As we all know by now, Rise of the Tomb Raider will be exclusive to Xbox platforms because Microsoft is publishing it.

And why? Because Square Enix sucks, that's why.

Don't blame Microsoft for this. If the former publisher hadn't screwed things up so badly before, this wouldn't have happened. Let's remember what Square Enix's absurd expectations were for this game: Even though it sold exceedingly well, they anticipated 5 million sales in the first month. 3.4 million is fantastic but it wasn't enough. We found out later that the game didn't even break even until around December, and one could argue that the Definitive Edition existed to recoup more expenses.

And how much did they put into it again? $100 million? Are they nuts ? It took until the new year to turn a decent profit and to do that, it needed to hit 6 million copies sold. I know Tomb Raider was a great game but the expected numbers were way out of whack, and this is precisely the reason Tomb Raider is now in the hands of Microsoft. Square Enix flubbed it, period.

They're good at that.

Related Game(s): Rise of the Tomb Raider

Subscribe
Notify of
163 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
surfer
surfer
6 years ago

Yes but bottom line great move by MS. It did not help that Sony sold all of their Square Enix shares back in April 2014. Revenge.

Deathb4Dishonor
Deathb4Dishonor
6 years ago

I doubt any company would risk losing millions over petty revenge

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

It was a mutual affair. You should look up why they originally bought them, and why they consequently sold them. It's an interesting find.

Kevin555
Kevin555
6 years ago

@surfer, i am pretty pissed i won't get to play this but i agree with you. Good move for MS.

godsman
godsman
6 years ago

Last edited by godsman on 8/13/2014 7:56:31 AM

surfer
surfer
6 years ago

It is a business guys…bottom line. Sony and MS are not in business to make friends; they are in business to make $$$.

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

Yes, but businesses also create partnerships, and those partnerships often have corporate relationships that help one another out for mutually beneficial reasons. I'm not outright saying that's what happened, but what is interesting is the timing when they bought Square shares and the publications and communications published at the time it happened. You should investigate; it's interesting stuff.

surfer
surfer
6 years ago

@Underdog15: I just some more info on the selling of the shares and yes it does look like it helped both companies. Now I really don't get it??? The only two explanations are: it is only timed for Holiday 2015 or MS paid them a crap load of $$$.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
6 years ago

It will eventually make its way to PC. But I'm still annoyed by this.

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

I'm hoping so.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
6 years ago

I feel a bit gutted cuz i was a big supporter of the reboot

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
6 years ago

Yeah, you were. I was too. It's not like it didn't do well. MS must be spending a ton of $$$

kraygen
kraygen
6 years ago

They almost always eventually end up on pc, they just recently announced the fable anniversary edition is coming to pc and this will too.

Point being I don't need an xbox, just patience and well I have plenty of that so still won't have any desire for the x1.

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

Oh. I'll alway blame both. MS is dirty. It's how they play it. S-E are idiots. Idiots to think they should partner with MS on this deal. So yea, S-E can be blamed for a lot. Because this is how I see it, if MS didn't exist TR wouldn't have gone exclusive to anyone. Because no one else plays it like that. And MS will always be the scoundrel so it's not surprising they would try something like this. But I do blame both S-E and MS and Crystal Dynamics (yes. them. they're right out there sounding their MS-loving trump about this move. I would have total respect for them through this if they just stayed quiet) and yes CD confirmed this ain't no timed exclusive but "this is the real deal."


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/12/2014 10:18:05 PM

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

and the only reason I really care is because I happened to like TR about as much as any Uncharted game I've played. It sucks thinking I spent time giving the reboot a chance with the Definitive Edition, and then S-E idiotically more or less hands this ip over to MS. Heck. I'd rather have Eidos holding the franchise than S-E.
Did S-E not learn a dang thing from what happened at the dawn of the 360? Don't be surprised if MS tries to steal away the core designers of this game for their own studios as the XO just flounders and S-E is left scratching their heads as to what's happened.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Wii U is outselling the XO right now globally.
S-E may have been better off just making the game a Wii U exclusive during all of their insanity.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/12/2014 10:30:06 PM

godsman
godsman
6 years ago

I'm sure SE waived the offer in front of Sony at some point. If Sony would play this game SE would get the best of both worlds. Too bad the main Sony company is losing money, otherwise, i'm sure the gaming department would be more aggressive.

Bio
Bio
6 years ago

Don't blame Microsoft for following a precedent in the industry that Sony set, back when Sony was the one who had enough money to throw at every developer out there.

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

Bio, tell me one time Sony locked down a well established franchise. One spanning nearly 20 years as a cultural icon, with a fan base rooted to no single platform, and then Sony came in and said NOPE. Nu 'uh it's all ours now. Screw everyone else. We want it. We want it only on the platform most of the world doesn't want.

Tell me. When?


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/12/2014 11:46:35 PM

Akuma_
Akuma_
6 years ago

@Temjin
Yeah man, I haven't played the reboot yet, as I have been busy with other games, but it was the next game I was going to buy for my PS4 to keep me busy till Destiny comes out. Now I have taken it off my list completely.

CD says "we aren't walking away from our PS and PC fans, the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition is available on PS4 right now" That is almost exactly the same as Don Mattrick and his famous "If you have no internet you can buy a 360" comment.

@godsman
Yeah I dont know hey. Microsoft has a history with this sort of thing, and it isn't a coincidence that this happens when Xb1 is doing terrible compared to PS4.

@Bio
Boooooooo. Take your bullshit argument else. This is NOT the same thing. This is a multiplatform game which has now been made exclusive. It's like Call of Duty becoming Xbox exclusive.

Bio
Bio
6 years ago

Final Fantasy

Bio
Bio
6 years ago

Akuma weren't you just on the forums complaining that "Xbox fangirls" are too negative and whiny and insulting?

"Boo take your bullshit elsewhere" LMAO

You guys realize this is probably just a timed exclusive, don't you? There's nothing that says MS is actually publishing this game, and that the exclusivity announcement is paired with a date every time it's brought up.

If you want to get this outraged over something this small, that every major publisher has done before, well I hear the outdoors is nice this time of year, maybe go for a walk 🙂

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

See, there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. The right way is to procure the resources and grow that ip on your soil. It's the way the game is played respectfully. There's nothing wrong with Sony commissioning a team to make them a game like Bloodborne for example. But it's totally wrong to take something away from so many. Something only MS would do.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/13/2014 12:02:35 AM

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

Bullcrap. Bio. Final Fantasy went with Sony by their own choice. They cancelled Final Fantasy on N64 for the same reason a whole ton of third parities fled from them. Would you release a game on N64 that needed 40 data disks and an add-on peripheral to make it happen? Nintendo failed the third parties back then. And the N64 tanked big time for it. They reaped what they sewed. That and this situation is entirely different.

EDIT: and Bio. CD directly denied this being a timed exclusive.
That btw, doesn't happen when it's timed because at that point the unofficial statement is "we have no plans." That's when you know it's a timed exclusive 😉


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/13/2014 12:01:20 AM

Bio
Bio
6 years ago

Always an excuse when Sony does it. Never when MS does, despite the fact that Sony did it better, and more aggressively, for longer, when they had the money. It's a CHOICE when Square or Konami goes exclusive with Sony, but when they go with MS, it's because MS put a gun to their head, right? 😛

Relax, people, you'll get to play this game six months after people on Xbox. I'll buy it six months after that for five dollars on Steam, everybody goes home happy.

Bio
Bio
6 years ago

And no, nothing they said in the press release or the tumblr comments denies timed exclusivity. Moreover, major publishers like Square-Enix don't give up publishing rights to games like this. That creates a huge clusterwhoops of possibilities down the road and cuts into their profits now.

MS wrote them a check for timed exclusivity, and SE cashed it because they're not stupid. Not really something to get riled up about, it happens all the time.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
6 years ago

Christ, give me a break.

Microsoft went and bought multiple franchises throughout the Xbox and Xbox 360 eras. They made no bones about it, admitted to doing it, and Sony's rebuttal was simply that they don't do business that way. That's all.

The idea that Sony indulged in this practice at even a fraction of the frequency or aggression as Microsoft is beyond idiotic. Final Fantasy is all you've got, Bio? It's not even right, as Temjin explained.

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

Bio, the bottom line here is that Sony did not purchase a franchise like that. Ever. Not Final Fantasy. Not anything on that scale. Not even sure why there's further debate.

EDIT: Also, MS is well known around all industries they're involved in for a monopoly strategy. Ask most computer scientists what they think of MS, and you'll get more info than you even want.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/13/2014 1:06:34 AM

Kryten1029a
Kryten1029a
6 years ago

Everybody plays this game to some degree!
I can't remember the last Ubisoft title I played that didn't have Playstation specific content, Microsoft has routinely paid for timed exclusivity on Call of Duty DLC and Nintendo is bankrolling Bayonetta 2. Tomb Raider is a storied franchise and if Microsoft wants to throw money at this then accepting the offer may be the first intelligent thing that Square Enix has done in years. If stupid money is on the table, then you take it.
I don't doubt that Microsoft is getting a bit panicked but they're still profitable as a whole ($4.6 billion in Q4 2014, ending in July) and they've got the cash reserves to do it.

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

Yeah its not like Sony didnt pay to make Tomb Raider 2 exclusive after it was multiplatform, EXCEPT THEY DID. Or paying for GTA timed exclusivity even with a clear and insurmountable lead on the competition, just to put the boots to their throats. Nah, you guys are right. Sony is so right and pure….always. Gawd….

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

oops. I meant to post that eurogamer response to this thread. it's just down below from here.
my emotions have totally deflated. MS can have their holiday 2015 title while I'm playing Uncharted 4.

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

funny Kid, I played Tomb Raider 2 day one on my PC.
What, they weren't going to bring it to what? N64? the vast majority of third party publishers avoided it during the time. Saturn was already on it's death bed by then so they don't count for nothing. stop being a meddler.

EDIT: and my whole posts on this were based all on the notion that the game was fully locked down by MS. I don't give a crap about timed exclusives. there's plenty of games that could be played first. Sony's history on locking down even timed exclusivity deals is short at worst.

EDIT2: and what the crap is this about GTA? are you really referring to GTA3? what? you think it was coming to GC or something? Xbox was so new at the time I doubt Rockstar even cared to port it right away.. which they eventually did. when the console had enough of a base for Rockstar to even care about.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/13/2014 1:44:28 AM

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

Ok Temspin. The argument is Sony doesn't pay for exclusives timed or otherwise, like mean old Microsoft. The argument is not how viable the competing platforms were when the deal was done.

Shauneepeak
Shauneepeak
6 years ago
Akuma_
Akuma_
6 years ago

The argument is that Sony doesn't go around buying up franchises to increase its popularity.

Most of, if not all of their exclusive franchises are home grown, unless someone can prove me wrong?

@Bio,
my forum thread was complaining about the gaming community in general, specifically calling out the Xbox fans on the Destiny forum. I am not sure how that is in any way relevant to me being passed about this tomb Raider thing.

godsman
godsman
6 years ago

@Bio,

I agree with you to some degree about Sony, but not with cash. When Sony was leading in PS2 era, they cut positive deals with developers. I believe on the business standpoint, if i were sony, i would suggest, if your game sells 3 million on our platform you get 5% of the revenue etc. Developers would naturally focus only on the Sony platform.

Microsoft on the other hand are being unhealthy to the market. They throw stacks of cash into the market where theres no foreseeable benefit & return to gamers. It harms to gaming market.

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

……. kid…. that's exactly what temjin addressed.

@godsman
You make an excellent observation, friend. The development world is always full of risk. We've seen well made games fail before, afterall. The scariest part of all is that you have to make a game on a budget you think will be less than what the game will make. Tough to predict. I completely understand the attraction in accepting up-front development cash if you sell your game only on "our" console. All of a sudden, a huge portion of risk is mitigated. Technology is risky to invest in for anyone, no matter how good the product.

So I get why they would accept, but I have a hard time believing it would pay off well unless the up front payment all but ensures an evenly broken budget.

Personally, I think TR gained some traction with the last entry, and I think the next one would be more successful, so I think it's a mistake. But that's still a gamble. That's why I think down the road, they'll be allowed to bring a remastered or complete with dlc version to PS4 and PC down the road. By then, anyone who would have bought a XB1 for the game will have done so, and there's no reason for MS to be against SE making more money off it. Afterall, they'll always have the fact that they had it first.

For MS it makes sense, depending on risk tolerance, it makes sense to the developer, but yeah, I agree. If done too much, it does harm and unevenly balance the market.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/13/2014 9:12:55 AM

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

He asked when Sony locked down a well known exclusive. I gave him two that I know of. Sony paid for GTA sequels to not appear on Xbox for 6 months. And they also paid for TR 2 to be console exclusive. But truth is always the ultimate foe of fan ignorance.


Last edited by n/a on 8/13/2014 9:32:30 AM

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

I highly doubt they paid for that at all, given that it's very unlike Sony's business model across all sectors. I would need proof to believe that.

That's not how it works. If you see something come out exclusively for one console and then come out on others down the road, it's likely timed exclusivity. If it never reaches a console, it was never paid off. It was just a 3rd party exclusive.

You don't really see 3rd party exclusives anymore because all systems sell so well. In the PS2 era, it happened lots because the payoff for going multiplat wasn't always so great with PS2 having a large 6:1 system over system ratio.

The only time I've ever wondered about Sony doing something like that is with the DLC bonuses you get on Playstation for Assassin's Creed stuff. I've also never looked into it as much to find out.

Lastly, the reason you're so tough to listen to is because you always finish your comments with a vague, non-committal general insult as this weird sort of protective pre-wall against anyone that might disagree with you. You invite abuse.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/13/2014 9:52:32 AM

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

A lot of what's going on, it's typical retarded Sony fan hypocrisy. Last gen when MS went and made some RPGs, that was bad. "Waaaah! Japanese devs should only make games for Sony! They sold out!" If a game was once exclusive, then multiplat: "oh! MS bought the game for their system!" No MS fan complained that games like Ninja Gaiden, Splinter Cell, Mass Effect and others going multiplatform. ONLY SONY FANS DO THIS. Only Sony fans disown devs like Insomniac because they dont make games just for themand hope they fail. And look at Resistance 3 sales. They didnt even support the dev when they had them! They just dont want anyone else to. It's nuts. People say MS bought a bunch of games. Which ones?? MS gets exclusive timed content for CoD "whooaa! You bad M$!" Sony gets exclusive content for Destiny *Whooa! That's awesome! It's gonna move systems!"

Sad part is that Sony killed it at Gamescom. Killed it. An amazing show. Hate to say this about TR but it isn't even on the radar when compared to what's in store for the next year, in my opinion. TR is a loss but not really a big one. Crystal Dynamics built a nice game on the foundation that Naughty Dog set with Uncharted. But I can't imagine that they will be able to leap frog ND and make a game that's going to set the bar like UC4 will.

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

I'm just gonna let that first paragraph go because there's a stark lack of understanding on many of those points you raise, both in regards to what's happening, and what the real consumer reaction is outside of the half dozen or so internet posts you've read.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/13/2014 10:06:59 AM

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

Of course, I am speaking exclusively on the internet reactions to these points, which I wish were only only limited to a few posts here and there. And this isn't indicative of every single fan, just a small but extremely vocal percentage.

SirLoin of Beef
SirLoin of Beef
6 years ago

"No MS fan complained that games like Ninja Gaiden, Splinter Cell, Mass Effect and others going multiplatform."

@Kid, you must not visit the same Xbox sites I do, then. when ME was announced as coming out for the PS3, the proverbial poop hit the fan on the official Xbox site, for example. Many flocked to BioWare's site to complain about the PS3 getting the game.

And, in a similar vein, when Bungie announced that the PS4 would get timed exclusive content, Xbox fans foamed at the mouth in the Bungie fora about about Bungie was screwing them over, threatening to cancel their preorders, etc.

For the record, I have an X1 as well as a PS4 so I'm not negatively affected WRT my ability to play the game so I'm not looking at this as raging PS fan. I understand why MS did it and, from a business standard, I think it could end up being a wise move. I don't like it as a gamer, though. The only third-party exclusives I don't feel bad about backing are new IPs, not established ones such as this one.

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

kid, are really trying to tell me what MY argument was? Are you that dense?

both you and Bio chose to point to decade-plus old games that appeared only on Sony's platform, and then decided they must have paid them off to do it. Yet you totally disregard sound reasoning why any of those games appeared on any other platforms at the time. I suppose you believe Sony is keeping GTAV from the Wii U too, huh?

there's a reason you can't point to any well known RECENT examples. Sony had more reason than ever to lock down games for the PS3 yet they hadn't. Why? Because it isn't and HASN'T been in their business ethos. That's why. They don't play the game like that. Only MS does. So get off your "all businesses are the same and MS is no different than Sony" bullcrap. The truth is happening right before your eyes and everyone else's and here you are making up stories.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/13/2014 10:41:40 AM

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

There are Xbox only sites? I didn't even know they existed. I only visit three sites. This one, Destructoid (rarely), and Nintendo Life. So if I misjudged the severity of those outbursts from the MS fans, im sorry about that. .

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
6 years ago

The fact that Destructoid was ever even in your address bar speaks volumes.

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

I just picked the two games that I know for sure Sony inked a deal for some exclusivity. It's not like I'm saying they did it with every exclusive. Like if I said they did it with Soul Calibur 3 even though 2 sold more on the GC, a system that Sony had outsold 3 to 1 at the time, I'd be wrong. That was Namco's decision. I understand where you are coming from but it doesn't change the fact of whay Sony did in these two instances. And for the PS3, we will never know what deals Sony may have attempted in desperation that fell through. I mean, they did put a lot behind Haze, a once planned multiplat that became exclusive to PS3. Was that Ubis choice or did Sony shell out. Again, we cant tell, but something happened for that decision to be made.. For a second there, I thought you had evolved from the lemming Temjin you used to be, but it's nice to see you're back in business full-time.

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

What volumes? Never went there for reviews. In some instances, they have more in depth info on some great lesser known titles that this site won't even acknowledge.


Last edited by n/a on 8/13/2014 11:16:02 AM

Bio
Bio
6 years ago

So yeah, confirmed now that it's just a timed exclusive, which was obvious to anyone paying attention 😛

All this rage over absolutely nothing.

Evil Incarnate
Evil Incarnate
6 years ago

Why do people think this is a great business move? Microsoft probably paid a crap load of money to secure exclusive or timed exclusive for one Tomb Raider game to generate Xbox One sales, which all the profit made from those Xbox One sales will be offset or less than the cost of paying for the exclusivity contract.
So, Microsoft probably sees no profit so why do it? The only reason for an action like this is to deprive others that don't own your device from being able to have it.
If MS actually wanted to generate profit they would have stuck the money in a new IP they could own, or paid for extra in game content to make it the best version for gamers to buy.


Last edited by Evil Incarnate on 8/13/2014 2:29:17 PM

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

Kid did the thought occur to you that because both the GC and Xbox sold so poorly Namco just didn't bother porting them? The game was built on PS2 arcade hardware. It was much easier and cost effective to just release it for PS2. Give me one instance of Sony announcing SC3 as a timed exclusive.
Actually don't. Per the usual I don't care what you think because it always results in circles and thoughtless remarks.

tee-hee-hee
"Guy"
"Temspin"
"Lemming"
tee-hee-hee

Bio, take your own advice. If you read what I posted just last night you would've known not to post that.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/13/2014 3:04:51 PM