Rise of the Tomb Raider will be an Xbox One exclusive
Microsoft drops a bomb during their Gamescom media briefing, noting that the Tomb Raider sequel will be exclusive to Xbox One.
Tomb Raider fans got a huge shock during Microsoft's Gamescom media briefing when they learned that not only would Rise of the Tomb Raider come out during holiday 2015, but it would also be exclusive to Xbox One.
Crystal Dynamics' Head of Product Development Darrell Gallagher took the stage to make the bombshell announcement. Tomb Raider was a highly-acclaimed reboot across a number of platforms, making the decision to go console-exclusive a bit of a curious one for Square Enix. It's not curious for Microsoft, though. They just landed a heavy-hitting exclusive for themselves.
As far as why Rise of the Tomb Raider is an exclusive to Xbox One, Gallagher explained in a tumblr post shortly after the news was revealed:
"Dear Tomb Raider Community,
As you may have seen, we've just announced that Rise of the Tomb Raider, coming Holiday 2015, is exclusively on Xbox. We consider all of you to be the lifeblood of Tomb Raider and the work we do at Crystal. I'd like to give you some insight into this decision, and why we feel this is the very best thing for the Tomb Raider sequel we're creating at the studio.
Tomb Raider in 2013 was a success due in large part to your continued support. Our goal has always been to deliver something truly special with Rise of the Tomb Raider. Today's announcement with Microsoft is one step to help us put Tomb Raider on top of action adventure gaming. Our friends at Microsoft have always seen huge potential in Tomb Raider and have believed in our vision since our first unveil with them on their stage at E3 2011. We know they will get behind this game more than any support we have had from them in the past - we believe this will be a step to really forging the Tomb Raider brand as one of the biggest in gaming, with the help, belief and backing of a major partner like Microsoft.
This doesn't mean that we're walking away from our fans who only play on PlayStation or on PC. Those are great systems, with great partners, and amazing communities. We have Lara Croft and the Temple of Osiris coming to those platforms this December, and Tomb Raider: The Definitive Edition is available on PS4.
We know that there are probably many more questions and concerns. Please do send them to us, and we'll answer to the best of our ability. Meanwhile we're going all out to try and make something truly special - the most ambitious Tomb Raider game ever built.
Thanks,
Darrell Gallagher, Crystal Dynamics Head of Studios
(Besides, this doesn't rule out a Definitive Edition of the game for PS4 and PC down the road, now does it?)
-
Shacknews
replyOzzie Mejia posted a new article, Rise of the Tomb Raider will be an Xbox One exclusive.
Microsoft drops a bomb during their Gamescom media briefing, noting that the Tomb Raider sequel will be exclusive to Xbox One.-
-
Everybody read this before you talk about timed exclusives.
-
[deleted]
-
Nowhere, anything about this being timed is pure speculation. Meanwhile, that letter reads as one long apology to PS-folk for the fact that they won't be getting it.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Thats what I'm thinking. CD isn't this dumb. Right? RIGHT?
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
That is a well PR'd release that will have been written to avoid any potential for MS to claim it caused a loss of sales on their platform or a breach of whatever the exclusive contract is.
They can't just come out and say "Xbone exclusive for 2 months, then PC and PS4 right after." as MS could claim it would suppress demand.
-
-
-
It's not a timed exclusive. Based on their blog post (above) it sounds like MS did some major funding for it.
-
That doesn't necessarily mean we won't get a GOTY edition for all platforms, but this seems to indicate that it's a loooong way off.
-
-
It had better be. Otherwise, I guess I won't be playing Rise of the Tomb Raider.
-
[deleted]
-
-
More info coming out looking like it's just a timed exclusive for Holiday 2015. So game still might be out on PS4 and PC after that.
-
-
Wow, huge news. Crossing fingers that it will eventually come to PC since that's where the Tomb Raider franchise started.
-
[deleted]
-
One less game to buy.
-
-
But Uncharted has never come to PC. I'm not crossing my fingers for that. :-/
-
-
Wow, this is pretty dumb.
-
-
You are right, it's probably the "smart" business decision. But as a consumer it's dumb. It alienates a significant part of the audience (namely me). It also instantly tarnishes the brand (see reactions)
Business and economics may be rational, but I don't have to be.-
-
Nooo, I don't think people are going to be buying an Xbox, of all things, to get at Tomb Raider.
-
-
Yeah, Halo 5 I can see getting that kind of traction. Anniversary, a little bit.
I kinda feel bad for the franchise. What 343 did to Halo just... killed any interest I had in the 'story.' I posted in the Xbox thread, it's really odd. The game with the least interesting storing (Assassin's Creed) is the one I find more and more enjoyable vs the one that used to have a mysterious and interesting story (Halo).-
Those are people that would buy an xbone anyways. So business decisions like this always seem more out o desperation than sound economics. At least to me.
-
It could be and most often is more than one game. A certain individual game could drive the decision sure but it is never just one game because no one buys a system to only play that game but the others that they now get access to it. It a just deferred demand until there is a trigger either a certain product becomes available, desired price, pending legislation, or availability.
-
Master Chief's story sucked balls, the best Halos were the one he wasn't in. It's a fact.
-
If there weren't any MC games, there wouldn't be any of the others. Also everyone played Halo for the multiplayer anyways.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
True, but the FF games weren't exclusive because of money in the same sense. Square moved from Nintendo to Sony after a series of mishaps with Nintendo, and just stayed there until this last generation where the systems were at parity and multiplatform became a better option money-wise.
I'm sure MS had to have laid down a lot of cash here, given SE's misgivings about TR's sales before, when it was available on two platforms with huge install bases, and PC. Whereas now, it'll only be on the smaller of the two install bases in this current generation and no PC.
It just doesn't make sense to me how that could be the best option unless MS paid a ton of money.-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
You meant PS3 in your original post, I'd guess.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
You have a well-known bias toward the green team. If Sony had scored the exclusive, you'd be up in arms.
-
-
-
-
-
"...as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
-
I honestly don't mind this move, in spite of Microsoft shoving their foot in their mouth about the whole 'we're going to focus on the PC!' again. But yeah, TR is a good game for a console.
-
Well shit. I guess I won't be playing the next Tomb Raider.
Shame, the last one was great, and when sales of this one are significantly worse than the previous title, I can see S-E just being done. -
Well crap.
-
Well crap.
-
[deleted]
-
-
Is that what people call him now?
-
-
Hahaha
-
-
-
https://twitter.com/geoffkeighley/status/499192318914998272
I have no idea what to think.
-
-
Reminder from this year: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/11/microsoft-really-really-is-into-pc-this-time-apparently/
RPS: In the wake of years and years of disappointment – countless ons, offs, flip-flops, Games For Windows, etc – why should people think that this time is going to be any different?
Lobb: The only way we can build trust in our community is by making great games. The PC community is more vibrant than it’s ever been before. I love it. We build a platform and other people make games on top of it. We do things to help set up the development community, and we also love to make games for you.
RPS: Do you have any major PC games or exclusives on the horizon?
Lobb: I can’t make any announcements. But we are very dedicated to that space. -
Dorito Pope says this:
'Spoke to many people here at Xbox press conference on Tomb Raider. Official line is that the game is "exclusive on Xbox for holiday 2015."'
https://twitter.com/geoffkeighley/status/499192318914998272 -
uncharted 4 vs tomb raider. FIGHT!
-
[deleted]
-
Ehh its just like what Sony did for Diablo 3 Ultimate Evil Edition. They paid them money to announce it as such and then at release its magically on all consoles.
-
Exclusive, Rise of my middle finger, now for Crystal Dynamics.
-
[deleted]
-
MGS2 only came out on Xbox in that weird special edition, long after the original title was on PS2. I'm guessing it didn't sell very well.
-
-
Lame
-
[deleted]
-
It seems they have found the way to "maximise profits"
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/ -
Will this be the last Tomb Raider for a while then?
Unless MS does something drastic and sell a ton of Xbones, this game is not going to do very well, and Square will probably not green light a another one. -
I feel bad for Camilla Luddington. People are giving her shit on twitter but she's just the voice actor.
-
I wonder if actors for video games these days get warnings about the kind of weird shit fans will demand of them. Of course they are probably used to it from TV/film.
-
-
Wow. That's a pretty baller ass move by MS. I bet this won't be the only one. They've been taking on the chin for a good year now and the best way they have to fight back is pure cash expenditure. First the EA thing, now this. I'm just glad I have everything so I can play anything.
-
LOL fake Kaz is the best
https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/status/499187317735956480
also
https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/status/464864656243568640 -
-
-
-
And it's wrong for them to want to make money why?
-
No it is a business making video games you have to pay your staff etc, but at the same time in my books you don't piss on your fans and customers this was a very bad move no matter how you look at it.
Regardless if it makes money it was a wrong move I cannot support it. Unless CD was on the verg of bankruptcy then I would support it 100% and a 100% solid deal with guaranteed money which would make sense. But in this case it just looks bad and is wrong.
Personally I doubt they will make more money on just the XB1 when they cut out the PS4 and the PC I really don't get this deal how much did MS pay them is must be a insane amount.
As a long time gamer I dislike any company that has supported their game multi platform and then goes exclusive.
Fred do your really think this is a good move by the company and to the fans that supported the series?
Heck as a business move to cut out the sales of the PS4 and PC users alone to me seems like a mental move why on earth would you do that the nums don't add up there has to be something way more to the deal.-
It's a timed exclusive. It may help boost XB1 sales and it doesn't hurt when you are one of the few good games on a console so it may work out well for CD. Also, remember that the millions of people that buy this game aren't all hardcore like Shackers. They don't give a fuck. They walk into a store and go, "Look a new Tomb Raider." and buy it. They don't give a shit who got it first and what the console politics are.
-
Man I hope it is time exclusive, if that is the case I be ok with it(even though I think it is still stupid and am still pissed).
Yeah, some times it is hard to forget that Shackers are hardcore and not considered the average gamer :) , still TR is a massive IP I am sure this will probably even trickle down to reg gamers and even pissed them off.
We shall see I guess.-
How many times has this happened? An exclusive gets announced and the outrage ensues. It's funny that people don't seem to get as bent out of shape that there are no Uncharted games on PC or Mario.
-
-
Big deal is relative. I don't even have an XB1 yet so I have no investment in this, but I know that some way I'll play it eventually. It's not like there aren't an assload of good games out.
-
-
Except there was a significant portion of people who were upset about Bayonetta 2 on Wii U...
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
LOL, people always get pissy when a game they want is exclusive to a system they don't have. Don't see much complaining when it's on a system they own.
-
-
Overreaction level: 9 outta 10.
-
Negative.
This isn't an over reaction at all. "Those assholes" in question includes Crystal Dynamics and Microsoft. Taking a new IP and making it console exclusive is whatever. I just don't care about or pay any attention to those games. But taking the sequal to a game (and a series) with a strong PC release is pure asshole material.
There is zero chance I will play this (or any other) game if it doesn't come to PC. That isn't a boycott it's just a fact.
So I repeat.
Fuck those assholes.-
We all know eventually it will come to PC. Every console company does this, so the fresh outrage is always a head scratcher. How else do you expect consoles to differentiate themselves? Are people outraged with PS4 exclusives?
-
When's the last time Sony bought an IP and made it exclusive? I can't remember them doing that anytime recently, perhaps ever.
-
Who said Microsoft bought Tomb Raider? Buying timed exclusives isn't that uncommon. Sony says they don't pay, but that doesn't mean they don't give incentives like better rates. People don't just give Sony exclusives because they are nice guys.
-
Which 3rd party IPs have gone from multiplatform to exclusive like this? I honestly can't think of a single one.
-
-
Bayonetta?
-
Mario Bros.
-
Well, not putting out gears 2 and 3 on PC was lame, gears 1 was amazing in high res 60 fps bliss
-
Splinter Cell: Conviction was Xbox-exclusive. Dead Rising 2 was multiplatform but 3 is Xbox-exclusive (on consoles).
-
-
-
-
Exclusives are one thing. Precedent is another. It's lame as FUCK to start a series on all platforms and then confine it to one. Fuck that noise.
-
how do you feel about Bloodborne? Feels highly similar to me. Series (Dark Souls) goes multiplatform and then you buy the talent but not the name to do a console exclusive for the same audience. Business as usual.
-
I see what you're saying, but Bloodborne is a flawed example. It's the start of a new series. It's not Dark Souls 3 or Demon's Souls 2. If one of those series became exclusive to one platform, I'd bitch about that, too.
-
It just feels disingenuous to me. I was trying to remember what happened with Far Cry as another example. Like a publisher retains the IP but the original team leaves and goes and does a console exclusive now. Why does it really matter whether they take the money with v1 or v2? If anything v2 is the better time as far as understanding how well the money corresponds to your costs/income related to being multiplatform. Like the TR guys talked about how it didn't perform what they wanted financially (how or why that happened is a separate issue) and maybe they've determined that being on 6 platforms or whatever is part of that problem and a nice console exclusive payment package is what's going to ensure TR3 happens.
-
like I get why people have this reaction to exclusives but fundamentally it's really no different whether it's v1 or v2, someone took a bunch of cash to be exclusive, but it's less bad if you do that starting with v1?
-
I can see how any major changes between installments of a series could rile people, yes. That pertains to exclusivity as well as longstanding features being changed or yanked out. Why do you think people were upset about Diablo 3 being online-only on PC? Because Diablo 1 and 2 had offline modes. As a franchise continues, you come to expect certain staples to be there. And that's fair.
-
I think the Diablo stuff was pretty different. Now you're talking about actually changing the game/experience they like, not simply delivering it a different way. Obviously expectations are important and that's part of what's fueling these types of reactions I just don't find the argument compelling from a logical standpoint. Similarly I don't see a big difference between funding a first party studio vs buying 3rd party exclusives. Some people seem to think these are significantly different but all I see is $x allocated to gaining an exclusive.
-
I'm not arguing the logic behind the business. I'm taking the consumer's side. Imagine if Mass Effect started on 360, then went EXCLUSIVE to PS3, or vice versa. That would be unfair to all the consumers who opted, or had no choice to play the first game on a particular system. Suddenly, you've taken away their ability to buy your game. You got your money, yeah, but you pissed off a lot of loyal consumers.
All this said, I'm sure we'll get a GOTY edition. It's still the principle of the thing that bothers me.-
I'm talking about the consumer side as well. How is it "unfair" if the game goes exclusive after v1 but not if starts off exclusive? You're not entitled to a sequel on any particular platform. What if the next iteration is next gen only? Isn't that unfair to the loyal 360/PS3 owners who can't afford a next gen console?
Suddenly, you've taken away their ability to buy your game. You got your money, yeah, but you pissed off a lot of loyal consumers.
Why is this unique to sequels? This is 100% true of a new IP exclusive as well. I was a fan of X and now it's exclusive. Shouldn't CoD:MW fans be mad Titanfall isn't on PS4? Isn't that unfair to the loyal fans of those developers?-
It's a bigger issues for sequels that started as multiplatform games because everyone logically expects to be able to buy the next installments. That's all.
-
Exactly this.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
You might be right, but narrowing a title's focus to one platform still pulls the rug out from others. MS would have had to pay CD enough money to offset the costs CD would lose out on by not offering its game on Sony's platform. I've no doubt MS can afford to offset those costs--and those ARE significant, because PS4 is the more popular, widely adopted platform at this point.
Also, to amend my previous post: I wouldn't bitch if Demon's Souls 2 was exclusive to Sony, because Sony published Demon's 1. Sony owns that IP and has every right to keep it in home territory. I'll stick with the "games that started multi-platform and became exclusive to one" argument. :)-
right, I just don't see the logic of that take on exclusives, but obviously lots of people feel similarly to you. Shouldn't I be mad that Demon Soul's 1 is exclusive knowing how good Dark Souls is? Why should I only be mad if Dark Soul's 3 is exclusive? In both cases I've missed a title I want from roughly the same developers on account of a platform holder's cash bonus.
-
You can be upset, sure. The real issue is precedent and expectation. As I have explained.
-
Demon's Souls was likely exclusive because it was a niche title from a small developer in Japan, where MS is basically a non-issue. Once it got big, the sequel/spin-off came to both.
-
sure, and now Sony is paying extra for that talent to be exclusive again now that the brand is big (Demon Souls + Dark Souls fans)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Do you honestly think it won't be multi-platform at some point? This isn't Killzone or Zelda.
-
They did it with Halo and Gears. And even weirder platform omissions in an established series have happened before. Splinter Cell Conviction is the only game in the series to never make it to PlayStation. Similarly, Call of Duty 3 is the only CoD not to come to PC.
It just goes to show it's not always a safe bet that a game will be on any given platform just because all the other ones were.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
You want this on the PC? I mean, it would be cool if it was designed for the PC I guess, maybe get some cool features that way, but third person adventure games work well enough on a console. Also PC? LOLWHOAREWEKIDDING? What grinds my gears is when they take genres like shooters and sims and dumb them down for consoles. That is where the whole thing is just darn broken IMO.
-
-
-
-
They just released a definitive edition on new consoles and that's not coming to PC as far as I'm aware.
-
Arguments like this do no good. The jaded-PC-gamer card has been played to death. There are bigger issues, here.
-
-
The enjoyment of the game is directly proportional to the ways i have to play it. And i dont have that one. So for me? RUINED. :: mascara drip ::
-
lol seriously
-
-
-
-
-
-
xbox 1 is graphically weaker than the wiiU?
-
The Mario Kart is pretty excellent. Note for internet warriors. Please don't take this personal.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Really lame, especially if this applies to PC, which they make it sound like it does. I guess it could come out on PC eventually. Tomb Raider was one of my favorite games from last year.
Also a weird move from Square Enix, considering they felt the 5 million (or whatever) units Tomb Raider sold was low, and now they are gonna be exclusive to a system that doesn't even have that many consoles sold. -
Scanning the news, it seems clear that "Holiday 2015" is being used often enough. To me, that points to yet another timed exclusive.
-
I really enjoyed the first game on PC. Hopefully its just a timed exclusive.
-
-
Everything says it isn't, but I would not be surprised to see a GOTY edition down the road for the PC.
-
Yeah :( , man I hope so this seems like the stupidest franchise move made in years.
I just don't get it TR 2013 was a massive success proven gold on all the systems why on earth would you go back wards and be exclusive to one platform. Makes no sense the pure numbers of the extra PC, PS4 users that would of bought number 2 for sure.
If this was a new IP I could understand(even though I would still not like it), but a franchise that is multi plat and a major success it just seems crazy.
Maybe CD signed a exclusive deal that all titles are now exclusive to XB1 and MS I would not doubt it that seems more reasonable.
Eh who knows.-
Considering TR 2013's success, I would say this is a really good move from MS's standpoint. They get to take an IP on the upswing all for themselves. People say, "No one buys an XB1 for Tomb Raider", but lots of people will buy it for Halo + TR + whatever else.
I want PC Tomb Raider, but ya gotta hand it to MS on this one. Good move.-
For sure MS did a massive move congrats to them(even though I dislike the move personally), I just wonder if the backlash may do more damage then good.
Imagine if they did this with GTA5, I wonder what would of happened?
People would probably riot in the streets :) LOL
Well I wish the XB1 well, will be interesting times ahead I hope more multi plat games don't do this personally, I rather get cool new IPs.
Really all I want to know is when DX12 rolls out for the XB1 and the PC?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Whatever, I mean, if it doesn't come to something I own, its their loss. Even if this isn't a time exclusive but a real exclusive, there are always Game of the year and definitive editions that don't obey the rules. If that doesn't happen and I still really want it, I'll buy a Xbox One and Rise of the Tomb Raider. Probably used. Microsoft is way behind and I get why they are doing this. They have too.
-
-
-
(i.e. Their Japanese games weren't doing very well, but they wanted to blame the company's poor performance on the other studios.)
-
-
Flop is the largest disservice to this game you can give. It sold multiple millions within a month or release and was proven to have been profitable. Square Enix just called out it and Hitman for not selling as much as they hoped (I guess CoD or Halo numbers) and wanted to divert the attention away from the financial bungling of it's other investments (final fantasy).
-
It was only a flop because their other products were massive disasters. When FF fails Sqeenix puts all the weight on their others games and so of course they can't fill those shoes.
-
-
-
-
Halo'd.
-
-
i LOVED the first one, but yeah... still not getting an Xbone. hope it comes to PC.
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
This is how I feel. TR was one of my favorite games of 2013, but it's not a system seller. Square and CD had to work pretty hard just to break even and make the game profitable.
-
Pretty sure Halo sold at least 43 xbox at launch.
-
-
When this eventually gets released on other platforms I'll come back to this thread to laugh at all the reactionaries.
Exclusive holiday release, guys. -
[deleted]
-
Maybe the xbox one is the only platform capable of running the game?
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
I'm not sure yet, but I think the cynicism displayed here is really uncalled for. I mean Crystal Dynamic never said they're going xbox exclusive because of piles of money from microsoft so I have to assume Xbox One is the only platform capable of containing the game's awesomeness. Maybe their vision requires kinnect functionality that the playstation eye just isn't capable of.
-
No one ever discusses money for exclusive content like that publicly. Just because they don't say it doesn't mean it's not the main reason, no cynicism needed. They are very familiar with multiplatform development and have never shown interest in kinect before, there's no way they'd willfully choose to miss out on the PS4 & PC combined sales for something like kinect, unless they had compensation and more.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
You can also count on smug, superior posts, like this.
-
[deleted]
-
-
arch-nemesis rasputinreborn, you are right, but David Craddock is righter.
-
That might have to do with the fact that the news article is plain wrong.
-
-
Microsoft and their money hat advantage again!
Hey what happened to the 8 exclusive studios they created with a billion dollars , they making games or what? -
Completely objective here, but reading Crystal Dynamic's letter to the fans, it sounds extremely lame and I can imagine a great many people being upset by this. They know it too. The schmoozing in that 'letter' is pretty darn offensive, to say the least.
-
"We do feel bad for you guys with the PCs and PS4s, but can't be bothered with doing anything about it because we're too busy bathing with Microsoft's Benjamins."
-
they shouldn't have bothered addressing it at all, there's nothing they could say to placate the people annoyed by this.
-
very true.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
As a small update, they are unsurprisingly now mincing words and it sounds like it's a timed exclusive. They're using terms like "Holiday 2015" in communications.
e.g. https://twitter.com/geoffkeighley/status/499192318914998272 -
[deleted]
-
Well, so much for that. It's their loss, really. If they don't want our money then there's nothing we can do about that other than move on and hope they port it someday.
I mean yeah it's conceivable that someday I'll have an Xbone but that's years down the line, at best. In the meantime I have plenty of other games to play on PC.-
they do hint at a definitive edition for PC/PS4 later on. Same letter.
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
This is a silly point. There's obviously two 'kinds' of exclusives - one type where you spend money to nurture talent, build studios, and come up with new stuff that wouldn't otherwise exist, and another type where you throw money at existing stuff to close it off to part of the market. The former is good for consumers, the latter isn't.
-
what if i told you neither kinds of exclusives were good for consumers.
i know people like to have this idea that this platform-holder arms race is what fuels developers (since it's the last thing that justifies console platforms at this point), but the reality is likely the other way around. the platform holders wouldn't exist at this point if it weren't for developers pumping out really good games exclusively for their systems. and if things keep progressing the way they are, there might come a point where it might not be sustainable for the platform holders themselves, in light of the other competition that is out there.-
what does"good for consumers" mean here? Sure it's not good in the sense that I can't play every game created on one piece of hardware. On the other hand, if there was only one piece of hardware then what incentive is there for that hardware platform to improve? Is that a good trade off for consumers to not have to buy multiple devices? Or is there greater net good in having some software exclusives so that platform owners have a reason to compete and improve their services?
-
-
the PC doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's competing with consoles and many other devices for your time and entertainment dollars. Steam does not look like it does today if a decade ago XBL hadn't made online gaming on a console easier than on PCs despite PCs owning that space forever prior to that.
What you're describing is fundamentally at odds with everything we know about how markets work. It's why Dennis Dyack's 'one console future' is so dumb, why we hate EA's exclusivity contracts with sports leagues, and why we generally frown upon monopolies.-
"Steam does not look like it does today if a decade ago XBL hadn't made online gaming on a console easier than on PCs despite PCs owning that space forever prior to that. " This is a questionable statement because I'm pretty sure Valve had a lot of the important steam features (simplified installation, online game library, etc.) planned way before XBL was seen as a viable and popular service, and way before most people even really thought the other kind of service Steam provided was viable. Valve had always sought to use Steam to make the PC experience easier. I'd say they mostly accomplished it, while consoles have become much more complicated.
And you're missing my point. Steam isn't the only digital distribution platform on PC. These platforms are what consoles are competing with now with the added baggage of a somewhat questionably-executed model of vertical integration. I don't think anyone can argue that Steam currently does digital distribution the best, even if it has its flaws, and I would argue that even Origin puts up a competent alternative to the console digital distribution efforts when it comes to sheer value. That's as things stand, of course -- console makers could collectively get their heads out of their asses and change that, but as it is Sony is content with being largely reactionary and doing just enough to capture the market, while MS is busy stumbling over itself in ridiculous hubris.
And as far as competition goes, the PC already has lots of competition? There are three different fairly viable operating systems people can choose from, and many different hardware manufacturers and configurations. Nobody is asking for that to change. That's why consoles look really redundant -- because the PC is already a platform that fosters competition, and the things that separate it from consoles are looking increasingly arbitrary. The only things left are the intentions of the console makers and their pockets, which
-
-
-
-
-
-
People already bought their PS4's.
-
Woops, take out that '
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
No mention of Titanfall?
-
[deleted]
-
Of course, Titanfall came out on PC at the same time, so people wern't too upset. I totally set you up for this. Oh shit, my debate skills.
-
[deleted]
-
Partially, there's also relative feelings on the companies as well. People have forgotten how shitty Sony was during the early PS3 times. Right now we remember how shitty and arrogant MS was last year, so people are still carrying that baggage.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
announcing some of their own exclusives and/or new IP would be one thing. Just buying out other franchises (that people are used to playing on their preferred platforms) just by throwing money at a dev is very different and benefits no single consumer at all.
-
miss-reply, meant to reply to thaperfectdrug
:(
-
-
Case in point: Bayonetta 2.
-
That's a legitimate complaint.
-
-
-
Really bizarre title to purchase exclusivity for. I don't think it will have hardly any impact on xbox sales. I'm biased though, I haven't cared about tomb raider ever.
-
People are hating on Microsoft a little too hard. Seems like if this was a PC or PS4 exclusive people would be cheering.
-
-
-
-
-
We have a problem with that, too, but I'm not aware of any games being cross-platform and then moving to Playstation exclusively. I'm aware of that happening with DLC (GTA4/5, for example) but not a core game.
-
-
That's exactly related to your point, but in a tangential way.
Spelling it out: Some gamers get personally affronted when devs/publishers lie, or by omission refuse to admit, to their reasons for making a decision like this. We all have a pretty good idea this is financially motivated and now it's clear this is time-exclusive, but no one will admit to that, and that makes some people upset. That's what I was referring to. You may not agree with that standpoint, but it does underlay some of the responses here.
The reason no one reacts to an 'exclusive + PC' release is the same reason I mentioned that example earlier. There's no PC manufacturer paying for exclusives. The only companies that are PC-focused as a platform (Valve, GoG and a few other distributors) are all about open access. They encourage developers to open themselves instead of exclude because, as their data shows, this works out better for everyone, especially the consumers.
That's why people don't get upset. If Valve was getting a Stream-exclusive, that's cool, because Valve has shown through the years that all they care about is being good to their consumers. Microsoft and Sony (PS3 era) both proved they were not. There's a lot of history we forget on the surface level, but underlays perspectives and reactions.-
I thought people were upset that the game is not going to be available (initially, at least) on their platform of choice. You're saying the outcry is actually because people are upset that a developer is not telling them the "whole story"?
Are you saying there wouldn't be so much outcry if Crystal Dynamics opened their books and broke down their finances and reasoning for this decision? I just don't think it would make a difference with a crowd that feels "personally affronted" by a straightforward business decision, but that's my view.-
I'm saying that is part of the reason.
Are you saying there wouldn't be so much outcry if Crystal Dynamics opened their books and broke down their finances and reasoning for this decision?
Absolutely. We've seen it multiple times (how sympathy has switched) based on developers being open and honest about their hardship and difficulties and being honest with their fans. There are a large number of examples of this, but my favorite came from the Skullgirls team where they broke down exactly how much making a new character cost for them.
If you want data on how this works out for multi-platform, the Republique team did that when they were originally exclusive to iOS. They explained how much more the PC market would cost for them. When they explained, and agreed to make a PC port, you actually saw the direct financial support that had in their kickstarter.
So yes, that does make a difference. As long as you're open an honest about your reasons, you will be surprised the response you get, which is exactly what Valve has been telling everyone for years. -
You have derailed, of course people are pissed that its not coming out for their platform of choice, the reasoning behind the exclusive is fucking bullshit and shady business and all it does it hurt us the consumers and eventually CDs reputation, everyone already knows that MS is full of lying, decieving ass hats
-
:D
Reminder from this year: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/11/microsoft-really-really-is-into-pc-this-time-apparently/
RPS: In the wake of years and years of disappointment – countless ons, offs, flip-flops, Games For Windows, etc – why should people think that this time is going to be any different?
Lobb: The only way we can build trust in our community is by making great games. The PC community is more vibrant than it’s ever been before. I love it. We build a platform and other people make games on top of it. We do things to help set up the development community, and we also love to make games for you.
RPS: Do you have any major PC games or exclusives on the horizon?
Lobb: I can’t make any announcements. But we are very dedicated to that space.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
They have their problems, but I've never seen a choice that was anti-consumer.
Forcing a peripheral in the box, iffy. (MS)
Work more to earn it, anti-consumer. (Sony)
You'll love our DRM!, anti-consumer (MS)
Our games will be Origin only, profit-inclined, but not truly anti-consumer (EA)
It's all the fault of pirates. More DRM, anti-consumer (UbiSoft)
Optimizing is hard and you are all shit, anti-consumer (UbiSoft)
Can you think of any examples of Valve being hostile to consumers? The worst I can think of is they're obtuse about banning issues with VAC, but they always apologize when they make mistakes, and the no-returns policy, which has been reported to be a requirement of publishers.-
Work more to earn it, anti-consumer. (Sony)
Our games will be Origin only, profit-inclined, but not truly anti-consumer (EA)
Explain the Sony one.
Also, I have no problem with EA or Blizzard doing their own services. Its no different from Steam in that its a platform for their own games that are built around DRM.
DRM is core to any of these platforms. GOG is really the only one that isn't built around it. We deal with DRM because its made to be convenient, and that's fine, but don't pretend it isn't profit motivated even for Valve. You don't become that wealthy through altruism. These are all businesses here.-
Quote from Sony about the cost of the PS3: http://www.joystiq.com/2005/07/06/sony-wants-you-to-earn-that-playstation-3/
I've come around on Origin. I think EA's doing a good job with it. I refuse to personally support it, so I won't buy games on it, but it's a good service and EA is actually trying.
Serpico, the difference here is Valve is actively altruistic. They designed and implemented an entire online multiplayer platform and then gave it away for free including SDK and source code. They released a game, for free (Alien Swarm) to demonstrate how to use this platform. They talk openly about their business plans, piracy numbers, profits and the value of being good to consumers vs introducing more DRM: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem
So yes, they're a company, and they make profit, but they're not a public company, they're not beholden to growing for growth's sake and profit for profit's sake, and are open about their goals and interests. Even when they have internal shake ups, instead of stealing patents from their own developers, they let them go and allow them to try to sell their products external to Valve: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/castar-the-most-versatile-ar-and-vr-system
So yes, they're altruistic. I know you're going to come back and say Steam-play locks you to a platform, but I'll point out that it's entirely free. And developers are allowed to integrate or extend it as they see fit, with no license fees. Gamespy never did this. Unreal doesn't do this. Only Valve does. (GoG doesn't include a multiplayer platform).-
Ancient history re: Sony. Holding a grudge for something from ten years ago seems silly, especially given their focus with the PS4 (good price, good hardware, friendly to indies) and the awesome value with PS+.
They've more than learned their lessons from whatever silliness they did when launching the PS3.
Alien Swarm wasn't released as a tutorial, it was a game they were going to ship but then canned.
Being open with their information is great, I'm not denying any of that. Altruism before profit is something I have a hard time accepting though.
Locking a user into Steam is potentially profitable for them even if that user doesn't buy games. An entire stock/commodities market is built into the platform. Content you create through the SDK or make for their games is money that goes back to Valve. Dota 2 and TF2 are massively profitable because of work that they outsource to the community. Custom games for Dota 2 are going to be HUGE money for them.
Its cool (SUPER COOL!) but it isn't entirely altruism. Even if you never buy a game on Steam again, you have the potential to make Valve money from random drops like cards or items. That spread from selling penny items makes them thousands a day, and its all up from there. I've sold items that nets them several times more than if I bought a game directly, and of course the money I get back can only be used to buy games on Steam. If you make an item for their games then their cut is even higher, and if it is sold again on the secondary market then that's even more. Its genius!
I'm not saying Valve is bad, farthest thing from it! I have friends there, I use Steam daily, and I play their games more than anyone else's. That said, no matter how positively I think of any company, whether it is Valve, Apple, Nintendo, whoever, I have to keep ROI and dollar cost analysis as at least partial factors as to why something is done.-
But I dunno, I've worked with marketing for many nationals and multinationals. No matter how much I may emotionally embrace the product (and I've been fucking thrilled to work with some of the brands I have), at the end of the day I know its all about shipping to customers.
The public face you put on, making as few mistakes as possible, and the quality of the product itself, is the difference between the "good guys" and the "bad guys". "Altruism" doesn't even enter my mental vocabulary when thinking about something like a corporation which is driven by profit.-
What people mean is that Valve are one of the better firms out there.
Every company aims for profit that goes without saying. However, the best company reputations form when the goals of the firm align with the goals of the consumer for mutual benefit - I think Valve is a great example of this
-
-
Firstly, I'm not holding a grudge. I have no involvement in this issue because I don't care about the game, I was just talking about examples of being anti-consumer. And my point about the PS3 era of sony was exactly what you mentioned, it's 10 years old, people forget that history, so it doesn't have as much of an emotional impact as the fresh stuff with Microsoft, who was just as bad as PS3-era Sony, just as arrogant, and just as blind to developer issues.
Nothing you said there precludes their activities being altruistic. You just said that those activities are altruistic, but are also profitable. What I was showing you by example is how these come from altruistic intent. As Dave-A wrongly points out below, SteamOS is a thing, but his mistake is assuming it is a locked-down platform. It is not. It's a fully functional and open debian-based distro. It's focused on gaming with Steam, but it's completely open source, everything except the Steam client is available for other companies to use. The only other company who has even tried something like that is the crowd-funded Ouya.
That's pure altruistic intent. There's no profit in making an entire open source distribution that you do not sell and don't even control (only develop for). There's no money in it. But Valve doesn't care. What they care about is being good to the consumers, and they've always been honest about that.
You take their TF2 and DOTA2 as examples of being built into the platform, but you forget that TF2 was released F2P well before that platform was built. It was released F2P because Valve saw that holding it private, despite the profits they still made by selling it at low prices, was better for the community. So they released it. Then built up a service economy around it, while continuing to support the game. And they even explained why they were doing this for free: http://www.geekwire.com/2011/experiments-video-game-economics-valves-gabe-newell/
He even openly gives out the data to any other companies so they will understand the value of DRM, vs no DRM, vs free play weekends, vs f2p statistics.-
Small correction, TF2 F2P updatecame out after the Mann Co store (micropayment system) was implemented: http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/%C3%9Cber_Update
-
BTw, one other example, they released the Valve movie maker for free.
-
Content creation is a potential avenue for income. What's happening now is just the tip of the iceberg, especially with the custom game tools being released for Dota 2.
Out-sourcing content creation for Dota 2 and TF2 has made Valve a fortune. Its something like a 25/75 split with Valve taking a 75% cut. This is huge money given how big hats are.
Why else would the primary focus of Source 2 be content creation?
Listen, I think this is awesome for content creators. It gives some people a way to make money that there wouldn't have been otherwise. It also increases the value of Valve's games by giving them much more content than they would otherwise have.
The last thing I would call Valve is bad in any way, shape, or form. I have huge problems with the word "altruism" being thrown around though. There's an emotional component there that I have fundamental problems with. As I said below, the truly altruistic thing to do would be for Steam to remove DRM instead of turning it into a stock exchange/MMO.
BTW, I think its absolutely genius what they've done and I love it. Its super smart. Altruistic? Not so much.-
We're going to have to disagree here. The direct statements from interviews, their continual history of fighting against consumer-hostile practices by other publishers (Natch: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110829/13174315729/debate-time-ubisoft-says-drm-is-needed-valve-says-no-it-isnt.shtml ), releasing the entire multiplayer platform for free for devs, releasing a free movie maker, supporting the MOD community, releasing an entire open source distribution for free, and even working with an open-platform (SteamOS hardware), gives a different impression to me than you.
-
Forehead slap at Gabe talking about DRM not being necessary when Steam is literally a DRM platform.
Gabe talking about DRM not being needed makes absolutely no sense. Execution is the thing here. Amazon's, Valve's, and Apple's DRM works because it is convenient. When Ubisoft does it they do it in as shitty a manner as possible.
There's a huge difference from doing something out of altruism and doing it well.
Also, nearly everything you mention as altruistic services are tied directly into Valve being more profitable than they've ever been. Offsetting content creation to the community and allowing users to sell goods amongst one another with Valve as the middle-man is more profitable than any traditional game could be.
Again, I have no problem with a business being successful. Painting a business as Mother Theresa, no matter how good or positive they are, is something I have a problem with. I save that kind of talk for actual not-for-profit charities, you know. :)-
Yes, the irony there is hilarious :) What he's getting at is obnoxious DRM. In particular he's talking about DRM for DRM's sake, instead of being a service. At that time, Ubisoft's UPlay was a purely server-based DRM network where you'd have to download parts of the game (and decrypt random portions) as you played. It was purely designed around preventing piracy.
What he is implying is that Steam offers a service, it just happens to work out that they also get the lowered rate of piracy out of it.
The only company doing this without DRM is GOG and some indies.-
Right, which is what I said earlier. Convenience and execution trump everything. The same has worked for Apple and Amazon. This isn't altruism at work, it is good business sense.
If we're going by the truest sense of altruism, GOG is one of the few I'd point out, and even with them there's the argument that no DRM is their differentiator, their way of making money.
Its why I have such a hard time bringing such emotionally charged and personal terminology when talking about a freaking corporation.
Again, save "altruism" for organizations that really deserve it. This isn't a not-for-profit-malaria-eradicating charity we're talking about.-
I understand :) We're just going to have to disagree here about the usage of altruism.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"And my point about the PS3 era of sony was exactly what you mentioned, it's 10 years old, people forget that history, so it doesn't have as much of an emotional impact as the fresh stuff with Microsoft, who was just as bad as PS3-era Sony, just as arrogant, and just as blind to developer issues."
It is as irrelevant as bringing up Valve circa 2003 when they had a deal with ATI and an announced release date for HL2 for that September. They didn't announce a postponement until under a month before they were supposed to ship. They even had a release party at Alcatraz Island and everything.
Whatever, water under the bridge. ancient history. I think bringing up Sony there was just as pointless.
"You take their TF2 and DOTA2 as examples of being built into the platform, but you forget that TF2 was released F2P well before that platform was built. It was released F2P because Valve saw that holding it private, despite the profits they still made by selling it at low prices, was better for the community."
Incorrect. They made way more selling hats from moment one than they ever did putting TF2 behind a paywall. The system that wasn't immediately in place was users being able to sell items amongst one another, but selling cosmetics was always in there.
I'm not saying that they aren't driven by good intentions. Most "good" companies are, but profit is always a factor if the business is successful. Profit is one of many motivators when it comes to decisions like this. That they happen to align with "altruistic" conditions are secondary. Believing that altruism is the primary force behind every decision is a very naive point of view. This is especially in light of Valve beingso good at making money and is only increasing their capacity to do so by turning Steam into a stock exchange/MMO.
Releasing all DRM is a much clearer step in an altruistic path, much more so than turning Steam into a stock exchange/MMO, but its not going to happen. -
[deleted]
-
Anyone you want to load? It's an open OS. It's debian.
Run apt-get whatever and you'll get it.-
[deleted]
-
Exactly. That's my point. It's much easier to just make a client. And they do have a pure linux client that can be installed on any support distribution. They've gone well above what anyone else (save Ouya) is willing to do, all to support gamers.
-
-
-
-
"There's no profit in making an entire open source distribution that you do not sell and don't even control (only develop for)."
Yes there is.
Every single user is a potential source of value. If I play a free-to-play game like Dota 2 and I get a rare, I can sell it. That rare may net Valve pennies, it may net them dollars. Either way it is income that they are pulling from hundreds of thousands of users every day. Putting it on a free platform increases that reach.
This is before we get into the inherent value of it being a storefront. iTunes started really making money when it was released on Windows. Of course it made sense for a marketplace to be available for more people.
Of course putting a store that is also a generator of virtual goods which also have value in the hands of more users is a profitable thing.-
Every single user is a potential source of value. If I play a free-to-play game like Dota 2 and I get a rare, I can sell it.
This has nothing to do with: "There's no profit in making an entire open source distribution that you do not sell and don't even control (only develop for)."
You're partially correct in: Every single user is a potential source of value.
There would be more profit in making it a closed system that cannot be changed, like iTunes. At least that's the common understanding. Keep in mind that they could with much less difficulty release a linux client. But instead, they've made the active effort to develop, support, test, release and then open source an entire distribution.
Once again, we're going to have to disagree here.-
"This has nothing to do with: "There's no profit in making an entire open source distribution that you do not sell and don't even control (only develop for).""
Yes it does. Revenue scales up with more users, especially since "value" is being created out of thin air.
More users = more money.
You keep bringing "open" and "closed" into an argument when it is completely beside the point. Ease of use, convenience, and ubiquity are what matter.
Getting the platform into as many hands as possible is what matters.
-
-
The difference is iTunes is not open source. Sure, you get the Google factor of Google apps being the most visible on the open source Android system - Valve apps being the most visible on the SteamOS ecosystem - but on a scale of walled garden to open gates Valve is in a good place for consumer utility
-
Steam is on the same scale of walled-garden as iTunes or Amazon. "Open" or "closed" is irrelevant. Access and permissions are the relevant points here.
Actually, when it comes to this Steam is actually worse in several ways, even with the introduction of Family Sharing. If you have multiple users on an iTunes or Amazon account that wants to use media or run an application on multiple devices, they can. If you have multiple iDevices on a single account, they can all use those applications or movies/music, no problem.
If you have multiple users on a Steam account, no such luck. A shared library can only be accessed by one user at a time, even if they are all given Family Sharing access.
Family Sharing was a good first step. Hopefully they take it further and at least allow for eased restrictions on a local network or something. I'm sure they want something like that but its a huge negotiating battle with publishers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Don't forget how much junk ends up on Early Access which dilutes and tarnished their library.
-
[deleted]
-
i think the "dilute their library" thing is kind of unfair because it really feels like a lose-lose for valve. a year or so before, people were in a uproar over how Valve was treating smaller developers with greenlight, how Valve wouldn't let them on that sweet Valve store that would net them $$$ that they deserved. now they've effectively let the greenlight floodgates loose, people are still complaining. granted, either way that is their problem to solve, but it's dumb how everyone acts like the solution is obvious just because the problem is plain to see.
-
They really need to fix the discoverability of their store. It's really awful. They've finally got labels into the Library page, but the store is still.. just not good for anyone.
-
but nobody has been able to "fix" this problem yet, ever, even outside the video game realm. the closest I think is maybe amazon and netflix's suggestion algorithms, but everything netflix is free with the subscription while most people don't buy stuff on amazon without researching first, anyway.
the real solution usually involves including fewer games, or hiding away the ones that don't make you much money while promoting the ones the store thinks will do well. MS did this obnoxiously often with its store, and Sony does it a little too. as a consumer that upsets me, because it will inevitably mean I won't be able to get a game on my service of choice. and that upsets developers because they want their games to get a fair shake (or better) from online storefronts.
-
-
-
-
- The PS3 seems like an unfair dig considering many developers said the same thing, and if anything not developing games for their PS3 fans would be rather strange. Sounds like you'd prefer they just churned out games without the opinion?
- DOTA is not all Valve games; and even so free to play is often incredible value (see Path of Exile)
- A free OS based on open source is hardly the worst of all options
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
This is the important difference here, Max. No one is paying a company to make a PC Exclusive release. That's the only case where we can be absolutely certain it's entirely a developer choice.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Halo is not any way tied with Marathon. There were inspirations and similar themes but it's it's own world. That's like saying StarCraft is the future plot of Warcraft
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
but Nintendo buying out Bayonetta 2 is respected
-
-
I was replying to a comment about Halo which by most accounts was not in a good place financially before the MS acquisition, same as Bayonetta.
I generally think people getting up in arms about exclusives is dumb though so whatever. People make post after post about how they don't care about console X until it has more exclusives, not surprisingly companies are then willing to do whatever is necessary to secure exclusives or some exclusive content. That the cash infusion to make that happen occurred in v2 instead of v1 is so irrelevant to me. -
I don't know how hard is it to get into people's head that Bayonetta 2 would've never been even made without Nintendo being interested to produce it.
No other party wanted it made, Sega did not want to produce it, neither did Sony or Microsoft or any other entity than Nintendo.
That is why it is on Wii U.
-
-
-
The thing with Halo (and it still got a lot of bitching) is that Bungie was almost insolvent. MIcrosoft saved them to get at their development and products. Then, the more amazing thing, is Microsoft agreed to let them buy themselves out.
You don't see that, ever. Most publishers would happily destroy a developer over letting them and their team go after acquiring them. (See EA/Activision with everyone)-
-
It's in their documentary I remember. They were in dire straits after the Mac Expo announcement and there wasn't what amounted to a game even ready.
-
-
[deleted]
-
MS certainly has it moments. There haven't been any for the PC gamer side since the 360 (Shadowrun being cross PC/360 play was the last pro PC moment I can recall from them), but they're not evil.
They're sometimes anti-consumer, and sometimes hostile to their developers (Just ask the ACES team), and were actively hostile to indies(1,2) up until their reset after last years E3 where they saw their preorder numbers, but they still have their moments of beings good people.
1: http://www.gamesradar.com/team-meat-takes-issue-with-xbla-cancels-plans-for-super-meat-boy-on-wii/
2: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/20/the-sorry-saga-of-skulls-of-the-shogun-windows-8/
-
-
This, you don't see Sony giving Naughty Dog the option to buy themselves out.
-
-
-
-
-
* N O M A N S L A N D ' D *
-
This is annoying :( I just recently finished the PS4 edition and was really looking forward to this. Guess I'll just have to wait a little longer
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Rumor!
https://twitter.com/GI_AndyMc/status/499228118742093824
This guy is hearing reports that it's a timed exclusive.-
-
Even if the ad specifically stated XBOX ONLY/ONLY ON XBOX FOREVER END OF STORY!!! I would still be surprised if it didn't eventually get released on other platforms provided it doesn't suck and there's more money to be made.
-
-
you guys need to read the link geedeck posted above "In essence, Microsoft has paid Square Enix not to tell players what their non-Xbox release plans are." http://www.avclub.com/article/upcoming-tomb-raider-game-be-exclusively-xbox-208059
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Meh. The last game was good, but in no way is the new game a system seller for me.
Anything by NaughtyDog on the other hand....-
As much as I loved the Uncharted games Tomb Raider's gameplay surpassed them all. Better story in Uncharted 1 and 2 though. I'd like to forget there was a 3.
-
-
100% certain it's a timed exclusive. Are you nuts?
-
PC Gamer has a good writeup on the Tomb Raider deal : http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/08/12/why-rise-of-the-tomb-raiders-exclusivity-deal-is-a-prehistoric-relic/
This kinda sums it up for me - "But the sad thing is that rather than helping to reassert the brand, the decision to artificially limit Rise of the Tomb Raider’s audience—even if it does prove to be temporary—surely only confirms that Raider no longer belongs amongst gaming’s top tier. Look at it this way: There’s almost no amount of money that Microsoft could realistically offer Ubisoft to make Assassin’s Creed Unity an Xbox exclusive. And the reason is that it’s simply a bigger game, with an exponentially bigger upside to being on all formats."
-
how is that quote not applicable to every single top tier exclusive?
-
I tend to think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it's a huge third party IP, and therefore not on the same playing field as something like Halo.
-
but I might have misunderstood your point.
-
All exclusives are limiting their audience for the sake of money. It doesn't speak to the quality of the IP. TR isn't a lesser brand for taking money to be an exclusive. The Last of Us 2 would surely sell better as a multiplatform game, same as Assassin's Creed, but Sony can make money through other means by spending what it takes to make TLOU2 an exclusive.
-
-
-
Since SE has been struggling with the costs and expenses of the other games that aren't doing well, they probably needed the infusion of money to stay afloat. They were probably burning through cash quicker than they can make it despite having a few successful games.
Seems like if Sony were the first to offer them this they probably would have taken it as well.-
[deleted]
-
which is why that letter is an insult to their fans. All the mumbo jumbo about being the best choice, malarkey. It's just...greasy sounding dribble coming weakly from underneath a Microsoft desk.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
"Star Wars: Episode X. Shown exclusively in AMC Theatres only." yeah...i don't like this trend one bit. riots commencing
-
have you been gaming long? this used to be the standard, even for the first few years of the last gen of consoles.
-
the last few TRs were available across the board. that's all i'm bitching about. i've only played the reboot (couldn't stand the previous games). i fucking hate consoles (i only bought a 360 and a PS3 to keep me busy when my ex was out of town). i was looking forward to playing the new one on PC. sigh. i suppose i'll just go with one of my cop friends to their next welfare check visit and take Tyrone's Xbox One that he paid for with his unemployment.
-
oh i agree - i played TR reboot on PC and want to play TRoTR on PC..and i think it will still come out for other platforms, just probably a few months later.
it's no different than GTA V..they could have timed a PC launch with the consoles but chose to delay it. no one got angry over that.
-
-
-
i like amc better anyways
-
yup. AMC is better. the AMC in SF sports BOTH a real IMAX & Dolby Atmos.
-
There's a huge difference in AMCs, at least in the South Bay. The newer ones (Cupertino & Eastridge) are great. But the one in Mercado has uncomfortable seats, and very poor surround sound, if at all. When I watched How to Train Your Dragon 2, there was absolutely no sound coming from the left..
-
-
-
truth. member for 3 years now i think.
-
-
-
