180°

Rise of the Tomb Raider Xbox Exclusivity: is the Backlash Justified?

Several writers discuss Microsoft’s Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusivity fiasco, and whether a backlash from the franchise’s fans on Sony platforms is justified.

Read Full Story >>
playstationlifestyle.net
randomass1713529d ago

IMO yes. It was not like the game would not have been without the exclusivity unlike Bayonetta 2. Fans on Sony consoles have every right to be frustrated at least until it comes out in a year or two on PS4.

nicksetzer13529d ago

It is not justified at all, it is common business, even Sony does it.

-Final fantasy 7-10 and 12
-Tomb raider 2-3 console exclusivity
-Soul caliber 3
-Gta 3 - san andreas
-Multiple dragon quest games (some of which were remastered later on other consoles)

Just to name a few, every company has done it, it sucks every time, but that is the reality of competition in a market.

HeWhoWalks3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

Now, can you prove which one of those Sony paid for? For "every company to do it", you should use examples that apply.

Besides, Rise of the Tomb Raider has one strict difference - the PS4 is the best selling console and already has the predecessor. The only one even remotely close is Soul Calibur III, which still doesn't confirm that Sony "moneyhatted" it. The PS2 was so far ahead, it wouldn't have made a difference AND Soul Calibur III was never announced as a multiplatform title..

BiggerBoss3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

Sony did not pay for the original tomb raider sequels. Why do fanboys keep making things up? The sega version was cancelled by the developer Core Design because the Saturn was hard to program for and wasn't selling well. There wasn't an N64 version because of nintendos cartridges.

However, the games also released on Windows so technically they were multiplatform

Edit: and all the GTA's you mention came to Xbox, albeit they were timed exclusive

pompombrum3529d ago

Did Sony actually pay for the exclusive rights for any of those games though? I was a bit too young then to follow gaming the way I do now but I'm fairly certain most of those games were on the Playstation because of it's popularity.

come_bom3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

@nicksetzer1

Don't bother. Sony fanboys are hypocrites. When Sony does 3rd party exclusives or timed exclusives, it's ok, but when other companies do it, it's wrong.

Actually... every fanboy from any company are hypocrites.

Spotie3529d ago

I'm seeing a lot of disagrees, for the people questioning whether Sony actually paid for exclusives, but no one giving an example of where we know they actually did.

Nick will probably get a well said with baseless supposition, though this place is claimed to be run by Sony fanboys.

Sorry, but the agree/disagree ratio in here contradicts that.

Major_Glitch3529d ago

@nicksetzer NOTHING you posted was true! How the heck do you have four bubbles?! I swear the mods on this site...
OT: Why are we still talking about this?! No one cares. MS spent money on a timed exclusive. Big deal. That's what MS does.

nicksetzer13529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

@above let me put it this way, we have just as much proof that MS paid for tomb raider as we do that Sony paid for those exclusives. The only difference? In sony's case you take the public PR statements as fact. In MS case you say the public PR statement is total BS and MS "clearly paid." That is called a double standard. (Or hypocrisy, whichever you prefer)

So the better question is, why are you so convinced that MS did pay, but Sony didn't despite the same chain of events? Even in cases where there is a preferred platform, partnerships require an investment from the platform holder. (Aka money) It may be less money if they prefer that platform, but are we really to the point where we are going to argue that MS paid more than Sony did for all it's 3rd party exclusives? (Without knowing if even true at that) I guess it is easier to ask questions that you completely ignore the other way around though ....

kreate3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

I believe before 2008, sony didn't believe in paying for exclusives. but changed in the mid-life of ps3 and now going into ps4.

http://www.psxextreme.com/f...

I remember jack tretton also mentioned that but I cant find the article for that one.

vega2753529d ago

@ nicksetzer

Sony would never do anything like this......... Nev...... Ooops guess Sony has

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

http://www.vg247.com/2010/1...

ragnalamb3529d ago

San andreas was timed exclusive and was promoted like that and its the only deal Sony could have throw some money at.

The other games, like final fantasy and dragon quest even the yakuza games where PlayStation exclusives just because Ps2 had the most units sold. One of the most "PlayStation" franchises was metal gear... Mgs2 went to xbox just to fail and make MGS3 exclusive.

My point is... Sony didnt pay for exclusives until now.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3529d ago
ITPython3529d ago

Since MS has very little in regards to exclusives, securing third-party multiplat games and treating them like exclusives is going to be the next big thing this gen.

Last gen = MS buying a few months of exclusive DLC to make their console "more desirable" over the competition.

This gen = MS buying exclusive rights to a third-party game for a few months, making their console "more desirable" over the competition.

This Tomb Raider exclusive garbage is yet another reason Microsoft is ruining and destroying gaming.

Instead of offering the superior console that people want to buy because it is really good and better than the competition, MS just pays millions/billions to keep games from their competitors, just so they look better in the short run.

Perjoss3529d ago

This deal is bad for everyone, yes even the people that own an xbox one and are huge Tomb Raider fans, not just PC and Playstation owners. It doesn't take a genius to work it out and see the big picture. Yes it even is bad for MS.

ravensly3529d ago

damn! are they still writing about this. jut let this go. they made a deal and it doesnt change anything if you whine about it.

mhunterjr3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

BS there's no justification needed. It's common business practice. People keep tryig to come up with these inconsistent definitions of when it's ok to pay for an exclusive

From what I'm hearing, it ok when:
1) when they game wouldn't have been funded otherwise (except for Titanfall that wasn't ok)
2) when You money hat an indie developer
3) when the game is already generally associated with a particular Brand, despite the fact that association usually stems from paid exclusivity in the first place (final fantasy, old tomb raider, metal gear)
4) when your console is sales leader (why this point matters to gamers is beyond me. Companies factor more than just unit sales when deciding which platforms to launch on.)
5) and in general, whenever Sony does it

When it is wrong:
1) whenever MS does it

Gamble203529d ago

Metal Gear and older Tomb Raider games were not "paid for" by Sony. You lose an extreme amount of credibility when you falsely claim this. Both of those games released with console exclusivity on the PlayStation because coding for the N64/other consoles in that era was expensive and time consuming. It was not uncommon for third party developers to choose one system to focus on when development began. In fact the proliferation of multiplatform development did not really explode until the second half of the PS2 era, largely driven by the desire to reach the original Xbox's large US customer base.

Those titles were exclusive to PlayStation because it either used CDs rather than cartridges, sole two or three times as many consoles as the competition, and/or the system was easier to develop for. All you are doing is picking games that just so happened to release exclusively on PlayStation and then saying Sony paid for it. It just makes you look unbelievably ignorant.

Regardless, Microsoft has far and away the worst reputation for failing to develop their own first party games and simply buying away games from the competition. That's the real crux of the debate. Microsoft took money that could have gone to developing their own IP and instead used it to buy out exclusivity. Think about that; as an Xbox fan do you really win when millions of xbox money is spent on a game you already were going to have that PS4 owners can still eventually play?

mhunterjr3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

@gamble20

I only lose credibility with those who refuse to look at the facts. Sony purchased several years if exclusivity with the tomb raider franchise. Once that deal was up, the franchise was again released on other consoles.

Sony also purchased timed exclusivity on MGS2 and 3. There was likely a deal behind mgs4 as well... The BS about not enough disc storage doesn't fly in a world of Expandable Storage, Mass Effect, and GTA V.

Sony also purchased timed and outright exclusivity with various final fantasy games...

The biggest one of all, that Sony faithful repeatedly leave out is the timed exclusivity purchased for GTA3 and GTA:SA.the latter of which was the most crtitcally acclaimed game of the generation and best selling PS2 game of all time.

The SA deal should have made a much bigger hooplah than this... But you know, Sony can do no wrong...

No one really wins directly when 3rd party IPs are bought. Except maybe the platform holders. The argument is that this 3rd party investment is less risky than creating a new IP, and if it helps sell consoles, then makin new IPs will become less risky. There are indirect advantages for owners of the system.

But the case is the same regardless of who does the purchasing... But apparently the gaming world only sees it fit to complain when MS does it.

DiRtY3529d ago

LoL what Backlash?
Some Sony fans started to rage and started petitions to get this game on PS4.

That was THE Message from Gamescom.
Well played MS would be a better title.

And the simple fact that "playstationlifestyle.net " makes a story about it proves MS right.

SonyStyled3529d ago

im not sure is sony 'paid' for any exclusives mentioned above. but ill just add that sony was the second, followed by the third largest shareholder to squeenix which excludes the tomb raiders for that time (being eidos) but includes the final fantasies if owning a large sum of squeenix had some effect on exclusivity. sony purchased 18.6% of square in 2001 when they were doing quite poorly. i dont know if that had something to do with ff exclusivity or not

kreate. i can confirm i also read that sony doesnt pay 3rd parties for exclusives and i do remember it being quoted by jack tretton as well. found the link and its from 2007. i dont know when or if that strategy has reversed. http://www.joystiq.com/2007...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3529d ago
knifefight3529d ago

I've got more than enough to keep me busy until the multiplatform release comes out.

PsylentKiller3529d ago

Yeah, Destiny will be keeping me busy. I have the first Tomb Raider on my PS4 and I want the second one on there as well. Even though I have an XBO with many games on it, I want my Tomb Raider experiences to be on playstation. That's where I played the first Tomb Raider games and that's where I want to continue playing them.

But the backlash is necessary. If for nothing else, to tell the companies responsible that we are not pleased with this decision. Maybe in the future they will think twice before striking a deal like this again.

NovusTerminus3529d ago

If it was announced as Xbox exclusive I don't think it would be so bad. But at E3 they said exclusive content first on Xbox, and stores opened up Pre-Orders for all the systems.

THEN they shifted the announcement, that's what got everyone mad.

IMO, if it was announced at E3 as exclusive, then I wouldn't mind, however to change it after you start giving out pre-orders for other systems seems wrong.

LethalButterfly3529d ago

Yes but some of it was way over the top

jay23529d ago

yes where,did it,start life playstation what is it a sequel that waa also out on ps and pc

Show all comments (70)
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
jznrpg352d ago (Edited 352d 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
isarai465d ago (Edited 465d 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_Darkness464d 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...

DeathTouch464d 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.

thesoftware730464d 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.

SoulWarrior464d ago (Edited 464d 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.

-Foxtrot465d 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.

Tacoboto464d 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.

SoulWarrior465d 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_B464d ago

No. Please forget the crap completely.

northpaws464d 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.

thesoftware730464d 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.

Starman69464d 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
CrimsonWing69844d ago (Edited 844d 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.

lelo2play844d ago (Edited 844d 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.

LiViNgLeGaCY844d ago

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

CrimsonWing69844d ago

I meant the first of the new trilogy.

Furesis844d 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

ANIALATOR136844d ago

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

ActualWhiteMan844d ago (Edited 844d ago )

The first one of the latest trilogy is a masterpiece

Fishy Fingers844d ago

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

Profchaos844d 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_Revan844d ago

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

gamefreaks365844d ago

EGS has been having issues all day.

RedDevils844d ago

Weird I don't has that issue.

Double_O_Revan844d ago

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

PeeShuter844d ago (Edited 844d 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_Revan844d ago

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

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 844d ago
Show all comments (19)