160°

Is Shadow of the Tomb Raider Going to Be on Xbox Game Pass Day One?

Gadgets 360: "Shadow of the Tomb Raider is the third entry in Square Enix’s retelling of Lara Croft’s origin story. With a September 14 release date and a generous reveal last week, the Transition team discuss what you can expect from Croft’s latest adventure on PS4, Xbox One, and PC."

Read Full Story >>
gadgets.ndtv.com
uptownsoul2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

This seems absurd…The author suggests that Microsoft is funding the game. If that were the case then I highly doubt it would release day & date on PS4.

And since we all know the game is releasing on PS4 on the same exact date, that leads me to believe Microsoft is not funding the game.

If Microsoft is not funding the game, then it won't be in Game Pass day 1 because Square Enix gets nothing from Game Pass

Neonridr2185d ago

I think the author was suggesting that there might be a marketing deal in place and that there was funding given for it to appear on Game Pass. Not that MS paid for development of the game.

maybelovehate2185d ago

You don't seem to understand how GamePass works... MS not only pays to have games listed there, but they also pay royalties to each game that is played. All subscription services work this way. You think Disney gets no money when people watch their shows on Netflix lol. Or that artist get no money when their songs are on Spotify.

The content being in these stores is all negotiated and about money.

uptownsoul2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

@maybelovehate

I think it might be you who doesn't seem to understand how subscription services work (your Disney example kinda proves that)…Disney is actually leaving Netflix because they realize its not worth it to have content on somebody else's subscription service…Which is my exact thinking on why Square Enix won't put a brand new game (day & date) in somebody else's subscription service…So again, unless Microsoft helped fund the games development (and thus has a say-so on the matter) it will not be in Game Pass day & date.

(proof that Disney is leaving Netflix: https://www.forbes.com/site... )

maybelovehate2185d ago

@uptownsoul: That is incorrect. Disney bought Hulu, because they wanted their own Sub service so they get all the money. EA has their own service for the same reason, although their lack of games makes it a very hard sell. Square does not currently own a sub service or enough content to have one.

uptownsoul2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

@maybelovehate

Disney bought Hulu…Ok. That doesn't change the fact that Disney no longer wants their content on Netflix. And that's because its not worth it to have their content on somebody else's subscription service.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense for Square Enix to put their content (day & date of release) on a subscription service that they don't own. The only exception is if Microsoft took on some of the development costs (in which case the game wouldn't be releasing on PS4 day & date of release).

maybelovehate2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

@uptownsoul: you do not seem to get it. It does make sense for Square, they don't have their own service or enough games to get users to use it. The only way a subscription service works is if there are subscribers. For example Disney paid 60 billion in the deal involving Fox/Hulu "although just a majority share in Hulu, not all of it". Granted there were other things involved with Fox but still a lot of money. Disney wants a piece of that Netflix market and think they can compete with Netflix through Hulu which is already established with multiple agreements with other studios, not to mention all of Fox's content as well and Millions of subscribers.

You don't just start a subcription service and make money. You have to get customers.

Disney isn't leaving Netflix because they weren't making money.. Quite the opposite, they are competing with Netflix.

How much does it cost Square to add content to Gamepass? Nothing. They add the content and they get paid based on their agreement with Microsoft. They make easy money. How much does it cost to make a subscription service? A lot of time and money with very little hope of competing with mega corporations that are already established.

uptownsoul2185d ago (Edited 2185d ago )

@maybelovehate

I can't believe you still don't get this…It does NOT make sense for Square to put their new, AAA, big budget, Tomb Raider game on ANY subscription service (day & date of release).

The only exception would be if they owned their own service. But like you correctly said, they do not. So it makes zero sense for Square to bolster a subscription service they have no ownership in.

Thats why I PROMISE that Shadow of the Tomb Raider will NOT be on Game Pass on the day of release

As far as Disney…Who said Disney was leaving Netflix "because they weren't making money"…you made that comment up out of thin air…Disney is leaving Netflix (and bought Hulu to make their own service) because they thought their IP was worth more than Netflix was paying them……..Just like Square will NOT be putting Shadow of the Tomb Raider in game pass (day & release date) because they don't think Microsoft will pay them enough to have it in Game Pass (day & release date)…but maybe down the road (when the game is older)

maybelovehate2184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

@Uptownsoul: You said "Square Enix gets nothing from Game Pass" which is total BS. Sorry. Maybe pay attention to your own argument. But yeah, unless MS makes it worthwhile financially I can't see it. Square will probably put it on GamePass a year after release like they have been doing with their other games.

rainslacker2184d ago (Edited 2184d ago )

MS pays a base licensing fee to have the game available. They don't pay a per play royalty. That's how every streaming service works for content that has a pool of titles available.

The cost to put up a high profile game such as SOTTR would be huge. It's a huge expenditure just to get full timed exclusive rights, and more to get full exclusive rights.

Game Pass would have an effect on the sales of the game. At least that's how Square Enix would see it. Might only be 50-100K sales, but that's quite a lot, and that's not going to be made up by people buying the game just because they played it on Game Pass. For MS to get the rights on even such a low number, they'd have to cover the lost revenue as Square Enix would see it. If not extra money just because SE has the product that MS wants to put on there. Even assuming $40 per user, on the low end, that's 2 million dollars. Consider how many subs MS would need to cover that, along with all the other marketing.

MS doesn't have to pay anything to put their own published games up there, and they only have to worry about loss of sales.

We might once in a blue moon see a high profile AAA game show up there in the future as MS spends money to entice people to sign up, but I doubt it's going to be SOTTR, as MS really doesn't seem that interested in the franchise. They forgot it quickly when they got FarCry.

Square Enix doesn't need services like this to promote their product. They aren't served by it. Square Enix has a marketing budget to get people to buy the game. It's not like Square Enix is some sort of podunk publisher who doesn't know how to promote a game.

You're talking about SE adding content...but by content do you mean the whole game? Square Enix gains nothing to add a full game to Game Pass, unless MS pays them, and it's unlikely MS would pay that much. As far as extra content....sure, that's possible, but if that's the case, then that's not the full game which is what's being talked about.

Otherwise, the only thing SE has to gain from this is money from MS to put the game on the service, because MS certainly isn't going to make up the lost revenue by paying on a per play basis like you seem to think these services work.

maybelovehate2184d ago

@Rainslacker: that is incorrect. They do get paid based on use. On songs it is based on plays, for TV Shows and Movies it is based on watches. They also pay to have it available but not in all cases. Depending on the game, song, movie etc some may solely get per play payments if they aren't well known.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2184d ago
rainslacker2184d ago

As quick as MS seemed to forget about ROTTR after they got the FarCry marketing rights, I doubt they're going to fund Square Enix to release the game day one on Game Pass. Square Enix has no reason to release on their own day one, and in fact, that would be counter productive for them to actually get sales of the game.

MS had a real reason to buy up ROTTR exclusivity, and that was to compete against UC4. This holiday, MS doesn't need anything like that. Or maybe they do, but they aren't going to do so for anything but a popular game.

MS will use Game pass for their own games,and you may see some mid-tier or indie games come on the service day one like we see sometimes with PS+. The chance you see high profile AAA games day one on the system from 3rd party publishers is slim to none, as even MS can't really justify the expenditure.

PhoenixUp2185d ago

Square Enix has no reason to do so

XGP day one releases benefit Microsoft more than anyone else

Show all comments (21)
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.

SoulWarrior466d 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)
70°

Assassin's Creed Odyssey available on PC and Xbox Game Pass today

Ubisoft's brilliant Assassin's Creed Odyssey will become available via Xbox and PC Game Pass today, Microsoft has annou…

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
RavenWolfx587d ago

At the time of this comment, I am not seeing Odyssey on Xbox or PC yet.

50°

Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Submerged, Knockout City bundle free at Epic Games Store

Starting today, Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, Submerged, and a Knockout City bundle are free at Epic Games Store. The free game offers run until September 8 at 11 AM Eastern. Once you claim them, they're yours to keep.

Read Full Story >>
gamefreaks365.com