Magnific0giganticus
Banned
Lol. Ok pal, whatever.
-
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
phil_t98
#SonyToo
so when Sony buys a studio it’s natural but Microsoft it’s not.
again they approached all third party studios end of last gen to get as many exclusives as possible this gen. like I say both do it so can call one out when the other does it to
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Insomniac was natural, yes. Bethesda was nothing but a power move.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
InsomnIac was to stop more games going on Xbox, stopping a sunset overdrive sequel and possibly more games on there
JoeyWestSide
Member
That is a lot but it could have been also for advertising for the One. Maybe the rules change a little bit when it's for a launch console?
kyoji
Member
Lmao noway you believe what you wrote
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It's just as plausible as MS buying studios being bad but Sony buying them is 'natural'.
dcmk7
Banned
I would agree. In Insomniac's 23 years of independence they released just one console game which didn't appear on PlayStation.
Pretty much their entire output was exclusive to PlayStation.
VAVA Mk2
Member
Ohhh so edgy...using a $ sign instead of an 's'. I bet no one else has thought of doing that with Microsoft.
MrFunSocks
Banned
I see someone has the memory of a goldfish. I'm assuming you weren't playing video games on consoles back in the PS2 days?
dbilyliker
Member
Exclusivity is worth $100 million, so what is the total revenue Microsoft expects from this game
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
$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"
Well if that's the case, yeah it was a really poor deal for Microsoft but they could've set the terms of the negotiations far better than they did. It also hurt Tomb Raider long-term but that was actually more due to the absolutely confusing messaging coming from Microsoft and Square-Enix after initial news of the exclusivity broke out.
They honestly should've just been outright forthcoming like how Sony was with Street Fighter 5. When SFV was revealed no doubt was left that it was co-funded and was going to be a PS4 console exclusive.
I didn't know there was a second page.
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
I would hope so, because otherwise it's a completely poor use of cash. When MS said they needed something to take on UnCharted, what they really meant was they needed something that was a cinematic, story-driven, third-person action-adventure game.
But their realization to that fact was at that time, reactionary. Because if they actually felt that way for a while, they would've have been either developing such a game in-house before the XBO launched, or co-funded development in a way wherein they could secure the game as a full exclusive or at least multi-year one. Something where they wouldn't have had to do the weird messaging they did at the time of Rise's release (that alienated and confused many people and got the media against them due to the muddy messaging).
What they basically did was spend $100 million for a one-year timed exclusive, whereas Sony spend much less than that for a 3P AAA exclusive of their own (Street Fighter 5) that remains PlayStation console-exclusive, and was a sequel to a game that had a lot more clout on Microsoft's prior console (360) to boot.
Either Square-Enix are one of the worst publishers to work with when it comes to co-funding and exclusivity deals (something I'm willing to believe given other trends of theirs), or Microsoft had some of the worst negotiation terms with that 2014 deal (which in hindsight also seems very believable).
This is a poor take; the install base between PS4 and XBO wasn't night-and-day in 2014 (when the deal was signed) like it'd eventually become a few years later. They would not be looking at PS3/360 either because that bore no relevance to then-next gen consoles that were not directly backwards-compatible with them. Even if they did factor 7th gen into things, that would actually have worked against Sony, not Microsoft, given it was Sony who lost marketshare that gen.
That also ties into ongoing deals now; to some degree PS4/XBO might weigh more because the new systems are directly backwards-compatible with them. However, if anything is a bigger factor into who pays what for deals it would be projected market momentum for the respective ecosystems, coupled with whatever amounts platform holders are willing to actually pay for any particular deal.
If there's anything that might prevent Microsoft getting more, bigger 3P AAA games to their platform as timed exclusives, it might potentially be their eagerness to try tying all 3P deals to GamePass. Not every 3P game needs to go to GamePass to have benefit to the Xbox or GamePass ecosystem if the game is a timed exclusive, and I hope that's something Microsoft keeps in mind. If they want certain major AAA games as timed exclusives, and they aren't co-funding development, they may have to do away with trying to net those games as Day 1 in GamePass.
Even if actual data so far shows that GamePass isn't hurting sales of games by and large, you still have head honchos as some of these 3P publishers who don't want to look at the current data, or have other reasons to think otherwise, so it would be up to Microsoft to ween them into the reality of how something like GamePass is beneficial for their games, but maybe not necessarily trying to net a timed exclusive or two from them on grounds it go into GamePass Day 1, at the current time.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
So you just started gaming with PS3/360 gen? Cool, because otherwise you're just flat-out dumb wrong. Out of the two, Sony started timed exclusivity deals going back to the PS1. Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 was one such deal, done around the time of the PS1's NA launch, where Sony netted it as a six-month timed exclusive before it came out to the Sega Saturn.
They did quite a few other deals of similar, and also netted away sequels to IPs that had previous installments on rival platforms and would've came out to those platforms. Tomb Raider 2, Resident Evil 2 etc. being other examples. The fact you were oblivious to all of this just shows you don't know enough to talk about it.
Guess you have no history of Sony's practices in the film and music industries either, huh? Before trying to blame a rival corporation as being dirty to the point of driving another to do dirty business practices, maybe research all of the companies you're talking about before you start typing, 'k?
Even keeping it to gaming, Sony did a lot of behind-the-scenes deals, some of dubious nature, to pillage 3P support from platforms like the Saturn and N64 so that they would focus on PS1, even if said 3P were going to support SEGA/Nintendo platforms. Namco is but one example of this, and other examples such as Sony plucking business and management talent from companies like Sega to work for them and head the PS division. And at the root of all this? M o n e y. 'Ya know, the same kind of cash you say Microsoft used to draw out the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war? Yeah, that.
Speaking of which, why would a direct rival not want to stall out a competing platform's format if given the chance? It's not like the fate of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray were decided by 2006, it actually could've gone either way. What ultimately helped Blu-Ray was it being standard with every PS3; had HD-DVD been built into 360 from the start, that would've became the winning format at least in most parts of world outside of some Asian territories.
Okay...and? What is your point here, to try making people believe the $100 million deal is real? Supposing that it is, you're doing a poor job at convincing them, because instead of presenting your points in a way that's meant purely to elucidate them on a truth, you're wrapping it around a narrative that to a passing reading would appear negative and accusatory towards a particular platform holder.
Who's going to want to acknowledge your points, the folks who you feel need to acknowledge them, when you are seemingly doing so in a way that seems to use those points to fuel a more disingenuous, ulterior narrative?
You do this unto yourself.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Okay then, here's a tip: that is your problem, learn to deal with it.
No one in the history of gaming has been entitled to a game just because of what platform they own, unless that game is developed and published by the platform holder themselves. I'm pretty sure many Nintendo gamers expected to play the next Final Fantasy, Contra, Dragon Quest etc. on their N64s given prior history but that didn't happen. Guess what they did? They accepted it and, if they really wanted to play those games, they went where the games were and got a PS1. And a lot of them probably also still bought an N64 anyway for other reasons.
When Saturn owners who expected Tomb Raider 2 and Resident Evil 2 to come to their platform, didn't get them there, what did they do? They accepted it and purchased a PS1 to play those game. And the same thing will happen with those who want to play the future Zenimax/Bethesda titles that won't come to PS5. They'll either by a Series S or Series X, or spec their PC to play them, and/or get a subscription to GamePass and play them on one of those devices or their phone via streaming.
The vast majority have, time and again and will continue to, go to where the games are. This should be common sense to understand. The reason I think people like you don't acknowledge this fact is because of some internal fear that if they "go where those games are", it means less for your preferred platform. But again, there's more crossover WRT multi-platform owners in reality than you probably realize or want to realize. Also again tho, that is your own problem so learn to deal with it.
Microsoft has historically paid a lot of money for very little. I think they paid 50 mill for GTA timed exclude content too, COD stuff as well if I'm not mistaken, at the same time they were losing major exclusive titles.
Buying Bethesda is probably the only time they didn't completely waste money. Not that I think it's great for the industry...still, probably great for me because it likely means more resources for the PC ports now that Sony is not the priority platform.
Buying Bethesda is probably the only time they didn't completely waste money. Not that I think it's great for the industry...still, probably great for me because it likely means more resources for the PC ports now that Sony is not the priority platform.
Oddvintagechap
Member
Sony has the publishing right to FFVII, I believe.
Craig of War
Banned
Might be the worst 3rd party timed exclusive game deal ever in hindsight & to think for just 200M more they could have bought Tomb Raider IP
& Crystal Dynamics & Eidos & Deus Ex IP & many other IP's
& Crystal Dynamics & Eidos & Deus Ex IP & many other IP's
SkylineRKR
Member
This was an awful deal and actually backfired.
nominedomine
Banned
Hard to tell given that we rarely get the details of how much these deals are costing.
But it's clear that this deal really hurt Crystal Dynamics, their main game got stuck an associated with a platform that wasn't doing so well and by the time it hit the PS4 people didn't seem to care.
It also made the third game less successful since once people skip a game they are unlikely to go back for another sequel, so in a way it also hurt Eidos-Montréal.
SE willingness to put Guardians of the Galaxy on Gamepass for so little money, shows they were trying to get as much money as possible before getting rid of them.
Last edited:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Why did you bump this thread? Running out of things to troll about?
SLB1904
Banned
Not even you believe in this bullshit.
Craig of War
Banned
The bump is in context to the recent news of Embracer buying Square Europe for only 300M
Wile MS had to paid 100M alone for just a 1 year timed exclusive deal
& who is trolling huh do not come at me with stupid bullshit without proof
i ain't the one that take stupid shit from no one ok
Last edited:
nush
Member
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Not back then. The IP was worth way more back then.
yazenov
Member
Yeah, putting an exclusive game on a dead platform where most of your fans are on the other side of the fence limited any potential growth of the franchise and really killed its potential in hindsight. What a shitty deal for SE in the long run.
Craig of War
Banned
Yes you are right the IP was worth a lot more back then but it was still a bad exclusive deal overall
It was for only 1 year and it barely did anything to help Xbox move more console wise
that was the whole point of this exclusive deal they wanted something to compete with Uncharted
but they really not get much out of it as Rise of Tomb Raider did not sold very well wile paying so much for it
Last edited:
nominedomine
Banned
That's the risk you take whenever you take something that was big and multiplataform and make it exclusive, specially if your market share is smaller.
That's why Sony isn't making Bungie games exclusive and why MS is unlikely to make CoD exclusive (if they have any sense).
Last edited:
Unknown?
Member
What a shame, should have just let it die. Tue reboot games were men at best.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.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Yep. The sad fact is that Rise and Shadow were both pretty solid games. Shadow has to go down as one of the most poorly marketed games of all time. No excuse that game did as bad as it did.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
why wouldn't they of made more games for xbox?
They could have just said that at the time? That was the status for SFV on PS only right, Sony helped fund development when Capcom weren't really sure about continuing SF?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.
SLB1904
Banned
Because sunset was failure. And watch the 100 fire question gameinformer put down for insomniac. They ask microft and the reply implied they weren't to thrill to work for xbox
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Ah, fair enough. Still why not just post on that thread?
Scotty W
Member
For a console warrior, bumping embarrassing old threads is essential to maximize the butthurt.
Captain Toad
Banned
That's serious Internet forum badassery right there. I got chills.
Leyasu
Banned
Underrated comment
You sound like a tough guy. I shall cower before your might, tough fella.
Imagine bumping old threads to feel cool. Console warriors are such funny creatures.
Last edited:
nominedomine
Banned
No it didn't if they were thinking short term all these Xbox One third party deals doomed the respective IPs.
Sunset Override: Insomniac ended up having to sell to Sony for very little money later on.
Quantum Break: Remedy was at an all time low, getting involved with things like Crossfire X, Control flopping and still struggling to find success despite being a respected dev.
Scalebound: Kamiya never managed to release a game as a director since then, Platinum went on a brutal downwards spiral.
Tomb Raider: Pretty much negated the success of the reboot and sabotaged the IP going forward.
Titanfall: Respawn ended up having the be bought by EA and Titanfall and Titanfall 2 never had the success it deserved.
Dead Rising: It ain't rising anymore.
Recore: Haven't heard of Keiji Inafune since then.
This list remind me of the effect the Vita had in killing studios that released games for it, it was a complete bloodbath.
Last edited:
Calverz
Member
This is maybe the most dumb or bizarre post Iv read this week. Lmao
dcmk7
Banned
In hindsight Tomb Raider obviously didn't work out but at the time not releasing against Uncharted but banking some big exclusivity money for a year seemed a smart play.
It suffered massively with the lack of marketing more than anything.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
He loves Xbox so this doesn't work.
nominedomine
Banned
Rise of Tomb Raider released in late 2015 on Xbox, months before Uncharted released on PS4. Then, due to the deal it released months after Uncharted on PS4.
Makes it looks even worse when you look at it like that. I guess they didn't know the exact timeline since Uncharted was delayed, but it turns out they could've released before Uncharted because that's what happened.
Last edited:
This is maybe the most dumb or bizarre post Iv read this week. Lmao
It’s his forte. Joined a few months ago and it’s been a constant stream of warz posts ever since.
Mibu no ookami
Member
You buy a studio for that and the studio isn't profitable and you've sunk 40-50 million into their game on top of that AND you still have the employees on the hook for their salaries and benefits... Tell me more about your business acumen.
nominedomine
Banned
I'm glad you enjoyed it.This is maybe the most dumb or bizarre post Iv read this week. Lmao
I don't even know who you are, I'll take it as a compliment that you care so much about me. Have you heard of the ignore button? I use it a lot.
Last edited: