The mysterious case of the Square-Enix non-exclusive

TotalBiscuit gives his thoughts about the non-exclusivity of Rise of the Tomb Raider.

The story is too old to be commented.
wonderfulmonkeyman2620d ago

How long will this harping on about the TR deal go on?
Place your bets!

JD_Shadow2619d ago

Until someone gets the message that this kind of stuff shouldn't really be happening in the games industry.

Software_Lover2619d ago

But it hardly makes a dent in the news when Pc gets something exclusive (which rarely happens), or when PlayStation gets something exclusive, whether its a timed gamed or content.

Not saying it's right either way, but why doesn't the internet go crazy as people put it, when its for Sony? We see one article/blog on N4G and people just move on after that.

oasdada2619d ago


sony has their owns studios.. they dont shove money in the faces of already stablished ips

gaffyh2619d ago

@Software_Lover - The bigger issue here is that MS specifically tried to deceive people with the wording they used. Then had to back track to say it was timed exclusive. If it was full exclusive, it would still be annoying to many fans of the franchise because a lot of the fans are on PC and PS platforms, and they most likely outnumber the fans on Xbox.

Bayonetta 2 was announced as a full exclusive, and again people were really annoyed because it was multiplatform previously. So that negates your argument completely, because no matter what the game is, it tends to cause an issue if it was multiplatform before and is now exclusive to one platform, ESPECIALLY if the majority of the fans are on another platform.

Microsoft needs to stop doing this type of stuff. Pay for exclusive DLC if you want, but use the money hats that you use to buy "exclusives" to actually make new and interesting IP like Quantum Break that are full exclusive. The amount of bad PR they get every time they pull some shit like this just hurts their brand even more.

Software_Lover2619d ago



On topic: Says you. You would like to think that don't you. Everyone would. Like I said, I'm not saying it's right what happened but people need to move on. It happened, it's still happening on all sides of the argument. Too many emotions involved with these products for people to think clearly about the subject.

I tell people to boycott something if they don't like it. I haven't bought a piece of DLC with the exception of Crackdown when it first came out. That was a long time ago. I don't agree with DLC and I probably never will. I don't buy it. That is how I make my mark and take a stand.

I completely understand why Square did it, but even then I think they should've have released on PC at the same time as XBone. That is just me though.

Chris122619d ago


How exactly did MS try and deceive? That's a story peddled by fanboys and sucked up by the simple minded. More toxic FUD.

DVAcme2619d ago

@gaffyh While it IS annoying that Bayonetta 2 is Wii-U exclusive, that one at least is understandable because Nintendo actually put money down for the game to get made, they didn't throw the money at Platinum to make an already-coming game exclusive. As for Sony, as far as I can recall, the only non-exclusive franchise that they had an exclusive game for was Metal Gear Solid 4, and that was more because of technical issues, since the game depended heavily on the Blu-Ray format, which the 360 didn't have. Every other exclusive game is either full-exclusive in-house or was is a 3rd-party exclusive that was meant as such from the beginning.

The situation with Tomb Raider is different in that it's a game that was meant to be multiplat and MS made the attempt to grab it for themselves. I'm POSITIVE they tried to make the game full exclusive, got at least timed exclusivity and then started using corporate speak to fool us into thinking it was a full exclusive to make us buy consoles. It's dishonest in the extreme, and shows that MS NEVER puts the gamers first. If they did, they'd just flat out say it was a timed exclusive instead of playing us for chumps. It's like something out of 1984.

@Software_Lover: PC gaming is its own beast and has its own niche, it doesn't compete with consoles so much as co-exists with them, and many types of games are tailor-made for PC(flight sims, MOBAs, MMOs, 4Xs). So when a game makes it only to PC, I can understand the reasons why. Sony's huge library of exclusives are either 1st-party in-house development studios or 2nd-party developers that have an intimate relationship with them. Microsoft instead is blatantly trying to steal multiplatform games away from both PC and Sony players.

Major_Glitch2619d ago

I wonder if the people saying this isn't a big deal would say the same thing if games like the next Halo or Zelda became a timed-exclusive of Sony's.
BTW, in case yall forgot, "timed-exclusives" was an invention of Microsoft. Before they came on the scene, any game that was labeled "exclusive" was actually "exclusive".

LeCreuset2619d ago (Edited 2619d ago )


"I'm not saying it's right what happened. Instead, I'll present a tacit defense of what happened by pushing for those saying it isn't right to shut up and move on, while also not missing an opportunity to once again present multi-billion dollar company Microsoft as a poor victim of unjust persecution."

Do you know why people haven't been this upset in other situations you would like to present as comparable? Because they're not. When you take a franchise that has been around for four console generations, over a period of eighteen years, and say it's now exclusive to the console that it has sold the least on, on the platform it has the least history on, that's going to cause a backlash from a lot of angry fans of the franchise you just threw the finger up to.

Big retail exclusives released to date:

PS4: Killzone, Knack, Infamous, TLOU.

Xbox: Forza, Ryse, Dead Rising, Titan Fall.

Big retail exclusives released to date, minus third party titles:

PS4: Killzone, Knack, Infamous, TLOU.

Xbox: Forza.

Could that be a reason some get called out more than others?

Imalwaysright2619d ago

@ gaffyh

If MS really wanted to deceive people then why would they come clean about it? This is not the first time this has happened. I still remember Ken Levine swearing that Bioshock would never be on the PS3 and no one from MS "corrected" him. Why is MS, the ones that do not have the responsibility to say if the game is exclusive or not and would benefit the most from being quite about it come out and openly say that is not?

Antnee5342619d ago (Edited 2619d ago )


Reason why no one makes a fuss over pc is they don't tend to get big exclusives. Usually small indies and the occasional triple a title. I'm not saying these are bad games lot of them are awesome I'm not going to lie lost a bit of my time to goat simulator lol.

The thing is also gaming on a console is much better experience, than sitting at a desk playing on a comp. Pc feels like work when I'm playing on it, as to when I'm playing on say ps4 I feel like finally off work time to just chill and play a game.

Your right. Even though I'm a big Sony guy I feel it's odd that all the hate is only ms, but I think it is because we get timed exclusive because sony gets timed exclusives on mostly indies that are good but the dude bro gamers don't want.

Also I can see why people are pissed because when you game sells more than double on ps4 than xb1 why make it exclusive there unless they took a big chunk of money for ms. (in case the definitely did do so.) If ms and se would come out and just say that they only made this choice because of X amount of money then everyone would be more chill. On that thought people should realize at the same time it comes out ps4 will be getting uncharted 4 so the better game will obviously be uncharted 4.

LeCreuset2619d ago


You won't be deceived, if you analyze comments coming from MS with the understanding that they are masters of prevarication.

Phil Spencer, after the Gamescom media briefing, when pressed on whether TR is a permanent or timed exclusive:

"We're saying what we said on stage: in Holiday 2015, Rise of the Tomb Raider will be exclusive to Xbox. That's the comment. We had a lot of similar questions around Titanfall and the structure of our deal is a business relationship that's frankly between us and Square Enix. I know Crystal Dynamics has issued a statement and we're going to stand by that. Xbox fans are going to be able to play Tomb Raider next holiday exclusive on Xbox."


That is classic prevarication, an attempt to deceive. Notice how he associates the deal to the Titan Fall deal, which has the effect of creating an association between the TR deal and the Titan Fall deal which is permanently exclusive.

Aaron Greenberg responded to Geoff Keighley's assertion that TR is "exclusive on Xbox for holiday 2015," by stating, "That is not what we said, CD also posted same," and linking to the same statement put out by CD that Phil Spencer referred to, previously.

MS, including Phil Spencer, engaged in prevarication until the deal became such a PR nightmare that it was no longer beneficial to do so. It was wholly in MS' interest to keep the lie by omission going, until that point. That's the only way the timed exclusivity deal would have been worth something to them. It has nothing to do with this easily debunked notion that a known timed exclusive TR is going to move a meaningful amount of XB1 systems. It's pretty apparent that CD wants to avoid launching TR on PS4 at the same time as Uncharted, because they don't think many people will buy TR in that scenario. For this argument of a known time released TR being a system seller for XB1 to work, checking off some imaginary box for XB1 to tout against Uncharted, one has to reconcile the at odds positions that people owning or wanting a PS4 when Uncharted 4 releases will not buy Tomb Raider immediately and the supposed strategy by MS to get these same people to pay a $400+ premium to be able to buy a game during that time that they weren't going to get, anyway.

It makes no sense. The deal isn't worth it, unless there is the illusion that consumers will permanently miss out on TR if they don't buy it on MS' systems. In addition to the backlash the deal has already received, the way CD and MS essentially tried to trick consumers into dropping hundreds of dollars on MS machine, by creating the illusion that TR would be permanently exclusive to MS, when they know the vast majority of those people would have no problem waiting until the game came to their systems justifies the backlash the two companies are receiving.

LeCreuset2619d ago


"If MS really wanted to deceive people then why would they come clean about it? "

For the same reason they've reversed course on a number of other matters: their position was becoming too toxic for their bottom line.

They were essentially trying to trick people into buying their console, through the illusion of permanent exclusivity. They know that if they say "timed exclusive" all but an insignificant number of people are just going to say "Okay. I'll just play Uncharted 4 in the meantime." They wanted people thinking they have to get Xbox if they want to ever play TR.

It's like if the babysitter told you that your kids were being held hostage and you would never see them again unless you met a set of demands versus if the babysitter said "I'm taking the kids for the day." In the former situation you're compelled to do things you don't want to do to see your kids again, whereas in the latter it's like "Pfft. Okay. Whatever. Great. Now I can go relax and do some things I want to do."

700p2619d ago

Soo many people are crying. OVER VIDEOGAMES LOL

Imalwaysright2619d ago

@ LeCreuset

"their position was becoming too toxic for their bottom line."

How so? MS doesn't own the rights to the game.

It was SE that decided to make their game timed exclusive. Sure with the help of a big fat cheque from MS but their decision nonetheless.

It's SE responsibilty to say on which platforms the game will be on. It sure as hell isn't MS responsibility.

SE are the ones that have an obligation towards every single TR fan because they're the ones that own the IP. MS only obligation is towards Xbox fans and Xbox owners.

I fail to see how this would be a PR nightmare for MS and the Xbox brand. If anything is a PR nightmare for SE. If MS really wanted to trick people they would have kept quite about this whole matter.

gaffyh2619d ago (Edited 2619d ago )

@Chris12 & Imalwaysright - They specifically made sure that they never mentioned the word "timed" or made any mention of a duration, and it seems like they told Square they couldn't say anything either in their deal. There have been plenty of games announced as timed exclusives previously, at both Sony and MS conferences, and the wording has always been "first on PlayStation" or "first on Xbox". In this instance they decided to specifically try and deceive people with marketing speak, and the ONLY reason they went back on it was because they were getting very bad PR, and people suspected that the game was timed.

In Sony's conference, Activision mentioned "timed exclusive" soooo many times to make sure their fans knew that this content will be coming to all platforms eventually.

MS just makes themselves look worse and worse in these situations. What you'll find is PC owners are way more pissed than PS owners. I don't really care about this game, I will play it if I have time, but that said I haven't even played the previous game or definitive edition. But there are plenty of people that do like Tomb Raider, and this won't make them buy an Xbox One at all, in fact it will most likely make them boycott the game entirely. Also, it leaves holiday 2015 completely open for Uncharted on PS4.

Really dumb decision by SE, and they are mostly to blame, but MS doesn't come out of it looking any less bad. The deal had two parties, but I guarantee that MS put forward the restriction on saying whether its timed or say "exclusively on Xbox", when it's not exclusive. Just makes you think what else they are lying about.

LeCreuset2619d ago (Edited 2619d ago )


Your reply is not only a non sequitur to what I said, but wrong on so many levels.

1) If MS offered money to SE for SE to screw over their fan base, MS IS responsible when SE takes the money to do just that, no matter what MS' reasons were for doing so. You can't just offer someone money to do something shady, then wash your hands of any responsibility.

2) Which is why people have been raging against MS, in addition to SE, over this deal. Where have you been?

3) Who's arguing that it's MS responsibility to list the platforms TR will be on? MS was pressed, repeatedly, on the nature of their "exclusivity" deal, which they do have a responsibility to be upfront about. Instead, they tried to deceive and obfuscate so that TR fans would buy their system, believing it was the only way to play the sequel to a game most of them bought on a different platform.

4) When that plan failed, MS saw that more people were inclined to say "screw SE and screw MS" than to go out and buy an Xbox for TR. MS has been on a campaign to rehabilitate the image of the Xbox brand. Phil Spencer is the symbol of that. With this deal, the narrative changed from "Bad Don Mattrick. Phil Spencer is righting the course" to people once again talking about MS' shady business practices and wanting first party lineup.

5) If MS really wanted to serve Xbox owners they would take that money wasted keeping a would-be multiplat game off of other consoles and invest it into additional first party content to provide a true exclusive rather than an excluded. The former being a game they invest in to make it available to their fans and the latter being a game they throw money at to keep it out of the hands of other fans.

Edit: @GaffyH

Exactly. While this is anecdotal, I've seen more Xbox owners and those interested in buying an Xbox say how they plan to either get rid of their Xbox or not get one they planned on getting than comments from people saying they plan to pick up an Xbox because of this.


Except, no one is crying. They're expressing their opinions. Come to the conversation with a more mature attitude and you'll find that you're afforded more than one opportunity to comment.

rainslacker2618d ago

Software_Lover you should really get out more. People complain all the time when there is exclusive content or games that get brought up by companies regardless of the company.

The reason most are complaining here is that the title is traditionally multi-plat but is now exclusive leaving a big part of it's fan base out in the cold unless they opt to buy a system they don't have or want.

Sure crap like this has been going on for a while. It's not right. But it's not just Sony fans who get upset about it, and when the implication keeps getting repeated over and over again like it's truth, it gets rather tiresome since you can't really prove your own argument.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 2618d ago
kenshiro1002619d ago


Um...maybe because they based Tomb Raider as an exclusive when it was timed.

aLiEnViSiToR2620d ago

Bravo ! Games for all !!!

Deep-throat2619d ago

I'm really tired of this subject.

It's timed, people. Move on.

TheMapleNerd2619d ago (Edited 2619d ago )

I agree with him on exclusives... or maybe i'm just so freaking jealous that destiny wont come to pc :C
All we get is a boring borderlands..

Software_Lover2619d ago

I thought it was coming to Steam?

TheMapleNerd2619d ago

They said everybody working there was a pc gamer.. but i think that's just to shut our pc mouth :P

2619d ago Replies(1)
Toiletsteak2619d ago

What is so mysterious about it, it is timed exclusive and thats that move on.

Show all comments (42)
The story is too old to be commented.