Support NeoGAF

[SoulUnison]

Let's talk about "Let's talk about" threads. It's an annoying, pointless way to start a thread that always comes across as pseudo-intellectual.

"Let's talk about" is "pseudo-intellectual?"
How are people supposed to start a conversation if just about the most benign and straightforward way to start a dialog is too "pretentious" for you?

When people say "hello" to you on the street do you call it an invasion of your privacy?

 

[The Spoony Hou]

These timed exclusives sure beat exclusive DLC and such.

 

[Obscured]

I think this is one of the things people assume. We do not know the financial state of Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics. What we do know is that they expressed trouble that the game wasn't profitable initially, even after having sold several million copies. That just gives you an idea of how hard it is to keep these bigger projects going. All the more reason I wasn't shocked to hear they took some extra money from Microsoft.

Like I said, we don't know, but what if this Tomb Raider sequel didn't sell enough to keep things going, and Crystal Dynamics went under? It's not inconceivable at all. This money for exclusivity may have been the thing that assures they're gonna make another game. That's my point. There could be a lot more to these stories we don't understand, and ultimately more money being pumped into these studios is surely a good thing, rather than a bad thing, right?

Honestly, this is a complicated topic to me. Partnerships and exclusivity deals are forged in a variety of different ways, and I understand why -- at least at the level of intuition -- some deals come across more on the up and up and others feel more shady. But I often think that trying to delineate what's fair and what isn't tends to be a difficult exercise at best, and at worst has people appearing to work backwards from conclusions they've already drawn in at attempt to rationally explain why Situation A if fair and Situation B is unfair.

Personally, I'd like to see publishers take more risks, and I also like the rise of crowdfunding so as to provide alternate revenue streams for developers. But I also understand that platform-holders are in this game and trying to make moves that strengthen their position relative to the competition. Would I prefer it if we could avoid what we call moneyhats from occurring? Sure. As a gamer, I'd like to see everyone get to play the games they want where they want as much as possible. I'm not in this hobby to root for platform holders. I think it'd be great if you could play Smash Bros. on your PS4 and Uncharted 4 on your PC, etc.

But obviously, that's not the reality we live in. Ultimately, I think the only place I can logically draw the line is to say that either we agree that first parties investing money in third parties is a practice that's ok or it isn't. If I agree that the former is fair game, I can't really come up with an explanation that would justify my opposition to moneyhatting timed exclusives. Mind you, I of course understand why it bothers people. But every explanation I read for why this sucks and why all those other exclusives were OK just feel like post-hoc rationales to me to try and make this differentiation seem completely logical whereas I tend to think it's more emotionally driven. Meaning, my response is that this feels bad, but I can't really formulate a cohesive argument that stands up to rigor to really hammer home why.

This really encapsulates how I feel about it as well. It is complicated, but often is talked about in simplistic terms (funding = good, moneyhatting = bad), but there is more to it. For me a lot of it is intent. The problem is we typically have little to no insight on what the intent actually is (other than the obvious, make money stay in business) so we make assumptions often based on our own biases, which probably have been founded on some fact but may not reflect the current situation. The other thing, even in cases where it is a straight up moneyhat, is that there often will be other things like greater marketing or greater profit margin that can have a strong improvement for the game by having more players or continuing support to keep a game going or sequels or even focused dev time so even timed releases end up as better polished products. But then again those are just other assumptions and it would be foolish to treat those notions as gospel.

In the end I realized a while ago that for a variety of reasons there will be games I can play on one platform that I cannot on other. I usually will not have all of the information for why that really is. I would rather have more games funded than not and so I am okay with that. I've bought 2 of the 3 current gen consoles so I can have access to those games more often. If I really cared that strongly I would be a PC warrior and endlessly bemoan console exclusives or substandard ports.

One thing I would wish for is greater transparency. I don't feel like I am being lied to, but there is definitely a lot of carefully worded sales presentations.

 

[CraigerGamer]

I'm not so sure. Insomniac received a lot of negativity even though they went out of their way to explain why Sunset Overdrive is an xb exclusive. Even if Phil Spencer had done what you suggests people would get angry.

To be honest I couldn't care less about this exclusivity deal, even as an xbox one owner. Tomb Rider lost its place in the industry many years ago, it somehow managed to get relevant again after the reboot but tbh I didn't expect the reaction -which has been kinda funny- to the exclusivity deal at all.

If the deal works, MS and SE may do it again.

You may be right. Honestly, all this stems from a deep down fear that MS is going to try and do this with Fallout4. I like TR but to deny me Fallout, well I might just have to go buy an XBOX ONE.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Dude, it literally stated that the game was being published my MS online right after the Gamescom reveal. You act as if people didn't look to confirm things before getting riled up. The messaging was a fn mess and hence the chaos that ensued.

I not once saw it mentioned they were publishing. Do you have a link for that? Everything I saw mentioned the Holiday 2015 date and the careful wording that implied it was a time exclusive. The messaging was only a mess for people who need everything spelled out to them.

 

[Rarity]

If you want the exclusive game, buy the console.

While I may sympathise with a generation or two who may have grown up with being used to having the majority of games on their overtly dominant platform, I don't condone their whining when such a finitely-existing idyll starts to fracture, and I certainly don't endorse the practice of ignoring other platforms in favour of one above all, particularly when every hardware brand offers something amazing you can't get anywhere else.

This is how I feel about it. I don't find much wrong with exclusives, especially if developers find them beneficial.

 

[ReBurn]

I'm ok with the exclusivity deal. Especially since it is timed. But generally I don't get upset when a third party game is exclusive to a single platform. It's not like it is an inalienable right to be able to play all of the games I wish to on the platform that I have.

In the case of timed exclusives, if a game is good when it releases on the first platform it will still be a good game when it releases on the other platforms. If it isn't, well then be glad you didn't waste your money.

I guess we'll see if the Tomb Raider franchise is powerful enough to move Xbox hardware.

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

Its part of the Industry. Always has been, always will be. Sony just happen to be more honest about it - Jim Ryan was very clear in explaining the difference between "first on console" and "exclusive" yesterday. Microsoft continue to be dishonest in their PR, just another thing for Mr Spencer to fix I guess.

I have no problems with exclusives like Bloodbourne, Sunset Overdrive, The Order 1886 and Quantumn Break. These games all all published by Sony/MSFT who have also spent money on co developing them. They're no different than Halo, Uncharted or any of the first party in that sense. Even Titanfall had a good reason to be exclusive, Sony were offered an early look but they were more interested in a PS3 release than the PS4. MSFT helped get that new IP established and the sequel will now be multiplatform. Platform holders have the right to fund new exclusives to promote their hardware.

As others have said, part of the fear for a lot of people is a big series like TES, Mass Effect or GTA goes exclusive (mostly to MSFT because they have the money). This is unfounded. First of all a game of that magnitude would take more money than MSFT would be willing to give Xbox. Second, the PS4 being so far ahead would mean a Xbox One exclusive would have to effectively launch on a 50% smaller user base in practically only one major market (the Xbox One barely exists outside NA). Tomb Raider is an interesting case. If MSFT couldn't lock down a B list game from a struggling publisher as anything more than a timed exclusive what makes anybody think that a bigger franchise is likely to go exclusive?

 

[Killing_Joke]

This is how i see it. There's nothing technically wrong with moneyhats. You want people to buy your system. I get that. Just business.

The issue is if your system is clearly losing the popularity contest, people get PISSED. That's where the problems start. Bayonetta 2 is a good example. Nintendo did nothing wrong. The game wouldn't exist if it wasn't for them. People just don't want to buy a Wii U for it.

MS had to go back and make TF perm because too many people didn't mind waiting for the PS4 port. No one wants to buy X1 to play TR2. There is no logical reason to do this on SE part. MS is desperate. They need exclusives because their first party is pretty much a joke.

 

[BruiserBear]

I'm ok with the exclusivity deal. Especially since it is timed. But generally I don't get upset when a third party game is exclusive to a single platform. It's not like it is an inalienable right to be able to play all of the games I wish to on the platform that I have.

Yeah. I don't throw around the entitled word very often, but it's quite fitting for this Tomb Raider anger.

This is how i see it. There's nothing technically wrong with moneyhats. You want people to buy your system. I get that. Just business.

The issue is if your system is clearly losing the popularity contest, people get PISSED. That's where the problems start. Bayonetta 2 is a good example. Nintendo did nothing wrong. The game wouldn't exist if it wasn't for them. People just don't want to buy a Wii U for it.

MS had to go back and make TF perm because too many people didn't mind waiting for the PS4 port. No one wants to buy X1 to play TR2. There is no logical reason to do this on SE part. MS is desperate. They need exclusives because their first party is pretty much a joke.

So you know the financial situation of SE? You seem to know more than they do. Educate the rest of us.

 

[Aces&Eights]

A similar practice does happen in television. Netflix has bought the rights to multiple shows that were previously on other networks, whether they were cancelled or w/e, and then showed these new episodes exclusively to their subscribers. I fail to see how that's any different, and nobody is disgusted.

If Direct TV bought the rights to the remaining Game of Thrones episodes to be shown exclusively on their network leaving all Comcast subscribers to now either wait 6 months and avoid all spoilers on the Internet or pay 400 bucks for a Direct TV box so they could watch them as they get released then there would be blood in the streets.

 

[Lothars]

Yeah. I don't throw around the entitled word very often, but it's quite fitting for this Tomb Raider anger.

Yeah I wouldn't be throwing that around especially when it's you posting that. Your one of the worst.

 

[Neff]

As others have said, part of the fear for a lot of people is a big series like TES, Mass Effect or GTA goes exclusive (mostly to MSFT because they have the money). This is unfounded. First of all a game of that magnitude would take more money than MSFT would be willing to give Xbox. Second, the PS4 being so far ahead would mean a Xbox One exclusive would have to effectively launch on a 50% smaller user base in practically only one major market (the Xbox One barely exists outside NA). Tomb Raider is an interesting case. If MSFT couldn't lock down a B list game from a struggling publisher as anything more than a timed exclusive what makes anybody think that a bigger franchise is likely to go exclusive?

MS would honestly only need something as huge as GTA to balance things out very, very quickly. Whether they think the monumental expense would be worth it just to get their foot forever in the door this gen is something else. Realistically, MS is in a position to fight much harder than Sony, that is if they want to. To Sony's credit though, they're handily winning without really doing much at all. If this Tomb Raider gambit is any kind of precedent, t's going to be interesting to see what happens.

 

[r3ddvil]

Platform holders have two responsibilities;

1 - Encourage platform sales by creating, providing, or otherwise securing desired content.

2- Satisfy current customers by creating, providing, or otherwise securing desired content.

There is absolutely nothing immoral, or wrong, about using money to do this. This is no different than a sports franchise paying for top notch free agents, companies paying for talented staff, acquiring promising or established studios, or funding exclusive content.

Nobody owes you anything except the folks with whom you are a current customer. If fans of Sony, Nintendo, Mac OSX, Windows, or whatever platform are upset that isn't coming to your preferred platform, you have no right to complain to anyone except perhaps your preferred platform holder for not securing it yourself.

I doubt many would still complain if it were their console of choice getting an exclusive deal such as this.

The crowing, "The return of the king!" would be heard loud if that were the case.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

I think this is one of the things people assume. We do not know the financial state of Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics. What we do know is that they expressed trouble that the game wasn't profitable initially, even after having sold several million copies. That just gives you an idea of how hard it is to keep these bigger projects going. All the more reason I wasn't shocked to hear they took some extra money from Microsoft.

Like I said, we don't know, but what if this Tomb Raider sequel didn't sell enough to keep things going, and Crystal Dynamics went under? It's not inconceivable at all. This money for exclusivity may have been the thing that assures they're gonna make another game. That's my point. There could be a lot more to these stories we don't understand, and ultimately more money being pumped into these studios is surely a good thing, rather than a bad thing, right?

Totally invalid argument when MS has admitted that it's not a full exclusive. If it were, you could at least assume there's some element of funding/assistance in it.

Further, the sequel was announced before any talk of exclusivity. So you can't paint a scenario of CD struggling with making/funding the sequel.

The points above make it clear it's just a payout. Further, because it's just a timed exclusive, it's probably not that big a payout at that.

What I wonder is how did SE arrive at the required payout? It couldn't possibly cover the potential profit from PC/PS4 sales since it's just a timed exclusive. Were they assuming that sales of the delayed PC/PS4 version would be as good as TR1's? Hence the moneyhat is a nice little extra cash for them? That's a dangerous assumption to make.

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

MS would honestly only need something as huge as GTA to balance things out very, very quickly. Whether they think the monumental expense would be worth it just to get their foot forever in the door this gen is something else. Realistically, MS is in a position to fight much harder than Sony, that is if they want to. To Sony's credit though, they're handily winning without really doing much at all. If this Tomb Raider gambit is any kind of precedent, t's going to be interesting to see what happens.

I don't know if you're joking or if you seriously believe that. There is no way GTA will ever be exclusive to anybody. The game makes more profit then Xbox and PS put together in the year its released. They have zero incentive to go exclusive. The long term harm it would do the brand is immense. Microsoft isn't just going to write Xbox a ~$1.5b check to hand Take Two. Xbox isn't the most popular division within the company. While generally supportive, Satya Nadella has admitted it wasn't a "core part of Microsoft". Blowing that much money on a "moneyhat" would not be a popular move with shareholders. Believe it or not, Xbox is pretty small potatoes to Microsoft as a whole and they have much more important things to spend money on.

Look at it this way, if all Microsoft's immense resources could do on exclusives was a timed exclusive on a mid tier third party game from a struggling publisher, what makes you think that situation changes going forward? I can guarantee they didn't suddenly decide to get Tomb Raider, as opposed to Madden or COD or GTA or Dragon Age. It was all they were able to do.

 

[Theognosis]

Nintendo spends money to fund Bayonetta 2 so it exists: Investing.

Microsoft spends money to cockblock other platforms: Not investing.

Exactly. The second one hurts the consumer and is a form of bribery that leads to monopoly. Cockblocking should be banned.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Look at it this way, if all Microsoft's immense resources could do on exclusives was a timed exclusive on a mid tier third party game from a struggling publisher, what makes you think that situation changes going forward? I can guarantee they didn't suddenly decide to get Tomb Raider, as opposed to Madden or COD or GTA or Dragon Age. It was all they were able to do.

Probably because multiplatform development is widely accepted nowadays, and the similarity between platforms make it easier and I assume cheaper. So no one is dumb enough to take a little bit of extra cash to jeopardize their sales.... except SE.

I now imagine that when SE relaunched FFvXIII as XV, they wanted some money from Sony to keep the exclusivity clause, but Sony said screw off, we don't have the money and you'll never finish the game anyway.

 

[David___]

Nintendo spends money to fund Bayonetta 2 so it exists: Investing.

Microsoft spends money to cockblock other platforms: Not investing.

I'll take it a step further. Sony and Nintendo actually add something to the industry while MS only takes away stuff.

 

[Aroll]

I have no issue with exclusivity deals, as long as it's a new IP or it's a situation where the game has no money to be made, and one of the big 3 steps in to foot the bill. I have an issue with it when the game is an established series and played by many gamers across platforms, and the sequel is sniped, thus cutting off large amounts of the fan base. I think that is a scummy practice both from the Big 3, and the dev that made the decision (that they thought it was best for the series, and its fan base).

That we find this kind of thing acceptable in the gaming industry, is kind of ridiculous. Another way to put my stance on this is this:

Let's say Bioshock came out on all platforms. It's this huge success. Everyone is waiting for the sequel. If Sony turned around and made the sequel exclusive to them (thus cutting off all the gamers that played it on a different platform), I think that would be scummy. If MS had made Bioschock an exclusive new IP right out of the gate (so the first game ONLY ever came out on 360), I wouldn't be as miffed, because only 360 owners would have ever played this new IP. It's not cutting out a bunch of people that are already invested in the series. I feel exclusive sequel sniping pretty much hurts gamers overall, and that's not good for this industry.

I also feel it's pretty lazy from the big 3, to compete on this level vs. investing in new IP, or investing in their own games or improving their hardware + software. Also, in these kind of deals no one on that platform gains anything. Someone that owns an X1 was always going to get Tomb Raider. They don't gain anything by this deal. It's all for the sake of moving console units (at the expense of gamers overall, and the series overall fan base). That is why it's a shitty move.

So, where does Nintendo fall in all of this? They funded Bayonetta 2 entirely. It has an established fanbase on other consoles, but Sega literally dropped it, basically. It wasn't profitable enough. Is Nintendo evil for picking it up? What about Devil's Third? Do you really think Nintendo was the first call?

At the end of the day, I think we need to take each situation individually for what it is. Did Titanfall NEED exclusivity to get made? It shouldn't have with EA backing it. Does Tomb Raider need it? That I don't know. Square Enix hasn't had many positive reports when it comes to finances.

On the other side however, I see the benefit of what Microsoft tends to do in flexing their money. It creates competition and it creates compelling reasons to buy their console. If they aren't going to become a psuedo EA and just buy up every development studio out there, then they have to pay for exclusive rights. Without it, they are limited in what they can produce to generate interest in their product.

I understand why it happens and I even agree with it. It doesn't mean I have to like it. I sort of look at it like this: Final Fantasy left Nintendo. It had an established fan base. It pissed people off. Yet, the internet was young and this rage never festered on a global scale. back then, FF leaving Nintendo's consoles entirely would have been like Zelda leaving it. It was huge.

I have no issues with console exclusivity contracts. What irks me is when consoles are shunned by pure choice. Not because you were paid, but because you just don't want to even bother with it.

For all the whining PS4 users may do over the Xbox One exclusivity stuff, the simple answer is to just buy an Xbox One. If you won't... well, too bad so sad. I don't have to LIKE that the Xbox One gets exclusivity even for a short period, but it's not like Sony doesn't play ball either. Destiny anyone? Sony just picks those fights here and there because they can't afford to go toe to toe with Microsoft. I like it. It creates console parity. Does it suck? Sure. Does it give me a reason to own more than one console? Yes.

 

[sörine]

I'm surprised people are so riled up over the Tomb Raider moneyhatted exclusive. As if Sony didn't do essentially the same thing 20 years ago.

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

Probably because multiplatform development is widely accepted nowadays, and the similarity between platforms make it easier and I assume cheaper. So no one is dumb enough to take a little bit of extra cash to jeopardize their sales.... except SE.

I now imagine that when SE relaunched FFvXIII as XV, they wanted some money from Sony to keep the exclusivity clause, but Sony said screw off, we don't have the money and you'll never finish the game anyway.

Maybe they needed the money up front to keep development going. I guess we'll know eventually. Either way this is not a huge deal. I doubt it sells many Xbox Ones and I doubt sales on other platforms would be too hard hit with PS4 owners likely to prioritize Uncharted 4. PC gamers are used to waiting for ports anyway.

 

[David___]

So, where does Nintendo fall in all of this? They funded Bayonetta 2 entirely. It has an established fanbase on other consoles, but Sega literally dropped it, basically. It wasn't profitable enough. Is Nintendo evil for picking it up? What about Devil's Third? Do you really think Nintendo was the first call?

At the end of the day, I think we need to take each situation individually for what it is. Did Titanfall NEED exclusivity to get made? It shouldn't have with EA backing it. Does Tomb Raider need it? That I don't know. Square Enix hasn't had many positive reports when it comes to finances.

Bayo 2/ Devil's Third wouldn't exist today if Nintendo didn't pick them up and fund them. So no, Nintendo isn't evil;

For all the whining PS4 users may do over the Xbox One exclusivity stuff, the simple answer is to just buy an Xbox One. If you won't... well, too bad so sad. I don't have to LIKE that the Xbox One gets exclusivity even for a short period, but it's not like Sony doesn't play ball either. Destiny anyone?

Nice false equivalency.

 

[David___]

dp

 

[Dr.Acula]

Wasn't the last Tomb Raider a huge flop? I remember threads talking about how much of a disaster it was. Let the dev make its own decisions on how best to make a profit.

 

[shinra-bansho]

So you know the financial situation of SE? You seem to know more than they do. Educate the rest of us.

As a publicly traded company, their financial situation is a matter of public record on a quarterly/annual basis...

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Titanfall actually wouldn't have been made if not for Microsoft's bailout. You should watch the Final Hours of Titanfall special, though I guess they could always be lying.

 

[licktheenvelope]

You are taking money to not sell a game...

Exclusive content is one thing (sometimes that's annoying but generally I don't care at all if someone has a different hat than me in a game)....

And paying a company to develop a game for you is another.

It's also completely different if you buy a studio and their IP, or buy the franchise.

Those are all things that might be beneficial to gamers.

There's zero benefit to not selling your game and taking money for it OTHER than getting some money right now. The initial value to all those elsewhere who would have bought it will be greatly diminished by the time you get around to putting it out elsewhere.

I draw a completely different perspective between the types of exclusives people talk about. Sure hire a dev to build a game, pay to get them to build some extra content for your system...

I do not like paying for others to not be able to play a game...

 

[licktheenvelope]

Titanfall actually wouldn't have been made if not for Microsoft's bailout. You should watch the Final Hours of Titanfall special, though I guess they could always be lying.

How do you figure that? (I searched and can't find that quote anywhere) They were published by EA... unless EA is running out of money...?

EDIT:

This is besides the point that Titanfall as a console exclusive doesn't even bug me as much = New IP and still on PC.

 

[Neff]

I don't know if you're joking or if you seriously believe that. There is no way GTA will ever be exclusive to anybody. The game makes more profit then Xbox and PS put together in the year its released. They have zero incentive to go exclusive. The long term harm it would do the brand is immense. Microsoft isn't just going to write Xbox a ~$1.5b check to hand Take Two. Xbox isn't the most popular division within the company. While generally supportive, Satya Nadella has admitted it wasn't a "core part of Microsoft". Blowing that much money on a "moneyhat" would not be a popular move with shareholders. Believe it or not, Xbox is pretty small potatoes to Microsoft as a whole and they have much more important things to spend money on.

Look at it this way, if all Microsoft's immense resources could do on exclusives was a timed exclusive on a mid tier third party game from a struggling publisher, what makes you think that situation changes going forward? I can guarantee they didn't suddenly decide to get Tomb Raider, as opposed to Madden or COD or GTA or Dragon Age. It was all they were able to do.

I believe the result of GTA becoming an exclusive would be severe, controversial, and totally game-changing. I also don't believe it will happen, for a variety of reasons. But MS is trailing in a race it can't afford to lose. We don't know how much it cost to develop XBone, although we can assume it was many billions. They're not going to get that back soon unless they can create a competitive install base before it's too late. Tomb Raider is an obvious attempt to get back in the race, and I think we're going to see more of such big name-chasing deals.

Also, regarding your point about 'harm' to the franchise, PS4 owners would be sore as hell yes, but many would go where GTA is simply because it's GTA. Many would probably even ditch PS4 entirely. All MS would theoretically need to do is cover PS4's calculated losses plus serious change, and do the same for subsequent entries, and get Rockstar to agree/sign it off. Extremely unlikely, but not impossible if MS as a company thinks Xbox is worth keeping around for a decade or two and is willing to dig up the cash.

 

[Somnid]

I'm surprised this is still a thing, and by "thing" I mean complaining about exclusivity deals. They've only been around in every industry since forever. This isn't the first, last or highest profile. Sony's money-hatted plenty of games too, most recently No Man's Sky comes to mind. This reaction may not be Bayo 2 levels of pathetic internet behavior but it's close.

In the end it's business and if your company of choice can't money-hat then maybe they're just coasting and don't actually love you enough? I'm going with that.

 

[licktheenvelope]

I'm surprised this is still a thing, and by "thing" I mean complaining about exclusivity deals. They've only been around in every industry since forever. This isn't the first, last or highest profile. Sony's money-hatted plenty of games too, most recently No Man's Sky comes to mind. This reaction may not be Bayo 2 levels of pathetic internet behavior but it's close.

In the end it's business and if your company of choice can't money-hat then maybe they're just coasting and don't actually love you enough? I'm going with that.

See No Man's Sky, Bloodborne, Sunset Overdrive, Titanfall...

Completely different than the Tomb Raider situation this is literally just MS paying a company to not release a game.

 

[thunder_snail]

Wasn't the last Tomb Raider a huge flop? I remember threads talking about how much of a disaster it was. Let the dev make its own decisions on how best to make a profit.

A year after release, Square Enix reboot on verge of 6 million sold, on pace to be best-selling in franchise history

On top of that, Gallagher said the game has actually "exceeded profit expectations and continues to make significant contributions to our overall financial performance."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-03-07-tomb-raider-finally-beats-profit-expectations

 

[border]

As others have said, part of the fear for a lot of people is a big series like TES, Mass Effect or GTA goes exclusive (mostly to MSFT because they have the money).

IThere is no way GTA will ever be exclusive to anybody.

Take Two only has a market cap of 1.72 billion dollars. Microsoft could pretty easily buy them, and get GTA, Red Dead, and Max Payne in one fell swoop. I'm surprised that TakeTwo aren't fending off takeover bids from several large publishers.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Titanfall actually wouldn't have been made if not for Microsoft's bailout. You should watch the Final Hours of Titanfall special, though I guess they could always be lying.

I think this is seriously stretching the truth here to make the deal that was penned seem more innocuous than a simple moneyhat. Vince's twitter response said it all, really. I seriously doubt it wouldn't have gotten made otherwise. EA is a big company, they had some of the biggest devs in the industry now working with them. It would have been made without Microsoft's funds.

This sort of practice I generally find disgusting. I'm all for funding games that wouldn't get made, but cockblocking as a practice really benefits no one. I honestly can't see very many positives for any of the parties involved in this Tomb Raider deal; Square is taking short term profits at the expense of possibly tarnishing the brand long-term by not being on the more popular platform, Microsoft is wasting money on a game they already had just to make it exclusive (there are much better use of funds, imho), and of course the gamers themselves lose out by not having access to the game on a wider variety of platforms, and if the title fails to materialize into the bigger franchise that Square desires as a result, then this could negatively impact future titles in the series.

Phil Spencer is really turning out to be an enormous disaster without vision for Microsoft, which is funny given how excited people were when he took over. I'm now finding him to just be a reactionary wolf in sheep's clothing built from the same cloth as the executive team that introduced the horrible vision for the Xbox One when it was revealed. All of his moves so far have not impressed me in the slightest.

Spending absurd amounts of money on NFL deals, turning Black Tusk into a Gears factory, resurrecting IP that weren't very excited to begin with (Crackdown) instead of new IP, moneyhatting a timed Tomb Raider exclusive which will do less for the Xbox platform than Titanfall did has me shaking my head at the decisions that are going on in Redmond.

It seems like Microsoft is more intent on trying to win over Xbox fence sitters that haven't jumped into next-gen yet, rather than trying to make a compelling console for those that may already own another next-gen console. This strategy is destined for failure.

 

[Somnid]

See No Man's Sky, Bloodborne, Sunset Overdrive, Titanfall...

Completely different than the Tomb Raider situation this is literally just MS paying a company to not release a game.

No Man's Sky is releasing late on PC, you know, that thing it's developed on? These actually aren't much different. Did you know that Apple gets lots of games first because they make exclusivity deals to keep thing timed exclusive on iOS? Did you know that Netflix pays Disney money to keep their stuff exclusive? It's a way to pump up your platform while giving content holders kickbacks of guaranteed money. There's nothing wrong with it, it's competition.

 

[Mononoke]

So, where does Nintendo fall in all of this? They funded Bayonetta 2 entirely. It has an established fanbase on other consoles, but Sega literally dropped it, basically. It wasn't profitable enough. Is Nintendo evil for picking it up? What about Devil's Third? Do you really think Nintendo was the first call?

At the end of the day, I think we need to take each situation individually for what it is. Did Titanfall NEED exclusivity to get made? It shouldn't have with EA backing it. Does Tomb Raider need it? That I don't know. Square Enix hasn't had many positive reports when it comes to finances.

On the other side however, I see the benefit of what Microsoft tends to do in flexing their money. It creates competition and it creates compelling reasons to buy their console. If they aren't going to become a psuedo EA and just buy up every development studio out there, then they have to pay for exclusive rights. Without it, they are limited in what they can produce to generate interest in their product.

I understand why it happens and I even agree with it. It doesn't mean I have to like it. I sort of look at it like this: Final Fantasy left Nintendo. It had an established fan base. It pissed people off. Yet, the internet was young and this rage never festered on a global scale. back then, FF leaving Nintendo's consoles entirely would have been like Zelda leaving it. It was huge.

I have no issues with console exclusivity contracts. What irks me is when consoles are shunned by pure choice. Not because you were paid, but because you just don't want to even bother with it.

For all the whining PS4 users may do over the Xbox One exclusivity stuff, the simple answer is to just buy an Xbox One. If you won't... well, too bad so sad. I don't have to LIKE that the Xbox One gets exclusivity even for a short period, but it's not like Sony doesn't play ball either. Destiny anyone? Sony just picks those fights here and there because they can't afford to go toe to toe with Microsoft. I like it. It creates console parity. Does it suck? Sure. Does it give me a reason to own more than one console? Yes.

Bayonetta 2 wasn't going to be made since it didn't have the money to do so. While fans were upset at first, it's a perfectly reasonable situation for this exclusive to happen.

Also why are people "whiners" just because they are critical of this deal? I'm an X1 owner and I don't like sequel sniping. I take issue with these kind of business actions that negatively impact a lot of gamers.

And no, gamers who played a franchise across various platforms shouldn't have to buy another console to finish a series they started. Unless it's a situation where the game doesn't have funding...This is a poor showing from Square and MS.

 

[border]

I think this is seriously stretching the truth here to make the deal that was penned seem more innocuous than a simple moneyhat. Vince's twitter response said it all, really. I seriously doubt it wouldn't have gotten made otherwise. EA is a big company, they had some of the biggest devs in the industry now working with them. It would have been made without Microsoft's funds..

Titanfall was an EA Partners game. EA was not funding that project, they were just acting as publisher.

 

[David___]

Titanfall was an EA Partners game. EA was not funding that project, they were just acting as publisher.

And a the main job of the publisher in the video game industry is funding the game itself.

 

[border]

And a the main job of the publisher in the video game industry is funding the game itself.

No. They were publishing as in "handling the marketing and physical distribution of this game". The whole point of the EA Partners program was that those were externally funded games by external studios that retained IP rights (Left 4 Dead, Half Life, Portal 2, Crysis, Shadow of the Damned, etc).

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Ironically, had they announced it as exclusive out the gate, that bullshit statement by CD would have been valid.

It would have implied some sort of collaboration, that they had talks before the project was greenlit, that MS was interested in the IP and what it could do for Xbox, and funding/assistance was involved. Provided it was not a timed exclusive, but a Titanfall kind of thing.

I know ultimately it's not a huge difference, but that's how I would perceive it.

Instead I have this picture in my head:

SE: We're making Tomb Raider 2! Look - trailerrrr

MS: *Calls SE*. We saw TR2. We'd like to get in on that.

SE: You want us to make it only on X1? Sure we can talk funding and tailoring to X1 specs.

MS: No... just don't sell it to other platforms.... for a short while...

SE: That would be a little....

MS: How's $$$$$$$$?

SE: $_____$

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Do we think Sony pulled any strings to get MGS4 as an exclusive?
Or did Konami just see that as too expensive (obligatory 10 disc .jpeg Xbox 360 MGS4) and not worth porting?

 

[David___]

Do we think Sony pulled any strings to get MGS4 as an exclusive?
Or did Konami just see that as too expensive (obligatory 10 disc .jpeg Xbox 360 MGS4) and not worth porting?

edit: nvm

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Do we think Sony pulled any strings to get MGS4 as an exclusive?
Or did Konami just see that as too expensive (obligatory 10 disc .jpeg Xbox 360 MGS4) and not worth porting?

Why? Multiplatform dev wasn't common back then (AFAIK) and MGS had always been exclusive (apart from some dabbling at the side (MGS2 port?)).

 

[Mentok]

Nintendo spends money to fund Bayonetta 2 so it exists: Investing.

Microsoft spends money to cockblock other platforms: Not investing.

This. If it is a new IP, I see it as a different ballgame. For example, Scalebound, Bloodborne, etc. But TR established a fanbase on all 3 platforms, stated it was successful enough to warrant a sequal and then took the $ to be exclusive. That is shitting on their fanbase.

 

[REV 09]

Its not about signing timed exclusive deals. Its about lying to the audience just to please a few investors and expecting players to believe that its only exclusive to their console.

I don't care about timed exclusives. If the game is good, I'll get it. However, bullshit is bullshit. Crystal Dynamics' response doesn't earn any sympathy from me for either the developer, the publisher and the bullshitter.

Its weird how we have to wait for people like CBOAT to tell us that its timed exclusive with Microsoft willing to lie to their teeth until they see the community complaining vocally.

It shouldn't be this way. Things should be as transparent as possible and this industry is filled with lying, greedy pushovers.

I may have missed something, but they seemed to carefully word the announcement to say that it was exclusive for "Holiday 2015"...which is technically true. I don't think they need to go out of their way to elaborate about competing platforms.

 

[USC-fan]

Titanfall actually wouldn't have been made if not for Microsoft's bailout. You should watch the Final Hours of Titanfall special, though I guess they could always be lying.

Yep EA couldnt cover making the game at all.

What make the better story? Game was money hatted or saved?

Good thing EA "found" some money for titanfall 2.....lol

The sad thing is no gamer gains anything from these deals.

Like this was xbone biggest announcement of gamescom. A game you were already getting is now being delayed on other platforms....YAY!! oh wait.... Instead of investing this money into a game that wouldnt have been made.

It just silly to defend this deals.

 

[RexNovis]

I have no issue with exclusivity deals, as long as it's a new IP or it's a situation where the game has no money to be made, and one of the big 3 steps in to foot the bill. I have an issue with it when the game is an established series and played by many gamers across platforms, and the sequel is sniped, thus cutting off large amounts of the fan base. I think that is a scummy practice both from the Big 3, and the dev that made the decision (that they thought it was best for the series, and its fan base).

That we find this kind of thing acceptable in the gaming industry, is kind of ridiculous. Another way to put my stance on this is this:

Let's say Bioshock came out on all platforms. It's this huge success. Everyone is waiting for the sequel. If Sony turned around and made the sequel exclusive to them (thus cutting off all the gamers that played it on a different platform), I think that would be scummy. If MS had made Bioschock an exclusive new IP right out of the gate (so the first game ONLY ever came out on 360), I wouldn't be as miffed, because only 360 owners would have ever played this new IP. It's not cutting out a bunch of people that are already invested in the series. I feel exclusive sequel sniping pretty much hurts gamers overall, and that's not good for this industry.

I also feel it's pretty lazy from the big 3, to compete on this level vs. investing in new IP, or investing in their own games or improving their hardware + software. Also, in these kind of deals no one on that platform gains anything. Someone that owns an X1 was always going to get Tomb Raider. They don't gain anything by this deal. It's all for the sake of moving console units (at the expense of gamers overall, and the series overall fan base). That is why it's a shitty move.

Amen! Quote for truth. This all boils down to paying to deprive other gamers of games vs investing in new content.

 

[DarkJedi24]

i find it hard to believe that this many people on Gaf actually care about Tomb Raider, i get the feeling a lot of people just want to bitch at MS for having a game they can't play on another console, even if they never planned to buy said game.

I guess owning TR 2013 on PC, PS4 and PS3 means I don't care about Tomb Raider and I wasn't planning on buying the sequel. Too bad I only care about petty things that Microsoft is doing.

 

[David___]

i find it hard to believe that this many people on Gaf actually care about Tomb Raider, i get the feeling a lot of people just want to bitch at MS for having a game they can't play on another console, even if they never planned to buy said game.

I was planning on buying the sequel even though I skipped the 1st one. Now I'm giving Gamestop my money instead of SE when it actually does release on the PS4.