Support NeoGAF

[Infernostew]

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.

Some people are acting like Cystal Dynamics is some small indie game company that don't have the resources to develop on multiple consoles.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

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

Really? Because a lot of signs point to a Tomb Raider followup not being possible without Microsoft's assistance. That's what Colin Moriarty seems to believe at least.

So now instead of no-one getting a game (because Square Enix wouldn't fully-fund it), 4/5 platforms do. That's a very major positive.

I'll likely buy this over Fallout at launch. Combination of this being cheaper digitally than Fallout in the UK (and wanting to support that), and Fallout's notorious day 1 bugs. Also it looks awesome. Tomb Raider 2013 was my game of the year.

 

[benny_a]

Really? Because a lot of signs point to a Tomb Raider followup not being possible without Microsoft's assistance. That's what Colin Moriarty seems to believe at least.

If that is the case, why wasn't this clear at E3?

Usually when something can only happen because there are otherwise no funds, you know this at the time of announcement.

Not announce the game without platforms and then 2 months later say oh we can finally announced we're timed exclusive.

What is more likely is that the negotiations for this timed aspect weren't concluded by the time of the game reveal at E3.

 

[BriGuy]

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.

I guess we'll never know, but I wonder if part of the terms of MS deal is that they have to make up the difference in price for every PS4 copy sold under $60 for X amount of time?

 

[Conduit]

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...

But game IS multiplatform, game IS in development for PC/PS4/Xbone/X360. Release of the game for PS4 and PC is delayed for 2016. Game IS cross-gen ( sadly ) and game for PC/PS4/Xbone will have some cross-gen assets. So much about development for multiplatform title for 1 current-gen console. I don't see any effort in that.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

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.

Exclusive focus by the dev team on the Xbox One version of the game is almost certainly a positive, and Xbox has also been funding original and exclusive content for the system. They've been doing this from the very start of the generation.

Sunset Overdrive
Scalebound
Quantum Break
Ori and the Blind Forest
D4
Recore
Ryse

And I'm sure there's quite a few I'm missing. Microsoft has been investing in new and original content that's exclusive from the very start, so any attempts to try and isolate the Tomb Raider deal like it's somehow all they're doing just comes off as highly disingenuous.

 

[Trup1aya]

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.

Maybe... But there is a tremendous amount of risk involved with launching a new IP... (See Kameo, Ryse, The Order, Drive Club etc). That's why companies hedge their bets by supporting existing and new IPs from 1st and 3rd parties... Microsoft is no different from any other company in that regard.

 

[Garlador]

Exclusive focus by the dev team on the Xbox One version of the game is almost certainly a positive, and Xbox has also been funding original and exclusive content for the system. They've been doing this from the very start of the generation.

Sunset Overdrive
Scalebound
Quantum Break
Ori and the Blind Forest
D4
Recore
Ryse

And I'm sure there's quite a few I'm missing. Microsoft has been investing in new and original content that's exclusive from the very start, so any attempts to try and isolate the Tomb Raider deal like it's somehow all they're doing just comes off as highly disingenuous.

Well they sure as hell have already pimped Tomb Raider as "their" bigger "exclusive" game than they ever did Sunset Overdrive, Ori and the Blind Forest, Ryse, or friggin' D4.

Man, I still can't believe they sent D4 out there to die. That was Konami Blades of Time level neglect...

 

[Roberto Larcos]

If that is the case, why wasn't this clear at E3?

Usually when something can only happen because there are otherwise no funds, you know this at the time of announcement.

Not announce the game without platforms and then 2 months later say oh we can finally announced we're timed exclusive.

What is more likely is that the negotiations for this timed aspect weren't concluded by the time of the game reveal at E3.

Maybe because Square Enix doesn't want to be seen as a company that needs outside help (like Crytek / Capcom) to make games? And maybe because Microsoft values that relationship enough that they can refrain from publicly shaming them on the world stage?

Any why wait? Because Microsoft wanted more people to buy on Xbox One, but people became so feral about the possibility of it not being timed that Square Enix / Microsoft were left with no choice but to pacify 'fans'. Seriously, not seen anything like this cut-throat approach from gamers towards Hello Games / Sony, despite their being plenty of thread to pull at regarding No Man's Sky's exclusivity.

This is a topic that has annoyed me a fair bit. The sense of entitlement of people is absolutely ridiculous. This is a game that may not have been made had it not been for Microsoft, yet they're the villains.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Well they sure as hell have already pimped Tomb Raider as "their" bigger "exclusive" game than they ever did Sunset Overdrive, Ori and the Blind Forest, Ryse, or friggin' D4.

Man, I still can't believe they sent D4 out there to die. That was Konami Blades of Time level neglect...

I disagree. They went all in on Sunset Overdrive, and they certainly didn't just up and ignore Ryse. Ryse for a launch game was getting a pretty nice push.

 

[benny_a]

Maybe because Square Enix doesn't want to be seen as a company that needs outside help (like Crytek / Capcom) to make games? And maybe because Microsoft values that relationship enough that they can refrain from publicly shaming them on the world stage?

I don't see how that is an answer to the question I posed.

Why weren't the platforms announced at the game announcement, like is the industry standard at E3? Why were press release not including this information.
Why was the very next time the game was shown publicly (using stills from the E3 trailer) at Gamescom and the only new information was that it was something like "Holiday 2015, Timed Xbox"?
Also what is this "shaming" supposed to mean in the context of Square Enix debuting their new game at the Microsoft Press Briefing E3 2014?

This is a topic that has annoyed me a fair bit. The sense of entitlement of people is absolutely ridiculous. This is a game that may not have been made had it not been for Microsoft, yet they're the villains.

But you can't even create a coherent argument for the chain of events that incorporate all publicly known facts.

 

[Mendax]

This is a topic that has annoyed me a fair bit. The sense of entitlement of people is absolutely ridiculous. This is a game that may not have been made had it not been for Microsoft, yet they're the villains.

nonsense. the game broke even ages ago and square's goal from the start was to reinvigorate the IP, hence the term "tomb raider reboot"

 

[Kayant]

Really? Because a lot of signs point to a Tomb Raider followup not being possible without Microsoft's assistance. That's what Colin Moriarty seems to believe at least.

So now instead of no-one getting a game (because Square Enix wouldn't fully-fund it), 4/5 platforms do. That's a very major positive.

I'll likely buy this over Fallout at launch. Combination of this being cheaper digitally than Fallout in the UK (and wanting to support that), and Fallout's notorious day 1 bugs. Also it looks awesome. Tomb Raider 2013 was my game of the year.

There really isn't.

Reposting from a eariler thread -

There is nothing to suggest Microsoft's involvement at that time before the Definitive versions came out.

Results - March/April

Greenlit news(August) - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-01-square-enix-confirms-next-gen-tomb-raider-sequel

The game was still a multi-plat at E3 2015 when it was announced formally. Suggesting the deal was in the making and not done at that point before it was announced as timed at Gamescom.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125066039&postcount=5124

Nothing points to this needing MS's assistance to be made in any way.

Also not forgetting we needed 3-5 updates between MS and CD before they announced they would be helping with the development of the game.

 

[DrkSage]

This is a topic that has annoyed me a fair bit. The sense of entitlement of people is absolutely ridiculous. This is a game that may not have been made had it not been for Microsoft, yet they're the villains.

Are you serious with this? Are you legitimate serious with this?

 

[Ghost Slayer]

Maybe because Square Enix doesn't want to be seen as a company that needs outside help (like Crytek / Capcom) to make games? And maybe because Microsoft values that relationship enough that they can refrain from publicly shaming them on the world stage?

Any why wait? Because Microsoft wanted more people to buy on Xbox One, but people became so feral about the possibility of it not being timed that Square Enix / Microsoft were left with no choice but to pacify 'fans'. Seriously, not seen anything like this cut-throat approach from gamers towards Hello Games / Sony, despite their being plenty of thread to pull at regarding No Man's Sky's exclusivity.

This is a topic that has annoyed me a fair bit. The sense of entitlement of people is absolutely ridiculous. This is a game that may not have been made had it not been for Microsoft, yet they're the villains.

Wow, if this is the case, why MS won't pull "lifetime exclusive" like they did with Titanfall because TR won't be made without them? I am sure MS is not dumb to fund the game that latter come to PS platform
And No Man's Sky's, you know that Hello Game studio was affected by flood right? They had trouble so Sony helped them.

 

[Handy Fake]

There really isn't.

Reposting from a eariler thread -

There is nothing to suggest Microsoft's involvement at that time before the Definitive versions came out.

Results - March/April

Greenlit news(August) - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-01-square-enix-confirms-next-gen-tomb-raider-sequel

The game was still a multi-plat at E3 2015 when it was announced formally. Suggesting the deal was in the making and not done at that point before it was announced as timed at Gamescom.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125066039&postcount=5124

Nothing points to this needing MS's assistance to be made in any way.

Also not forgetting we needed 3-5 updates between MS and CD before they announced they would be helping with the development of the game.

I may be wrong, but I think one of the Mods (Kigari?) confirmed that it was in development as a multi-plat before MS stepped in.

 

[benny_a]

Nothing points to this needing MS's assistance to be made in any way.

For this to be true the argument has to be:

Square Enix created a CGI announcement trailer for June 2014 to gauge interest whether or not they are actually going to make the game.
Had Microsoft not stepped in the time between E3 2014 and Gamescom 2014 the game would have been canceled.

A few weeks after it was announced and months into production if we go by standard AAA development schedule.

 

[vpance]

I guess we'll never know, but I wonder if part of the terms of MS deal is that they have to make up the difference in price for every PS4 copy sold under $60 for X amount of time?

I'm sure that's the case. We know SE were capable of funding the game on their own, so if a moneyhat comes along it better pay out close to what they could've made without it. But it's possible they still got hosed, by underestimating the disparity of sales between platforms.

 

[BluenoseGames]

Really? Because a lot of signs point to a Tomb Raider followup not being possible without Microsoft's assistance. That's what Colin Moriarty seems to believe at least.

So now instead of no-one getting a game (because Square Enix wouldn't fully-fund it), 4/5 platforms do. That's a very major positive.

I'll likely buy this over Fallout at launch. Combination of this being cheaper digitally than Fallout in the UK (and wanting to support that), and Fallout's notorious day 1 bugs. Also it looks awesome. Tomb Raider 2013 was my game of the year.

A Sequel to Tomb Raider was already well into development, literally straight after they finished the first one.

Greenlit news(August) - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-01-square-enix-confirms-next-gen-tomb-raider-sequel

Then they announce it at E3 2014 when its already well into development yet don't reveal Xbox Timed Exclusivity? They wait until Gamescom ? Something tells me this deal came to play right after E3 when the game was already well into development. So Microsoft's assistance wasn't really needed, the only reason SE took it was probably for the fat check.

 

[Kayant]

I may be wrong, but I think one of the Mods (Kigari?) confirmed that it was in development as a multi-plat before MS stepped in.

She did iirc but we don't even need that as in one of the links I showed it was already greenlight even after it's performance which Square Enix wasn't too happy about.

For this to be true the argument has to be:

Square Enix created a CGI announcement trailer for June 2014 to gauge interest whether or not they are actually going to make the game.
Had Microsoft not stepped in the time between E3 2014 and Gamescom 2014 the game would have been canceled.

Yh which is just pure craziness.

 

[Makoto Yuki]

For this to be true the argument has to be:

Square Enix created a CGI announcement trailer for June 2014 to gauge interest whether or not they are actually going to make the game.
Had Microsoft not stepped in the time between E3 2014 and Gamescom 2014 the game would have been canceled.

A few weeks after it was announced and months into production if we go by standard AAA development schedule.

What? Can you source this?

I mean TR reboot did well, even if it didn't perform to the ludicrous standards set by SE, but outright cancel it without MS' help? Never heard that before.

 

[Garlador]

I disagree. They went all in on Sunset Overdrive, and they certainly didn't just up and ignore Ryse. Ryse for a launch game was getting a pretty nice push.

I guess opinions and all that, or perhaps location, but I barely saw ANY major marketing pushes for Sunset Overdrive. It had some decent, if unspectacular, commercials from time to time on Gamestop prior to release, but once the game actually came out, it practically vanished.

I've already seen more commercials, hype, advertisements, pre-order promotions, store displays, and marketing material for Halo 5 than I ever saw for Sunset Overdrive... and I really, REALLY like Sunset Overdrive. It's actually, IMO, the best game on the system right now. But you wouldn't know it from how much Microsoft totally never talked about it about a week after an underperforming launch.

Though I will recant on Ryse. That stuff was everywhere. It was the technical showcase for the system's power and I couldn't get through a Youtube video without an unskippable 15 second Ryse commercial bugging me every step of the way. That was more a case of the game just being mediocre and Microsoft moving on as quickly as they could to other things.

What? Can you source this?

I mean TR reboot did well, even if it didn't perform to the ludicrous standards set by SE, but outright cancel it without MS' help? Never heard that before.

It's not a source. It's saying for this scenario to be true whatsoever, these circumstances had to happen... which is extremely doubtful.

 

[benny_a]

What? Can you source this?

I mean TR reboot did well, even if it didn't perform to the ludicrous standards set by SE, but outright cancel it without MS' help? Never heard that before.

I am not saying this is the case.

I'm putting the argument that Roberto Larcos is making and trying to fit it into the publicly available information about the game.

the problem there is that it doesn't fit at all

If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit

 

[Mendax]

I am not saying this is the case.

I'm putting the argument that Roberto Larcos is making and trying to fit it into the publicly available information about the game.

the problem there is that it doesn't fit at all

 

[sauerkraut]

What? Can you source this?

I mean TR reboot did well, even if it didn't perform to the ludicrous standards set by SE, but outright cancel it without MS' help? Never heard that before.

I believe he was talking hypothetically.

 

[Synth]

It makes no sense to directly contrast the marketing of something like Sunset Overdrive, to the marketing of something like Halo. You can't just throw X millions at every game regardless of their mainstream sales potential. Giving Sunset Overdrive that sort of marketing push, isn't going to see it selling comparable numbers, it would just turn it into a financial disaster. It's like asking why Wipeout HD wasn't pushed like Uncharted.

 

[Trup1aya]

Well they sure as hell have already pimped Tomb Raider as "their" bigger "exclusive" game than they ever did Sunset Overdrive, Ori and the Blind Forest, Ryse, or friggin' D4.

Man, I still can't believe they sent D4 out there to die. That was Konami Blades of Time level neglect...

Sunset got a freaking white console bundle... Ori got a ton of love for a digital title as well...

Neither of them are Halo though... In terms of appeal, so what did you expect...

 

[stryke]

And No Man's Sky's, you know that Hello Game studio was affected by flood right? They had trouble so Sony helped them.

I would really like to know where this "Sony helped Hello Games after the flood" story came from.

Sure it may seem like a good guess but Hello Games already had a relationship with Sony since Joe Danger was done through Pub Fund, and the NMS deal could have just as easily been born out of that. I'm also pretty sure Shahid Kamal contacted them long before the flood happened.

 

[Skeff]

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

Except those decisions were actually made before the consoles launched and the sales gap was known.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Sorry to anyone I pissed off with my limited knowledge of the facts. As stated on a previous page, my argument is based around Colin Moriarty's belief that TR was only made because of Microsoft, which looks to be off-base.

 

[sauerkraut]

Except those decisions were actually made before the consoles launched and the sales gap was known.

Would it hurt if they release an Xbox version of ff7? I would tend to assume that it would accrue more sales for square soft.

 

[panda-zebra]

Exclusive focus by the dev team on the Xbox One version of the game is almost certainly a positive,

It doesn't work like that.

 

[benny_a]

Sorry to anyone I pissed off with my limited knowledge of the facts. As stated on a previous page, my argument is based around Colin Moriarty's belief that TR was only made because of Microsoft, which looks to be off-base.

No hard feelings. I'm not annoyed or offended.

 

[Conduit]

Sorry to anyone I pissed off with my limited knowledge of the facts. As stated on a previous page, my argument is based around Colin Moriarty's belief that TR was only made because of Microsoft, which looks to be off-base.

Well, good to know one more time.

Phil Rogers, Square-Enix CEO

I am also excited to reveal that we are well into development on a next-generation Tomb Raider sequel ( August 1st 2013. )

 

[Kayant]

Then they announce it at E3 2014 when its already well into development yet don't reveal Xbox Timed Exclusivity? They wait until Gamescom ? Something tells me this deal came to play right after E3 when the game was already well into development. So Microsoft's assistance wasn't really needed, the only reason SE took it was probably for the fat check.

Yep I mean otherwise why where MS/Square Enix so cagey about the deal that it needed so much updates for clarification.

I would really like to know where this "Sony helped Hello Games after the flood" story came from.

Sure it may seem like a good guess but Hello Games already had a relationship with Sony since Joe Danger was done through Pub Fund, and the NMS deal could have just as easily been born out of that. I'm also pretty sure Shahid Kamal contacted them long before the flood happened.

He did

Sorry to anyone I pissed off with my limited knowledge of the facts. As stated on a previous page, my argument is based around Colin Moriarty's belief that TR was only made because of Microsoft, which looks to be off-base.

It's cool these things are not easy to find if you don't already know about them.

 

[Makoto Yuki]

I am not saying this is the case.

I'm putting the argument that Roberto Larcos is making and trying to fit it into the publicly available information about the game.

Ahh I see. I thought this thread was going in crazy directions again.

Maybe because Square Enix doesn't want to be seen as a company that needs outside help (like Crytek / Capcom) to make games? And maybe because Microsoft values that relationship enough that they can refrain from publicly shaming them on the world stage?

Any why wait? Because Microsoft wanted more people to buy on Xbox One, but people became so feral about the possibility of it not being timed that Square Enix / Microsoft were left with no choice but to pacify 'fans'. Seriously, not seen anything like this cut-throat approach from gamers towards Hello Games / Sony, despite their being plenty of thread to pull at regarding No Man's Sky's exclusivity.

This is a topic that has annoyed me a fair bit. The sense of entitlement of people is absolutely ridiculous. This is a game that may not have been made had it not been for Microsoft, yet they're the villains.

Tomb Raider reboot was sold on all the major consoles, the sudden Microsoft Exclusivity just came out of nowhere and wasn't warranted. SE was complaining that the reboot didn't sell enough, on Xbox One, PS4, 360, PS3, and PC. That's 3 more platforms than just Xbox One/360. If selling on 4 consoles and PC wasn't enough why would they limit themselves to just 2 now? This game was going to be made anyways without MS' help. So please, don't defend Microsoft as if their some kind of savior for RotR, they made a business decision to make the game exclusive to their console for a set amount of time. They didn't do that so RotR could be made, they did that to have another "exclusive" this holiday to go against Uncharted, which was delayed to next year.

Sorry to anyone I pissed off with my limited knowledge of the facts. As stated on a previous page, my argument is based around Colin Moriarty's belief that TR was only made because of Microsoft, which looks to be off-base.

Ahh, IGN, no wonder your knowledge is limited. (Is he still there? I dunno)

It's cool, the message behind the game's "exclusivity" has always been a mess until now. Announcing that it will come to PC and PS4, even though it's a long way off.

 

[Skeff]

Would it hurt if they release an Xbox version of ff7? I would tend to assume that it would accrue more sales for square soft.

Hurt? Not directly, but it could be an opportunity cost to consider. For example if the team responsible for porting ff7 to xb1 had the opportunity to port ff12 to ps4? The consideration isn't just cost vs. profit but also profit vs. potential profit of other projects.

 

[Melchiah]

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...

There's no reason to put the word polished within paragraphs, as this is what was reported back then.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Phil...in-1080p-on-Xbox-One-Bungie-Says-455943.shtml

"Phil Spencer is a great friend of ours, and has been putting great effort into making sure that the Xbox One edition of Destiny hits 1080p and is a great experience," Bungie's Director of Production Jonty Barnes stated in an interview with Edge Magazine.

And that was possible , eventhough the game was released on both platfforms simultaneousy, in addition to the last gen versions.

There's no evidence now, that TR on PS4 would benefit in any way from the delay, apart from the usual framerate/resolution increase, which most likely would have been there anyway, even if it was released on the same day.

Really? Because a lot of signs point to a Tomb Raider followup not being possible without Microsoft's assistance. That's what Colin Moriarty seems to believe at least.

So now instead of no-one getting a game (because Square Enix wouldn't fully-fund it), 4/5 platforms do. That's a very major positive.

Do you really believe there would be no TR without it? The game was announced long before the exclusivity deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Tomb_Raider

Development

On August 1, 2013, Phil Rogers, Square Enix' Western CEO, confirmed in a blog post on the company's official website that a "next-generation Tomb Raider sequel" is "well into development".

On June 9, 2014, Rise of the Tomb Raider was formally announced with a press release, after a first trailer premiered on Microsoft's E3 press conference earlier the same day. That same trailer was later televised during Xbox Live's broadcast of the Miss Teen USA 2014 beauty pageant.

At Microsoft's Gamescom 2014 briefing, it was announced that the game will be released in late 2015 as a timed exclusive for Xbox platforms.

 

[etta]

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?

Yea, they were not the market segement for this, they were deadset on PS4, and as I have said before, these consumer pools get shafted by this.

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.

First, I am not going to apologize for the brand love and I will tell you why. I grew up with this, it's where my fondest gaming memories are. This is exactly like the PS3 situation last gen, it was the worse console (for third party) but people stuck with it, because they too grew up with PlayStation. This is not all of them, obviously, some had no problem switching to 360 as their main because of the advantages. I have a PS4 but I won't switch to it as my main, though obviously I got it for a reason (Naughty Dog games). This is the same like growing up with something like the Fast and Furious franchise, the new movies are full of cliches and corny lines, but you still love watching them, and they still put a smile on your face.
Second, they do have new IP's that they have invested in, so buying this exclusivity has not affected that. You can't say Phantom Dust was put on hold because of the ROTR deal.
And lastly, it seems some of my responders didn't read all my posts on this argument. I am on the same side of the fence everyone is. I was arguing that this thing isn't completely black and white.

 

[Purest 78]

Maybe... But there is a tremendous amount of risk involved with launching a new IP... (See Kameo, Ryse, The Order, Drive Club etc). That's why companies hedge their bets by supporting existing and new IPs from 1st and 3rd parties... Microsoft is no different from any other company in that regard.

MS said the Deal was to counter UC4, problem is ps4 owners can now play UC4 and TR. I just don't See TR being a system seller. Obviously that's just my opinion It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

 

[shinnn]

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

Doesn't matter.. because apparently working on 2 or 4 platforms is the same thing.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

It doesn't work like that.

The main dev team is primarily only building the Xbox One version of the game at this point in time. That's a positive for the game and for people hoping to buy it on Xbox One.

 

[Gestault]

If that is the case, why wasn't this clear at E3?

Usually when something can only happen because there are otherwise no funds, you know this at the time of announcement.

Most publishers don't want to get out on stage and say "we don't have the resources/didn't have confidence in the project we're announcing today!"

 

[benny_a]

Most publishers don't want to get out on stage and say "we don't have the resources/didn't have confidence in the project we're announcing today!"

And where in the announcement time frame would you place this loss of confidence based on the available information posted in this thread a few posts up?

 

[thelastcrusader]

Whatever. Maybe I'll get through some of my backlog by holiday 2016.

 

[Synth]

And where in the announcement time frame would you place this loss of confidence based on the available information posted in this thread a few posts up?

To be fair, you seem to be asking something that simply never really happens anyway. At no point on stage was Dead Rising 3 announced as something that was exclusive due to a lack of funds, neither was Titanfall, neither was Street Fighter V etc.

Anything along those lines usually only gets talked about more candidly in things like tweets and BTS footage or whatever. Outside of Shenmue III, I honestly can't think of any times where a project was presented on stages as cash-strapped.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think you really have to suspend your sense of disbelief to think this game needed financial assistance. It's about derisking AAA development. Square's a public company. You can see their cash flows.

 

[benny_a]

To be fair, you seem to be asking something that simply never really happens anyway. At no point on stage was Dead Rising 3 announced as something that was exclusive due to a lack of funds, neither was Titanfall, neither was Street Fighter V etc.

But there has been so much discussion about this all and the situation is very clear for Titanfall and Street Fighter V as a comparison.
Or phrased differently: This point of how the games came to be have been explained across different avenues.

Anything along those lines usually only gets talked about more candidly in things like tweets and BTS footage or whatever. Outside of Shenmue III, I honestly can't think of any times where a project was presented on stages as cash-strapped.

I'm not asking for this to have been included in the press conference. Any supporting evidence for the case is enough.

Right now I don't see any supporting evidence that Square Enix didn't plan this as a regular multiplatform title that a multiplatform publisher in the console space works on based on the available information across all the information channels we have.

 

[Synth]

But there has been so much discussion about this all and the situation is very clear for Titanfall and Street Fighter V as a comparison.

I'm not asking for this to have been included in the press conference. Any supporting evidence for the case is enough.

Right now I don't see any supporting evidence that Square Enix didn't plan this as a multiplatform title based on the available information across all the information channels we have.

The only thing that I see as being significantly clearer with games like Titanfall or Street Fighter are the terms of exclusivity, in that there were known to be exclusive (or perceived timed exclusive) at the time of announcement. Hell, the Titanfall stuff only surfaced long after the fact, with the initial reaction being very similar to Rise of the Tomb Raider today.

As I've mentioned before in the thread, I don't really see compelling evidence that Street Fighter V wasn't something that was going to happen anyway, and required additional funding to be realised. There's like one tweet from Ono saying he doesn't have an R&D budget for SFV (which only really says it wasn't in active development at that specific time), along with more tweets and statements that allude to the project initially being intended for both platforms. Basically we don't actually know these things in either case, but with Street Fighter it's simply assumed Capcom were going to let their no 2 or 3 franchise rot for the generation.

 

[cakely]

The main dev team is primarily only building the Xbox One version of the game at this point in time. That's a positive for the game and for people hoping to buy it on Xbox One.

They are working on the Xbox 360 version, which is getting a simultaneous release with the Xbox One version.

They are also clearly working on the PC version, which will be released a few months later.

I think you're way off base, here.