Regarding the second sentence, I am not so sure I agree. Tomb Raider was and is more popular on PlayStation, so taking it away would naturally cost more. JRPGs are more popular on PlayStation, so locking it in would probably be cheaper. Most notably FF Type 0 HD and its rather ludicrous ratio. But who knows, this just seems logical to me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft paid 100 million USD for Tomb Raider timed exclusivity
- Thread starter Moonjt9
- Start date
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
SE has done nothing but shit on Xbox ever since.
MiguelItUp
Member
Yeaaaah, this is essentially an inconvenience for them.
Calm down, no one got got. If this happened to Sony, it'd be the same thing, an inconvenience.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
50 million is a fuckton of money to make a game with, there really aren't many with higher, don't confuse rockstar's crazy budgets as somehow being the norm.
A whole lot of stuff goes into making a game like gta5, and that's without counting costs for things that need to be licensed like music or the stand up comedy shows, not to mention the outrageous amount of money spent on marketing
PropellerEar
Member
Whoa expensive! 
Might be the "perceived" value from Squeenix side. (Or the guy embellishing his profile on LinkedIn)
Phil Spencer was so proud of this deal, in the end it was a big dud.
Might be the "perceived" value from Squeenix side. (Or the guy embellishing his profile on LinkedIn)
Phil Spencer was so proud of this deal, in the end it was a big dud.
YeulEmeralda
Member
Still don't understand why Tomb Raider was rebooted. It was a relic from the 90s that was popular because TITTIES.
But I guess Xbox got their Uncharted.
But I guess Xbox got their Uncharted.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
You don't. The point is that no matter how well their gaming division does its barely going to move the needle on the share price.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
Yes, they did not even have to get it approved, it just went in the office supplies budget with the pens and printer paper.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
That was terrible and it completely back fired. Is that the kind of money square charges for exclusivity on games?
Camreezie
Member
Iirc that was the first game
Boss Mog
Member
That was part of it, but it was specifically announced at the XBOX One reveal and included XBOX One getting a bunch of integrated features that never materialized.That was for Microsoft Surface. It must be working out pretty well for both parties since they expanded the partnership in 2020.
Microsoft and the NFL expand partnership to accelerate digital transformation across the League - Stories
Microsoft Surface in use in the Vikings Draft Room. (Photo courtesy of the Minnesota Vikings) REDMOND, Wash. — March 3, 2020 — Microsoft Corp. and the National Football League on Tuesday announced an expansion of their deep technology partnership. The multiyear expansion aims to help the entire...news.microsoft.com
oldergamer
Member
people as usual are reading this wrong.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Where does that say they paid to help fund the game's development? Logically speaking, if they co-funded the 2013 game's dev, why did they not arrange for some timed exclusivity at the very least for that game, but its sequel instead? If they helped co-fund Rise's development, why does the headline for the article not state that nor the quote you pulled?The helped pay for development of the game. There would have been no new Tomb Raider without the deal
edit:
added quote from polygon article.
$100 million simply for timed exclusivity is outright dumb, doesn't matter how much money you've got to blow. That was always money that could've been better served on further 1P development, or funding a wider, more varied range of games to bring them to your platform. Heck, they could've put that towards co-funding several Street Fighter 5-sized AAA games and been better off while keeping them console exclusive.
It's a bone-headed decision no matter how you look at it, seems like Square-Enix didn't care to extend privileged partnerships with Microsoft afterwards considering the 2+ AAA games they've got locked exclusively for Sony for two-year terms.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
They arguably "won" with the 360 tho, unless suddenly Nintendo counts again, considering final LTD between 360 and PS3 was within a margin of error, and Sony needed many more markets than Microsoft to only end up with ~ 3 million more systems sold. Which, when both systems are already in the high 80 millions, isn't a very big deal.
Using stuff like "won" is such an arbitrary and stupid measure because you can contextualize that in many ways to fit any suitor. Sega "won" the Brazilian and European markets with SMS and MegaDrive. Microsoft "won" the U.S and UK with 360. Nintendo "won" Japan with the Switch despite coming out four years later, etc.
It's a base-level metric and doesn't necessarily say a lot about ecosystem revenue, profit, or what share platform holders are seeing out of that.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
It's probably just a poorly worded statement; the $100 million may refer to the "multiple deals" negotiated, which include TR exclusivity, all totaled at $100 million.
I SERIOUSLY doubt MS paid anywhere near that.. it's just 1 example of the deals this guy negotiated.
"Negotiated multiple deals.... worth $100M"
I SERIOUSLY doubt MS paid anywhere near that.. it's just 1 example of the deals this guy negotiated.
"Negotiated multiple deals.... worth $100M"
Last edited:
Dick Jones
Gold Member
If Microsoft were dumb enough to actually pay $100m, forget Gamepass, Square Enix got the best deal in gaming™
In all likelihood it is a poorly phrased line designed to make the cv look that much better. Everyone has experience writing something they think makes sense but others will spot an issue straight away when they read it with fresh eyes.
In all likelihood it is a poorly phrased line designed to make the cv look that much better. Everyone has experience writing something they think makes sense but others will spot an issue straight away when they read it with fresh eyes.
hemo memo
Gold Member
The one with the fantastic puzzle tombs and well balanced action.Did you? I can spot a mediocre end product if I see one. But I'm not daft, what's barely mediocre to me is a sure fire AAA experience for the masses, I get that.
Doesn't mean it's investment wasn't poorly done unless you go full retard and say; "hey, this was a wise investment because it caters to a broad casual audience" which is undoubtedly true and therefore another sad testament to who's really their primary audience.
But to answer your question.. was it the one on that Japanese island or the other one? You know, the one with nature and enemies and collectibles and shitty story? Yes I've played some of it; enough rather.
They're OK games.
Perrott
Member
Looking at those figures, I don't find hard to believe that MS payed $100M for Rise of the Tomb Raider's 1 year console exclusivity.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
That Borderlands quote is basically wrong.. they paid a lot less than that for "exclusivity', as much of it was an advance, that they made back and then some:
Borderlands 3 Exclusivity Deal Did A Lot For The Epic Games Store
Epic more than made back its money for getting Borderlands 3 to be an EGS exclusive game.
www.thegamer.com
They "paid" about $35 million; but they gained 1 million+ users and then kept making money on the BL3 sales after the initial $80 million was recouped. And 15 of that 35 mil was for marketing, which included marketing that it was EGS exclusive.. so really just an ad campaign for EGS itself.
If the TR deal was worth $100 million it almost certainly would have also partly been an advance.. which still probably made it a shit deal compared to Epic's BL3, but there's pretty much 0 chance it was "paying $100 million for exclusivity."
Last edited:
RoboFu
One of the green rats
back in the day tomb raider 2 was canceled for the sega saturn after being announced previously
The devs declared at the time that the Saturn couldn’t handle it but many years later it came out as false and it was just because of a exclusivity deal that Sony bought.
I think of this as retribution.
Last edited:
Elbow Identity Shallow
Member
Could they really not think of somewhere better to spend that money? For me, it was really only when production was moved from Crystal Dynamics to Eidos Montreal for Shadow of the Tomb Raider that the game was anything but average.
I'd imagine that in some ways they were hoping to combat the Uncharted series, ironically that is what made the first two games really bland for me. I love the Uncharted series but it really wasn't what this series should have been aiming for.
Hopefully Square will leave the franchise alone for a few years. I know they some sort of free to play mobile game but I'm more than happy for them to give the series a long break and hopefully they'll find something new they can do with it when they do that.
I'd imagine that in some ways they were hoping to combat the Uncharted series, ironically that is what made the first two games really bland for me. I love the Uncharted series but it really wasn't what this series should have been aiming for.
Hopefully Square will leave the franchise alone for a few years. I know they some sort of free to play mobile game but I'm more than happy for them to give the series a long break and hopefully they'll find something new they can do with it when they do that.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Remember when it was confirmed by the studio that the game wouldn't have even been made in the way it was without Microsoft's financial support? This is proof they weren't lying. The game wouldn't have been as good as it was without this investment.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
They probably want Microsoft to pay for FFVII, FFXVI etc. into GamePass once the exclusivity terms are over but IMO Microsoft should just completely pass on that. It's not like getting them into GamePass (in a way where Microsoft has to foot the bill) does much for boosting subs and revenue years after the initial release. It's Square Enix's equivalent of throwing a bone to a dog...but expecting the dog to pay millions for the bone after you deprived them for two years.
Microsoft has a much better shot proliferating JRPGs on their platform with SEGA, at least in terms of possibly getting things like Persona Day-and-Date between Xbox, PlayStation and PC. Or maybe funding something like a Phantasy Star V to bring that to their ecosystem similar to several of the SEGA games they helped fund for OG Xbox. Basically business-wise any avenue would be healthier and more respectful for Microsoft to pursue than paying for sloppy seconds from Square-Enix.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Mods might want to change the thread title. This:
Strongly suggests it was multiple deals totaling $100 million, not just the Tomb Raider deal exclusively. Now, use some logical thinking here: what other major game from Square-Enix would've likely been negotiated for a deal, to probably get revealed a little while later as a platform exclusive?
Can you say: Final Fantasy VII Remake?
Which, in all honestly, probably ate into a big chunk of that $100 million, also considering the fact that FF was going multiplat starting the gen prior. I don't know why the OP completely forgot about FF VII Remake from all of this given the Linkedin for the guy shows he was there until mid-2014; by which point Sony would've known about any plans or a FF VII Remake and, likely preemptively, gotten a contract drawn up for it in response to Microsoft doing so with Rise of the Tomb Raider.
That's starting to sound a lot more plausible than them spending $100 million for simply Rise timed exclusivity, so I think
IntentionalPun
,
Schmick
, etc. are correct here. Still doesn't make the Rise deal a smart one for MS IMO (in hindsight), but I strongly doubt it alone was near $100 million, that's the cost of a massive AAA game on its own. And, why would MS front that much of the bill for the game to only keep it 1-year exclusive? Sony fronted way less for Street Fighter 5 and that stayed PS4 exclusive the whole gen, and that's an IP whose last entry was much more popular (at least among the FGC) on the 360!
Strongly suggests it was multiple deals totaling $100 million, not just the Tomb Raider deal exclusively. Now, use some logical thinking here: what other major game from Square-Enix would've likely been negotiated for a deal, to probably get revealed a little while later as a platform exclusive?
Can you say: Final Fantasy VII Remake?
Which, in all honestly, probably ate into a big chunk of that $100 million, also considering the fact that FF was going multiplat starting the gen prior. I don't know why the OP completely forgot about FF VII Remake from all of this given the Linkedin for the guy shows he was there until mid-2014; by which point Sony would've known about any plans or a FF VII Remake and, likely preemptively, gotten a contract drawn up for it in response to Microsoft doing so with Rise of the Tomb Raider.
That's starting to sound a lot more plausible than them spending $100 million for simply Rise timed exclusivity, so I think
IntentionalPun
,
Schmick
, etc. are correct here. Still doesn't make the Rise deal a smart one for MS IMO (in hindsight), but I strongly doubt it alone was near $100 million, that's the cost of a massive AAA game on its own. And, why would MS front that much of the bill for the game to only keep it 1-year exclusive? Sony fronted way less for Street Fighter 5 and that stayed PS4 exclusive the whole gen, and that's an IP whose last entry was much more popular (at least among the FGC) on the 360!
CitizenZ
Banned
Spencer must have some serious blackmail on MS top brass, because everything that guy has touched has failed.
it was actually 146 million
it was actually 146 million
EDMIX
Member
True, but without an ace team to pull it off, its pretty risk.
I agree regardless though, they have money to risk it, its why I never fucking understood MS not understanding how to move monster units.
Sony is fucking writing an easy blueprint here folks, they are laying it all out on how to actually get those types of numbers.
New series........EVERY SINGLE FUCKING GENERATION. Gamers become fans of the people that make the games too and trust them to do new IP, thus are ok with moving on. Had MS made a habit of doing this, many would be ok, I just don't see those that love XB really only just wanting the same IP over and over and over, they'd be just as open to new concepts, new AAA series etc. Why MS didn't do this generations ago is beyond me, it wasn't a secret what Sony was doing. All the timed shit was useless as what good is tricking those millions that bought 360, if they have no need to buy XONE based on the same fucking tricks?
So tricking someone into thinkin Mass Effect, Bioshock, Lost Planet and many more can ONLY be found on 1 system is useless when that trick is done and they realize they can just buy the series else where next generation , it starts to have gamers question all the things MS states, its why even timed deals like Tomb Raider ended up hurting them as we all fucking know its timed now, you can't really do that a dozen fucking times and act shocked when many already kinda know the trick man. I really thought they'd stop doing that shit last gen and they paid for that crap in more ways then they realized.
They money was just better spent on just buying teams, making new IP etc. I don't even think anyone here who likes MS can really argue that if MS bought those teams at the start of last gen vs the ending of it, that it would be a bad move.
Perrott
Member
Mods might want to change the thread title. This:
Strongly suggests it was multiple deals totaling $100 million, not just the Tomb Raider deal exclusively. Now, use some logical thinking here: what other major game from Square-Enix would've likely been negotiated for a deal, to probably get revealed a little while later as a platform exclusive?
Can you say: Final Fantasy VII Remake?
Which, in all honestly, probably ate into a big chunk of that $100 million, also considering the fact that FF was going multiplat starting the gen prior. I don't know why the OP completely forgot about FF VII Remake from all of this given the Linkedin for the guy shows he was there until mid-2014; by which point Sony would've known about any plans or a FF VII Remake and, likely preemptively, gotten a contract drawn up for it in response to Microsoft doing so with Rise of the Tomb Raider.
That's starting to sound a lot more plausible than them spending $100 million for simply Rise timed exclusivity, so I think
$100M is specifically about the Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusivity deal and even on the fragment you quoted it is stated that way, although with very poor wording I'd say: "Negotiated multiple deals including the Tomb Raider exclusivity on Xbox worth $100 million" pretty much refers to the Tomb Raider exclusivity being worth $100M, because if that weren't the case then the sentence would read like this "Negotiated multiple deals worth $100 million, including the Tomb Raider exclusivity on Xbox"
ShaikhCroft
Member
How is investing in Rise of the Tomb Raider a bad move for Microsoft? Tomb Raider 2013 sold 11 million copies and they wanted to invested in it to fight against Sony's Uncharted. It was a good initiative. After 6 years Rise of the Tomb Raider still looks great and the game was really amazing. The only fault was MS did poor marketing with the game and XBOX sale were really low at that time because of their own TV TV TV promotions!
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I am going to go out on a limb and say absolutely no way it was that much money.
No way.
No way.
ClosBSAS
Member
Facts. Its peanuts.
Schmick
Member
I didn't know there was a second page.
$100M is specifically about the Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusivity deal and even on the fragment you quoted it is stated that way, although with very poor wording I'd say: "Negotiated multiple deals including the Tomb Raider exclusivity on Xbox worth $100 million" pretty much refers to the Tomb Raider exclusivity being worth $100M, because if that weren't the case then the sentence would read like this "Negotiated multiple deals worth $100 million, including the Tomb Raider exclusivity on Xbox"
But it's likely that part of that 100 million helped with the development costs.
Microsoft's support of Tomb Raider reboot led to sequel's exclusive, Square Enix says
Square Enix announced last month that Rise of the Tomb Raider will arrive on PlayStation 4 one year after it launches on Xbox platforms. Now we have an idea of how Microsoft secured that...
www.polygon.com
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Investing in it is not a bad move. Investing $100m is. I don't believe that happened though.
Silent Viper
Banned
100m nothing for MS.
Game was good but dont think it was worth keeping exclusive for 100m
Game was good but dont think it was worth keeping exclusive for 100m
Schmick
Member
hmm, i'm not a big user of Linkedin but his profile doesnt say any of that anymore. Is there a version of a person's profile where you only see half of it. I appear to be seeing all of it but i havent 'connected' with him (I dont want to either) so i'm wondering if i dont get to see all the details unless i have..
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Makes sense. Considering the huge market share of PlayStation, it would have cost Xbox a lot more money than it does Sony to keep games off of the platform. I think this is why we see only smaller games as timed exclusives on Xbox, while PlayStation secures big AAA games like Final Fantasy and Forspoken (and, as rumored, Bioshock 4).
Btw, the $100M amount makes sense. The decision to pay that amount doesn't, imo.
Btw, the $100M amount makes sense. The decision to pay that amount doesn't, imo.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
For MS, it's nothing. For Xbox, it is big.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
$80m out of those $115m were a guaranteed minimum. It technically didn't cost Epic anything because it worked out for them. So the actual cost was $35m.
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Seems like it was a waste of money, but I don't fault them for trying to compete against Uncharted.
I seem to remember all it really did was piss off PlayStation owners and turn some away from the franchise. A lose-lose for both Microsoft and Square Enix, as I am sure it would have sold more like the first installment had it been released on all platforms (not to mention the DLC sales they missed out on).
I personally lost interest after the exclusivity announcement (I only had a PS4 when I found out) and ended up not playing it until many years later on PC (Steam). I'm talking like late 2019, early 2020.
I seem to remember all it really did was piss off PlayStation owners and turn some away from the franchise. A lose-lose for both Microsoft and Square Enix, as I am sure it would have sold more like the first installment had it been released on all platforms (not to mention the DLC sales they missed out on).
I personally lost interest after the exclusivity announcement (I only had a PS4 when I found out) and ended up not playing it until many years later on PC (Steam). I'm talking like late 2019, early 2020.