Support NeoGAF

[serversurfer]

I'm not sure this is true. Games like Uncharted 4, Gran Turismo and the other big releases are made to make profit AND attract new users. The games that weren't profitable last gen are now cancelled and the team dismissed.
They take risk but at a reasonable cost.

First, I should clarify that my claim is based on the comments Shu made here, regarding first-party's role in Morpheus development, but he clarifies that their approach to PSVR will be effectively the same as their approach to the consoles themselves.

The Heist lets players simulate ducking behind cover by crouching and manipulating virtual objects (including a pistol and clips of ammunition) using the PlayStation Move controllers, and Yoshida suggests it's an example of what Sony's first-party developers should be doing: building VR experiences that showcase what the platform can do to drum up interest in the platform.

“That’s what we do, right? I mean, we have first-party content, and I’m proud of what we do, but always our market share is…you know, fifteen percent, twenty percent [of the PlayStation software market]," said Yoshida. "With Morpheus, it’s going to be the same."

(emphasis mine)

So , yeah, while they will certainly ride any successes they find for as long and as hard as they can, "making money" is not what primarily drives first-party development at SCE. First and foremost, first-party development exists to create interest in the platform, from developers and gamers alike. Just look at a developer like Media Molecule. They don't make blockbuster games, but as long as they're not losing money hand over fist, Sony will continue letting them do what they do; creating amazing experiences you just don't get anywhere else.

Hence, my summation that Sony — or at least, Shu — see first-party development as primarily a form of marketing. A form that happens to offer the possibility of directly recouping your investment, and a smaller possibility of the occasional windfall like GT and Uncharted, but still marketing at its heart. They see a game that breaks even and creates positive buzz in the process as a clear win.

 

[Kralamoonard]

So is there even PR for black fridays?

 

[RexNovis]

So here's a question for everyone:

Given what we know about how the Rise of the Tomb Raider marketing deal has played out what impact do you think this will have on MS' ability to secure third party exclusive deals in the future?



Personally, I feel like they completely screwed their chances of any other publishers entering into exclusive agreements with them. Which makes their handling of the situation even more bizarre. You'd imagine they would at least seek to save face in front of other publishers to ensure the possibility of future deals. Yet instead they seem to have done everything conceivable to handicap the game's sales potential. Doesn't exactly give a great impression where are other publishers are concerned.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

So here's a question for everyone:

Given what we know about how the Rise of the Tomb Raider marketing deal has played out what impact do you think this will have on MS' ability to secure third party exclusive deals in the future?



Personally, I feel like they completely screwed their chances of any other publishers entering into exclusive agreements with them. Which makes their handling of the situation even more bizarre. You'd imagine they would at least seek to save face in front of other publishers to ensure the possibility of future deals. Yet instead they seem to have done everything conceivable to handicap the game's sales potential. Doesn't exactly give a great impression where are other publishers are concerned.

Spencer already said they are moving away from 3rd party deals to focus on first party. I doubt that is completely voluntary.

 

[hawk2025]

They did try to save face. Spencer said fairly recently that he is not a fan of this approach anymore.

In reality, the diminishing market share and Tomb Raider blunder are more likely to be why they will shy away from those deals in the short to mid range future, I think, rather than a sudden change of heart.

 

[Ryng_tolu]

Right. I was just testing you. Congrats, you passed!

Now i wanna a cookie!

 

[andy_lhc]

[3DS] 550K
[PS4] 1650K
[WIU] 350K
[XB1] 1550K

 

[Boke1879]

So here's a question for everyone:

Given what we know about how the Rise of the Tomb Raider marketing deal has played out what impact do you think this will have on MS' ability to secure third party exclusive deals in the future?



Personally, I feel like they completely screwed their chances of any other publishers entering into exclusive agreements with them. Which makes their handling of the situation even more bizarre. You'd imagine they would at least seek to save face in front of other publishers to ensure the possibility of future deals. Yet instead they seem to have done everything conceivable to handicap the game's sales potential. Doesn't exactly give a great impression where are other publishers are concerned.

It's tough. Because I think going forward you won't see as many timed exclusives from either platform. This situation is definitely a black eye for them and if they ever did do something like this again I can see them being very selective.

But I think overall it would be smart for publishers not to enter into this sort of timed exclusive agreement for AAA games. There just really isn't that much benefit for them imo.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

So here's a question for everyone:

Given what we know about how the Rise of the Tomb Raider marketing deal has played out what impact do you think this will have on MS' ability to secure third party exclusive deals in the future?



Personally, I feel like they completely screwed their chances of any other publishers entering into exclusive agreements with them. Which makes their handling of the situation even more bizarre. You'd imagine they would at least seek to save face in front of other publishers to ensure the possibility of future deals. Yet instead they seem to have done everything conceivable to handicap the game's sales potential. Doesn't exactly give a great impression where are other publishers are concerned.

I think MS can still get deals. It would just have to be with situations like Scalebound and Recore where they are aiding in the creation of a new IP or what not.

With franchises that have been around for a while? A resounding no.

 

[RexNovis]

Spencer already said they are moving away from 3rd party deals to focus on first party. I doubt that is completely voluntary.

I meant saving face specifically in reference to their handling of the Tomb Raider exclusivity in order to salvage even the remotest of possibilities for future dealings with third party publishers. I mean the way they handled the release was shockingly horrible.

 

[Nightengale]

I think MS can still get deals. It would just have to be with situations like Scalebound and Recore where they are aiding in the creation of a new IP or what not.

With franchises that have been around for a while? A resounding no.

Those games are fully funded and is 1st party exclusives.

I think what most are talking about here is 3rd party major exclusivity, which Phil had openly stated they're backing away for a stronger focus on 1st party. (Aka deals are harder to get now)

 

[Bgamer90]

MS will still get a few advertising deals here and there and maybe some more indie titles (like Cuphead) but I definitely expect Tomb Raider to be their last "AAA moneyhat" for a pretty long time.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I meant saving face specifically in reference to their handling of the Tomb Raider exclusivity in order to salvage even the remotest of possibilities for future dealings with third party publishers. I mean the way they handled the release was shockingly horrible.

What could they possibly do to save face? They really did send the game to die and this was not a surprising development. The great reviews make it look even worse.

 

[hawk2025]

Yeah, what happened to Recore, anyways?

Is it still somehow scheduled for Spring?

The silence is starting to smell of Phantom Dust.

 

[Welfare]

So here's a question for everyone:

Given what we know about how the Rise of the Tomb Raider marketing deal has played out what impact do you think this will have on MS' ability to secure third party exclusive deals in the future?

Big name third party games? They are done with that.

New IP opportunities or helping out a studio? They can still do that.

 

[Bgamer90]

Yeah, what happened to Recore, anyways?

Is it still somehow scheduled for Spring?

The silence is starting to smell of Phantom Dust.

Might see something at The Game Awards. If not then I can't see how the game could release before E3 2016.

 

[hawk2025]

Might see something at The Game Awards. If not then I can't see how the game could release before E3 2016.

Ah, good point.

The Game Awards sounds like good timing.

 

[Nightengale]

MS will still get a few advertising deals here and there and maybe some more indie titles (like Cuphead) but I definitely expect Tomb Raider to be their last "AAA moneyhat" for a pretty long time.

I will be somewhat curious to see if the next TR will still be a MS-marketed franchise, personally.

TR had long been a MS-pushed IP, but this situation feels like it could be a potential tipping point, looking at how poorly the marketing was handled and the presumed weaker than desired sales.

 

[Nightengale]

Might see something at The Game Awards. If not then I can't see how the game could release before E3 2016.

Ah, good point.

The Game Awards sounds like good timing.

Phil said we'll see more in 2016.

Could be a swerve to prevent the last obvious platform to reveal new footage (TGA) be too obvious, but just saying.

 

[Welfare]

Might see something at The Game Awards. If not then I can't see how the game could release before E3 2016.

It could release the Tuesday of E3 week

One last marketing push.

 

[RexNovis]

What could they possibly do to save face? They really did send the game to die and this was not a surprising development. The great reviews make it look even worse.

Basically I'm saying you would think they would not want to send the game to die. What I mean is that you would think they would want to save face in their handling of the exclusivity. Basically make the appearance that they are trying to help push sales for the title in a meaningful way. Instead we saw the opposite.

It's tough. Because I think going forward you won't see as many timed exclusives from either platform. This situation is definitely a black eye for them and if they ever did do something like this again I can see them being very selective.

But I think overall it would be smart for publishers not to enter into this sort of timed exclusive agreement for AAA games. There just really isn't that much benefit for them imo.

I think you're absolutely right and the fact that we will see less of these sort of exclusives makes me pretty happy. But these sort of deals have been a cornerstone of MS' software strategy up until now. They don't really have the first party output to make up for a lack of third party partnerships

I think MS can still get deals. It would just have to be with situations like Scalebound and Recore where they are aiding in the creation of a new IP or what not.

With franchises that have been around for a while? A resounding no.

Ah yes. I think you might be right on this. It is still a large deviation from their past strategy. Basically a change in focus from purchasing exclusive rights to either an established or new and promising IP to instead a focus on funding the development of new IPs in exchange for an exclusivity window of some kind. I still find it odd how they seem more inclined to do this than actually invest in new first party studios and projects. Not doing so is what put them in the position they are now where they have to rely on outside developers to supplement their output. But I digress. Yes I do think you are right.

 

[Boke1879]

I think you're absolutely right and the fact that we will see less of these sort of exclusives makes me pretty happy. But these sort of deals have been a cornerstone of MS' software strategy up until now. They don't really have the first party output to make up for a lack of third party partnerships



Ah yes. I think you might be right on this. It is still a large deviation from their past strategy. Basically a change in focus from purchasing exclusive rights to either an established or new and promising IP to instead a focus on funding the development of new IPs in exchange for an exclusivity window of some kind. I still find it odd how they seem more inclined to do this than actually invest in new first party studios and projects. Not doing so is what put them in the position they are now where they have to rely on outside developers to supplement their output. But I digress. Yes I do think you are right.

Yea it's why I think Spencer said he's not a fan of these deals and they'll focus on first party IP's and partnerships with games like ReCore, Sunset Overdrive etc.

 

[Ryng_tolu]

Big name third party games? They are done with that.

New IP opportunities or helping out a studio? They can still do that.

Gonna agree with this.

 

[RexNovis]

MS will still get a few advertising deals here and there and maybe some more indie titles (like Cuphead) but I definitely expect Tomb Raider to be their last "AAA moneyhat" for a pretty long time.

Do you see this being a result of the way the handled the Tomb Raider marketing partnership resulting in a lack of interest in similar deals from other publishers or do you think other factors play a bigger role in this deal being the "last AAA moneyhat for a pretty long time."

Honestly, as I said before, the idea of their being less third party content getting blocked from release on all relevant platforms makes me pretty happy. I've always felt it was a really shitty way to create artificial value for a given platform and it can only be a good thing that it is falling out of favor.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Yeah, what happened to Recore, anyways?

Is it still somehow scheduled for Spring?

The silence is starting to smell of Phantom Dust.

How big is the team that's supposed to take care of this game? I hear Infaune is not playing a massive role in this, and the other team listed working on it has 30 people in total according to wikipedia.

 

[Bgamer90]

Do you see this being a result of the way the handled the Tomb Raider marketing partnership resulting in a lack of interest in similar deals from other publishers or do you think other factors play a bigger role in this deal being the "last AAA moneyhat for a pretty long time."

A combo of Tomb Raider as well as their position in terms of worldwide sales; MS would need to offer up a ton of money for a deal like this to happen again and I just don't think anyone (third party companies as well as MS) would think it's worth it since the position of the Xbox One is already set in stone (i.e.: never catching up to PS4 in worldwide sales);

Makes more sense to use the money on building up new IPs at this point in my opinion.

 

[Nightengale]

How big is the team that's supposed to take care of this game? I hear Infaune is not playing a massive role in this, and the other team listed working on it has 30 people in total according to wikipedia.

50-53

 

[CosmicQueso]

a lack of interest in similar deals from other publishers

That deal was a bit unbelievable when it was first announced. The give must have been huge to give up that much market potential.

But now that it's out, and the consumer response? I'd be very, very, very surprised to see something like this happen again.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

Ah yes. I think you might be right on this. It is still a large deviation from their past strategy. Basically a change in focus from purchasing exclusive rights to either an established or new and promising IP to instead a focus on funding the development of new IPs in exchange for an exclusivity window of some kind. I still find it odd how they seem more inclined to do this than actually invest in new first party studios and projects. Not doing so is what put them in the position they are now where they have to rely on outside developers to supplement their output. But I digress. Yes I do think you are right.

MS may be looking at it as a 'too little, too late' situation. Their strongest IP just saw a hefty decline from the last iteration in the franchise. If that couldn't bring them noteworthy results, what will building new studios and new IP really accomplish? Just let the third party studios build the games so they avoid dumping money into a process that they probably won't get too much out of.

The lack of worldwide brand appeal undoubtedly plays a huge role in this as well. If they had bigger support, they may be/may have been more willing to take those risks and greatly invest in more in house projects for the future. Unfortunately, they don't so they have to cater to their main markets (US and UK) and that isn't enough to sustain investment on such a scale.

With that being said, they finally released Rare from the Kinect dungeon and let them spread their wings. They are also letting some of their other studios try some new IP. So, they are giving their studios opportunities but I do not think they will be expanding too much beyond what they have.

343 is Halo, Coalition is Gears, Turn 10 is Forza, etc... I think they will just be looking to find what works and making that the designated studio for that IP.

I think MS missed a big opportunity last generation when Sony was at their weakest ever. That was their chance to make the most of their position and really invest for the future.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that MS may not be looking at investment in this regard. They may be prioritizing short term gains over any real long standing investment for the brand that will bear fruit years from now. That may have been their outlook since the Xbox brand started.

 

[Nightengale]

That deal was a bit unbelievable when it was first announced. The give must have been huge to give up that much market potential.

But now that it's out, and the consumer response? I'd be very, very, very surprised to see something like this happen again.

The baffling part of it is how much they're giving up. With something like FF/JRPGs, going with PlayStation/PC means you give up 20-30% max.

With Xbox first on TR? It's effectively 60% and above. Maybe even touching 70%.

 

[CosmicQueso]

The baffling part of it is how much they're giving up. With something like FF/JRPGs, going with PlayStation/PC means you give up 20-30% max.

With Xbox first on TR? It's effectively 60% and above. Maybe even touching 70%.

Exactly. It was shocking. From the MS' side you say "okay well they want to go head to head with Uncharted, whatever." But you look at the other side and the only conclusion one could logically come up with is either some kind of budget issue with the game's development that they wanted to tone down with some co-dev dollars, wanting to get some additional cash flow within a particular quarter, or the size of the check was just so overwhelming that it was impossible to turn down (as in, the size of the check would make up for the opportunity cost of missing other platforms).

Regardless, agreeing to that deal shows an almost extreme short-term mindset, right? So, why would you agree to that? Well, if you're not interested in making any more big budget console Tomb Raider games, then, well, why the hell not take the check. Because if you want to make more of them, you certainly don't want to alienate more than half the global console base.

Like you say, it's just a baffling decision. Maybe someday we'll get details of the specifics and it will make some sense. But right now, the whole thing just makes one shake their head.

I'd like to say that hindsight is 20/20, but the truth is that people have been calling this deal out from the jump.

Exactly. It didn't make sense from day 1.

 

[hawk2025]

Exactly. It was shocking. From the MS' side you say "okay well they want to go head to head with Uncharted, whatever." But you look at the other side and the only conclusion one could logically come up with is either some kind of budget issue with the game's development that they wanted to tone down with some co-dev dollars, wanting to get some additional cash flow within a particular quarter, or the size of the check was just so overwhelming that it was impossible to turn down (as in, the size of the check would make up for the opportunity cost of missing other platforms).

Regardless, agreeing to that deal shows an almost extreme short-term mindset, right? So, why would you agree to that? Well, if you're not interested in making any more big budget console Tomb Raider games, then, well, why the hell not take the check. Because if you want to make more of them, you certainly don't want to alienate more than half the global console base.

Like you say, it's just a baffling decision. Maybe someday we'll get details of the specifics and it will make some sense. But right now, the whole thing just makes one shake their head.

I'd like to say that hindsight is 20/20, but the truth is that people have been calling this deal out from the jump.

 

[Y2Kev]

If you play the game, it's hard to see this as something that struggled from a budgetary perspective. TR2013 was a fairly big game, and TR2015 is even bigger. It's huge, like a little smaller than TLoU but without multiplayer. They cranked this out in 2 years. I don't think they missed any milestones.

I understand risk sharing but why would you do that on this game? Why not try and defray some cost of something else? I never got this deal but even in the context of Uncharted it is weird to make.

UNLESS MS bought a fuckton (like 2 million) copies as part of the deal for bundling. Then I get it.

 

[3rdamention]

They did try to save face. Spencer said fairly recently that he is not a fan of this approach anymore.

In reality, the diminishing market share and Tomb Raider blunder are more likely to be why they will shy away from those deals in the short to mid range future, I think, rather than a sudden change of heart.

Yeah, its interesting, for sure. Snag up 3rd party deals at launch and after, Rise, Dead Rising, Sunset Overdrive. Fast forward a year or so, Third Party deal doesn't work, doesn't move consoles, pisses off some fans of the franchise, "We aren't really into that approach anymore!"


What approach will they change next, sharing console sales?


Its definitely a different attitude at Xbox lately!

 

[Y2Kev]

BTW the game is great and people should buy it. It's the Greatest Game in the Greatest Games Lineup in History for sure.

 

[Nightengale]

BTW the game is great and people should buy it. It's the Greatest Game in the Greatest Games Lineup in History for sure.

dat fable legends tho

 

[hawk2025]

If you play the game, it's hard to see this as something that struggled from a budgetary perspective. TR2013 was a fairly big game, and TR2015 is even bigger. It's huge, like a little smaller than TLoU but without multiplayer. They cranked this out in 2 years. I don't think they missed any milestones.

I understand risk sharing but why would you do that on this game? Why not try and defray some cost of something else? I never got this deal but even in the context of Uncharted it is weird to make.

UNLESS MS bought a fuckton (like 2 million) copies as part of the deal for bundling. Then I get it.

Last bit makes sense, but then make the bundles expensive and Best Buy-only? Surely there aren't more than a million of those, right?

 

[stryke]

Last bit makes sense, but then make the bundles expensive and Best Buy-only? Surely there aren't more than a million of those, right?

The bundle is available in other markets. Just not in UK and limited in US.

 

[hawk2025]

The bundle is available in other markets. Just not in UK and limited in US.

Ah yes, that gigantic worldwide Xbox One market.

 

[Y2Kev]

dat fable legends tho

and carface

 

[freefornow]

So here's a question for everyone:

Given what we know about how the Rise of the Tomb Raider marketing deal has played out what impact do you think this will have on MS' ability to secure third party exclusive deals in the future?

Money talks!

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Money talks!

That would be wasted money. It can't be cheap to secure those kind of deals with the way the market is aligned

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

So here's a question for everyone:

Given what we know about how the Rise of the Tomb Raider marketing deal has played out what impact do you think this will have on MS' ability to secure third party exclusive deals in the future?



Personally, I feel like they completely screwed their chances of any other publishers entering into exclusive agreements with them. Which makes their handling of the situation even more bizarre. You'd imagine they would at least seek to save face in front of other publishers to ensure the possibility of future deals. Yet instead they seem to have done everything conceivable to handicap the game's sales potential. Doesn't exactly give a great impression where are other publishers are concerned.

I think it's going to be much, much less than what we've seen in the past. No more deals like TitanFall, that's for damn sure.

Absolutely no Western publisher is going to try giving them another ROTR deal, not after seeing how MS just sent it out to die and how all of this will likely diminish that game's performance on PS4 and PC next year (hell I'd even say the reboot is dead unless ROTR does gangbusters on PS4 and PC...which it won't). So I'm basically on the same boat as you are regards this topic.

And I'm not seeing the initiative on unique 1st party games from MS's studios to make up for it, which is crazy b/c you'd feel they see more a need for it than Sony, who's gonna be killing it in 2016 and onward going by what we know's in dev right now, let alone what may still be in the wings to be announced down the road. Hopefully MS has some damn good surprises for GDC or E3 b/c the few they have right now are pretty interesting, but not enough.

 

[Nightengale]

Nobody really announces stuff at GDC.

 

[Fat4all]

Microsoft would be much better suited funding and producing indie games similar to ReCore and Cuphead. 360's arcade was probably the best part of (early) last generation and putting money towards smaller productions and developers can do wonders.

 

[Moza]

I think the biggest factor in the TR bomb was the entire motivation of the timed exclusive deal.

It was wrong from the get go. The entire motivation for the deal seems to be as a way for Xbox to have its own 'Uncharted'. I mean that in regards to genre. The problem being that they basically just paid money to have this game NOT release on PS4 more so than have it as an xbox exclusive. I say that as all history and target markets point to TR being a playstation brand. It was basically a way to get PS fans to try to buy an xbox more than just a general way to encourage the general gamer to buy the game/console. The vast majority of PS fans were always just gonna wait, especially given how stacked the period of it's release was.

3rd party exclusives can work, especially in ways where the game wouldn't exist without the help of one of the big 3 (Bayonetta 2) but making deals that are less focused on targeting your own audience and more at countering the competition never seem to work out.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Poor Laura.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Poor Laura.

The deal worked. You want to protect her.

I wonder if there's any way they can get this out for ps4 before next holiday, but after March. There has to be some sort of out. Laura will get little to no sales next holiday season.

 

[Nightengale]

but making deals that are less focused on targeting your own audience and more at countering the competition never seem to work out.

It kinda worked out for Destiny.

But generally I agree. Moves that feel more focused on the competition than your own audience does feel somewhat misguided.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

I think the biggest factor in the TR bomb was the entire motivation of the timed exclusive deal.

It was wrong from the get go. The entire motivation for the deal seems to be as a way for Xbox to have its own 'Uncharted'. I mean that in regards to genre. The problem being that they basically just paid money to have this game NOT release on PS4 more so than have it as an xbox exclusive. I say that as all history and target markets point to TR being a playstation brand. It was basically a way to get PS fans to try to buy an xbox more than just a general way to encourage the general gamer to buy the game/console. The vast majority of PS fans were always just gonna wait, especially given how stacked the period of it's release was.

3rd party exclusives can work, especially in ways where the game wouldn't exist without the help of one of the big 3 (Bayonetta 2) but making deals that are less focused on targeting your own audience and more at countering the competition never seem to work out.

I agree.

MS was moving at Sony's pace rather than their own. They wanted their own Uncharted and, more specifically, they wanted their own Uncharted to counter Sony's soon to be released Uncharted. However, a simple delay from Sony nipped the entire thing in the bud.

The whole plan was just shortsighted. Yes, I know building a new IP on the caliber of Uncharted or Tomb Raider must be a very difficult task (especially in the position MS is currently in) but that doesn't excuse how MS handled the situation with Tomb Raider.

It was just incredibly poor execution all around.