|
It's a shame really, I'll most likely never play this now. Buying up exclusives is probably Microsoft's biggest hope for pulling back against Sony now. I definitely hope they don't succeed after the last 18 months of misery. Does Lara kill as many people in this one? |
Rise of the Tomb Raider
•
Page 2
-
-
PazJohnMitch 17,276 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoToonMonkey wrote:
My theory is Squenix have got themselves into a bit of a problem with FFXV. They will have probably spent all their cash reserves on it and are still nowhere near finished. Hence the new-gen rereleases like Sleeping Dogs. MS then offered them money for a bailout in the form of TR exclusivity. Squenix's FF focussed mind took the cash willingly as they believe investing it in FF will prove more lucrative in the long run.
Wonder how much cash MS flung Squenix' way. I take it they never release details on exclusivity payments? -
My theory after calming down is square Enix decided to can tomb raider 2 after the reboot didn't hit their excessively high sales figure after the first week. MS then decides to be the hero and publish the game to get it made (and have a uncharted competitor) -
Ultrasoundwave 6,439 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 11 years agoYeah, still shocked by this.
Not shocked at Microsoft, its a good move for them and it'll shift XB1's when it's released.
Definitely shocked at Square Enix for signing up for this though - considering we found out yesterday that 10 million PS4's have been sold ( and there will be hell of a lot more sold by the time the game comes out) thats a hell of a lot of sales they'll miss out on.
I can only assume Microsoft paid a fucking fortune for the exclusivity..... -
the_milkybar_kid 8,474 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 7 years agoGiven the news yesterday, I wonder how many of that 10 million have both consoles and how many would be prepared to invest in a new console because Tomb Raider is exclusive? Not huge numbers I imagine. Historically, Microsoft's exclusives have done nothing for me. I enjoyed TR on the PS4, but is it a game that'll warrant another console? Not a chance.
It's a shit name too. -
PazJohnMitch 17,276 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoI would guess people owning a PS4 & ONE will be about 250k at present. (2.5% of PS4 owners)
The percentage will grow considerably throughout the generation though. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoBauul wrote:
The market was totally different back then. For the most part I would wager the public weren't actually aware it happened the way it did (I wasn't, but I don't know how much 15 year old me would have cared regardless). Now we are.
Derblington wrote:I could get the XO version on launch but I don't like the way it's been been handled.
I don't like that it's mulit-plat either, but if you're genuinely interested in the game isn't this going a bit far?
As far as I recall there wasn't this sort of reaction when Sony did the same thing with Tomb Raider 2.
Imagine the outcry if Sony turned around tomorrow and announced that they'd secured Arkham Knight... There would be a shit storm of epic proportions, and it'd be deserved.
I have TR
E on PS4, I would rather keep my collections played on the same console and I don't like the fact that MS is buying 3rd party rather than investing in 1st. It's the wrong way to go about it, imo, and it's not going to make me give them more money to play it on their machine. It's not like I need it, it's a luxury item.
If you make me less interested in playing it through undesirable business practices (CD, Squenix and MS) then you lose my money, it's that simple. You don't have to make it appeal to me, I don't have to give you money. If/when it releases on the PS4, I'll think about it. -
the_milkybar_kid 8,474 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 7 years agoI've just watched the trailer. I know it's CGI but the facial animation for the old therapist guy is fucking terrible. -
Armoured_Bear 31,233 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 10 years agoWhat's the fuss all about?
Play it 6 months later on the PS4 or buy a Onesie FFS. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoIt's not quite that simple just yet. No-one knows if it'll come to PS. All the same things were said about Titanfall, if you remember. -
@Derblington Didn't that get clamped down as "Titanfall 1 is Xbox and PC only, future iterations - nobody knows but most likely multiplat"?
The lack of ability to say that it is totally locked down is a bit strange. -
Armoured_Bear 31,233 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 10 years agoDerblington wrote:
I'll bet any amount that it will, the wording says it all.
It's not quite that simple just yet. No-one knows if it'll come to PS. All the same things were said about Titanfall, if you remember. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoYeah. But before that was know, everyone was under the impression and constantly repeating that it'd be timed because 'EA wouldn't miss out on the sales profit', 'Respawn want the sales volume', etc. Point is, while they might be statements of truth, the game isn't going multi.
RotTR could be exactly the same deal. -
Armoured_Bear 31,233 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 10 years agoDerblington wrote:
In that case, it was always said that it wasn't timed, people didn't believe it.
Yeah. But before that was know, everyone was under the impression and constantly repeating that it'd be timed because 'EA wouldn't miss out on the sales profit', 'Respawn want the sales volume', etc. Point is, while they might be statements of truth, the game isn't going multi.
RotTR could be exactly the same deal.
In this case, they refuse to confirm that it isn't timed. -
I doubt they would go full on with the exclusivity details straight after the announcement. Particularly at some big corporate show where everyone wears crisp shirts and bleached smiles.
Edited by Gl3n at 11:34:32 13-08-2014 -
PazJohnMitch 17,276 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoI suspect the reason for the tight-lippedness is that there is a contract saying it is exclusive. However the developer's lawyers will be trying to find a loophole in the contract to allow it to become multiplatform. -
oceanmotion 17,358 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years agoTitanfall was saved with Microsoft funding from what I remember. EA were happy to give it over in exchange for getting it out the door with big marketing. I think maybe at one point it was on the cards for PS4 but nipped in the bud for one reason or another. MS, workload, lukewarm success, go all in with sequel.
The PR for Tomb Raider is nailed on timed exclusive. Anyone deviates is getting shot. -
Anthony_UK 3,094 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 16 years agoI own a xbox one and loved the original game, so happy days. Currently it would have been Uncharted that would get me to take the plunge and get a PS4, maybe that's the idea. Not that I can see anyone beating Naughty Dog at what they do. -
Peew971 7,268 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 16 years agoAm I being cynic thinking that everyone would be applauding the move if it had been a PS4 exclusive? Seems like Microsoft is in a bit of a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" situation with gamers but everyone forgave Sony for the messed up PS3 launch. -
Duffking 16,964 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoPeew971 wrote:
Yeah if it was PS4 only everyone would be all like "wow great move by Sony", because more people have PS4s.
Am I being cynic thinking that everyone would be applauding the move if it had been a PS4 exclusive? Seems like Microsoft is in a bit of a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" situation with gamers but everyone forgave Sony for the messed up PS3 launch.
Not sure why people are upset anyway, they'll still get Uncharted 4 which is probably going to basically be the same game. Though Tomb Raider was better than Uncharted 3.
Edited by DUFFKING at 12:44:21 13-08-2014 -
I think it is more the case of ps4 owners are complaining and Xbox owners are saying good going
This would be vice versa if Sony had got the exclusive
Sort of reminds me of the Bayonetta backlash and Nintendo have solely funded that -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoPersonally, I'd feel exactly the same if Sony started buying up 3rd party titles instead of utilising 1st and 2nd.
It should be about developing and promoting exclusive content to strengthen your platform, not buying content to stop the other camp from accessing it (and certainly not franchise sequels). -
oceanmotion 17,358 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years agoHell no, it's shit whoever does it. Like Derbs said, if Arkham Knight was announced as PS4 exclusive they would be hammered just the same. It's just a poor tactic to compete. MS has had more than a decade to fund new studios and IP but decided the same old and third party was enough to coast by on. Now they are in the shit, spend their way out of trouble in a anti consumer way.
That doesn't sit well with people. They even have a wealth of old IP to fall back on but no, easy money in a creative industry, I'm almost starting to feel, please just pack up and leave MS. Competition for the sake of it isn't good competition. I would rather have two good philosophies competing. -
I honestly don't see the problem with it.
/shrugs -
Peew971 7,268 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 16 years agoI don't know, if I was Microsoft I would do the same thing. They need to catch up and building new studios/iPs takes time (not to mention it's not a guarantee of success). So short time I don't really see what else they could be doing. If anything TR alone isn't enough, they should be going after another established IP until they can come up with their own. -
Peew971 wrote:
Because they spent a generation establishing a first party portfolio, working to fund and develop external talent and (unrelated) offering the instant game collection in huge value masterstroke.
but everyone forgave Sony for the messed up PS3 launch.
So saying "what if" about Sony is a bit of a pie in the sky argument, because they have set out their strategy for success which is exactly what is going on right now.
What they COULD do with the overwhelming adoption they are enjoying right now is to work with even more third party developers to make titles like Bloodborne, perhaps giving them the platform to stretch their legs on new and unique titles. Possibly what Microsoft should have done as the last gen wore on rather than letting it all slide away from them. -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 22 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoIt's in Microsofts interest to make you think it's an exclusive for ever. I guess I'll just pick up the definitive version a bit later. -
Peew971 wrote:
They've had 13 years to do something about their studio and IP portfolio.
I don't know, if I was Microsoft I would do the same thing. They need to catch up and building new studios/iPs takes time (not to mention it's not a guarantee of success). So short time I don't really see what else they could be doing. If anything TR alone isn't enough, they should be going after another established IP until they can come up with their own. -
Peew971 wrote:
No. They could secure more things like Titanfall. Hell, going after Destiny makes more sense.
I don't know, if I was Microsoft I would do the same thing. They need to catch up and building new studios/iPs takes time (not to mention it's not a guarantee of success). So short time I don't really see what else they could be doing. If anything TR alone isn't enough, they should be going after another established IP until they can come up with their own.
But with TR, or any established franchise, it's not so much bolstering your stable as taking it from the opposition. It's not going to hurt Sony, realistically, and I can't see it making a huge difference in selling more XBO (unless the game is really, really amazing). What it will do is prevent fans of the franchise from being able to play it, and if the sales figures are anything to go by, there will be a lot of them. It's more about spite rather than gain for the consumer.
They should be finding ways to make their ball look better so that you want to play with them, instead they're saying if you're not playing with their ball then you're not playing at all.
E on PS4, I would rather keep my collections played on the same console and I don't like the fact that MS is buying 3rd party rather than investing in 1st. It's the wrong way to go about it, imo, and it's not going to make me give them more money to play it on their machine. It's not like I need it, it's a luxury item.Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
