"Exclusive Holiday 2015" can easily sound like exclusive and releasing holiday 2015 for those not on the up and up,
The date being emphasised as it was, on top of it being a third party IP - so yeah it took an element of common sense.
So why can't Square Enix state what other platforms the game is coming out on eventually? Spencer has no say on other versions of the game as he continuously claimed in other interviews.
We have no idea if they are or aren't potential consumers because we have no idea if they will be able to purchase the game on their platforms. It's like if schrodinger's cat was a gamer and a fan of Tomb Raider
SE and CD will eventually be able to talk openly about a PS4 or PC version, but not while they need to be marketing the Xbox One version. Microsoft paid for marketing, and there will be a relatively strict marketing plan that means you cannot deviate from discussion of the Xbox One or Xbox 360 version.
There was clearly a measure of intent to make this timed exclusivity a bigger deal than it actually is, but it hinged entirely on the an unbudging PR line of 'exclusive, (launching) holiday 2015' that in hindsight, was :
- pretty dumb because there will be questions probed, and if your response to journalist is "I can't say shit aside from that line quote for quote", that screams timed exclusivity that will be revealed within 24 hours.
- waters being muddied when top-level executives didn't toe the 'exclusivity deal line' ( Greenberg, etc ), which was most likely a mistake on their part, but you don't get a second chance with these kind of things especially when it was obvious through the language that it was meant to be misleading in the first place.
It is complicated, but if that was your plan, then you should've had a fool-proof PR line that everyone needs to toe, no questions asked. Instead we had journalist reporting 20 different variations of the exclusivity story because lol.
Please, I am not saying they did well with their messaging, it increasingly appears to be Microsoft's Achilles heel. And it has turned quite negative for them now that people realise the deal for what it is (not timed, but a strategic acquisition of rights that probably costs an awful lot, that isn't not being invested into something new or interesting).
Of course they expected it to be taken at face value that it was exclusive, and the fact the ink was still drying, or at least it was new to so many execs in both MS and SE, meant there was internal confusion as well as external.
So no one has an example of another non-endangered multiplatform series getting locked down to exclusive like this, right?
And let's not spin their language as only being about their privacy being preserved. They were trying to keep the timed caveat private only to be able to push more customers, PS4 owners or otherwise, to buy their products without any sense that they didn't have to. That's the point of the exclusive deal to start with, is making it so people who don't want to wait will want to play a game where it's first long home will be. In this case, however, they not only wanted people to want the game at debut, but they poorly let it seem like they wanted people to think they weren't going to get a chance outside of Xbox, even when asked directly.
And I guess you never know in text, but I am not worked up. Disappointed since I don't want a lower fidelity version of a game I know could have been better graphically designed for and released on a stronger console simultaneously with the one that now has exclusitivity. I am not interested in ever buying multiplatform titles on my weaker option. It's not that I can't get Rise of the Tomb Raider, as ownership of the system isn't my personal issue here, it's that I will have to wait for no good reason and get a game that will have now been optimized for its initial release on weaker hardware than originally planned at launch.
I am not spinning their language. The privacy of their financial transaction being preserved is the same thing. It is essentially a gag order on mentioning any other versions. Microsoft is happy to handle marketing (apparently among other things), but when you deviate on message and start marketing other potential formats - suddenly part of the agreement breaks down. They are then paying marketing dollars to market PS4 or PC versions.
So yes, it is deceitful to an extent, but only as deceitful as business is. There's nothing personal or human about it. So you can't expect individuals to be able to justify it on any level other than a business level.
