Tomb Raider made splashes with its 2013 reboot, and is already making headlines with its controversial timed exclusivity deal for its sequel, Rise of the Tomb Raider, but we may only be 2/3 of the way done with Lara Croft’s adventures.
Sweet I'd love to see another one after Rise of the Tomb Raider
I want to see her visit a prehistoric island and apply some of these combat skills to hunting Dinosaurs whilst uncovering a mysterious ancient civilisation.
That sounds silly. /s :P
How could it be, ROTR is already coming to ps4 next holiday 2016...right?
@Christopher Maybe it is silly, but games are meant to be a place of escape from reality. Don't think dinosaurs will work in the trilogy though... seems a little too hokey for the serious tone of the games.
It sound like you have never played the original Tomb Raider. Dual pistols don't cut it they just annoy them. And if you want a dragon why not play the original Tomb Raider II. She does kill off allot of endangered species though. Of course they do make the silly mistake of thinking her as an easy meal.
Why does it have to be a trilogy? Why cant it be a ongoing story?
I like how no one gets the reference robtion is making. https://www.youtube.com/wat... @guitarded77: You do know what someone using "/s" means, right?
The series turned around for the better in a great way w/ the first game in this trilogy but this exclusivity deal for the second dealt a huge blow for the series in my eyes. I can't take them on their word that the next title will be multiplat, if someone with enough money comes along they will just do the same thing they did w/ Rise....hell if Rise does poorly enough through all of this it might damage the franchise so badly that MS can swoop in and purchase full rights for a steal. So this franchise is a bit dead in the water for me...I'll buy Rise used when it hits the ps4 because these are my favorite types of games but I'll never really be excited for another installment of the franchise personally. Just too sour a taste in my mouth to waste the effort of caring, and they've got a lot of gall to try to get us to fall for it again and just trust what they are saying here...shouldn't have said anything at all really, the actions are speaking loud enough.
So they hurt themselves by putting the middle entry on one system for a limited time, presumably in order to promote sales of that system, then hurt themselves again as well as the tactic by saying that its only going to be a limited time? How does such make any sense whatsoever?
They keep going in circles. Obviously they won't admit that they never thought that the PS4 would sell so good compared to the Xbox. They made a decision and need to stick to it, but they need to stop pretending that the deal is a beneficial one.
They shot them self in the foot and now they are trying to walk it off.
So Heavy when did you become such an expert on SE business? I mean what circles are they going in? They said its exclusive this holiday, and then said it will come to PC and PS4 (which we already knew) on certain dates, and then told us that the trilogy is unsurprisingly not exclusive. SO to me it sounds like they just stated the info that any high school graduate should be able to infer. Am I missing something? I mean I don't get it SE says that without MS TR would not be what it is today, and people call BS. But when Capcom says SF wouldn't be what it is without Sony (like the 10th SF game in 20 years) its considered gospel. Please, im not saying you share this foolish belief, but please help me understand. If a company rep is asked a question and then answers it, its all of a sudden damage control and backpedaling. EDIT: I also find it funny that people try saying that the user base for a game that has seen success on both consoles is only on one of the consoles. I played TR on the PS1 when I was 10. Are people really trying to say all those people that did the same only own or want own an PS4?
@Pope I got my degree the same day you got your "MS defender" title. And if you really believe that TR wouldn't be what it is without MS, then damn you are delusional.
@Heavy No I'm not saying it couldn't be just as good as a PS4 exclusive or full multiplat. What I'm saying is why is it so easy to believe that SF would be nothing without Sony, but TR could be as amazing or better (as some have even more foolishly stated) multi plat or Sony exclusive. Please help me understand this. @Below My original post was quite long and well thought out thank you. I read the comment below and just wanted to ask your opinion as you seem to be an expert on the subject. I love how you also called me a name instead of addressing the issues I raised.
@Pope I never said that TR would be nothing without Sony. Are you bringing up stuff that other people said because you have nothing else to say?
Prebooks on the Xbox One must be worse than we thought.
@xHeavYx "They made a decision and need to stick to it, but they need to stop pretending that the deal is a beneficial one." how on gods green earth can anyone claim it is or isn't a beneficial deal if they don't know the details all while not knowing how well the game will sell after everything is said and done? let's just break it down, you're upset you are not getting this on the ps4 right away so you want to trivialize how it will benefit microsoft and/or square -enix in the process. you don't have any idea what financial support microsoft is giving them and you have no idea the cost to make the game. square-enix would not sign the deal if they didn't think it was beneficial. you cannot make claims to what they will lose because you have no idea how many copies would have sold on the ps4 if it launched the same time. nor do you have any idea how many copies it's going to sell on the xbox platforms. and last but not least you have no idea the cost to market and publish this title if microsoft wasn't involved that would offset any potential loss by not having it on the ps4 right away. it's all just guess work because you're upset it's coming to the xbox first.
heavy don't worry about some of these oh I don't know what to call them anymore. Why can't we as gamers just be against these sort of practices. these do nothing but hurt gamers. why should it matter to an actual gamer if a game he or she want to buy is exclusive or not? pope any high school gamer would know that Capcom is in much much worst shape than square. square s actually moving on up like the jerffersons lol Capcom on the other hand if you did research would remember was being talked about as being bought out by another company bottom line is simple tomb raider was happening regardless, and the only reason it was an exclusive is to compete with uncharted 4. with that now in 2016 and tomb raider launching with fallout 4, I am not sure how much ms or square will gain I mean there are so many games that someone doesn't have to buy a xbox one to play it, wait a year and get the GOTY edition. I have been a gamer for last 27 years, there is not one game that has made be buy a console. and some of these publishers must be kicking the self knowing ps4 has a install base 25 plus million. it's not easy to pass up on this kind of install base. first it was Titanfall and not Titanfall 2 is coming to ps4 also tomb raider being exclusive better be worth it to square. the check has to be a huge one. minimum on ps4 tomb raider could have sold 5 to 8 million. how big of a check did square asked for? gta 4 dlc wad 50 million
@showtimefolks "and some of these publishers must be kicking the self knowing ps4 has a install base 25 plus million. it's not easy to pass up on this kind of install base. first it was Titanfall and not Titanfall 2 is coming to ps4 also tomb raider being exclusive better be worth it to square. the check has to be a huge one. minimum on ps4 tomb raider could have sold 5 to 8 million. how big of a check did square asked for? gta 4 dlc wad 50 million" phil spencer said this in an interview, "So, they don't "gobble" the deals up. They buy them. You know, I read the same things you do, and I know some people think it's somehow less expensive to sign third-party exclusives if you have a bigger market-share. I can tell you, it has nothing to do with market share. When you go in to do a deal, with a third party, that third party has its own view of the global market and the value of it. And they should, they should think about their assets and how valuable they are, just like anyone would when they are selling their goods." source, http://www.gamespot.com/art... so there you have it from someone who has actually done these deals and likely knows more than any of us of how these deals work. i think i would take his insight over those who are upset it's not coming to the ps4 right away.
@ThePope I wouldn't bother trying top get a simply answer out of this topic. Fanboys in general will do nothing but flame bait you into a war and win by numbers. Its amazing how TR was mentioned as a Timed-Exclusive and it went as low as death threats while SF5 was announced as a Exclusive only and gamers praised the deal. People will murder others as long as they get what they want. TR was a great deal done by MS, clever marketing and a shot at the competition. Gamers hated it because they believed they made the right choice by writing off its competitors. The TR deal stands as a deal to tell the world Xbox still exist, don't forget its there.
Square Enix calls Tomb Raider a “trilogy” that’s not exclusive to Microsoft. Then why make the second game timed exclusive? This whole ordeal is just @$$ backwards for Square. The only one that benefits from this is MS, kudos to them for the deal, but Square were idiots for doing this.
I think Square made a deal at the time that made sense. They were fearful UC4 was launching against RTR so they cut the deal thinking they could minimize the head to head damage on the PS4 version. They had no idea UC4 would slip and so in retrospect it was a poor choice because they would have cleaned house on the PS4 this year with more or less no 1st party big hitters launching.
I don't think it really benefits MS that much either especially after finding out that the cost of "timed exclusivity/marketing rights" are bought up, not based on the size of your users. I'm glad Phil Spencer is moving away from this kind of deals as well, and I don't think MS would want this type of deal again with Tomb Raider either. Especially now that they signaled for more MS owned content. I don't think this deal hurt SE or Tomb Raider in the least bit. If they release a solid game, which it looks like to be, people will buy it now or next year. However, as Dlacy is saying I think MS likely got a relatively good deal on this, because TR would have clashed with Uncharted 4 on PS4 anyhow. I'm glad that PS4 owners are also able to enjoy this game. In the least both MS/SE came clean about it prior to the game release. Can't say Capcom is doing right by their fans on Xbox One....
***Can't say Capcom is doing right by their fans on Xbox One.... *** I still don't believe the reports they they said it would never go to XBO. That makes no sense.
@Christopher Capcom isn't doing right by anyone. Dead Rising 3 is the only AAA game they've put out, everything else has been an Arcard games or a Remake (and RE: R2). At this point to get a good game from Capcom you have to make an exclusive deal with them, so they can get the funding they need to make their own games. @Dlacy13g That's what we all assume, but even then it was a stupid decision. I can't ever think of a time where a game has been delayed this long and went on to be a huge seller or even sell more than the original console version it sold on. Delaying the game cost them PS fan sales Day 1, then to have it delayed a full year has pretty much killed any kind of anticipation for the masses. This whole deal was completely stupid of Square. Phil admitted that he went after TR, because MS has no Uncharted (although Quantum Break & Remedy seems to be MS Naughty Dog, jut much slower at making games). LOL I just went to see what other games Square could have made the deal with based on which sold better on 360, and NONE of their big games sold better on 360 than PS3. Once again stupid decision especially when you have all kinds of evidence in front of you that this is a bad idea. That had to be one FAT check from MS to cover this deal.
donthate I agree
I believe they announced the exclusivity time because some PS4 owners said they'd wait for a few months until the ‘best’ definitive edition came out. By announcing it’s a year until it comes to ps4, it might push ps4 owners (particularly Tomb Raider fans) considering an xbox one over the edge, or people who haven’t got a console yet and like the look of Tomb Raider. The time limit was much longer than expected, which is probably why they announced it.
And you over estimate the ability of TR to ever be a console seller. It's a good game, but will it moves console in drove? Doubt it
This thinking is based around a game that sold 4 million across three platforms. Would think that Bioshock would have served as well enough example of this sort of thing.
How exactly did it hurt themselves? Will it also hurt Square that Neir 2 is going to only be on PS4? Too funny how no one understands this particular tactic but has no problem with Square keeping other older multiplatform games off a console for life or timed. (FF7, Neir 2, Star Ocean)
You do kno all od those were ps exclusive for years right? And can u blame them for going back to it? Xbox almost killed tales of over here cuz vesperia bombed and star ocean(while 4 killed it self alot) bombes as well
it hurt them because they made it a timed exclusive where the TR fanbase ISN'T and luanching it the same day as fallout 4 and then they're going to release it where most of the TR fanbase IS a whole year later at full price. it won't hurt square for releasing nier 2 exclusively on ps4 because that's where most of the people that would play a game like nier is.
Tomb Raider sells so much more on Playstation though, the majority of Tomb Raider fans are Playstation owners. I think I remember hearing the PS4 version of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition counted for 90% of total sales. FF7, Star Ocean and Neir 2 are all understandable, but this year long timed exclusive deal for Tomb Raider really doesn't make much sense at all, and it is a big finger to generations of Tomb Raider fans. Square are really going to lose out on a lot, and I'm sure they'll regret it.
Correct me on this but didn't most of those games were already exclusives to Playstation consoles for years?! didn't the last TR game got most of sales from Playstation consoles ?!...then why ignore the console that give you most sales ?! You are talking about FF7...How much did the latest FF games sold on Xbox360 compared to Ps3 ?! Going buy sales those games are not a fan favorite for xbox camp. I don't like 3rd party exclusives..but this make sense for them not to bother with Xbox version of those games.
@gangsta: "How exactly did it hurt themselves?" by: a) allowing MS to flat-out call it an exclusive when it clearly wasn't. and b) playing coy, and being vague about its timed exclusivity (i.e. other platforms where it was going to be released) for almost an entire year after they clarified that their deal had a duration. had SE just come out right away by saying they made a deal with MS, but that the game was coming out on PC at a later date, without all of the tiptoeing around the subject, it would have been better for them (it certainly would have saved them from the immature death threats they received). however, i don't think this really hurt them in terms of sales, just more in terms of PR.
The whole "bigger fanbase" and "IP's appeared on said console first" is nothing but an excuse, especially when those games first appeared on PS (FF first appearing on NES) well over almost 15+ years ago and have since been multiplat on everything from iPhone to PC. So this whole it's okay because it was on "this" system first really holds no weight when these games are well established on every console and holds no brand allegiance. And sales for these games weren't so devastating on X1 that a sequel to only appear on X1 would be out of the question. You guys are applying one set of standards for a company like Square and then making up your own consequences because TR isn't appearing on your console of choice first. Then when that said company is doing the exact same thing with another game for your console, the excuses of why it's okay flies off the shelf. @Ziggur You really believe that? No matter what MS would have or could have said we would be here having the same discussion on how Square backed the wrong horse, turned their back on the biggest fanbase and how MS money hats games or whatever else comes along with (only) THIS particular game.
It likely will hurt that such a niche title went from multi to exclusive. Depending on how well Neir sold. Point is, that be it Tomb Raider or Neir you're not talking about a game that's a system seller. One that's likely to sale nearly the amount day one and over time if its released at the same time on multiple systems. Then again Star Ocean years after release on the 360 sole almost the same as on the PS3.
What are you talking about, ROTR situation is way different than FF7, Neir 2 and Star Ocean. You do know Japanese games don't sell on Xbox platforms right ? That's why those games you listed are PlayStation exclusive, not because Sony moneyhatted them. OT- You can tell Squre is deeply regretting this whole thing. They know they messed up by skipping out on their biggest fan base in PlayStation, and their 2nd biggest fan base in PC. No wonder they announced ROTR PS4/PC versions already. They're trying to save face now and try to appease to their biggest fans.
The whole thing has been a debacle from the start. Turning their backs on fans that have been there from the beginning of the series (which is longer than Square and Crystal Dynamics have been on the series I might add) and going with the console holder that had the least sales on the last game (after complaining it didnt sell enough). “We believe first and foremost this is the right thing to do with Tomb Raider right now,” Rogers said about Rise of The Tomb Raider coming to Xbox first. “What it’s done for the sake of the studio" Translation, a cash payout up front was good for us, not the game or its fans. If thats the case then so be it, but dont make out like there was some noble artistist vision or anything. MS gave them money to stop Playstation games from playing it. Thats the bottom line. “We don’t see this over time becoming an Xbox IP,” Rogers said about Tomb Raider. “This is a story and we’ll look back over the Tomb Raider franchise and history, and it will be a chapter where it was a timed-exclusive with Xbox.” Further translation, we stepped in it, we smelt the odor it gave off, and now we still cant get the stink off our feet but we hope its gone by the time we buy our next pair of shoes. Total balls up everyone involved now clearly regrets. Just get it right next time, but I think while this game might be great its going to be a financial bomb. If there is a 3rd, the 2nd will be the worst performing in the series because of the ill will theyve created.
The answers they give really piss me off though. I'll get the game used and the funny thing is that they paired up with Microsofts thinking that they were going to go up against Uncharted 4 but that back fired on them and now they're releasing on one platform where it's going to get cannibalize in sales. If they were disappointed with tomb raider sells they better get ready this time around for worse.
Think they paired up with Microsoft because they wouldn't have done good releasing with Uncharted 4. However that back fired since uncharted isn't coming this year. Now the game is stuck on the platform where it sold poorly and will most likely get cannibalize by bigger games. I'm really curious to see if it was all worth it.
And will probably end up releasing around the same time as Uncharted 4, so its going to get forgotten on a second console after it gets forgotten on X1 with all the other games all coming out around the same time. Nobody is going to rush out to get ROTR over Halo 5, Fallout 4, Battlefront, COD, Gears 4.....IF they were smart they would either delay it into early 2016 or release it early like before Halo
You may have a point. With the Xbone's sales status, MS needed another game as a system seller since the MCC didn't fair as well as they thought. SE accepted the offer. Cha-Ching for SE.
More like Cha-gone because cutting out the two other platforms also effected 2/3 of the game's potential sales. Unless either the game turns out to be sell XB0, or after the delay the game sells better on the other systems. which then puts the guy who approved the deal in hot water. Nevermind the implication of Square JP wanting to ruin the game chances as reason to shutdown Edios/Square EU. That the whole thing is more about in-fighting.
They continue to say the decision was the right one as though they are trying to convince themselves. How does a developer not release a popular game on the console that has the most gamers but also a console on which the game has always had the largest audience? Any business school would fail these idiots! SE has alienated so many Playstation gamers the IP will never have the kind of enthusiasm it once had on Playstation consoles and this fate is well deserved.
Damage control, obvously they feel sorry now for signing that exclusive deal with microsoft that's why they announced the relased date for PC and PS4 so early even before the game relased they are trying to make up for it but I think it's too late now
I think they announced the time limit to spur people to get an xbox one with Tomb Raider, increasing sales for them in short-term, because the time limit was longer than many anticipated
Yeah thats not going to happen....It would get ignored on PS4 even if it were releasing at the same time with all the other multiplat games releasing, and those are just the titles we know about there is still time to have last minute holiday releases... Its going to get ignored on X1 because its going to take a backseat to Halo 5, Fallout 4, Battlefront, Gears 4, COD...And it will be competing with Uncharted 4 next year... TR isnt a system seller(great game but not hardware selling) MS is delusional if they think people will run out to get an X1 for ONE game they can hold off on and get with all the DLC free, SE is flat out retarded if they think the same thing
It's going to be interesting for ROTR releasing in November this year. If Microsoft think it will be a system seller they really should send their marketing people back to school. Basically for any game to be a system seller you need it to be bundled with your console. The problem with this is the developer is either going to loose or make very little profit unless they are compensated by the vendor of the console and in that case the vendor looses or makes little if any profit. If say a game came out say three months or more before the holiday season then that game will originally sell for a premium. Fast forward to the holiday season, that now older game can be discounted or even incorporated into a bundle and while profits if any are down most of the profits were originally made when the game was new so basically the game developer and the console maker can actually benefit from an earlier released game. I won't deny that people who already have the console and want the game will most likely purchase the game no matter when that game is released and the holiday season is normally a very good time for this. Selling a new game in a bundle unless compensation is made is not a good way of making a profit.
At this point it's too late to undo the damage, the PS4 version was more than likely going to be the best selling version, and now those gamers have to wait an entire year after the launch. PC version proved to be a good seller as well, and they have a 6 month wait. It better be the GOTY edition at $40 top by the time it launches on PS4, and the PC version should be $40 at launch.
It'll be $60 but likely a GOTY version.
PC version sold horribly compared to consoles, btw. So, not really much there.
The Tomb Raider reboot sold something over 8.5 million copies across 5 platforms (360, PS3, PC, XB1 and PS4) http://www.gameinformer.com... Of those 8.5 million 3,259,358 copies were sold on Steam. http://steamspy.com/search.... The game sold 8.5+ million in total. 3.26 million were sold on the PC alone. How are those horrible sales on PC? It seems nearly 40% of the sales were on PC. Even with some margin of error it seems likely the game sold more on the PC than any other single platform.
@starchild: You do know you're using a source site that tracks games owned that go up and down from day to day because it just pulls data on who has it in their library listing. It also includes data from people who have added the game to their library listing after have pirated it. Also, what SE reported doesn't line up since it went from 6m pre-XBO/PS4 release to 8.5m immediately after its release. That's 2.5m, in addition to the majority of sales being on 360/PS3 before that. "On 22 August 2013, Darrell Gallagher, head of product development and studios for Square Enix, announced on Gamasutra that the game sold more than 4 million copies worldwide. On 17 January 2014, Scot Amos, executive producer of Tomb Raider, revealed that at the end of 2013 the game achieved profitability. On 3 February 2014, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, a re-release for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, debuted atop of the UK charts. On 6 March 2014, Gallagher predicted that the game would surpass 6 million units by the end of the month. By April 2015, Gallagher announced that the sales had reached 8.5 million, making the game the best-selling Tomb Raider title to date" So, no, PC doesn't account for most sales and figures do not line up. And, again, steamspy.com counts what's shown in a person's library, not what was bought on steam legally or at a non-sale period when the profit to the publisher is practically nil.
Cool, no need to keep other console gamers from playing tomb raider
yeah we dont need the most fanbase on most sold console so we can kill the franchise sooner since uncharted gonna be the last /s
Was getting the game day one , but with the childish stuff Square is pulling am having second thoughts.They need to just man the f up and deal with the deal and stop being kids about it.
This same issue again. What does it matter? You want to play the game, but you won't play the game because the developer doesn't want to burn any bridges with platform owners? How does that impact your enjoyment of the game?
Just tired of this developers crap already . Plain and simple you don't go to bed with a hooker if your going to worry about matters the next day.
@castillo 5.1.1 "Just tired of this developers crap already . Plain and simple you don't go to bed with a hooker if your going to worry about matters the next day." ... what does that even mean in this context?
The spin is strong with this one.
with games selling three times more on PS4 this is a really the worst decision possible.
Of course the reboot franchise won't be exclusive to Microsoft. The original sold better on PlayStation platforms than it did on Xbox platforms, no reason for Square Enix to deprive their most loyal supporters.
According to some Higher sales ( multiple times)doesn't equal a larger fanbase. Which is funny to me. It just means there was less to buy on that console at the time.
You have like the worst logic ever!
What Badz? So me thinking that Higher sales = Larger fanbase is bad logic?