Support NeoGAF

[etta]

You're looking at it in isolation and trying to find a positive for consumers that doesn't really exist for the most part though I'm afraid.

So someone comes off the fence and buys an XB1 for a TR bundle you argue, this is good for them. Then when they get hit with the next unfavourable timed exclusive it's a negative for them right? And that's what the culture of timed exclusivity pretty much guarantees will happen.

Big picture is simple: timed exclusives aren't good for us as consumers and only benefit the businesses themselves. There's really no argument around that. Overall sooner or later you're a victim of a timed exclusive not a beneficiary. Doesn't mean they don't make sense for business and doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that but we shouldn't forget the benefits majorly stop there and mostly there's no benefits and only downsides for consumers as a whole.

And Etta it may be reactionary, as in you're responding to others, but if you do it to the extent you go filling a thread with various replies trying to spin the positive you will always end up looking like an apologist. Better to learn who to respond to and who to ignore: replying to obvious trolls or people who don't want corrected never works and just ends up making you look complicit in spin.

Some people are just uninformed and a clarifying reply goes a long way, others are wilfully ignoring facts and if you want my advice you end up being snared by those folks too often.

You're skipping over neutrality here. Why would it be negative for those who already own an Xbox One? It doesn't bring any positives, sure, but that doesn't mean it brings negatives. For them it's just neutral.

As for the second half of your post, thanks. You're right, I have a lot to learn here, and your advice has been immediately helpful. I think I have had some expectations that I should rethink. I'll try to let the answers pool before I address them, and I will bunch them up so as to decrease the frequency of my posts.

 

[omonimo]

You're skipping over neutrality here. Why would it be negative for those who already own an Xbox One? It doesn't bring any positives, sure, but that doesn't mean it brings negatives. For them it's just neutral.

As for the second half of your post, thanks. You're right, I have a lot to learn here, and your advice has been immediately helpful. I think I have had some expectations that I should rethink.

It's negative for the Xbox image or whatever. Steal exclusive it's not positive. There are tons of alternative better ways to attracts more users.

 

[Stilton Disco]

Marketing deals?

Sure, for easy money, that's an obvious answer, but those deals clearly don't work, yet have obviously been doubled down on to the point that the build up to the newest entry in the series is drowning in bad press over them.

Just seems like weird bedfellows to me, but then again I shouldn't be surprised that a business would put deals with other businesses ahead of what's best for most of their customers.

 

[EGM1966]

You're skipping over neutrality here. Why would it be negative for those who already own an Xbox One? It doesn't bring any positives, sure, but that doesn't mean it brings negatives. For them it's just neutral.

As for the second half of your post, thanks. You're right, I have a lot to learn here, and your advice has been immediately helpful. I think I have had some expectations that I should rethink.

That's still my point. For consumers timed exclusives either make no difference or a negative difference. They exist to encourage sales on one console as a business benefit.

At most there might on occasion be the argument of better coding but I don't really buy that as a consistent benefit. On the evidence few timed exclusives run any better for being timed: mostly they'd be the same whether exclusive or not.

Heck Diabolo 3 was multi-platform and MS could still help with code. So really there's no need to be timed to improve code either.

As for replying trust me, when I joined GAF I got suckered into back and forth too a lot; you learn to recognise who's guenuinely interested in discussion/feedback and who's mind is already made up and closed off. Avoid those people is my advice.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

If SE feels they that enough xbox fans to make FFVX and KQ, they without a doubt have enough to make FFVII too.

The decision to put FFXV and KHIII on Xbox One was made before the system came out. Before Square Enix knew just how much PS4 would be leading it in sales and before they could see for their own eyes just how heavily Japanese game sales favoured PS4.

FFVII on XB1 is not a fait accompli. It depends entirely on how FFXV and to a lesser extent KHIII fare when they release. Which is why I don't think its actually been decided yet, save for a PC version. In layman's terms, if XB1 owners want FFVII they better buy FFXV.

 

[panda-zebra]

You're skipping over neutrality here. Why would it be negative for those who already own an Xbox One? It doesn't bring any positives, sure, but that doesn't mean it brings negatives. For them it's just neutral.

Because Big Phil chose to spend (likely big) money to make that happen, as opposed to say funding real original and exclusive content for the system - it's a short-term "quick fix" potentially designed to somehow counter UC4 maybe, which as it's not even releasing this holiday, looks to be working out not quite to plan.

 

[etta]

That's still my point. For consumers timed exclusives either make no difference or a negative difference. They exist to encourage sales on one console as a business benefit.

At most there might on occasion be the argument of better coding but I don't really buy that as a consistent benefit. On the evidence few timed exclusives run any better for being timed: mostly they'd be the same whether exclusive or not.

Heck Diabolo 3 was multi-platform and MS could still help with code. So really there's no need to be timed to improve code either.

As for replying trust me, when I joined GAF I got suckered into back and forth too a lot; you learn to recognise who's guenuinely interested in discussion/feedback and who's mind is already made up and closed off. Avoid those people is my advice.

Yea, so it's a gray-type situation in which there is mostly negative effects. I agree with that, I pointed it out right before.

Thank you.
It felt a bit like I am just shooting blanks. And before anyone else says I am defending this, I am not. My whole point is that this is a very gray matter, just like how most of the shit is in life. Yes, this practice is shitty towards some gamers, but that's not all it is. Just like with how every issue or problem has multiple answers, so does this. Of course it has its benefits, that's why a massive corporation dropped money on it. And yes, they've had some terrible decisions before like with TVTVTV and Kinect, but that doesn't mean they will always make shitty decisions. Again, even if in their past they have made wrong calls, the fact that they are a massive corporation and have well educated people on their payroll should still mean they are very likely to pull the right calls next time around. When there's big money involved, no one will make decisions without thinking three times and triple checking everything.
At the end of it all, these deals have both positives and negatives. You can argue that the negatives far outweigh the positives, but to say there's only negatives is a very undercooked argument.

Thanks again for the advice, I appreciate it, and will use it.

 

[Stilton Disco]

Yea, so it's a gray-type situation in which there is mostly negative effects. I agree with that, I pointed it out right before.

Thanks again for the advice, I appreciate it, and will use it.

Well, yes, although in this case there's only negative and neutral, with the people getting the negative end vastly outnumbering the people this doesn't affect, but yes, it is still shades of grey, even if it is a grey so dark it's being seen by most people involved as just being black.

 

[Beefy]

So how well will it sell on the PS4?

 

[etta]

Well, yes, although in this case there's only negative and neutral, with the people getting the negative end vastly outnumbering the people this doesn't affect, but yes, it is still shades of grey, even if it is a grey so dark it's being seen by most people involved as just being black.

Yes, exactly, but I would argue that there is some positive, even if it's a tiny bit. For example, people who were 360 only and wanted to upgrade, they were leaning on the PS4 given that it's the more popular console, but they would have liked to stay in the Xbox family, and they want this game badly. This way, the benefit they get from upgrading to Xbox One is they don't have to wait a year for it, and the BC is added incentive, which complements the Tomb Raider exclusivity decision. Do you see what I mean?

Edit: complements.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

You're skipping over neutrality here. Why would it be negative for those who already own an Xbox One? It doesn't bring any positives, sure, but that doesn't mean it brings negatives. For them it's just neutral.

As for the second half of your post, thanks. You're right, I have a lot to learn here, and your advice has been immediately helpful. I think I have had some expectations that I should rethink. I'll try to let the answers pool before I address them, and I will bunch them up so as to decrease the frequency of my posts.

I assumed that meant a timed exclusived that doesn't favor Xbox, but I cpups be wrong. Unless you own both you will probably be the other end of one eventually.

So how well will it sell on the PS4?

That all depends on how good it is. There definitely won't be any impulse buys.

 

[FLAguy954]

This is wishful thinking. I've never seen a a game dragged through the mud like this pre-release. I hope it turns out to be worthy of all the drama.

It really isn't wishful thinking. Remember Resident Evil 4? It was handled the exact same way.

Capcom announced that the PS2 of RE4 was going to release a year after the GameCube version. This announcement was given before the GameCube version even released and people still bought the game in droves for the PS2 release. The general gamer has no problem waiting a year for the next game in a popular franchise. This situation is not new at all.

 

[eerik9000]

So how well will it sell on the PS4?

Depends on release date (vs competition), price, marketing, etc. PS4 has a big install base in countries where Xbox is irrelevant (Japan, continental Europe) so it will be like a brand new game for many and has potential to sell well, even a year later.

 

[Steroyd]

So how well will it sell on the PS4?

The real question is how well will it sell overall, especially with SE's unrealistic expectations of its predecessor.

Edit: There's also a greater emphasis on how good the game is overall, because the day one buyer potential has been chopped down by more than 2/3rds.

Yes, exactly, but I would argue that there is some positive, even if it's a tiny bit. For example, people who were 360 only and wanted to upgrade, they were leaning on the PS4 given that it's the more popular console, but they would have liked to stay in the Xbox family, and they want this game badly. This way, the benefit they get from upgrading to Xbox One is they don't have to wait a year for it, and the BC is added incentive, which complements the Tomb Raider exclusivity decision. Do you see what I mean?

Edit: complements.

Tomb Raider isn't a good example of that because it's coming out on Xbox 360, and if they didn't upgrade because of COD or Fifa already I don't see how Tomb Raider would be the one to push them over the edge.

 

[dEvAnGeL]

I bet the game was coming out at the same time as PC but the uncharted 4 delay and possible same time frame for release made them change the release date for ps4

 

[etta]

Tomb Raider isn't a good example of that because it's coming out on Xbox 360, and if they didn't upgrade because of COD or Fifa already I don't see how Tomb Raider would be the one to push them over the edge.

Well, they could upgrade now because they decided to wait until now, or were waiting for something like Halo 5 or Uncharted 4. The idea is that there will be some people who will benefit from this, and as far as we know, in Microsoft's eyes, the money they dropped for this deal was worth it for those people.
Anyway, it's getting late here, I'll go sleep and continue the discussion later, if there is discussion to be continued.

But people will upgrade because of Halo or Uncharted because they're only available on Xbox One and PS4 making the money MS shelled out for TR if it was for such a purpose redundant.

Complementary goods. This is what I meant by Microsoft's analysts and their involvment in these deals, they build these complex models and answer these types of questions. They perform deep and thorough analysis. Example: Halo 5 launch, BC feature, ROTR bundle, 1 year exclusivity, all these factors play together nicely, they combine to deliver incentive, benefit to a certain market segment.

 

[Steroyd]

I bet the game was coming out at the same time as PC but the uncharted 4 delay and possible same time frame for release made them change the release date for ps4

That doesn't explain holiday 2016 though, Summer 2016 would have made more sense, and would probably have been more beneficial because people would have wanted to scratch the itch more after playing Uncharted.

Well, they could upgrade now because they decided to wait until now, or were waiting for something like Halo 5 or Uncharted 4. The idea is that there will be some people who will benefit from this, and as far as we know, in Microsoft's eyes, the money they dropped for this deal was worth it for those people.
Anyway, it's getting late here, I'll go sleep and continue the discussion later, if there is discussion to be continued.

But people will upgrade because of Halo or Uncharted because they're only available on Xbox One and PS4 making the money MS shelled out for TR if it was for such a purpose redundant.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I bet the game was coming out at the same time as PC but the uncharted 4 delay and possible same time frame for release made them change the release date for ps4

I really don't believe that. To use that as reason for a further delay is just admitting you have an inferior product or have very little confidence in it. It's not like TR competed against Uncharted in the past and suffered for it. You don't see COD or Battlefield/Battlefront running from Halo.

The closer PC release ties into Xbox not viewing PC as a main competitor.

 

[gtj1092]

Yes, exactly, but I would argue that there is some positive, even if it's a tiny bit. For example, people who were 360 only and wanted to upgrade, they were leaning on the PS4 given that it's the more popular console, but they would have liked to stay in the Xbox family, and they want this game badly. This way, the benefit they get from upgrading to Xbox One is they don't have to wait a year for it, and the BC is added incentive, which complements the Tomb Raider exclusivity decision. Do you see what I mean?

Edit: complements.

I think the disconnect here is that what you are describing is a benefit to MS and not the consumer. That same consumer was always going to have the choice of getting an X1 TR and BC this year. Now he has no other choice this year. How is less choice good for him/her?

 

[nel e nel]

The only people that really care about this are the enthusiasts on message boards. Yeah, it's a bummer I won't have access to this game for a year, but honestly, I'll have plenty of stuff to keep me busy in the meantime.

Besides, the way I look at it, I now have a year's worth of reviews and postmortems to decide if I want to pay for the experience of protecting someone.

 

[watdaeff4]

I think the disconnect here is that what you are describing is a benefit to MS and not the consumer. That same consumer was always going to have the choice of getting an X1 TR and BC this year. Now he has no other choice this year. How is less choice good for him/her?

I can't think of any situation where exclusives benefit the consumer in this generation, whether it's timed exclusives, full exclusives or DLC/extra content exclusives. Just my opinion that doesn't seem to be shared by many.

Previous generations when the hardware was very different than yes the games could be optimized on that console. But the PS4/XB1 are so similar (from my understanding, not a developer) that this is a moot point this gen.

 

[Rymuth]

So how well will it sell on the PS4?

Hard to say - only situation we have to compare to it would be Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare - and that game's 6 month exclusivity period killed any potential population on the PS4. EA had to give the game away from free and not as a PS+ offering either.

 

[benny_a]

Previous generations when the hardware was very different than yes the games could be optimized on that console. But the PS4/XB1 are so similar (from my understanding, not a developer) that this is a moot point this gen.

If you're purely talking graphics then it depends on how esoteric you want to get.
There are things on PS4 you can't do on XB1 because it doesn't share that specific GPU characteristic. (PS4 has more of an emphasis on async compute.)

This is allowing developers from Dreams and The Tomorrow Children to do things in the graphics engine that no other commercial game ever has.

That there are pros and cons to only release on a single platform vs. multiple is a bigger topic.

 

[DOWN]

Surprised how many people didn't realize this game is still total cross gen.

 

[Setsuna]

Surprised how many people didn't realize this game is still total cross gen.

Does it matter? Its not like any game released to date has such amazing gameplay mechanics to the point where it can't be achieved on a ps3 or 360 at radically reduced quality levels

 

[gogosox82]

pc version it is then.

 

[Melchiah]

It benefits those who are 50/50 on which console to get and also want this specific game. And they also must not want to wait 1 year. Those who want to upgrade from 360 but are leaning on PS4 but also would rather stay in the Xbox family, this and BC is an incentive. There are many types of behaviours, you can't just assume everyone wants PS4 because of power advantage or Uncharted or Xbox because of Halo.

What if those on the fence would like to buy the more powerful system that most of their friends have, but don't want to miss a 3rd party game they're a fan of? No matter what they choose, they're screwed.

IIRC, Microsoft tried to do the same with ME4 as well*, and it wouldn't have been good for any of the fans who moved to the PS4 from PS3 or 360, if EA had agreed to make it an exclusive. It wouldn't have given anything extra to the XBO players either, as they could play the game either way. It's all about coersing consumers to pick up their system by stripping away choice, and "1st class" bragging rights for the fanboys. There just aren't any positives to consumers about it, no matter how you look at it.


* EDIT:

I doubt they can get anything big anymore though like they used to. I know they tried to get the new Mass Effect but EA said no.

 

[Bollocks]

So last gen will only be on 360?

I really would like to know why they thought delaying the ps version is a good deal, I doubt they will get the the same or better metrics now.

 

[eerik9000]

I really would like to know why they thought delaying the ps version is a good deal, I doubt they will get the the same or better metrics now.

What? Microsoft gave them money to do it, that's why.

 

[d9b]

So how well will it sell on the PS4?

If they release a mediocre game and reviews are poor, there will be no point in releasing it on PS4 at all.
Anyway, SE alienated a lot of fan base. Definitely a dick move on Microsoft's behalf and one that shouldn't be supported in any way.

 

[Trup1aya]

There just aren't any positives to consumers about it, no matter how you look at it.

If your primarily an Xbox gamer, you're going to get a better quality title through this deal than you would if all 3 versions were releasing simultaneously... The ports are spread out enough that CD can focus ALL of their attention on making the xb1 version all that it can be...

So, MS' money likely guaranteed their customers a better game to play during the holiday.

The quality of the PC and PS4 optimizations will probably "benefit" from this one-at-a-time approach as well, but at the cost of having waiting 6mo to a year to play an anticipated title.

While I'd hate to see this become a common practice... To say there are "no benefits" isn't true...

 

[Ushay]

Surprised how many people didn't realize this game is still total cross gen.

I guess that was the entire point of the deal. The uninformed consumer (most people) won't know.

 

[The God]

If SE feels they that enough xbox fans to make FFVX and KQ, they without a doubt have enough to make FFVII too.

I don't see why they wouldn't.

 

[Scotia]

So I have to wait a year for Rise of the Tomb Raider?

Fuck that.

 

[Melchiah]

If your primarily an Xbox gamer, you're going to get a better quality title through this deal than you would if all 3 versions were releasing simultaneously... The ports are spread out enough that CD can focus ALL of their attention on making the xb1 version all that it can be...

So, MS' money likely guaranteed their customers a better game to play during the holiday.

The quality of the PC and PS4 optimizations will probably "benefit" from this one-at-a-time approach as well, but at the cost of having waiting 6mo to a year to play an anticipated title.

While I'd hate to see this become a common practice... To say there are "no benefits" isn't true...

That certainly wasn't true for something like Destiny, which was released simultaneously on four platforms, yet was still polished on the XBO. Was PvZ:GW any better on the XBO for being released there first? As for quality benefits on later releases, that really wasn't the case with Bioshock and ME2, apart from having extras included in the box.

The only benefit of exclusivity I see is when a game is developed with a single platform in mind, and the developers can fully concentrate on its strengths, without needing to put any effort on other versions. Silent Hill 3 is a good example of that, as it looked better on the PS2 than the 4th multiplatform entry. That's not the case with TR, as it's being released on three platforms within few months.

 

[Elandyll]

You're skipping over neutrality here. Why would it be negative for those who already own an Xbox One? It doesn't bring any positives, sure, but that doesn't mean it brings negatives. For them it's just neutral.
...

Pretty simple really.
As a self procclaimed "Huge Xbox brand fan" (your words), maybe you would rather like they invest the (probably) large sum they are spending on this deal into developping a 1st party title for the Xbox One or a title that otherwise wouldn't be made (like Dead Rising 3 back in the days)?

It is not "neutral", not even for existing Xbox owners. Not when other titles such as Phantom Dust have been put on hold after their announcement.
Nothing is created by this deal.
Nothing is gained.

Just like the stupid Destiny deal on PS4, it is only made to block content from another platform and it is damaging for gamers. And here it's for an entire game, one heavily associated with the Playstation historically.

I wonder how Xbox owners would feel if Sony now thinks it will be ok to make a deal with Ubi to get a 1 year exclu on their next Tom Clancy game? Or with EA on ME4?
I pray things don't escalate frankly, because from where I am sitting this is what we could be looking at and there won't be any winners at this game.

 

[drotahorror]

Because Big Phil chose to spend (likely big) money to make that happen, as opposed to say funding real original and exclusive content for the system - it's a short-term "quick fix" potentially designed to somehow counter UC4 maybe, which as it's not even releasing this holiday, looks to be working out not quite to plan.

Perhaps, but it does work out for Tomb Raider. No doubt Uncharted would have chunked away at their sales regardless of them being on 2 different platforms.

 

[mejin]

So how well will it sell on the PS4?

We don't know even how well it will be Xbox One version.

 

[sauerkraut]

I wish these timed exclusivity practice would stop. I don't believe tomb raider is a system seller. Microsoft has halo 5 coming out alongside forza. Their true exclusives are more than enough to sway potential buyers. All this deal does is anger pc and ps players. This goes for other platforms as well. No one wins in these situations except for console warriors.

 

[MulderYuffie]

Not shocked at all I did figure they would've at least waited until the One's version was out first though.

 

[Steroyd]

If your primarily an Xbox gamer, you're going to get a better quality title through this deal than you would if all 3 versions were releasing simultaneously... The ports are spread out enough that CD can focus ALL of their attention on making the xb1 version all that it can be...

So, MS' money likely guaranteed their customers a better game to play during the holiday.

The quality of the PC and PS4 optimizations will probably "benefit" from this one-at-a-time approach as well, but at the cost of having waiting 6mo to a year to play an anticipated title.

While I'd hate to see this become a common practice... To say there are "no benefits" isn't true...

While I understand the sentiment behind what you're saying, heck I actually agree in principle, an Xbox 360 version exists which kills that notion for me.

 

[Synth]

I wish these timed exclusivity practice would stop. I don't believe tomb raider is a system seller. Microsoft has halo 5 coming out alongside forza. Their true exclusives are more than enough to sway potential buyers. All this deal does is anger pc and ps players. This goes for other platforms as well. No one wins in these situations except for console warriors.

Almost every big name game is a system seller to someone (hell, even smaller names like Bayonetta are to a decent chunk of people). To what extent though, we don't know. It doesn't really help that it's only timed, and that there's probably a decent overlap between fans of Tomb Raider and Uncharted... so if Tomb Raider were a system seller to them, then Uncharted probably is too, and only one console would offer both at some point.

Stuff like Halo and Forza doesn't really have any bearing imo. Those games are far too different, and so would be selling the system to a different subset of users. It's about diversifying the portfolio so that even if someone has no interest in one series, there's other games that probably do suit their tastes. This is what Nintendo fails horribly at imo, where even with a load of exclusive offerings, there's too much overlap in the potential fanbases of each, so then you get people either loving pretty much all of it... or none of it, and simply ignoring the console outright.

For the same reason, I don't think releasing alongside Fallout 4 is going to be as detrimental as some here predict. Fallout will prevent Tomb Raider from topping any charts, but I don't think the games are similar enough to present an either/or scenario for that many players. I'm looking to pick up Tomb Raider at launch, but have no current plans to bother with Fallout 4 at all.

 

[Conduit]

If your primarily an Xbox gamer, you're going to get a better quality title through this deal than you would if all 3 versions were releasing simultaneously...

Disagree!

What the difference would be if the game would be released for Xbone/PS4/PC simultaneously? Keep in mind that game already was in development for PC/PS4.

 

[Synth]

Disagree!

We can't prove this either way, so it's not even really worth arguing over. If we could see some alternate reality, and determine if the Xbox version would be the same... or if it's now running at some dynamic res or 900p or whatever, then we'd know what sort of effect it has.

 

[Purest 78]

You're skipping over neutrality here. Why would it be negative for those who already own an Xbox One? It doesn't bring any positives, sure, but that doesn't mean it brings negatives. For them it's just neutral.

As for the second half of your post, thanks. You're right, I have a lot to learn here, and your advice has been immediately helpful. I think I have had some expectations that I should rethink. I'll try to let the answers pool before I address them, and I will bunch them up so as to decrease the frequency of my posts.

Wouldn't it be more beneficial For people who own a X1, if MS invested millions in a new game? Instead of a game you were gonna play anyway.

 

[Handy Fake]

Wouldn't it be more beneficial For people who own a X1, if MS invested millions in a new game? Instead of a game you were gonna play anyway.

Well... I think this sums it up quite succinctly.

 

[vpance]

Guess these guys were legit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpNad06k14M

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1071086

$40 in Q4 2016.

 

[Trup1aya]

That certainly wasn't true for something like Destiny, which was released simultaneously on four platforms, yet was still polished on the XBO. Was PvZ:GW any better on the XBO for being released there first? As for quality benefits on later releases, that really wasn't the case with Bioshock and ME2, apart from having extras included in the box.

The only benefit of exclusivity I see is when a game is developed with a single platform in mind, and the developers can fully concentrate on its strengths, without needing to put any effort on other versions. Silent Hill 3 is a good example of that, as it looked better on the PS2 than the 4th multiplatform entry. That's not the case with TR, as it's being released on three platforms within few months.

Well, in the case of destiny, the fact that it was developed in parallel across current and last gen quite obviously had a negative impact on the overall quality of the game.... While Destiny on xb1 was "polished", we can all agree that the title wasn't anywhere near reaching its potential on any platform...

But polish isn't what I'm talking about... I'm talking about a developer getting the time they need to focus on an individual consoles unique attributes... By gaining an EXTRA YEAR to work on the PS4 version, and by getting to work more closely with MS engineers, CD will gets and to unprecedented amount of effort into the xb1 version...

It appears to me that the PVZ deal and this one differ interms of when in development the deal was made, which would effect how the developers could execute..

Bioshock and ME2, were just quick ports...

While I understand the sentiment behind what you're saying, heck I actually agree in principle, an Xbox 360 version exists which kills that notion for me.

That version is being handled by a different team...

 

[Sydle]

Wouldn't it be more beneficial For people who own a X1, if MS invested millions in a new game? Instead of a game you were gonna play anyway.

Yep, would rather they hire a studio to reboot Perfect Dark.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Xbox version looked great at E3, I'll grab that one rather than waiting.