How? They would have got the game anyway. All this kind of thing does is stop Microsoft from making their own games and creating new ip by spending their budget on moneyhats.
Bad for everyone but Microsoft imo.
Tomb Raider 2: Rise of the Tomb Raider Announced
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
How? They would have got the game anyway. All this kind of thing does is stop Microsoft from making their own games and creating new ip by spending their budget on moneyhats.
Bad for everyone but Microsoft imo.
Associate
But why? They are a business and must do what's right for them, their shareholders and customers. If they can support their first party studios with more games and have more exclusives, and therefore sell more consoles, accessories, subscriptions and games, why not.
This is nothing new and has happened for a countless number of years in this industry, i.e. Nintendo NES agreements restricting developers from making games on other platforms, or Sony signing a deal with Take Two to keep GTA3 on PS2 before it hit anything else etc.
Soldato
More tomb raiding, adventuring and puzzle solving and less hold down forward and glibly press buttons until section is over and I'm in
Associate
I really do hate this concept of exclusives... Luckily for me I've got both consoles... I generally will buy the title on whichever system works best (at the moment it tends to be the PS4)
I do wonder if we'll see a PC release eventually though as most of the XBOX One exclusives have been announced/released for the PC
I do wonder if we'll see a PC release eventually though as most of the XBOX One exclusives have been announced/released for the PC
In the long run this won't help them unless they keep paying for third party exclusives which I don't think they will. That was the problem with the 360 after a great first couple years and then nothing for the last few.
Associate
Slightly gutted.
Enjoyed TR when i played it last year, however according to something i read, square enix plan to release this in the same month as uncharted 4..
Now if you had £45 and you had the option of Tomb Raider or Uncharted 4... What would you do?
Now if this is true and square enix did say to sony "want this as a timed exclusive etc but we plan to launch in month X"
Sony would say "nah your alright, we have uncharted 4 in that month.. Let microsoft pay you what they want and we'll see you say 6 months later."
I would personally buy TR, but out of the new 10m ps4 owners at least 6-7m of those will buy U4, which will be nearly double even triple what TR will sell on xbox one.
Im not fussed about exclusives etc but give me a new proper ratchet and clank
Enjoyed TR when i played it last year, however according to something i read, square enix plan to release this in the same month as uncharted 4..
Now if you had £45 and you had the option of Tomb Raider or Uncharted 4... What would you do?
Now if this is true and square enix did say to sony "want this as a timed exclusive etc but we plan to launch in month X"
Sony would say "nah your alright, we have uncharted 4 in that month.. Let microsoft pay you what they want and we'll see you say 6 months later."
I would personally buy TR, but out of the new 10m ps4 owners at least 6-7m of those will buy U4, which will be nearly double even triple what TR will sell on xbox one.
Im not fussed about exclusives etc but give me a new proper ratchet and clank
Soldato
Hmm, I wonder what the Internet reaction would have been if Sony had done this instead. I think people would be saying "great move by Sony, no need to develop the game for the inferior Xbone"
I would have been annoyed certainly as I do have an X1 but I think people wouldn't have been complaining about Sony spending on Moneyhats.
I would have been annoyed certainly as I do have an X1 but I think people wouldn't have been complaining about Sony spending on Moneyhats.
Still massaging the persecution complex it seems.
It's just a weird business decision all round. The developer minimises exposure to a franchise that in their own words was already underperforming and MS spends a small fortune on a franchise that will move a negligable amount of systems when they could focus on building their relatively weak 1st party portfolio instead.
I don't see who gains?
They don't really buy exclusives anymore, it's dead money and they have a strong first party.
Why would it be ok if Sony did it instead? It would have made more sense from a square enix perspective considering the ps4 has a much larger install base and outsold the xbox one 2:1 on TR: DE.
To me, third party exclusives are only acceptable when they are being funded by the company. For instance bayonetta 2 wouldn't exist without Nintendo funding it and apparently Microsoft part funded Titanfall. Paying to keep a game from coming out on a competitors system is a crappy thing to do no matter who does it.
They have a strong first party due to buying them.
This!
I hope people are right about it being a timed exclusive, but it certainly doesn't sound that way.
Exclusives are a bad thing full stop!
Yes they bought companies that were ready to be sold what's your point?
That has nothing to do with what I said either I understand why exclusives exist, just not this one.
Last edited:
It was pretty obvious.
Not really. Clutching at straws it appears like.
MS bought studios in the past and mis managed most of them into the ground. (Rare, for instance.)
Associate
We don't know what this means in the long run but of all the strategies open to MS getting more exclusive games on it's console is a proven tactic and they need to do something against Sony. Perhaps we disagree but I still think this is a savvy move from MS.
How, it'll barely move anymore systems. Tomb Raider is a decent franchise I suppose but there isn't a rabid fanbase for it.
And back on ignore you go.
Bloody hell, I won't sleep tonight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,647