Support NeoGAF

[CosmicGroinPull]

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.

I'm on the same boat. Bought PS3 and got stuck due to a bug. Then the PC version got Tressfx. I figured, why not finish the game on PC using someone's save, and see what Tressfx looks like? And it was good. Then PS4 version came out. Comfy couch here I come!

 

[Aroll]

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;



Nice false equivalency.

It's not really false, is it? I was mostly noting the fact they got Beta access sooner and *cough* exclusive DLC. Might not be EXACTLY the same as timed exclusive or console exclusive games due to money hatting, but it's pretty much the same premise.

 

[RexNovis]

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?

Yes more money for the studios is a good thing which is why it's a shitty practice to handicap possible sales of the game on competing platforms so they can actually make money off releasing the game as planned. You're basically that a smaller low risk up front lump sun is better than the ongoing sales success and performance of their franchise as a whole. I do not agree.

 

[DarkJedi24]

I'm on the same boat. Bought PS3 and got stuck due to a bug. Then the PC version got Tressfx. I figured, why not finish the game on PC using someone's save, and see what Tressfx looks like? And it was good. Then PS4 version came out. Comfy couch here I come!

Man that's the worst. I hated losing all my in progress saves when I got the ylod on my first PS3.

 

[David___]

It's not really false, is it? I was mostly noting the fact they got Beta access sooner and *cough* exclusive DLC. Might not be EXACTLY the same as timed exclusive or console exclusive games due to money hatting, but it's pretty much the same premise.

You're comparing 2 maps and literally throw-away pieces of gear to a full game. Let that sink in before you respond back.

 

[RexNovis]

Maybe it has not been articulated much, but the point I'm seeing across various threads is that it's not PlayStation or PC players cross to bear that Microsoft doesn't have first party content lined up and has to exclusify games made by multiplatform publishers.

The deal might make sense on both ends, but it's not additive. OTOH MS funding Scalebound, Sunset Overdrive & Halo adds to the total amount of games in the world.

Entering strategic partnership of exclusivity is not additive, it is subtractive. (Less players will be able to play a game total.)

That it now turns out after backlash that it's just timed doesn't change the reality that Microsoft tried to FUD the state of the game. That you can properly communicate timed exclusivity deals was demonstrated yesterday by Jim Ryan and Chris Charla.

Yes. 100% this. Absofuckinglutely accurate assessment. Impeccably stated.

 

[Cipherr]

Is Square Enix not big enough of a company to sustain the Tomb Raider IP without Microsoft's help?

This question seems really silly to me. First of all, since when was Square doing a bang up job financially? Last I checked they are having a rough go of things. Nothing dire, but they aren't exactly raking it in.

Second, the biggest publishers in the industry have just about ALWAYS done exclusive titles over the last 35 years, so why are we pretending like this is new, or that a publisher needs to 'justify' deciding to do an exclusive game, be it timed or otherwise?

This has been a part of gaming forever. Go ahead and be upset that its not coming to your silicon filled box of choice, I've been there I understand, but don't act like this is new or some insult to gamers.

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.

Then the last 30 years or rather 25 or so must have been rough for you, but I think its long past time you got used to it. Its not likely to stop, and its been happening for a LONG time now. Im not saying you have to LIKE it, but this ruckus being kicked up is just ridiculous.

 

[Laughing Banana]

The funny thing is: everyone pretty much agrees that competition is healthy, competition is good, competition promotes quality, but if a party actually doing something to give themselves an edge in a competition--like securing an exclusive deal with a well-recognized video game/publisher/developer--then Maker's breath so many would immediately scream foul.

 

[David___]

The funny thing is: everyone pretty much agrees that competition is healthy, competition is good, competition promotes quality, but if a party actually doing something to give themselves an edge in a competition--like securing an exclusive deal with a well-recognized video game/publisher/developer--then Maker's breath so many would immediately scream foul.

Paying publishers to not release a game on a platform doesn't add to the industry at all.

PS+, GWG, etc are amazing services that were breed by competition and added value to the respected platform.

Investing in new IPs/Studios adds to the industry.

Investing in peripherals like Morpheus and hell, even Kinect helps separate your console while also adding something to the industry

MS buying up a timed exclusive literally does nothing for their user-base SINCE THEY WERE GETTING THE GAME TO BEGIN WITH Unless you want to use a stupid bullet point in idiotic list wars on forums you don't benefit at all from the timed exclusivity.

 

[unbias]

We see these threads on a regular basis about a studio closure. Almost universally the responses in such threads go something like this.

"Damn, those guys made some great games. Hope they all find new jobs".

"Feel bad for all who lost their job".

"Another one bites the dust. This industry can't sustain AAA studios anymore".


Yet the moment we hear of a deal like yesterday's Tomb Raider announcement, where a publisher/developer is taking a chunk of money for some sort of exclusivity, the responses go something like this.

"What a bunch of asshole scumbags".

"I hope their studio goes down in flames for this, to teach them a lesson".

"What a horrible idea. Those traitors!"


I just think this is a moment where some people would benefit from stepping back and looking at these situations from the perspective of a studio head, or a publisher who owns the studio. This is a hard business to succeed in. There are far more failures than successes. If someone is offering you financial security, just to make your game exclusive to their platform for 6 months, are you really going to say "Nah, that would be wrong"? No, you're gonna take that check.

Likewise, looking at Microsoft. If you're truly a fan of this industry, I'd ask you to consider this. Anyone investing in the videogame industry is helping to perpetuate the hobby you love. They're pumping money into projects that you might one day enjoy immensely. Sure, you may not have the platform a certain game is on right now, but maybe one day you will own it, and you might love that game. And ultimately that money from Microsoft helped make that project happen. Not only that, but just the money in general coming into the industry might help fund another project from that studio down the line.

My point is it's not as simple as it might seem when you hear a game is now exclusive to one platform, because of a check. There is far more to the bigger story, and you may even end up benefitting down the line from something like this, even though that doesn't seem obvious right now. Money keeps this industry afloat, and personally I welcome anyone investing their money to help make great games, on whatever platform they initially appear.

You are looking at it from a simplistic way as well though, and not every publisher would take the check. An ongoing franchise that you want to continue to grow isnt something you want to turn exclusive if you want to continue that growth. Reducing market share for the benefit of reducing risk is exactly that, and you increase the tipping point of your product when you do this.


Square is a big publisher famous for making a lot of boneheaded decisions, so thinking this being a boneheaded move and not good for the IP is a valid stance(if you believe the game has lets). The most profitable console games are multiplat for the very obvious reason that unless a company buys out market-share(like AT&T and even then their money wasnt enough to keep the iphone exclusive), your potential profits are always going to be higher with the most amount of consumers able to buy your game.

I agree it isnt simple and not every game is damaged by this, but can you point to studios who benefited, long term(or even short term), taking a IP from multiplat to timed exclusive/exclusive? This covers the publishers ass if the IP under-preforms and takes away some risk involved, but it impedes potential growth.

I'm not seeing any substantial evidence that shows that going exclusive for a 3rd party works out for an IP that was multiplat. Scalebound is, imo, how you do exclusives in this industry. What Square is doing, imo, is more of them showing us why they struggle to go positive.

 

[Aroll]

You're comparing 2 maps and literally throw-away pieces of gear to a full game. Let that sink in before you respond back.

I have let it sink in before I even said it. I think that's even worse than what Microsoft does. At least they are getting the full game on their system. Console exclusive DLC means there is pretty much no way to buy the game and actually experience all of the content. I would rather games go console exclusive, since that fixes that entire problem in one fell swoop. If folks would drop their "omg I need to be loyal to one console" mantra, this would quickly become a non issue - especially as the new consoles start to become cheaper over the next handful of years.

I'd rather be able to experience the full game, even if it is only on one platform, than have exclusive content split up between different consoles. It just doesn't make sense to me as a gamer. It really limits my ability to want to play the entire experience without needing to buy a game two or three times (or in the case of Watch Dogs, 2,000 times).

In addition, consoles working out exclusivity for certain games has been existing since the beginning of console wars. Nintendo did it for Monster Hunter, Sony did it with Final Fantasy back in the day. This is nothing new and really nothing we should have that much to complain about. This is so much better than console exclusive DLC.

 

[Unknown One]

Umm... Titanfall wouldn't have happened had MS not invested, we know that now.

I find it hard to believe that EA, one of the biggest game publisher, cannot afford to fund Titanfall when they funded Overstrike.