Support NeoGAF

[Wynnebeck]

No defense for this. Not wanting to disclose the details of the deal doesn't mean to obfuscate the rest and play PR musical chairs with consumers. I will agree with BruiserBear on one thing though. No one will care about exclusivity once the game drops because too many people will be playing other games to care about Tomb Raider in the first place.

 

[soul creator]

The FAQ doesn't really clarify much beyond what we already knew.

"The deal has a duration", doesn't necessarily mean "PS4/PC confirmed Summer 2016!". Sure, that's obviously one possibility (maybe even the likeliest one), but the wording by itself doesn't guarantee anything.

If they sell 3 million out the gate and it reviews higher than Uncharted 4, SE could be like "fuck it, this exclusive platform stuff is working out, let's renew that deal! Let's get more of that Microsoft exclusive paper, it really helped the game apparently."

Or it could come out and bomb and SE could be like "READY THE MULTIPLATFORM PORTS IMMEDIATELY! STEAM SALES GO! PSN PLUS DISCOUNT GO! DEFINITIVE EDITION GO!"

Some "only on Xbox" games stayed exclusive. Some of them went to Playstation platforms only. Some of them went to PC platforms only. And some of them went to both.

 

[jetjevons]

6-9 month Microsoft exclusivity doesn't bother me.

Cross-gen does though. *sigh*

 

[Zombie James]

Our goal is to build the best game that we possibly can, and our relationship with Microsoft will help us realize our vision for the game.

This line is the most puzzling of all. If they really want to build the best game they possible can, how is a relationship with the manufacturer of the weakest current-gen console going to help and why is it cross-gen with 10-year-old hardware (by the time the game launches)? Those are the questions I want to see answered. In fact, I want an FAQ that covers the thought process of whoever thought this was a good idea, step-by-step, because this shit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

I'm about to head out, so apologies for not replying to everyone. Will try to do when I get home.



Um, Playground is an independent development made up of some of the best racing developers around. It wasn't formed by MS. What makes you think it was?

And while the first Horizon might not have sold as well as mainline, that doesn't mean it doesn't have the same power or money behind it. That's just silly. Everything we've heard and seen from Horizon 2 suggests the exactly opposite, seems MS have thrown considerable money and power behind the game and allowed Playground to make the best game they possibly can.



This is assuming that they didn't start off with the plan of having two separate versions of the game. As I said from the beginning,we know absolutely nothing about the last gen version, so it seems a bit premature to start claiming it will limit or in some way hold back the current gen version, especially when we're starting to see developers not just make the same game across generations with some slight differences.v

SE/CD aren't stupid, they know that releasing a game that's been developed as a traditional cross gen in late 2015 won't cut it, they want their best product out there whil also making sure to take advantage of the huge last gen market. So while I won't completely write off the chance of RoTR being a traditional cross gen title, it seems very unlikely that it will be.

What is a "traditional" cross gen title? A cross-gen title is a cross-gen title, it has to run reasonably on the lowest common denominator and that inevitably limits the scope and the ambition of the graphics and gameplay, there's no denying that, even a game like Destiny would have been at the very least better-looking had it been custom-tailored on current gen consoles/PC.

There are things that are constrained by the amount of memory and the hardware you have, like animations, basic geometry and number of enemies on screen, at the end of the day they are not making two games from the ground-up, don't kid yourself, they are making one game that has to run on multiple platforms, one of which has a total available memory of less than 500MB compared to something that is tailored to a system that have available memory of 5GB, that's night and day. Even the Tomb Raider port-up on its best day doesn't really compare graphically a first-generation PS4 title like Infamous SS, and the gap is only going to get wider the further we go into this current generation.

 

[soul creator]

This line is the most puzzling of all. If they really want to build the best game they possible can, how is a relationship with the manufacturer of the weakest current-gen console going to help and why is it cross-gen with 10-year-old hardware (by the time the game launches)? What I want is an FAQ that covers the thought process of whoever thought this was a good idea, step-by-step, because this shit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The obvious answer is that they get more money to put into development, more money to market it (and hopefully sell more), and get to focus on fewer platforms. Pretty much the same argument for any other kind of exclusive (or "more exclusive than before") game. Also, has it been announced that CD is actually working directly on the 360 version, or is that getting farmed out?

Obviously, if we took it completely literally whenever someone says that, then that means developers would only make games for high-end PCs, lol. It seems pretty clear it's a financial issue. Maybe it came down to making a 20 million dollar game for PS4/PC/XB1/360/PS3, or a 40 million dollar game for XB1/360, I dunno (edit, or maybe it was PS4/PC/XB1 to XB1/360 as part of the deal). Who knows what SE's finances and feelings about the franchise were when they made this deal.

 

[Y2Kev]

6-9 month Microsoft exclusivity doesn't bother me.

Cross-gen does though. *sigh*

They're obviously related.

The obvious answer is that they get more money to put into development, more money to market it (and hopefully sell more), and get to focus on fewer platforms. Pretty much the same argument for any other kind of exclusive (or "more exclusive than before") game. Also, has it been announced that CD is actually working directly on the 360 version, or is that getting farmed out?

Obviously, if we took it completely literally whenever someone says that, then that means developers would only make games for high-end PCs, lol. It seems pretty clear it's a financial issue. Maybe it came down to making a 20 million dollar game for PS4/PC/XB1/360/PS3, or a 40 million dollar game for XB1/360, I dunno. Who knows what SE's finances and feelings about the franchise were when they made this deal.

Seems very silly to make this argument. They're now optimizing for two radically different platforms (the 360 and the XB1) compared to optimizing for the XB1 and the PS4, which are essentially the same machine. How can we possibly believe this leads to some kind of enhanced focus?

The thing that bothers me is that there is a presumption that Microsoft is graciously handing over cash. I find that hard to believe. I suspect this is more of a cashless transaction. Odds are they are getting discounts on licensing payments and additional marketing support. None of these things go into "funding" the game.

Everyone has to invent scenarios to make this seem benevolent. I'm not really into that.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

They're obviously related.



Seems very silly to make this argument. They're now optimizing for two radically different platforms (the 360 and the XB1) compared to optimizing for the XB1 and the PS4, which are essentially the same machine. How can we possibly believe this leads to some kind of enhanced focus?

The thing that bothers me is that there is a presumption that Microsoft is graciously handing over cash. I find that hard to believe. I suspect this is more of a cashless transaction. Odds are they are getting discounts on licensing payments and additional marketing support. None of these things go into "funding" the game.

Everyone has to invent scenarios to make this seem benevolent. I'm not really into that.

Makes me wonder why skipping out on the holiday season on three other platforms (assuming it would have been on the PS3 as well), one of which hosts your largest audience, is going to be a good business decision for SE.

 

[Y2Kev]

It's risk management. Games are too expensive and this is essentially risk transfer. It's not about creating better games or producing better results. Duh.

That's why the game is cross-gen in the first place.

 

[Chobel]

The obvious answer is that they get more money to put into development, more money to market it (and hopefully sell more), and get to focus on fewer platforms. Pretty much the same argument for any other kind of exclusive (or "more exclusive than before") game. Also, has it been announced that CD is actually working directly on the 360 version, or is that getting farmed out?

Obviously, if we took it completely literally whenever someone says that, then that means developers would only make games for high-end PCs, lol. It seems pretty clear it's a financial issue. Maybe it came down to making a 20 million dollar game for PS4/PC/XB1/360/PS3, or a 40 million dollar game for XB1/360, I dunno (edit, or maybe it was PS4/PC/XB1 to XB1/360 as part of the deal). Who knows what SE's finances and feelings about the franchise were when they made this deal.

You're always saying this, "it's now bigger budget".
The game have now less projected sales but hey, let's increase our budget. Are you kidding me? That's not how things it works, especially if we took your assumption that SE have financial troubles.

 

[Y2Kev]

The cost of the game borne by the publisher is almost assuredly the same or smaller. That is the entire point of subsidy.

 

[soul creator]

They're obviously related.



Seems very silly to make this argument. They're now optimizing for two radically different platforms (the 360 and the XB1) compared to optimizing for the XB1 and the PS4, which are essentially the same machine.

The thing that bothers me is that there is a presumption that Microsoft is graciously handing over cash. I find that hard to believe. I suspect this is more of a cashless transaction. Odds are they are getting discounts on licensing payments and additional marketing support. None of these things go into "funding" the game.

Everyone has to invent scenarios to make this seem benevolent. I'm not really into that.

Well of course they're not "graciously" handing over cash. They get something out of it, which is exclusivity.

Why is MS helping to fund the game (something that has happened plenty of times for "only on Xbox" games that end up on other platforms in the future) in some way an "invented scenario" but other scenarios are not? I haven't seen any other details of the specifics of the deal, so it seems like we're all just guessing here, lol.

As far as XB1/360 vs. XB1/PS4, was it already confirmed that the game went from current gen only to cross-gen? I don't remember any announced platforms when the game was first publicly shown. Sure, going from XB1/PS4 to XB1/360 is probably more difficult, but that seems to assume that 1) CD is spending a bunch of their effort on the 360 version as opposed to farming most of it out 2) the game was already confirmed to be current-gen only and the cross-gen thing came out of nowhere only as a result of this deal.

Obviously, I could be missing out on the latest rumors and/or announcements, but again, it seems like we're all just making assumptions and "odds", even though we don't know how much the deal is worth that could have affected those "odds".

 

[vpance]

Makes me wonder why skipping out on the holiday season on three other platforms (assuming it would have been on the PS3 as well), one of which hosts your largest audience, is going to be a good business decision for SE.

The assumption would be that the cheque was big enough. If SE figures they'd lose half the lifetime sales as usual from Sony consoles because of a 6 month delay, then MS needs to pay out more than $20 x 2 million copies = $40M. It's probably like $60M to SE to make it worth their while.

 

[Chobel]

Well of course they're not "graciously" handing over cash. They get something out of it, which is exclusivity.

Why is MS helping to fund the game (something that has happened plenty of times for "only on Xbox" games that end up on other platforms in the future) in some way an "invented scenario" but other scenarios are not? I haven't seen any other details of the specifics of the deal, so it seems like we're all just guessing here, lol.

As far as XB1/360 vs. XB1/PS4, was it already confirmed that the game went from current gen only to cross-gen? I don't remember any announced platforms when the game was first publicly shown. Sure, going from XB1/PS4 to XB1/360 is probably more difficult, but that seems to assume that 1) CD is spending a bunch of their effort on the 360 version as opposed to farming most of it out 2) the game was already confirmed to be current-gen only and the cross-gen thing came out of nowhere only as a result of this deal.

Obviously, I could be missing out on the latest rumors and/or announcements, but again, it seems like we're all just making assumptions and "odds", even though we don't know how much the deal is worth that could have affected those "odds".

Here's what we know, SE didn't need MS help to develop the game. Source: Kagari, mod and insider.
It's straight up moneyhat.

 

[soul creator]

Here's what we know, SE didn't need MS help to develop the game. Source: Kagari, mod and insider.
It's straight up moneyhat.

Thanks for the heads up. That definitely lends some credence to the "risk management" strategy.

 

[Chobel]

Thanks for the heads up. That definitely lends some credence to the "risk management" strategy.

BTW the "straight up moneyhat" part is conjecture by me, Kagari didn't say it, and that's why I said it in a different line. However it's the most likely scenario that happened.

 

[Sez]

It's risk management. Games are too expensive and this is essentially risk transfer. It's not about creating better games or producing better results. Duh.

That's why the game is cross-gen in the first place.

This. Lot of people here do not know how bussiness are made, but this deal is just to minimize risks specially after Uncharted 4 is out at the same time.

 

[Y2Kev]

Well of course they're not "graciously" handing over cash. They get something out of it, which is exclusivity.

Why is MS helping to fund the game (something that has happened plenty of times for "only on Xbox" games that end up on other platforms in the future) in some way an "invented scenario" but other scenarios are not? I haven't seen any other details of the specifics of the deal, so it seems like we're all just guessing here, lol.

As far as XB1/360 vs. XB1/PS4, was it already confirmed that the game went from current gen only to cross-gen? I don't remember any announced platforms when the game was first publicly shown. Sure, going from XB1/PS4 to XB1/360 is probably more difficult, but that seems to assume that 1) CD is spending a bunch of their effort on the 360 version as opposed to farming most of it out 2) the game was already confirmed to be current-gen only and the cross-gen thing came out of nowhere only as a result of this deal.

Obviously, I could be missing out on the latest rumors and/or announcements, but again, it seems like we're all just making assumptions and "odds", even though we don't know how much the deal is worth that could have affected those "odds".

Handing over cash is a gracious move. They can get the same in a cashless transaction. Cash is king. I can spell out why there are added benefits of holding cash from a corporate's perspective if you like.

I think your scenario is invented because you are assuming positive behaviors of self-interested corporates. Even in the most public "money hat" from last gen, Microsoft only advanced a loan to Take Two for the GTA exclusive content. I don't think it makes sense to assume there is any permanent exchange of cash put towards funding the game. I have not seen any examples of how this might work in the industry, but I have seen lots of examples of marketing support, advances, discounts on licensing fees, etc. So I don't think I have to stretch too far honestly.

I suppose I'd be fine with the suggestion that Microsoft is funding Square-Enix with low cost loans, but this does not increase the budget of the game. It would merely allow the company to operate without accessing the credit or capital markets.

The game never had platforms confirmed. What is your argument here? It was originally probably current gen and previous gen platforms. They narrowed it down to XB1 and Xbox 360 for launch. This is not the decision you would make if you were interested in simplifying development. It is, however, the decision you would make if you were incentivized to do so in a de-risking transaction. So it is absolutely inane to me to suggest this is in the interest of simplifying development in the ultimate goal of making the game better.

If CD is farming out the 360 version, they could easily have farmed out the PS4 version in my scenario (which, mind you, they did with Tomb Raider Underworld not only for the PS3 version but for the PC version as well!). However, in this case, they would not have gotten the de-risking effect of a potential subsidy. I say CD but I really mean Square-Enix. CD doesn't care or receive incremental benefit.

I'm not really that interested in finding the absolute truth here. It could very well be that Microsoft is handing over $20MM and saying enjoy. I just think that's bizarre and perhaps unprecedented and illogical and I'm comfortable with my assumptions.

 

[Mrbob]

To add the above, Nixxes is the company that handles the recent Square Enix ports on PC and also made TR Definition Edition for PS4:

http://www.nixxes.com/nixxes/projects

http://www.nixxes.com/nixxes/projects/166

The only other game they are officially working on is Temple of the Osiris conversion at the moment, though their is a to be announced. Might be the PS4 and PC ports of Rise of the Tomb Raider since Nixxes has handled every recent Tomb Raider related port outside of XB1 TR Definitive Edition ( which doesn't matter since CD is making Rise on XB1 ).

 

[danthefan]

This line is the most puzzling of all. If they really want to build the best game they possible can, how is a relationship with the manufacturer of the weakest current-gen console going to help and why is it cross-gen with 10-year-old hardware (by the time the game launches)? Those are the questions I want to see answered. In fact, I want an FAQ that covers the thought process of whoever thought this was a good idea, step-by-step, because this shit makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I guess the hats full of money allow them to buy/use tech and hire talent they couldn't have otherwise?

 

[Kayant]

As far as XB1/360 vs. XB1/PS4, was it already confirmed that the game went from current gen only to cross-gen?I

The deal on gamescom said XBOX exclusivity which means only one thing X360/XB1. If not if it was just an Xbox one exclusive it would have been announced as such like TF is an Xbox and PC exclusive.

Why is MS helping to fund the game (something that has happened plenty of times for "only on Xbox" games that end up on other platforms in the future) in some way an "invented scenario" but other scenarios are not? I haven't seen any other details of the specifics of the deal, so it seems like we're all just guessing here, lol.

Ryse all we know is MS published the XB1 version. And likely part-funded if not funded the XB1 version.
DR3 same story.
TF is the only one we know where it is clear MS funded the game in terms of development which got them 13 months of exclusivity before they made it permanent.

So them saying they are now funding the game now based on past examples seems like they are funding the development of the titles on their platforms in addition to the marketing obviously.

 

[Jeels]

IDTS : This is something Sony could retaliate at by refusing certification on Game

And they damn better out of principle.

 

[Freeman]

I'm beyond this to be honest, it sucks, its a dick move, but it just doesn't matter much. If RoTR was going to be released in early 2015 or even mid 2015 I would care much more.

Uncharted 4 will be released at about the same time, first ND game developed exclusively for PS4 hardware, one of the first PS4 exclusive titles that will have had enough time to do something really special.

RoTR is a crossgen that will most likely release in 2016 for PS4 and PC (2016 crossgen is laughable), has nowhere near the same weight as Uncharted or any ND game.

Crystal Dynamics and ND both had one game releasing in 2013, one was TR the other was TLoU, one was a decent game the other was an record award winner for Goty.

 

[Tom Penny]

So Xbone wins X-Mas.

 

[Jhn]

To add the above, Nixxes is the company that handles the recent Square Enix ports on PC and also made TR Definition Edition for PS4:

http://www.nixxes.com/nixxes/projects

http://www.nixxes.com/nixxes/projects/166

The only other game they are officially working on is Temple of the Osiris conversion at the moment, though their is a to be announced. Might be the PS4 and PC ports of Rise of the Tomb Raider since Nixxes has handled every recent Tomb Raider related port outside of XB1 TR Definitive Edition ( which doesn't matter since CD is making Rise on XB1 ).

Huh. I did not know that. I thought they did it in-house. That's interesting.

 

[kinoki]

You're always saying this, "it's now bigger budget".
The game have now less projected sales but hey, let's increase our budget. Are you kidding me? That's not how things it works, especially if we took your assumption that SE have financial troubles.

I didn't put these two twoes together. But it seems logical. Worst case scenario: they throw away 66% of the sales. No way are they going to pump more money into it. I like the Y2Kev rationale better where it was cashless and the removed the sales cut and a joint marketing move.

 

[soul creator]

Handing over cash is a gracious move. They can get the same in a cashless transaction. Cash is king. I can spell out why there are added benefits of holding cash from a corporate's perspective if you like.

I think your scenario is invented because you are assuming positive behaviors of self-interested corporates.

I don't mean positive in some kind of altruistic way, just "positive" in the standard "if you stay exclusive to our system, we'll give you priority support, development help, funding, marketing, etc.". Which seems pretty standard.

Obviously, this was before I heard the stuff Kagari mentioned, so that does change my thinking a little bit.

Even in the most public "money hat" from last gen, Microsoft only advanced a loan to Take Two for the GTA exclusive content. I don't think it makes sense to assume there is any permanent exchange of cash put towards funding the game. I have not seen any examples of how this might work in the industry, but I have seen lots of examples of marketing support, advances, discounts on licensing fees, etc. So I don't think I have to stretch too far honestly.

I suppose I'd be fine with the suggestion that Microsoft is funding Square-Enix with low cost loans, but this does not increase the budget of the game. It would merely allow the company to operate without accessing the credit or capital markets.

The game never had platforms confirmed. What is your argument here? It was originally probably current gen and previous gen platforms. They narrowed it down to XB1 and Xbox 360 for launch. This is not the decision you would make if you were interested in simplifying development. It is, however, the decision you would make if you were incentivized to do so in a de-risking transaction. So it is absolutely inane to me to suggest this is in the interest of simplifying development in the ultimate goal of making the game better.

What I was implying is that if the game was going from XB1/PS4/PC, to XB1/360 only, then sure, that probably doesn't make life easier.

But if they're going from XB1/PS4/PC/PS3/360, to XB1/360 only, then it probably does make things a lot easier.

No platforms were officially announced when the game was first revealed, so I wasn't sure if we had any confirmation on all the initial platforms it was originally intended for, and whether it was originally intended to be cross-gen or not (unless I'm missing another Kagari statement, heh).

I'm not saying that's the sole reason for seeking an exclusivity deal. It just happens to be one of the perks of it. I don't see "extra marketing money and exposure for our game, and lessened risk to SE" and "now we can narrow our development focus as well" as mutually exclusive things.

edit: maybe that's part of the disconnect in this discussion. I was originally looking at this game in the context of something like Ninja Gaiden (which as far as I remember, didn't have any controversy over its exclusivity and "Only on Xbox" status, yet still ended up coming to Playstation) as opposed to the GTA IV DLC you mentioned, which was a more direct moneyhat.

The deal on gamescom said XBOX exclusivity which means only one thing X360/XB1. If not if it was just an Xbox one exclusive it would have been announced as such like TF is an Xbox and PC exclusive.

Yeah, I know it's cross-gen now, I was just wondering if the multiplatform release (the one that was "moneyhatted away") was always meant to be cross-gen as well.

Ryse all we know is MS published the XB1 version. And likely part-funded if not funded the XB1 version.
DR3 same story.
TF is the only one we know where it is clear MS funded the game in terms of development which got them 13 months of exclusivity before they made it permanent.

So them saying they are now funding the game now based on past examples seems like they are funding the development of the titles on their platforms in addition to the marketing obviously.

Yeah, that's why it gets murky sometimes. SE is supposedly still publishing Tomb Raider, so there's less public indication of MS as funding development in any way. But Titanfall wasn't technically published by MS in any way either, but that's accepted as being "funded by MS" due to that one story that came out, lol. Dead Rising 3 and Ryse are also both commonly accepted as being (at least partially) funded by MS due to it being published by them, even though both IP's still belong to other companies.

 

[simplythebest]

And the additional point to this is that the games media is painting this as a 'bad thing' instead of a 'win' for Microsoft. A lot of pieces/opinions from 'games journalist' are basically saying that as a timed exclusive, it's not 'that big of a deal', and instead we're seeing articles that frames the whole thing as 'not exactly a flattering thing' for Microsoft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIHXCZh9Gg

 

[thelastword]

I don't know, but I have a feeling that Microsoft may try to completely block off the other consoles from here on out since it's become such a big deal to the other platform holders. They may just go to Square-Enix and ask "what must we do or how much should we plop down to make this permanent"?

 

[orochi91]

I don't know, but I have a feeling that Microsoft may try to completely block off the other consoles from here on out since it's become such a big deal to the other platform holders. They may just go to Square-Enix and ask "what must we do or how much should we plop down to make this permanent"?

Not feasible. By holiday 2015 PS4 will likely have 10+ million advantage over the XB1
install base. MS would have have drop an ungodly amount of money to compensate
for those lost PS4 and PC sales.

 

[Dynomutt]

Is it me or does anybody think that Sony and Naughty Dog are looking at this and feeling motivated to put out even more of a top notch product. Game of the Year status.

How far along in production are/were they? I am dying to know what they may be planning. Every time I watch the E3 trailer I salivate at the possibilities. I can't wait!!

 

[jett]

timed exclusive?

No way! Who thought of that!


lol.

Yeah, that's such a ridiculous and laughable statement from. Confusion is exactly what those dicks tried to create here.

 

[orochi91]

Is it me or does anybody think that Sony and Naughty Dog are looking at this and feeling motivated to put out even more of a top notch product. Game of the Year status.

How far along in production are/were they? I am dying to know what they may be planning. Every time I watch the E3 trailer I salivate at the possibilities. I can't wait!!

I certainly hope they put even more effort into U4 after this fiasco. It needs to be GLORIOUS.

 

[BouncyFrag]

Cross gen? Really? This is much more disappointing than a timed exclusive which can be easily remedied with a bit of patience.

 

[Radec]

Cross gen? Really? This is much more disappointing than a timed exclusive which can be easily remedied with a bit of patience.

You can also remedied that with a bit if patience too.

Buy it used or bargain bin a few months later!

 

[EmptySpace]

Is it me or does anybody think that Sony and Naughty Dog are looking at this and feeling motivated to put out even more of a top notch product. Game of the Year status.

How far along in production are/were they? I am dying to know what they may be planning. Every time I watch the E3 trailer I salivate at the possibilities. I can't wait!!

this time the comparisons will be undeniable. i can just see future threads and podcast discussions and youtube videos about this subject.

 

[BouncyFrag]

You can also remedied that with a bit if patience too.

Buy it used or bargain bin a few months later!

True.

 

[SovereignSnake]

Speaking pragmatically, March 2013 -> "Holiday" 2015 is plenty of time for a sequel. There were 2.5 years between Guardian of Light and Tomb Raider 2013, for instance, and they're hardly similar.

That is not really speaking pragmatically. We have no idea if that is enough time for the team to make the game different from the last one. Some people think it is and some don't. I am not saying it is going to be bad. What I am saying is that I don't think it is enough time for the game to be different from the last game I have no doubt they can make Tomb Raider 2013 again, but can they make ROTTR be different and the the same game with some new features? Only time will tell.

 

[JaseC]

That is not really speaking pragmatically. We have no idea if that is enough time for the team to make the game different from the last one. Some people think it is and some don't. I am not saying it is going to be bad. What I am saying is that I don't think it is enough time for the game to be different from the last game I have no doubt they can make Tomb Raider 2013 again, but can they make ROTTR be different and the the same game with some new features? Only time will tell.

It's not going to be different to the last game (with regard to the underlying structure) and wouldn't be even if CD were given twice the time. I addressed that in a later post -- TR'13 is the most popular/successful Tomb Raider game since the PSX era, in terms of unit sales. I would have mentioned this my initial post, but I didn't realise that by "new ideas" you meant "new approach".

Edit: To put it another way, the bombastic, cinematic-driven, "wide-linear" nature of TR'13 gave rise to the series' most positive reception -- albeit one that took some time to amass -- in well over a decade, so rest assured that the formula is here to stay. It's arguably why, at least in part, Osiris was greenlit -- it exists as an alternative option for the TR fans who aren't fond of the new direction the core series has taken.

 

[t_wilson01]

Reading a few recent comments just painted a vision in my mind. When RotTR releases in late 2015 there will not be a similar game on XBONE to compete against it (onless I'm mistaken). On PS4 however, it would go up against U4 and probably get KO in the first round. So SE (thinking that their game will struggle against the competition) decides to take Microsoft's money, release on XBOX first and postpone the PlayStation release by a few months when demand for U4 has subsided. But, what about the PC version you ask? I guess it was an innocent bystander that got ran over by a bus with a giant hat.

 

[Majanew]

6-9 month Microsoft exclusivity doesn't bother me.

Cross-gen does though. *sigh*

I can't believe they want to keep it on last gen.

 

[Game4life]

Is it me or does anybody think that Sony and Naughty Dog are looking at this and feeling motivated to put out even more of a top notch product. Game of the Year status.

How far along in production are/were they? I am dying to know what they may be planning. Every time I watch the E3 trailer I salivate at the possibilities. I can't wait!!

ND wont give a shit about CD or TR. UC will sell much much more.

 

[Represent.]

Cross gen releases for major titles in late 2015.. That is fucking wack. Cross gen needs to die.

 

[Dynomutt]

I certainly hope they put even more effort into U4 after this fiasco. It needs to be GLORIOUS.

I hope so and am looking forward to it. What do you think they could possibly add? More vehicles or alter the climbing mechanics. Using better motion capture is an option as well.

 

[JaseC]

I can't believe they want to keep it on last gen.

I think Squeenix had assumed that the current-gen/next-gen split on "AAA" multiplatform titles would favour the former more strongly than is the case and this momentum would at least remain consistent throughout 2015. I can only presume the X360 version still exists because it's too far along for a cancellation to be preferable to finishing it up and hoping for the best.

 

[BouncyFrag]

Reading a few recent comments just painted a vision in my mind. When RotTR releases in late 2015 there will not be a similar game on XBONE to compete against it (onless I'm mistaken). On PS4 however, it would go up against U4 and probably get KO in the first round. So SE (thinking that their game will struggle against the competition) decides to take Microsoft's money, release on XBOX first and postpone the PlayStation release by a few months when demand for U4 has subsided. But, what about the PC version you ask? I guess it was an innocent bystander that got ran over by a bus with a giant hat.

GAF will be all sorts of silly and crazy if U4 and TR are released at around the same time.

 

[Nirolak]

If CD is farming out the 360 version, they could easily have farmed out the PS4 version in my scenario (which, mind you, they did with Tomb Raider Underworld not only for the PS3 version but for the PC version as well!). However, in this case, they would not have gotten the de-risking effect of a potential subsidy. I say CD but I really mean Square-Enix. CD doesn't care or receive incremental benefit.

Actually the PC and PS3 versions of Tomb Raider 2013 were also made by Nixxes.

 

[Dynomutt]

this time the comparisons will be undeniable. i can just see future threads and podcast discussions and youtube videos about this subject.

Good point. Something that I noticed with Tomb Raider (2013) is that it is was more like Uncharted as opposed to the old seemingly expansive worlds of the old Tomb Raiders.

What if Naughty Dog made UC4 a little more open world like the older Tomb Raider games while maintaining that cinematic feel?

 

[ymmv]

To add the above, Nixxes is the company that handles the recent Square Enix ports on PC and also made TR Definition Edition for PS4:

http://www.nixxes.com/nixxes/projects

http://www.nixxes.com/nixxes/projects/166

The only other game they are officially working on is Temple of the Osiris conversion at the moment, though their is a to be announced. Might be the PS4 and PC ports of Rise of the Tomb Raider since Nixxes has handled every recent Tomb Raider related port outside of XB1 TR Definitive Edition ( which doesn't matter since CD is making Rise on XB1 ).

I always thought that Nixxess was only doing PC conversions for SE/Eidos, but in the case of Crystal Dynamix games like TR, TRE, LC&TGoL and TR:U, they've been handling the PS3/PS4 versions as well. So Crystal Dynamix only has experience working on Xbox or Xbox One titles, they haven't coded a single PC, PS3 or PS4 game.

 

[DieH@rd]

GAF will be all sorts of silly and crazy if U4 and TR are released at around the same time.

TR2 will 99.9% have at least 3 weeks buffer between at and U4 [TR2 will be released first ofc].