox One and Sony just bought timed exclusivity."

Ezz20133178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

@gangsta_red

****"It will not be on the Xbox One ever."

If we know Capcom's history then we know that won't be true as they did the same with Street Fighter 2 until Super came out. Capcom still owns the IP and could very easily throw Hyper in the title and release it on Xbox One later.****

Do you have any prove that say it's timed exclusive ?!
Any thing that prove Capcom didn't approach Sony first?!

Also, wait...
""Sony money-hatted the game, the same way MS did for TR. Sony was smarter by locking this version of SF down. ""

Lol You say that Sony is smart enough to lock down SFV unlike Microsoft deal with TR
and yet right before that you say
it's timed exclusive and will come to Xbox one ?!0_o

So which is it ...A locked down exclusive to Sony or timed exclusive ?!

gangsta_red3178d ago

@Ezz

I have just about as much proof given and about as much speculative reasons as you and Dragon are giving everyone else.

"Lol You say that Sony is smart enough to lock down SFV
and yet right before that you say
it's timed exclusive and will come to Xbox one ?!0_o"

I also said that Capcom could easily throw a Super, Hyper or Ultra in front and release the game on other consoles @_@ (see how reading comprehension works).

Sony locked down Street Fighter V, no doubt, but that doesn't mean Capcom who owns the IP couldn't release another version like Super Hyper Street Fighter V: Championship Edition Turbo on other consoles later in the future.

understand Ezz? Now moving on to grown folks..

@Dragonknight
"My cynicism is always tempered by reality."

Again, how do you figure Capcom has no money to make a sequel to one of their biggest IP's in their catalog? That's like EA saying they have no money to develop the next Madden. You would have to be insane to believe Capcom doesn't have any funds to make the most popular fighting game in franchise history and yet have money to make Dragon's Dogma MMO, remake of RE2, remaster of RE0 and the rumored RE7 and anything else coming down their pipeline non SF related.

====
"When we first began working on what's next for the vision of the Street Fighter franchise, we reached out to PlayStation," Ono said through a translator."

"It was clear to match the passion of Street Fighter fans around the world, we needed the combined strength of both Capcom and PlayStation," said Ono.
====

You're kidding right? This is the same Ono that said Capcom didn't give him a budget or staff for SFV. But all of a sudden his staff reached out to Playstation?

The combined strength of Capcom and Playstation!? What strength, what combination could possibly be had? That sounds like complete and utter marketing PR and it's hilarious that you would believe that and even quote it here.

The combination of Sony's money and Capcom is the only strength that made this current SFV. There's is nothing so far about SFV that couldn't be done on Xbox One technically. There's no custom built for the PS4 as you would like to think. There is no special design or gameplay that could only be done on PS4.

Also read the wording of your article...

"PlayStation 4 will be the only console Street Fighter 5 ever appears on,"

Notice that they didn't state any other iteration which there has been many of in the past could not come to another console. A contract perhaps for Street Fighter V, but none for Hyper Super...you get the idea.

Ono also confirmed that SF4 was not in development for next gen systems. Did you believe him when he said that because not long after SF4 is coming to PS4 from Capcom.

It's strange that you'll believe everything out of Capcoms mouth especially after them milking the SF series, being caught locking content on their disc and selling it as DLC and handing their DmC franchise to Ninja Theory and saying how awesome the game was, the whole Mega Man Legends 3 fiasco and other things related. All that and yet you believe Capcom went to Sony because they and Sony said so...

Ezz20133178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

@gangsta_red
""I have just about as much proof given and about as much speculative reasons as you and Dragon are giving everyone else. ""

No you didn't give a single prove
You have yet to prove with links that
Capcom didn't approach Sony first
or that it's timed exclusive

and No
Sony won't publish the game and pay for it only to keep it's name....this is Sony after all.
This is not your favorite company who love to pay loads of money for only timed exclusives

So again i ask you
Is it a locked down exclusive to Sony or timed exclusive ?!
Yes or No ....and back your comment with links.

**understand Ezz? Now moving on to grown folks**

Yes i understand you have nothing to back you up
and you are not among grown folks
because if you are
you would not go to Ps4 articles to downplay
and you wouldn't find the need to pretened to own ps4.. when you clearly don't.

freshslicepizza3178d ago

dk,
"SFV is not timed exclusive, it's fully console exclusive. It will not be on the Xbox One ever."

you say it like it has your stamp of approval.

"And according to Capcom, it won't hurt the franchise because they chose to make it exclusive so as not to dilute the tournament scene with too many devices."

right. amazing how bloodborne going to the pc is a bad idea because of whatever reason we can think of for that day (other than sony owns the rights and doesn't want to) but street fighter is ok.

"Capcom wanted help from Sony, so to expect Sony not to have conditions attached to said help would be naive. Microsoft wanted exclusivity and SE didn't need the help, that's the difference."

you don't have a clue what actually goes on behind closed doors. square could have needed the help too, otherwise they wouldn't bother signing the deal. people love to choose sides, that's all this is. no matter if sony embarks on timed exclusive deals for destiny and no mans sky or microsoft does for tomb raider and call of duty in prior years. so many find excuses and flip flop back and forth.

exclusives are to exclude others, how is that good for consumers at the end of the day no matter how hard anyone tries and validates it.

DragonKnight3178d ago

@gangsta_red: *sigh* You're really going to make me repeat myself for a third time aren't you? Ok.

"Again, how do you figure Capcom.."

Their own financial issues last year. Again, this was DURING SFIV's tenure. It doesn't matter how big your franchise is if it's not being successful enough for you as a company. Plus, your own article had Ono saying he didn't have the money or the staff. So now you're arguing against your own evidence.

"You're kidding right?... "

*facepalm* The information is right there for you, plain as the nose on your face, and you're STILL blind to it? Pay attention. Capcom didn't give him the money or the staff to make the game. So what option does someone have when they need money and staff for a game and aren't given it? Why they go to someone with money and ask for it. *gasp* Such a shocking concept right?

"The combined strength..."

So you believe Ono when he says he didn't have the staff or the money, but don't believe him about the PS4 and the relationship. Your bias is showing.

"The combination of Sony's..."

Everything you just said is completely irrelevant. You made no point other than to say that SFV can be put on the Xbox One. Yes, it can be. But it's not going to be. The game is being built with the PS4 in mind, behind a partnership deal Capcom approached Sony for. That's all you need to know.

"Notice that they didn't state any other iteration..."

Do you want me to link the myriad articles that state no other iteration is being made and that the game is 100% exclusive to PS4? Because there are a lot of them and it'd be repetitious but your nitpicking would be destroyed.

"Ono also confirmed.."

Nope. He said there were no plans. No plans means no plans at the time. That's very different from "this is a real partnership and as such there will be no other iteration on any other platform."

"It's strange that you'll..."

They never lied about multiple SF iterations, they never lied about DmC being different, on-disc DLC is completely irrelevant because they never said they'd never do that. You're trying to invent reasons Capcom are lying, and trying to invent the idea that Sony money hatted the game when every where you look every source says Capcom approached Sony. What reason is there to lie about that, especially when Sony flat out admitted to approaching FromSoft for Bloodborne? Get over it, SF is not coming to Xbox One and MS bought exclusivity for TR after it was initially announced as multiplat.

gangsta_red3178d ago

@Ezz

Lol...okay..I'm going to explain it to you again really simple and hopefully this time you'll understand.

"you didn't give a single prove
You have yet to prove with links that
Capcom didn't approach Sony first
or that it's timed exclusive"

Which is why I said I have given about as much proof and as much speculation as you and Dragon provided. Meaning you and Dragon didn't give anything enough to warrant your own opinions and statements as facts.

Why must I provide even more proof when you and Dragon are making up what you believe happened between Sony and Capcom with hardly any facts of your own. Understand?

"Sony won't publish the game and pay for it only to keep it's name...."

Sony doesn't own the name! Lmao! Your favorite company isn't buying the IP Street Fighter from Capcom, they are buying it's exclusivity for their PS4 system.

"Is it a locked down exclusive to Sony or timed exclusive ?!"

How about you read exactly what I said...I'll try this again.

Sony has locked down the rights for Street Fighter 5, this does not mean however that Capcom can't release another version of Street Fighter 5: Hyper Edition (for example) on other platforms. Sony still holds the locked exclusive rights for everything Street Fighter 5, but not anything after that.

"because if you are
you would not go to Ps4 articles to downplay
and you wouldn't find the need to pretened to own ps4.. when you clearly don't."

Downplay what exactly? What and how am I downplaying the PS4 system Ezz? Pretend to own a PS4? Why would I pretend to own a PS4, does this mean that anyone who owns a PS4 can now downplay it? LOL!

Lmao! Ezz...you're hilarious if you think I'm going to give an angry sony fan(..y) who constantly trolls my replies my personal gamertag.

Like I said before, I'm flattered that you want it so bad though.

DragonKnight3178d ago

@saltybread: Your entire post is filled with irrelevance and was written with the sole purpose of being a contrarian. With that in mind, I'll still respond to your erroneous statements.

"you say it like it has your stamp of approval."

No I don't. That's just your contrarian attitude looking for a reason to apply a label to me. You can't judge even IF the quote you mined had any particular emotion put behind it because it's written. So basically you're just projecting.

"right. amazing how bloodborne..."

You argue like a woman. You know, how they'll bring up irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand either to just get a reaction out of you to get you to the point of saying something stupid thus completely discrediting you and your argument, or because they don't have an actual argument to make but are arguing just for the sake of it. Bloodborne has nothing to do with this. It's a new IP and SFV isn't. Do try to stay on topic.

"you don't have a clue.."

Except Phil Spencer would not fund development of a competitor's game. SE didn't need the help, clearly evidenced by the fact that TR was originally announced as a multiplatform game and then a month later reannounced as a timed exclusive. So to follow your logic Phil Spencer paid to have the PS4 and PC versions eventually made and Square Enix needed help to make a game they already announced as multiplatform. Also, a studio that needs help approaches publishers, not the other way around. Titanfall is the perfect example of this.

So tough luck buttercup. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your post.

Ezz20133178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

@gangsta_red

Yes you must provide a prove
you don't have a prove to any thing
Also why you said this then in other article as a fact :

///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. ///

Tell me how do you know how much Sony paid for it ?!
how do you know that they paid more than Microsoft ?!
and how do you know that Sony paid for it to only apper on Ps4 first ?!

and where did i ever said anything as a fact about SFV ?!...i asked you for prove while i never said any thing as a fact
Where is your prove that it's Timed exclusive like TR?!

also
What would i do with your PSN ?!..other than know you are saying the truth or not.
I dared you to show your PSN ..but you don't have one
how can i harm you in any way ?!
My PSN in my profile ..no one is doing anything to it.

Also, I don't need your "Imaginary" PSN anymore
You don't own Ps4 ....you are a lier.

freshslicepizza3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

dk,
"Bloodborne has nothing to do with this. It's a new IP and SFV isn't. Do try to stay on topic."

why isn't it? you seem to flip flop with your reasoning why you think it's a bad idea to have bloodborne come to the pc and it had to do with the pc platform and its users. so now all of the sudden it's ok with street fighter because it would hurt the tournament scene because of too many devices but in this case it's ok to be also on the pc? yeah ok.

tomb raider is getting assistance just like capcom is for street fighter. whether it be in helping development or helping in marketing, it is financial aide either way and they would not agree to it if they didn't need the money. sqaure-enix is not the same company they were 20 years ago and neither is capcom. so tell me, why is deep down a ps4 exclusive? why was dead rising 3 exclusive? how about lost planet last generation? capcom clearly likes the idea of getting exclusive games done just like square enix and their last remnant and other deals. so go ahead and believe the pr that without sony street fighter would be dead.

this has all the markings of favoring one hardware company more than the other. you either accept exclusive deals or you don't. none of this 'well in this case it's ok because...'. not gonna happen. the whole premise of exclusive deals is to hurt your competitor and in sony's case with street fighter and various other deals they want to make sure they control that ip and limit its userbase forever. with tomb raider it will only sting for a year yet sony fans are up in arms about it and actually approve of sony locking down ip's with third party publishers.

DragonKnight3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

@saltybread: "why isn't it?"

Because it isn't. Again Bloodborne is a new IP, Street Fighter isn't. I did say that putting Bloodborne on PC is a bad idea and I stand by it. As a fan of the Souls series since Demon's Souls, I've seen all the worst parts of the community and the absolute worst part is the PC gamers entering the franchise because they are the ones who created Cheat Engine and they are the ones who make the multiplayer a pointless endeavor for people looking to enjoy PvP. Also, go ahead and search through my comment history and find a quote, or even an implication, that I said A) It's good for SFV to be on PC OR B) It's good for SFV to be exclusive. Go on, I dare you. And don't come back with your B.S. interpretations of what you think I'm saying because they're laced with your contrarian attitude and bias.

"tomb raider is..."

Yes, let's ignore the monumental difference between buying exclusivity by funding the publishing costs and funding a game so it can exist. I mean, they're both exactly the same situation right? If MS didn't give SE money, TR would still be made, be multiplatform, and SE would have to foot the publishing bills. *gasp* SE have never self-funded a game before have they? Oh wait. If Capcom didn't approach Sony, Ono MAY have EVENTUALLY received the funds and the staff to make SFV, or maybe not, but I take it Ono would rather have a guarantee that the game can be made than the hope that it might be. So yeah, I can definitely see how a game that was definitely being made without a platform holder's help anyway (as it was announced and slated to be multiplatform) is exactly the same as a game that may or may not have been made at all. Definitely identical.

"this has all the markings.."

Oh do come off your high horse PC gamer. You don't give a damn what other people are playing, you care about you're playing. You don't give a damn what platforms get what games, you care about what games YOU get. Stop pretending otherwise. What your comments have all the markings of are illiteracy (as evidenced by the fact that you clearly don't read what I say), bias, contrarianism, and dishonesty. You keep implying that I've said this is a good thing and you know I haven't. But that's unsatisfactory for you, you need people to commit to a position that you can either attack or feel good about being a part of. Well too bad for you I don't really care what your opinion of exclusives are so I'm not really obligated to commit to any position you want me to.

I play Street Fighter casually for a while when it first comes out, then I get bored and never play it again. I couldn't care less where SFV is going, but I will comment on how things are. So get used to it because you're sure as hell not going to change anything.

Spotie3178d ago

Just watching the mental gymnastics moldy and gangsta go through to try and legitimize points that make no sense is exhausting.

That said, it takes true skill... SOME kinda skull, I guess... to write up do many lengthy comments that are so wrong, and yet so consistent.

Here, anyway.

freshslicepizza3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

@Spotie,

if microsoft bought street fighter and did exactly what sony is doing you'd have 143 reasons why it would be a bad idea. so don't even start.

dk,

you're right dk, i do care what games i get to play but unlike the many folks here i don't care if those games go to other systems. unlike you who is very adamant ffvii will never see the light of day on the xbox. you see, i don't get paid to oversell a product for a company i am not employed by. making games accessible should be the priority. will it harm the ip by signing a deal with microsoft? i doubt it if it's a good game. most people are not as loyal as many would like to believe. ps4 owners will pick it up but square enix will do the same mistake ea did with mass effect. they will charge ps4 owners full price but add extra content to make up for it. meanwhile it will be far less on the pc and xbox by then.

DragonKnight3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

@saltybread: "unlike you who is very adamant ffvii will never see the light of day on the xbox."

And so now you're going to explain the logic behind the reasoning that stating a game will not appear on a platform also equals caring whether it does or not.

Stop trying to B.S. everyone. The reason you brought this up is because you in fact do care about games being on certain platforms. Except for you it's an extreme "all games should be on all platforms" view that lacks any basic understanding of the logistical problems, the quality issues, and the market problems that that would entail.

You're going to sit here and flip flop like a pancake trying to pretend that you care about gamers and want all games to be equally available at the same time, and yet you're the person who made the case that we should be paying $100 for games. You make these statements that you're not being paid by X company to fanboy it up for them, and yet at the same time take a very pro-corporate stance when it comes to the cost of games.

You remind me of MundaneMatt. A flip flopping, fence sitting, non-committal, lazy loser addicted to weed who will say one thing, then contradict himself. Like I said earlier, get off your high horse. Stop trying with this nonsense holier than thou attitude like you care one bit about anyone else's entertainment but your own. If tomorrow SE announced that FFVII will be appearing on the Xbox One, I'd wager the most satisfaction you'd get out of that wouldn't be that Xbox One gamers get to play the game, because you don't have an Xbox One and you're not those gamers, but it would be from you coming here to tell me I was wrong. Admit it. You'd definitely be that petty. Which proves that you don't really give a damn about games being exclusive, but you sure as hell will pretend you do.

Which is hilarious given you don't have any of the current gen consoles and so have no stake in this at all. I guess it's just you love the font of your own type.

4Sh0w3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

Nah it will be fine, gamers are fickle and fanboys principles are made up BS which is an even more set of fickle ideas than normal gamers have, fanboys flip flop based on whichever piece of plastic they praise. No doubt if the next Tomb Raider went exclusive to sony they'll praise SE/CD on making a "smart decision" or tell us how much "love of sony" brought them back to ps= fanboys stand for nothing. Many of those who troll ROTR threads now jumped for joy when news of SF5 exclusivity broke now the same hypocrites that will conveniently try to convince others the deals are very different so what sony did is OK.

Muerte24943178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

If you think this game's sales wont be hindered by star wars and fallout 4 you are sadly mistaken. Both of those games have much larger markets than your TPS market.

But will the game's overall performance be hurt for being a timed exclusive, yes. From a logical standpoint, xbox one has less than half of ps4 install and PC has a much larger install base. Then there is an attachment ratio, this is where those TPS demographics come into play. I think the most it could sell is 3 million on Xbox One. That's with the attachment ratio at around 25%.

Then making ps4 and PC wait an entire year will definitely impact their sales. Not saying the 3 million is impossible but fallout and star wars will definitely take away some of those sales.

freshslicepizza3178d ago

dk, i never once said we should be paying $100 for games. you just love to dramatize everything because in your mind we should all pick one side or the other. that way it makes it easy for you to label people. what i said is i understand why games have dlc locked away and i also understand how prices of games have remained stagnant for such a long time without taking into consideration how development costs have gone up. it would be marketing suicide if they charged $100 for games. this is why we see so few new ip's and why the aaa market is floundering with new ideas.

what i will admit is that yes i am fully supportive of an open market that does away with exclusive games when in most cases there really is no need for it. all it does is fuel segregation among gamers and you are prime example of that. your views on xbox fans and pc fans is evident of that. this very site is evident of that and i don't blame you or the members here for acting that way. i blame the companies who promote exclusion of others in order to sell hardware.

as for ffvii i don't really care about proving you wrong or right. you are not my nemesis. my eyes are on the bigger prize and that is getting games out there to more people. and what microsoft has done here is basically kill off any hopes of this game coming to the ps3. a system i do own and still use to this day. yes it's coming to the pc which suits me just fine but it sucks for ps3 owners and in a years time the ps3 will be dead. the xbox 360 is basically on life support right now but microsoft must believe this game will sell enough to warrant their investment. but by fall of 2016 we will be in full swing of the new hardware and i doubt we will see any game support at all for the older hardware. probably why square isn't even going to bother with the ps3 but to compensate there might be the nintendo nx version.

Spotie3178d ago

Why don't you have rookie or somebody go look through my comment history for what I thought of Bayonetta 2, moldy?

Oh, that's right: cuz you won't find anything like what you accuse me of. You just need the accusation, not any evidence supporting it.

There WOULD be a problem, though, one shared with Tomb Raider. There are simply more fans of SF on Playstation. It'd be great that the game would ACTUALLY be funded and thus exist in the first place, but just as with Bayonetta, the majority of the game's fans would be on another console.

Street Fighter, though, can do something Bayonetta and TR can't: move consoles.

But enough of that. You guys can make all the excuses you want, but the truth is still that TR and SF are different types of deals under different conditions, and the one that involves Microsoft is likely to be less successful.

_-EDMIX-_3177d ago

@Gangster Red- The issue is MS has a history of doing timed games, Sony...not so much.

RE Reveleations 2 which is coming to Vita because of Sony actually wanting the game on Vita, Capcom could not afford to put it on the 3DS nor Wii U...thus...its not there.

Look at Monster Hunter series, look at even Dead Rising 3, MS published that game on XONE, not Capcom.

Its really starting to look like Capcom really doesn't have the money as even years prior with Dead Rising or Lost Planet, Capcom still published and the series still come else were on PS3 or Wii etc.

Now....we don't see Dead Rising 3 going off of PC, its starting to sound as if, its not based on it still being timed, its likely based on they don't have the money.

Like you said....Capcom owns the IP.

Yes....they do. Do they not own the IP to Dead Rising 3? Yet...we don't have a D3 port to PS4 even with PS4 selling as well as it is, it likely means they don't have the funding for a port or can't afford it I'd rather say.

When folks stated Tomb Raider would be heading towards PS4 prior to the announcement, many where stating the classic "MS is publishing so no" or "did Dead Rising or Ryse" etc.

Why is all of a sudden SFV different? I mean...is Dead Rising 3 on PS4? If D3 isn't on the best selling console right now, what chances do you think SFV will have on one of the worst selling?

Sony is funding the SFIV port to Vita and PS4 and Revelations 2, and parts of Deep Down are literally being worked by Sony networking staff on top of SFV deal.

Its really starting to show that unlike other publishers....Capcom doesn't have the available funding to port some of those titles EVERYWHERE and its really, really telling and bad.

A port legit can cost around 1 million, if they don't have such a budget to do that, its very, very telling of their situation.

Again...consider they've yet to port D3 on the best selling platform.

If you think SFV will go to XONE, thats nice, but Capcom's money sorta starting to really, really question that if you consider D3 isn't again on PS4 and Sony is funding many of their projects...

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

Mind you....that was last year, Sony very much might be in talks to buy out either some of their IPs or the whole company in general...I mean...are they not already funding many Capcom projects? Long term investments vs short term, they legit might be ready to just buy them out.

_-EDMIX-_3177d ago

@Gangster-

"Capcom insists there will only be one version of SFV and this is backed by their financial situation, which I will elaborate on in a minute"

You actually believe what Capcom says?"

I mean...did you with Dead Rising 3? I mean...that has yet to show up on PS4.

This gen, we've seen Square shift early on to PS4 development as its main platform.

Last gen, it took them a while to get to that and Square released more content on PS3 then on 360 for the whole gen, they took the Sega route as they've likely looked at Sega and saw that Sega was releasing titles on 360 sometimes, and MOST times was releasing PS3 only titles, they saved money, bought Relic, bought Creative Assembly, bought Altus, many hate on Sega ,but they BANKED last gen on some great studios and IPs. They didn't not stretch themselves out trying to make ALL GAMES on ALL PLATFORMS.

Square followed the second half of last gen making PS3 only titles with many, many games. This gen, they are starting JUST as fast limiting platforms, Nier 2, World of FF, FFVII, Star Ocean 5, DQ 11 etc.

Who is to say that Capcom is not following Square and Sega's concept and saving by banking on Japanese hardware as suppose to risking investments on XONE?

Square is doing it now, Sega has BEEN doing it last gen and their teams they bought very much show it....they again OWN ATLUS NOW! Capcom needs it MORE then Square and Sega, they need to buckle down and start limiting platforms and saving some money. Many have come to the conclusion that releasing on both systems world wide may not get them huge numbers ie the cost to develop on one system didn't even pay for the development of the other.

Some of the older RE's sold BETTER on 1 platform then some of the RE's on both PS3 and 360 (ie RE6). Sooooo was it worth it for them? Last gen was one of the WORST gen's for BOTH Square and Capcom.

Square is fixing that and I think Capcom is looking to as well, as notice Capcom isn't even making RE2002 remaster nor RE Zero on Wii U, or Revelations 2 on Wii U nor 3DS, now no D3 on PS4 yet D2 on PS3? I'm sorry but its just starting to show that maybe Capcom tried doing both platforms last gen and they are nearly bankrupt because of it. It clearly didn't help them and Square either as look at what they are doing now.

SFV may be exclusive not because JUST Sony but really because Capcom can't afford the funding nor risk.

Like you said...do they not own the IP? Yet....D3? I mean Sony doesn't own the Yakuza IP yet its no on 360 or XONE, Sony doesn't own the Onimusha IP yet only 1 title came to XB. Sony doesn't own the KH IP yet most titles didn't go to XB, only 1 is now with KH3.

This may not be a timed, or deal thing, they legit may be they have no plans to keep wasting money trying to be the Japanese EA, clearly Square got that memo and its likely Capcom is getting that too.

+ Show (33) more repliesLast reply 3177d ago
Abash3178d ago

Its not doomed, but it's going to fly under the radar for a lot of people because it releases the same day as Fallout 4. Not to mention a ton of other big games release shortly before it and right after.

I think it's very unlikely it will have a huge launch like Microsoft and SE are hoping, but it will manage especially with a PS4 and PC version happening later

BlackPanther3178d ago

It may be something where MS bundles it into an Xbox One with a game like Fallout 4 and it sells like hotcakes over the holiday.

We will see but I hope it does well because I want more games.

3178d ago
Revolver_X_3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

@Boundtoscale

You must not realize how big Fallout 4 is going to be. We're talking about a GOTY favorite, and it isn't even out yet. Fallout 4 is a multiplatform true, but you will see the first week. We will just compare ROTR and Fallout4 sales for the first week on X1 only. Its wont even be close. Then with Halo, Gears Remake, and Forza, ROTR just runs the risk of falling under the radar the entire Holiday season. Once we get into the AAA franchises that are multiplatform, that sale 3x or more then ROTR, it starts to look a little grim for the game. ROTR will underperform, this is obvious. It is a quality game and I for one will buy it on PC, but it should have just moved its timeline back to next year.

3178d ago
green3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

Well, i am buying Tomb Raider and not Fallout 4. I tried to get into Fallout 3 when it launched but just did not like it hence my gamerscore of just 60. As for Tomb Raider, been a fan since the PS era and also loved the reboot.

Infact, i am so not interested in Fallout 4 that the only video i have seen of the game was when it was shown at Microsoft E3 press conference.

People can disagree all they want but In the end i agree with @BoundToScale. Fallout 4 will do very well and so will Tomb Raider because they are both very different games.

Kal0psia3178d ago

Game value never deteriorates, as long as a game is great it sales. In my opinion even with Fallout 4 Tomb Raider will sale well on the Xbox give or take 1-2 million. But I think Microsoft is mostly betting on US sales to make up the bulk of that.

Also think they're betting on this holiday season their console sales will grow significantly with their tentpole title in Halo 5 launching and strong anticipated titles for next year.

So as long as the game is great it will sale and Square and Crystal Dynamics will have both wins. A deal and a well selling game. Also, why would anyone wait for a year just for a game? lol! By this time some people should have two consoles.

donthate3178d ago

kalopsia is right, great game sell regardless of when it is released although it doesn't mean bad games don't sell, because sometimes they do too.

The game will be bundled and marketed like crazy and will continue to sell long after the first initial days/week.

The previous entry had a long, very long tail for SE to break even.

WowSoChill3178d ago

PS4 will save it, because it just will #logic

DragonKnight3178d ago

A few of you don't seem to understand a few things.

While it is true that Fallout 4 and Tomb Raider are not in direct competition and that people buy multiple games around the holidays, that doesn't mean TR doesn't have to worry about Fallout 4. A lot of games release around the holidays, and each studio is competing for your money. Fallout 4 offers extremely large amounts of content that will last a long time, Tomb Raider doesn't. Personally speaking it looks just like the previous game and I know I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

So because of what Fallout 4 offers in scale alone, it's already got an advantage over TR, not to mention anticipation has been through the roof for Fallout 4 and not really on the same level for TR.

There's also the reality that gamers aren't people with bottomless wallets, and choices will be made. TR has more competition than just Fallout 4.

Now, on to the idea that "a great game will sell well regardless of when it's released." No. No it won't.

Games are consumer products, and no matter how great the product it always sells best earlier than later. PS4 fans are going to have to wait an entire year to get this game, long passed caring about it at all and in a year that will have the superior Uncharted 4 releasing.

By accepting a deal for a year's exclusivity, SE may have thought that they wouldn't be competing against Uncharted 4 as it was still scheduled for 2015 at the time, but you'd better believe they are kicking themselves for it now that TR will have to compete with Uncharted 4. They'd have to offer gamers some real big incentive to purchase it and I don't see that happening.

There will be other games releasing and announced between now and when TR releases on the PS4, and that also gives less reason to buy it.

Timed exclusivity does no one any good except the company that bought the exclusivity. It doesn't do the gamers for that platform any good because they would have had it anyway, it doesn't do other gamers any good because then they just divert their attention and money to other games, and it doesn't do the dev any good because they've just alienated an entire group who, with each passing day, have less and less reason to buy the game when it finally releases on other platforms.

Rookie_Monster3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

Wait Dragonknight,

You said this in one of your blog when Tomb Raider was first announced as a XBox timed exclusive.

"Any kind of exclusivity involving a 3rd party IP is wrong. Praising it is praising the fact that you're happy that millions of other gamers DON'T get to play a game. Praising it is praising it when that company inevitably turns on you in the same way. Contrary to what the corporate a$$ kissers will tell you, these deals benefit no one"

To now the tone changes to just:

"Timed exclusivity does no one any good except the company that bought the exclusivity."

What is sup with the flip floppong from "All exclusivity" are wrong to just "Timed exclusivity is wrong" ?

Any reason behind the all of a sudden changes in your view regarding the right and wrong of exclusivity?

Maybe this is why?
DragonKnight  1h ago
"SFV is not timed exclusive, it's fully console exclusive. It will not be on the Xbox One ever. And according to Capcom, it won't hurt the franchise because they chose to make it exclusive so as not to dilute the tournament scene with too many devices."

Wth, what ever happened to "Contrary to what the corporate a$$ kissers will tell you, these deals benefit no one" ??

ziggurcat3178d ago

@rookie:

as per usual, you're taking everything out of context.

"What is sup with the flip floppong from "All exclusivity" are wrong to just "Timed exclusivity is wrong" ?"

if you actually read what he wrote, you'd understand that he was referring to "3rd party exclusivity", not "all exclusivity."

"Any reason behind the all of a sudden changes in your view regarding the right and wrong of exclusivity?"

he's just speaking solely to the fact that SFV is a console exclusive to PS4, not whether it's right or wrong.

Rookie_Monster3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

@ziggur ^^^,

"if you actually read what he wrote, you'd understand that he was referring to "3rd party exclusivity", not "all exclusivity." 

Wth is sup with these spin? Your reply made no sense to try to damage control for the hypocrisy that has been going on all so often on this site. I of course am talking about third party when I sad "all exclusivity" as in All third party exclusivity because we are in a thread about third party exclusive ...I think you are the one not fully understanding the context. LOL

What do you think the SFV console exclusivity on PS4 is? 1st party exclusive like Bloodborne? I am sure "Any kind of exclusivity involving a 3rd party IP is wrong" implies to both Tomb Raider and SF or any other third part exclusive like COD map packs early 1 month exclusivity or the exclusive extra mission found on a few PS3 AC games.

you can't have it both ways. You either accept it or don't accept it but you can't just favor one over another. There is a word for that.

ziggurcat3178d ago

@rookie:

again... you said, "What is sup with the flip floppong from "All exclusivity" are wrong to just "Timed exclusivity is wrong" ?"

the first quote wasn't referring to *all* exclusivity as being "wrong", he referred specifically to "3rd party exclusivity."

in the second quote, he refers to timed exclusivity as not benefiting anyone but the publishers.

"I am sure "Any kind of exclusivity involving a 3rd party IP is wrong" implies to both Tomb Raider and SF or any other third part exclusive like COD map packs early 1 month exclusivity or the exclusive extra mission found on a few PS3 AC games."

uh huh, and in his third quote he is only talking to the fact that SFV is a console exclusive to PS4, he was not saying that it is "right." he did not imply that he was okay with SFV being console exclusive, and not okay with TR being timed. can you kindly point to where he's said in the last quote you used that specifically points to him saying TR timed exclusivity is bad, and SFV console exclusivity is good?

and the only one spinning anything right now is yourself. your entire argument is taking something someone said, twisting it completely out of context, and spinning it into some childish, condescending "gotcha" argument. you think you're calling out people's hypocrisy, but there's simply none of that going on in this particular case.

DragonKnight3178d ago

@Rookie: Did.... did you really? You really thought that I said first party exclusives are wrong? What? *sigh*

@ziggurcat: Thank you for covering this. You hit the nail on the head and spared me a huge headache.

4Sh0w3178d ago

nah its a flip flop because both games are 3rd party games, 1 is timed one is apparently full exclusive...either way the criticism should be the same if the principle of exclusivity is "wrong" besides 1st party because they essentially cut off part of tge previous fanbase= now your story view seems to have change - flip flop 101.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3178d ago
Thatguy-3103178d ago

The hype isn't there though. The only fact this game is getting the limelight is just for the exclusivity deal. Does anyone know what the pre-order numbers are?

jb2273178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

Honestly when you stack up the footage that's been shown prior to the most recent tomb footage it seems to be more of the same, and its fairly difficult to differentiate from a last gen game visually. Its just all a bit "been there, done that" at this point, and while I'm sure the game will be great fun, its definitely not going to be able to compete w/ all of the visually stunning titles that haven't had prior releases in years dropping during the holidays. It will have a hard time making new fans, so it will be banking on people who are already familiar with the property. Considering over half of those TR fans can't purchase the game, its really hard to say that this will be a huge success.

VGChartz has Tomb Raider's Xbox 360 sales at 1.86 mill as of June 2015 on a console w/ over 80 million sold. They have Tomb Raider's definitive XBO release at a paltry .35 million sold as of June 2015, which dropped in the spring of 2014 during a time where gamers were thirsty for content. Common sense and logic would dictate that between the huge competition and the smaller sales potential, Rise would be lucky to move 750,000 units in six months time, and that's being EXTREMELY generous. I'm sure MS has a deal where they will buy a large amount of the titles in order to bundle them w/ XBO's but even with that number offsetting the actual numbers, it's still not going to be pretty saleswise for the game, that much seems inevitable.

3178d ago Replies(3)
Takwin3178d ago

Playstation gamers will be DEMANDING COMPLETE WITH ALL DLC FOR $30 OR LESS.

I cannot even fathom a scenario where people would pay more then $40 for a year-old console game.

I am still *super salty* over how this all transpired. I will almost definitely buy it on eBay so they don't get any revenue from me and wait until it is around $20.

And boy, did they pick the wrong release day. Fallout 4!!!!

Aloren3178d ago

Well, playstation gamers are paying $40 for the port of a 5 year old PS3 game, so you never know, they might not have any demand at all and just buy the game cause they want it. As they should.

Magicite3178d ago

PC superior version early 2016, yes!

Ikki_Phoenix3178d ago

and will sale crap as usual since you guyz prefer to DL all your games torrent sites

then you call console gamers peasants...lol the irony

Aloren3178d ago

Tomb raider sold 3.2 million copies on steam.
Afaik, it's the most it sold on any platform.
"lol the irony".

showtimefolks3178d ago

simple answer yes, unless Microsoft wrote a check for 350 to 400 million than its not gonna hurt square but the brand of tomb raider maybe

by the time tomb raider come out ps4 could be at 28 plus million while Xbox one could be 14 to 15 plus million(currently ps4 at last reporting was 25.3 and Xbox one was at 13)

Let's say out of that 28 million that a modest 6 million would have bought it at 60, how many of these 6 million will buy it next fall for 60?

max Payne 3
Uncharted 4
crackdown 3
horizon
next assassin creed
next call of duty
possibly forza horizon 3
possibly gt
possibly god of war
star wars games done by dead space and ammy henning from ND

and in between these will that many pay 60 got a year old game?

I am against 3rd party games as exclusives, whether that's for ps4 or Xbox one. Exclusives should come from 1st and 2nd party studios

companies paying money to keep a version from coming out on another console for x numbers of months is not good. Atleast that's my opinion

I am buying tomb raider used. I rather gamestop or ebay get my money Than square enix

Haru3178d ago

28 millions? really..

PS4 Will pass 30 millions this holiday we expect around 45-50 millions by the time this game comes to PS4

3178d ago
Aloren3178d ago

"Let's say out of that 28 million that a modest 6 million would have bought it at 60"

6 million out of 28 ? at 60 ? that's not modest at all, that's crazy high...that's almost the lifetime sales of uncharted 2 on a much bigger install base, and not even a handful PS4 games have sold 6 million copies so far...

AceBlazer133178d ago

Assuming that anyone wants to play a games that would most likely have been spoiled and talked into the dirt a year later. Only way i can see this getting large numbers when it hits next year is if there is a serious drought, a cheaper price tag or a combination of the two.

what ppl feel to realize is that when it drops next year it won't be competing against 2015 games it will be competing against 2016s titles so it will be up against tougher competition.

Mystogan3178d ago

Yeah why don't we see similar articles about SF V?
The double standards lol

Thatguy-3103178d ago

Like that franchise thrives on the Xbox. Not! Tomb raider on the other thrives more so on the Playstation so that's why these are articles are beign made.

lemondish3178d ago

Probably because they're nothing alike no matter how much you Xbots wish it were so.

Seafort3178d ago

40 million? I doubt it. The last game didn't even get 10 million sales.

The devs have segregated the fanbase by having this timed exclusivity BS. It might sell quite well on Xbox just because it's an exclusive this year but the main fanbase for Tomb Raider is on PC and PS.

I'll probably get it for PC next year but it's not a high priority game.

XanderZane3178d ago

I think it will do fine. Probably sell 1.5 - 2 million over the holiday season I'd say. I'm getting both TR and Fallout 4 on the same day. No need to wait for the PC or the PS4 version. By the time the game comes out for the PS4, Microsoft will be bundling the TR: GOTY version in the XB1 for the holidays for free. How many gamers are going to wait for FF VII and Shenmue 3 remake to come to the XB1 or PC? I'll bet, not too many. So why should anyone wait for TR?

lemondish3178d ago

I won't wait.

I just won't play it. They don't want my money anyway.

3178d ago
lemondish3178d ago

It will not sell anywhere close to the last one, and by that metric alone it will be a failure. It ignores the platform with the franchise's largest fanbase, and is exclusive on a dead platform in the franchise's largest market (mainland Europe). It is cross gen and will be releasing alongside Fallout 4 and be competing for gamer's time against CoD, Battlefront, and Halo 5. It will then release a year later on PS4, after Uncharted, Horizon, Division, Mass Effect, and a dozen other big budget AAA titles.

It may not kill the franchise, but it certainly isn't going to help it. This will be a failure any way you cut it.

Locknuts3178d ago

Lol at the disagrees. People seriously don't think that this looks better than the last game?

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 3177d ago
generalwinter3178d ago

It looks good, but as you say other factors can have an impact too. I always root for quality games, so let's hope it's good!

DigitalRaptor3178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

Of course not. Tomb Raider is a great franchise with solid roots.

You would think so by the way in which Microsoft and Square Enix decided to stupidly release it on the same day as FALLOUT 4 (which will absolutely crush it). But it should do better when it comes out 6-12 months later, when there is more visibility to the game during next summer on PC, and during the next holiday season for the PS4.

cfc783178d ago

Fallout 4 looks awesome but it won't last forever and people will need other high quality games to play so while release day TR might not sell huge amounts there are other days where sales are sure to pick up for what looks to be an amazing game.

Godmars2903178d ago

Same day. They're both coming out the *same* freakin day!

If the TR and Fallout crowds and actually one and the same, then TR sales will be effected negatively. With the damage being made up over months.

Nevermind the missed sales from two other platforms. The effect that will also have on any notion of buying a $300 to $400 system plus $60 for a game, over just spending $60 for a game.

gamer78043178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

Fallout is not my type of game I have 0 interest in it. They are very different games.

Revolver_X_3178d ago

This "different game" counterpoint is already getting old. Gamer you are the exception, not the rule. Come 11/10/15 Fallout 4 will dominate in sales and media coverage. ROTR looks great. I wished it just moved back its release to Jan or Feb 2016.

cfc783178d ago

Same day. They're both coming out the *same* freakin day!

Yes and i'll be buying both the same day as will others possibly,theres no rule to buying 1 game at a time as far I know and no rule saying if a game sells badly day 1 then it's doomed for all time.

Hopefully the quality of the game does it justice sales wise over the 3 releases and we can all move on.

dcbronco3178d ago

CFC you're forgetting Fallout will be supporting mods on console this time around so it might have longer than usual legs.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3178d ago
3178d ago
-Foxtrot3178d ago

It's not just Fallout 4 though, there's other games coming out aswell but most people list Fallout 4 because it's been highly anticipated for years and it's coming out the day as Tomb Raider.

So it's not really Fallout 4 Tomb Raider has to go against, it's a number of other games aswell.

cfc783178d ago

So it's not really Fallout 4 Tomb Raider has to go against, it's a number of other games aswell.

Same can be said about all the games it's not just Tomb Raider vs its everyone vs each other.

Captain_TomAN943178d ago

They will need other games like MGSV, Battlefront, and then in the spring Uncharted 4. You see TR doesn't even register compared to these games and that is the problem.

cfc783178d ago (Edited 3178d ago )

So your comparing games youve never played to another game youve never played? makes perfect sense.

Why not try the games 1st then decide if Tomb Raiders got nothing on the others or just condem the game before its release like many others,your choice.

@Captain T

Scores aswell lol your on a role m8.

Captain_TomAN943178d ago

@cfc78

Haha obviously if TR gets a 10 and the others get a 7 things will turn out differently. But we all know that 99% this will happen:

MGSV = 10/10 with a few 9's
FO3 = 9.5/10 with a mix of low and high 9's
BF = 8.5-9.5

TR= Low 8's. Based on the gameplay they have shown it honestly looks like it could get some 7's too.

Ikki_Phoenix3178d ago

"Fallout 4 looks awesome but it won't last forever and people will need other high quality games"

a game that can last 200+hours vs a game that will barely last 5 hours hmmm tough decision...

it will last forever trust me

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3178d ago
Godmars2903178d ago

Of course not.

Not going to do whatever is expected of it, which appears to sell consoles, but its not going to fail.

Likely not going to sell as much as the prior title did, which was available on three platforms and called a disappointment at four million, but its not going to fail.

Show all comments (170)
70°

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

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

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

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

250°

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

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

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

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

Army_of_Darkness465d ago

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

DeathTouch465d ago

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

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

thesoftware730465d ago

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

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

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

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

SoulWarrior465d ago (Edited 465d ago )

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

-Foxtrot467d ago

Yeah...no

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

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

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

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

Tacoboto465d ago

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

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

SoulWarrior467d ago

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

Terry_B465d ago

No. Please forget the crap completely.

northpaws465d ago

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

thesoftware730465d ago

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

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

Not looking for an argument, just an honest question.

Starman69465d ago

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

Show all comments (45)
200°

Get three Tomb Raider games free at Epic Games Store

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

Read Full Story >>
gamefreaks365.com
CrimsonWing69846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

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

lelo2play846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

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

LiViNgLeGaCY846d ago

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

CrimsonWing69846d ago

I meant the first of the new trilogy.

Furesis846d ago

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

ANIALATOR136845d ago

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

ActualWhiteMan845d ago (Edited 845d ago )

The first one of the latest trilogy is a masterpiece

Fishy Fingers846d ago

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

Profchaos846d ago

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

Double_O_Revan846d ago

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

gamefreaks365846d ago

EGS has been having issues all day.

RedDevils846d ago

Weird I don't has that issue.

Double_O_Revan846d ago

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

PeeShuter846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

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

Double_O_Revan845d ago

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

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 845d ago
Show all comments (19)