Rise of the Tomb Raider is a timed exclusive for Xbox platforms.

PlayStation fans were none too happy to hear the news, especially because they know Microsoft has a long history of simply buying exclusives (timed or otherwise). As for Sony, they're holding to the same stance: They don't need to purchase exclusivity because they've got one hell of a first-party lineup of studios.

This is what PlayStation EU boss Jim Ryan reminded us of during a Gamescom interview with CVG :

"Well, you know, we've got a very large and very powerful network of studios on our own, all of whom are working on games that will be fully exclusive to PlayStation, and we feel that this on top of partnering with third parties where it makes sense. I think the partnership we have with Activision on Destiny is a good example of where it makes really good sense for them, it makes good sense for us and it benefits our consumers–when you complement those two things we think that gives us a pretty complete position in the market.

So do we feel the need to go out and buy outright exclusivity? Probably not."

Ryan added that Sony's Gamescom media briefing showed off plenty of "new, fresh things" and they're excited about that. As for the new Tomb Raider , it may be enough to generate a spike in Xbox One sales when it arrives. But at the end of the day, I think we all know that PS4 exclusives will outstrip Xbox One exclusives when the generation is over. That's just obvious, right?

Related Game(s): Rise of the Tomb Raider

Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Temjin001
Temjin001
8 years ago

yep. Sony managed to prove this with PS3. They had every reason to play it MS's way by buying out exclusivity deals. Instead, they placed the majority of that money into strong AAA games of their own.
In the process Sony has grown an ecosystem of PS only franchises that are expansive and brand recognizable and can nearly support a platform on their own.

and I mean that too. I tend to prefer most of my multiplats on PC. But even with a PC a PS console still feels worth it. This is directly because of what Sony is doing themselves.

EDIT: I also feel this move by MS has really made themselves look rotten. In the past when 360 was the dominant american system, most gamers didn't mind as much because many people had a 360. These days with the roles reversed, locking down a popular ip to a minority platform just pisses the majority of the people off. I just don't think this publicity stunt is going to pay off for MS or S-E for that matter.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/14/2014 10:06:24 PM

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

But Temjin… in the past, 3rd party studios made games exclusively for Sony platforms. That must mean that then and definitely now, Sony pays for exclusivity, too! They are so obvi lying, brah!

Temjin001
Temjin001
8 years ago

so true! I bet Sony paid off Ben not to post news about Xbox stuff here either!
=p

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

Oh definitely, without a doubt. It's so obvious. Also World. How do you think he paid for his education?

daus26
daus26
8 years ago

I believe when third party becomes exclusive with Sony, it's because of good relations, not necessary the shady business of $$$ that I personally think MS rolls with.

Anyway, I think it's mainly SE on this matter since they probably don't want to invest heavily on the franchise. Like Nintendo I guess, MS offered support in sake of exclusivity. At least it's not permanent, but man MS should know better because they're getting a bad reaction out of this. They don't seem to think about the morals that goes with business.

godsman
godsman
8 years ago

I actually like phil spencer, I think microsoft under his management can do better. Making studios take time. Xbox one cannot wait for new studios to save it. So it must struggle with dirty moves like this.

Sadly, microsoft might lose money this time around. So not a chance new studios will arise for longterm investment

Corvo
Corvo
8 years ago

Indeed Ben.

Tomb Raider won't spark sales because it sold so much on both Playstation AND PC. Those two had a higher sales record than the xbox 360 and one combined did. People now know its timed, meaning people are going to wait for the better resolution/framerate version and not go out and buy the garbage console because it gets tomb raider first. Now had it been exclusive, oh most definitely it would have spark somed sales. As it stands. MS wasted even more money sticking to their dirty ways.

Underdog, back in the day, who would waste money porting something over to Gamecube or xbox when there was 160m ps2's out there? No one would. MS doesn't have to tell you twice about their lying ways. This is just more public because America is all about the Playstation again.

godsman
godsman
8 years ago

There are many people that bought two consoles espescially by 2015. if you are a die hard fan of tomb raider, you wont be able to wait another year 2016 to play. You will buy the xbox one version. 200-300k of extra sales can easily be done yielding 4-6 million profit, enough to cover the exclusive cost. Its a great move from MS, what suffer are gamers. Much like the Bayonetta 2 deal with Wii U, not many will get to play

Rachet_JC_FTW
Rachet_JC_FTW
8 years ago

took long enough for the US to come back to the playstation to me but thats just me.

happy gaming

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

@Knightzane

Yeah for sure, friend. I forgot me sarc tags.

Ignitus
Ignitus
8 years ago

What else can Sony say? Even if they wanted to, with what money? Right now Sony is practically broke. It's even canceling proyects in their own studios for the same reason. Even with a brand new console that needs new content.

I bet they would buy all the exclusivity they could afford.

godsman
godsman
8 years ago

Theres a difference between hiring someone to make a game for you and paying someone to not to release the game on other platform s.

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

Godsman, they didn't build the studios from the ground up, they bought already established and successful studios. All Sonys 1st party studios are former well established developers who were making successful games for other platforms earlier.

So for all practical purposes, what Sony did back then was to pay for the developers to not release their future games on other platforms.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/15/2014 4:38:48 AM

godsman
godsman
8 years ago

Gta4 dlc, microsoft paid to get them developed at least thats what the rumors says. Like sony, they hire the studios to make the game. Tomb raider was announced and in development. Microsoft threw at stack of cash andnsaid don't let other gamers play

Evil Incarnate
Evil Incarnate
8 years ago

@Beamboom

It's true Sony bought established studios but those studios had to sign off on the purchase as well. How many studios do you think, actually have a close enough relationship with MS to be bought by them? I don't think many. I personally think developers prefer MS's money more then their business guidance. Crystal Dynamics might actually be one of the developers that would love to work for MS, but S-E owns all the studios IPs so those would stay with S-E.


Last edited by Evil Incarnate on 8/15/2014 10:11:52 AM

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

There's a very large difference between purchasing promising teams to have them in your stable of first-party devs, so you can forge a long-lasting, productive business relationship, and simply buying the rights to an IP for a short while, just to get another exclusive game under your belt.

This is why Microsoft's first-party studios are basically nonexistent, while Sony's are numerous and, by the way, the best in the business. How many headlines have we seen with developers praising Sony for their willingness to stick close to their teams and work with them on just about everything? How many times have we seen such stories concerning designers and Microsoft? Uh…never?

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

Would Microsoft have had any patience for The Last Guardian?

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

Ben; Psygnosis, Ocean & co were no small fish, and definitely not just "promising". They were amongst the best in the trade, back in a time where those kind of developers could still be bought by a hardware manufacturer. Microsoft came much later to the party.

Microsoft do have a different practise, but quite frankly if I am to be totally honest I'd rather have the exclusives to be just timed, than forever reserved to one platform.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/15/2014 2:24:54 PM

DemonNeno
DemonNeno
8 years ago

Beamboom, I wouldn't. Why? Exclusively building games for a console is, by far, the best reason to own that console. The first party developers set the tone of the machine. Having a diverse first party reflects what the company as a whole supports. Without it, the consoles have a severe identity crisis.

Akuma_
Akuma_
8 years ago

First off you have a funny definition of broke. If they were broke they'd be filling for bankruptcy.

Also,Beam, that's a twisted way of looking at it, buying the entire studio outright and flashing some cash for exclusivity are different things.

So by that logic, the only way Sony or MS can not engage in shoddy business methods is by building entirely new studios?

Beamboom
Beamboom
7 years ago

DemonNeno, that may be so.

But just like I hate to have to buy a Mac in order to get access to certain software I'd love to use, I hate these kind of platform restrictions on games.

To put it to the extreme for the sake of the argument: Let's say ALL games were platform exclusives. You simply could not play, say, Fallout, Dragon Age or Battlefield unless you owned a PC gaming rig, could never play Burnout, Mass Effect or Rayman unless you owned an Xbox, or could not play <insert some jrpgs here> unless you owned a WiiU.

Three boxes in your living room, three non-interchangeable controllers, three online subscriptions to pay each month.
Wouldn't that suck in a major way, regardless of what the exclusives on the Playstation were?

As it is today, it's not like that, and thank God for that or I'd not touch a console with a ten foot pole.
It's just a small handful of exclusive franchises you want to play each generation. But who in their right mind buy another machine for just 5-6 games?! It sucks to miss out, but it sucks even more to be forced to buy a machine you don't want, when you got one or even two perfectly fine machines for gaming already.

Exclusivity sucks – it's not in our best interest at all!

Akuma: I don't see either as shoddy business at all. It's just plain legal competition triggered business practises. I just don't like the exclusivity phenomenon on a fundamental level, cause it's not in my personal best interest.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/16/2014 3:56:51 AM

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

Starting to feel like a death rattle from MS games division.

telly
telly
8 years ago

They are clearly getting desperate, and you better believe Bill Gates and Co. didn't get into this business to get a silver medal. They thought video games could provide a beach head from which they could take over living rooms (and surely much more after that.) That is clearly not happening, and if they conclude it never WILL happen, I think that's it for Microsoft as a console manufacturer. For the company that makes WINDOWS, a decent selling console that barely turns a profit pales horribly in comparison and is not nearly worth the effort.

Rachet_JC_FTW
Rachet_JC_FTW
8 years ago

yeah they are pritty much stating to fact to anyone who was watching or reads these articles we know they have the studios and world class ones at that sony only has the best thats y we love them and the thing about partnerships that make sense yup thats true too they don't so them too aften but when they do they are good.

happy gaming

Evil Incarnate
Evil Incarnate
8 years ago

Man, I would love for MS to leave the games market and for Nintendo to step in to become Sony's main competition. This strategy of pulling games from other platforms is the only reason MS is even relevant in the games industry. Halo is a great example; it suppose to be a Mac game and here comes MS buying it up from under Mac to push their DirectX crap. I have zero respect for any company in any industry that does this, including Sony pulling crap like this in the PS2 days.

Time for MS to compete with their products and not their deep pockets.


Last edited by Evil Incarnate on 8/15/2014 9:54:26 AM

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
8 years ago

Sony is right. They don't need to do anything like that.

The reason MS did this is because they can't compete with Uncharted. At all. And they probably will never be able too. So this is a smart move by them, not because I think Tomb Raider is as good as Uncharted, but because it's gives them a leg to stand on in this genre. If only for awhile.

kokoro
kokoro
8 years ago

I'm still waiting for The Last Remnant.

shadowscorpio
shadowscorpio
8 years ago

That was a joke right? Hahaha

___________
___________
8 years ago

so the "partnerships" you have with bungie and the lot, not to mention "coming first to consoles on playstation", god how many times did we hear that at gamescom!?
so all those, are not going out and buying?
wait, so bungie and co are offering exclusive features to you guys just because they feel like it?
oh come on, at least treat your fans with one iota of intelligence!
just goes to show how much respect $ony has for their fans………
you obviously dont think much of us if you expect us to believe this crock!

Evil Incarnate
Evil Incarnate
8 years ago

There's a big difference between buying extra content and paying to keep a game from a group of consumers that don't own your platform. One adds value to the platform holders consumer without depriving other consumers, the latter adds no value to the platform holders consumer and deprives other consumers.

I don't know if you've noticed but most titles appearing first on PS4 are indies. I think that's more of an effect of Sony having their indie program established before Microsoft. Most of those games will find a home with Xbox down the road.


Last edited by Evil Incarnate on 8/15/2014 11:32:08 AM

Akuma_
Akuma_
8 years ago

He clearly said they don't buy outright exclusivity, there's a big difference. I understand the difference between the two very well.

Why should they treat us like we are intelligent when there is people like you who are not?

TomBradySucks
TomBradySucks
8 years ago

The internets reaction to the Tomb Raider was down right embarrassing. Fanboys giving a bad name to gamers by coming off as entitled cry baby consumers.

That being said, Sony is right in saying that they don't need to buy 3rd party exclusives. But Microsoft got way too much slack for a business practice that has been around for decades.

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

Meh. I didn't feel embarrassed. There's crying about basically every announcement ever.

TomBradySucks
TomBradySucks
8 years ago

There is crying about everything, but I thought the petitions, tweets to Square Enix, etc was a bit over board. The word "injustice" got tossed around quite a bit which made me giggle

Underdog15
Underdog15
8 years ago

Yeah… injustice I typically reserve for things like Isis, Syria, plane over Ukraine…. etc. etc.

Akuma_
Akuma_
8 years ago

People are ENTITLED to share their opinions, and at times like that frustration.

This was a decisions that directly affected many people's favorite hobby. Tomb Raider fans etc. People that have long since enjoyed TR on their Playstation consoles, won't be able to do so.

Of course that was all before we found out it was timed. So any continued behaviour isn't justified.

BUT I do think people have a right to voice their opinions about things that they are happy and unhappy about. If we only spoke out when we were happy, businesses would never learn.

These people are just passionate about the game, you can't hate them for that, you're passionate about some things too right?

Underdog15
Underdog15
7 years ago

Oh I am overly passionate about some things for sure! But going in the realm of talking of injustice isn't really my bag.

Kevin555
Kevin555
7 years ago

"Do we feel the need to go out and buy exclusively? Probably not"

But they would if they could, and anyone thinking otherwise needs to take the Sony gimp mask off.

People are still going on about the TR debacle even now the game is a timed exclusive, lol. Part of me was hoping the tantrum chuckers would have put all their toys back into their prams by now. Whether it's a year later of six months later, you will get to play TR on the PS4.