Support NeoGAF

[SeventhSon]

Took like 10 minutes bro, I type FAST.

1. The Wii kicked the shit out of both the PS3 and Xbox 360, so how did Nintendo drop the ball by releasing a platform with major mass market penetration? We might have actually seen significant industry growth into non-traditional demographics if 3rd parties actually backed up the Wii with top tier software.

2. The competition vacuum will always fill itself in. If Microsoft wasn't so clearly joining the fray Sega might have felt more confident making a successor to the Dreamcast. If they were to drop out now I'd bet on Amazon and/or Samsung moving to fill the void by the start of next generation.

More importantly, video games are media and compete in a larger market for consumer expendable income and free time with movies, books, music, and especially with games on smart devices.

The "competition" argument is nothing more than a strawman. MS wasn't a legitimate competitor when Sony released the single most successful, most industry beneficial platform of all time with the PS2. The hardware was for the time relatively obtuse (though now multi-core arch is standard) but provided a level of technical control that resulted in games far surpassing what we all expected from the silicon (like super sampling for anti-aliasing in Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance). All third parties were welcome, royalties were the only cost of entry. Sony didn't try to muscle people out of the way of their titles. In short when Sony dominated the market they ran things with a truly laissez-faire attitude that benefited everyone.

In fact, Microsoft has been overtly anti-competitive of late towards indies, due to their previously strict publishing criteria that forced all indies to work with established publishers. Meanwhile Sony was open to self publishing, and as a result Sony has scooped up a ton of free "exclusives" entirely thanks to not being dicks. So how did MS help competition there by driving small devs into Sony's open arms?

Look, I've owned both the first Xbox and an Xbox 360. I bought an Xbox before a Gamecube that generation, about a month after release, and then got all my 3rd party titles on it. Loved the system as Microsoft went out of their way to court PC developers which gave a different feel to the library. I bought the 360 before all the other systems last generation and bought most of my 3rd party games there as well. I've wanted MS to succeed in this industry from day one because if they were to honestly engage with us gamers some amazing things could result from it.

Instead they continue to try finding alternative ways to monetize the gaming industry instead of simply servicing gamers. Sony had horrible 1st party support on the PS1 and relied entirely on 3rd party exclusives (gained through more friendly hardware than Saturn, cheaper media and royalties than N64, and a healthy marketing partnership budget), but come the PS2 generation they used their strong market position to begin building their 1st party. They started working with Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Sucker Punch, made Level 5 what they are today, etc. etc. and came out the other side with a very respectable first party stable that outright saved them and made a PS3 worth owning last generation.

All I'm saying is that if Microsoft isn't willing to do the same thing, which they clearly weren't when a very similar position presented itself mid-last generation and they instead shuttered studios, they aren't adding value to the industry. At least from the standpoint of the gamer. Maybe 3rd parties because they can get those fast cash handouts, but for gamers they aren't bringing us enough new content and aren't showing any long term commitments to the industry.

Even the fully funded, MS published exclusives like Sunset and Scalebound are 3rd party developers on one-off deals that MS can walk away from just like they did to Crackdown. They really had something there and instead of recognizing it late in development and signing Realtime Worlds up for a sequel they let it slip by, RtW got another project, and Crackdown 2 was a cobbled together mess.

The tl;dr version: stop buying exclusives, start making your own games. If they lack the first party muscle to do it themselves then buy software studios who need a hand. Yager has been scuffling to find consistent funding, show a commitment by buying the studio and letting them make something totally new. The ex-Vigil guys are homeless once again, why not scoop them up and make an all new 3rd person action game (or buy Darksiders an actually save a franchise a la Nintendo and Bayonetta)? I could go on. Talent is out there. 3rd parties are gun shy when it comes to funding the tier just shy of AAA, so do what Sony did during the PS2 era and scoop up a bunch of those studios for entirely new IPs. Stop buying games OFF other systems and buy new IPs ON your system.

Well said.

 

[Drek]

I would imagine from a business and $$$$ standpoint, it's much less risky to let other devs do the work and then buy the finished product rather than hope your own people make a good game.

I completely understand that, but if Microsoft is literally not willing to commit to a new IP beyond one installment from one contracted studio why should we trust them about their commitment to the industry long term?

Perception is defined by one's actions. Microsoft has to date been unwilling to backup all their talk about exclusive software in a meaningful, permanent way. I know Sony isn't going to let one bad game sway them from supporting Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog, etc.. Hell, they kept pushing out WipEout games until the sales were damn near non-existent and then made a few more.

Nintendo never leaves us hanging on their core franchises. They have so many that some go on hiatus for extended periods, but they always find their way home again. Despite that my #1 gripe with Nintendo is a failure to deliver new IPs and to make good use of their own back catalog with consistency.

Sony, Microsoft, even Sega before their demise got this. They all committed a large chunk of revenue to maintaining and growing their first party stable. Bailing out on the industry at the first sign of trouble isn't an option for these companies. We see that with Sega, they went 3rd party instead of closing the doors because all their corporate value was tied in their (at the time) awesome first party studios.

What keeps MS in the industry if the Xbox One is a bomb and some new tablet/phone/glasses/prince albert type smart device takes off? Nothing. They'll offload the Xbox brand and their handful of IPs to the highest bidder and walk out for greener pastures.

First party development is a statement. It defines how proactive the first party is to bringing new, unique content to their systems long term and it defines how committed they are to the industry as a whole. Sony was in the console world before Playstation and it will likely be one of the last parts of the company to close the doors if they collapse. Sega is still in games after Dreamcast. Microsoft continues to refuse making a similar commitment. I've been a gamer since Commadore 64 and Apple II, I'm not going anywhere, I'd like to feel the same way about the companies I financially support.

Also, this isn't some kind of company love here. It's a business transaction. When I hire a plumber I care less about your rates today than I do about the likelihood that in five years when a pipe is leaking I can still call you up and you'll be able to fix it. I don't want the guy's third cousin who bought the name off him coming out to fix it. Just like I don't see the appeal to Halo without Bungie, at least as long as 343 is going to approach development as a CoD meets Halo mash-up. I'm not looking for a one-off relationship when I know I'll still be gaming in 20 years. I want someone who can tell me they'll still be there delivering new experiences 20 years later and it's worth getting attached to their IPs and studios now.

 

[KageMaru]

I'm sorry but how is it my business to read between the lines? It's in the company's best interest to relay the clearest massage they can to the potential buyer not to confuse the shit out of them. This backlash comes exactly from that, the confused message they put out to the masses and that's exactly the reaction they deserve. MS keeps saying they need to be more clear so their message is understood but every since the X1 announcement that message has been anything but clear and it continues with TR game (including all the parties involved).

It's in any company's best interest to show off their product in the best light possible. The backlash is mostly from people who do not own, nor plan to own, an Xbox console. This reaction is further elevated by these people jumping to conclusions. This is nothing like the fiasco surrounding the lead up to the launch of the Xbox one. They said that TR would only appear on Xbox platforms holiday 2015, which is exactly the case. They didn't say anything about 2016, it's everyone else that is filling in those blanks themselves. This is no different than any company saying "Game is making its console debut first on our system."

 

[dose]

It's in any company's best interest to show off their product in the best light possible. The backlash is mostly from people who do not own, nor plan to own, an Xbox console. This reaction is further elevated by these people jumping to conclusions. This is nothing like the fiasco surrounding the lead up to the launch of the Xbox one. They said that TR would only appear on Xbox platforms holiday 2015, which is exactly the case. They didn't say anything about 2016, it's everyone else that is filling in those blanks themselves. This is no different than any company saying "Game is making its console debut first on our system."

Except it is different. Several MS marketing people - and some of MS's twitter accounts - specifically said this was a permanent exclusive when it quite clearly isn't. MS's PR is a complete clusterfuck when its not being being deceitful and vague with its statements.

 

[dr_rus]

As long as they are trailing behind Sony buying 3rd party exclusives makes all the sense in the world to them. A couple of million for a timed big exclusive are cheaper than to make another first party game. And unlike those that exclusive is gonna sell loads. Looking back they are copying what they did with 360 in the first years. They had Oblivion, Mass Effect, Bioshock and other major third party games all as timed exclusives. Can't say that it hurt them.

You'll soon figure out that a lot of people will wait for the inevitable superior PS4 version instead of buying XBO for a 3rd party timed exclusive.
It's not like PS4/PC don't have other games to play while the exclusivity window is in effect.
360 situation was different because it launched a year earlier, had lower price and better (easier to top out) hardware. A lot of people went for 360 timed exclusives because they didn't have money for PS3 and were rather sure that PS3 version will be worse anyway. It's a completely different scenario between PS4 and XBO. Timed deals won't help MS much. They'll have to cough up money for a complete exclusivity of some 3rd party titles. Which I think will be above even their financial possibilities.

 

[Exploratory]

That Drek post is confirmation bias incarnate. It doesn't actually look at MS' first party output. And that comment about the NFL app is a bold faced lie.

 

[Cornbread78]

Did any other PS owners get the below e-mail this morning from SE and burst out loud laughing?

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Sure you don't build a first party stable overnight, but in MS' case when they hell are they going to start?

Lets recap:
Started Turn 10, who went on to make Forza, the one truly original IP from Microsoft to ever succeed.

Bought Bungie when Halo was months from release, had them port it to Xbox, cancelling a much hyped PC version which did later arrive, not to mention the Mac version Bungie had been promising.

Purchased FASA as part of another acquisition in 1999. After doing very little with the Shadowrun and MechWarrior IPs on the Xbox family of consoles closes FASA in 2007, licences out all their worthwhile IPs to small studios.

Bought Rare in 2002, since they have mined the Perfect Dark, Banjo, and Conker IPs with zero success, made one new mascot IP for Xbox 360's launch that never got a follow up despite being a pretty solid (kid friendly) game (Kameo, FYI). Have since been largely relegated to Kinect titles, weren't even the ones who made the Killer Instinct reboot.

Purchased Lionhead in 2006. Proceeded to have them make nothing but Fable games, including a crappy Kinect Fable game. Stopped making PC versions entirely, games progressively got further and further away from the original concept for Fable. A large number of staff has been laid off over the past two years, another large group up and left with Molyneaux, which if it was anything like his departure from Bullfrog to found Lionhead constituted his core staff he's had everywhere (i.e. the real talent in the studio). Making yet another Fable game that is even further removed from the original premise.

Started up 343 studios as a replacement for Bungie when Bungie wanted out as opposed to eternally making nothing but Halo. Now 343 makes nothing but Halo, only not as well as Bungie. The game they wouldn't let Bungie make, Destiny, is now the most pre-ordered game yet. Winning?

Disbanded Ensemble Studios, Aces Studio, MS Flight Team, MS Victoria Studio (never released anything) and Carbonated Games. Have in the last several years purchased BigPark (absorbed into MS Game Studios), Twisted Pixel (who's next game was a full blown stinker), Press Play (nothing of note, so basically shuffling deck chairs with this and closing Carbonated).

Also, Black Tusk isn't new. It's Microsoft Vancouver. They just cleaned house and renamed it after Vancouver went years without finishing anything. Black Tusk is doing an admirable job keeping that history alive.

This is just a quick sample of how MS has handled their first parties. Forza is the only new IP they've generated and maintained worth a shit in their entire time as a console first party. Everything else was bought, mismanaged, and typically shuttered.

Buying their way into the industry with the Xbox with Bungie, Lionhead, etc. is one thing. Sure, you need meaningful exclusives and that was the fastest way to get them. They've been in the console business for nearly 13 years now though. The proof is in the pudding. Microsoft has never shown a commitment to developing their own legitimate first party stable. They closed much of what they did start with the Xbox during the X360 generation because Sony's failure to deliver with PS3 allowed them to pick off former exclusives and have a comparable 3rd party library at a lower price, so they weren't needed. The only significant reinvestment they've ever shown in software development was for Kinect, which they've now pulled back on nearly completely as well.

Microsoft brings nothing to this industry other than dump trucks of money. They're in the video game industry for all the wrong reasons. Making and selling video games is a secondary part of the business model and that has been the case from day one. Originally it was a Sony denial tactic. As Sony fell on hard times and the X360 emerged as a successful product they used XBL to turn it into a marketing push where their real customers were advertisers and games were just the gateway to get people in the door looking at all the ads. The XB1's original concept took this to the next level planning to have Kinect effectively mining data from within our homes while we lived around the system. Obviously the blow back was too great to continue that little project, but that was the original intent and Microsoft stated as much during a conference for their advertising partners.

Instead of this (which probably cost them $50M or better), Titanfall (which also likely cost them $50M or better) the stated NFL deal at $400M, and buying the Gears IP from Epic (likely a solid $50-$100M price tag) Microsoft could have funded over a half dozen of the biggest, most expensive AAA exclusives EVER. They gave the NFL more money for a fantasy football app than Take 2/Rockstar spent on Grand Theft Auto 5. Let that sink into your head when you excuse their lack of first party studios as "taking time".

Gospel.

 

[coldone]

Did any other PS owners get the below e-mail this morning from SE and burst out loud laughing?

Square moved DeusEx to iOS.. so wont you buy the next DeusEX when it comes to consoles ? Square published FF-14 on Sony platforms. It doesn't mean Nintendo guys wouldnt buy Bravely Default.

I own Vita, Move and so many thing that Sony abandoned. I dont feel that hurt to go out and buy a PS4 game.

It is a business decision.. not marriage.

 

[RE_Player]

While PlayStation owners should feel annoyed I feel like the PC players should feel justified in their hate. Microsoft is treating the PC like an abused housewife. Every once and awhile mentioning how important the PC is to them and than actively paying publishers to deny the release of a PC version.

 

[KageMaru]

Except it is different. Several MS marketing people - and some of MS's twitter accounts - specifically said this was a permanent exclusive when it quite clearly isn't. MS's PR is a complete clusterfuck when its not being being deceitful and vague with its statements.

Do you have a link to these tweets? They aren't in the OP, so I didn't know about this before. If that's really the case then I agree that they are doing a fucking horrible job communicating again.

 

[Cornbread78]

Square moved DeusEx to iOS.. so wont you buy the next DeusEX when it comes to consoles ? Square published FF-14 on Sony platforms. It doesn't mean Nintendo guys wouldnt buy Bravely Default.

I own Vita, Move and so many thing that Sony abandoned. I dont feel that hurt to go out and buy a PS4 game.

It is a business decision.. not marriage.

Huh? What does that have to do with laughing at the advert? It was funny getting this from them just hours later....

 

[Wiktor]

While PlayStation owners should feel annoyed I feel like the PC players should feel justified in their hate. Microsoft is treating the PC like an abused housewife. Every once and awhile mentioning how important the PC is to them and than actively paying publishers to deny the release of a PC version.

What's disgusting is that no journalist will propably ever call them out on it in interview.

 

[RE_Player]

What's disgusting is that no journalist will propably ever call them out on it in interview.

Yup.

 

[goonergaz]

You'll soon figure out that a lot of people will wait for the inevitable superior PS4 version instead of buying XBO for a 3rd party timed exclusive.
It's not like PS4/PC don't have other games to play while the exclusivity window is in effect.

As a PS4 gamer I guess I'll just have to make do with Uncharted 4

 

[harSon]

Yeah...for starters, people have had issues with third party multiplat exclusives for a long time. In recent years, they've become less and less frequent, since games are too costly, and there was more money to be made selling your game on all platforms.

The distinction here, which is very important (something people don't seem to understand), is that this is a major franchise, and it's a sequel (with the first game having been big and played by the majority of people on other platforms)....

Not that hard to understand why people are upset. I'm totally 100% okay if you don't agree. But at least understand why people are mad. Why people see this as more shady than usual third party multiplat exclusives. Why people see this different then an exclusive new IP. Again, this deal cuts out the majority of the players that played the first game, and is blocking them from continuing the story by cutting off the sequel to the majority of gamers.


But as I said before, if Sony had done this...it would still be scummy. Even though the majority of players that played TR were on Sony Platforms, securing this exclusive would still block out players on 360/X1 and PC who already played the first game, and want to continue the story. So just because Sony has the majority of TR's fan base, it would still be scummy as hell.

EDIT: I've just read Steve Youngblood's reply. It's well thought out and articulate, and I think he makes a lot of great points. I will just say this, I agree that these kind of deals are complex. I agree that there is consumer/emotion vs. company/business (I've argued in the past, that I think this is actually a bad business decision though). Regardless where you fall on this, I don't think it's that hard to understand why fans would be upset that they can't finish a sequel to a series they've started. Apply this situation to a film or TV series, and you can imagine how pissed off the audience would be if half way into something, they are told they can't finish what they started unless they pony up $400.

So is Sony ponying up the funds to gain Bloodborne as an exclusive scummy? It's not a direct sequel, but it's definitely a spiritual successor to Demon's Souls/Dark Souls, and there are a legion of fans on Xbox and PC platforms gained across Dark Souls 1 and 2 that won't be able to play it. Yes, Sony has a hand in the development and funding of the game, but considering the franchise's success and its influence on the industry, it's safe to say that a Demon's Souls/Dark Souls-esque game was in the works regardless of Sony's involvement. The means through which money switches hands is different between Tomb Raider and Bloodborne, but the end result is the same for both. The platform holders effectively purchased exclusive rights to a game, and fans exclusively gaming on competing platforms are adversely effected.

I personally don't see anything wrong with either scenario. I agree 100% with Phil Spencer. The platform holder's duties lie solely with consumers of its products. The fact that fans on competing platforms are adversely effected by it's business decisions should not cross their mind. It's business at the end of the day, but then again, consumers are perfectly in their right to complain. I just disagree with there being some kind of moral code to exclusivity,

 

[mitchman]

Yup.

Jim, JIM! Where are you?

 

[corrosivefrost]

Do you have a link to these tweets? They aren't in the OP, so I didn't know about this before. If that's really the case then I agree that they are doing a fucking horrible job communicating again.

May be a reference to the response to Geoff Keighley's tweet seen here:

 

[benny_a]

May be a reference to the response to Geoff Keighley's tweet seen here:

Not just that. XboxFR on twitter has said it's a permanent exclusive. Maybe someone took a screenshot, because if you do stupid stuff you can just delete them. ;-)

 

[Chitown B]

If only there was this much "outrage" at Sony during the PS2 era when nearly every third party game was kept off the DC Xbox and Gamecube. When even some third party exclusives on the xbox that would have the sequels go to the PS2 with no xbox version of said sequel. Oh yeah i forgot the "PS2 sold a lot so it's ok" excuse.

I wonder how many of the angry people condemning SE and MS right now would be angry and condemning SE and Sony had things gone a different way. MS isn't the only corporation with money, Sony isn't a fucking non profit organisation either last i checked. In fact didn't they recently "moneyhat destiny DLC" for a year?

As an xbox owner i am fairly indifferent to TR being exclusive. I am more looking foward to SO, Scalebound and Phantom Dust nevermind Halo but.i may get it if its good.( I have yet to finish the remaster)

This.

 

[Chitown B]

It's a pretty boilerplate sentiment. It's trying to balance the conflicting goals of both: A) adhering to whatever deal they struck with MS, and B) stressing that the franchise as a whole isn't going MS-exclusive. I'm not saying that it's crafted masterfully by any stretch, but it's about the only thing that can be stated, and something has to be stated. It's not like someone in his position is going to come out and write something like "Fuck you PS fans, I got mine (this is where I drop the mic)."

word. people are getting really pissed off about this for some reason. I don't know why I'm surprised though. The internet has been pretty anti-MS since last E3.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Did any other PS owners get the below e-mail this morning from SE and burst out loud laughing?

"Please do still buy our digital game PLEASE!"

Yeah like im going to do that fuck off SE.

 

[StarBlazers1]

I completely understand that, but if Microsoft is literally not willing to commit to a new IP beyond one installment from one contracted studio why should we trust them about their commitment to the industry long term?

Perception is defined by one's actions. Microsoft has to date been unwilling to backup all their talk about exclusive software in a meaningful, permanent way. I know Sony isn't going to let one bad game sway them from supporting Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog, etc.. Hell, they kept pushing out WipEout games until the sales were damn near non-existent and then made a few more.

Nintendo never leaves us hanging on their core franchises. They have so many that some go on hiatus for extended periods, but they always find their way home again. Despite that my #1 gripe with Nintendo is a failure to deliver new IPs and to make good use of their own back catalog with consistency.

Sony, Microsoft, even Sega before their demise got this. They all committed a large chunk of revenue to maintaining and growing their first party stable. Bailing out on the industry at the first sign of trouble isn't an option for these companies. We see that with Sega, they went 3rd party instead of closing the doors because all their corporate value was tied in their (at the time) awesome first party studios.

What keeps MS in the industry if the Xbox One is a bomb and some new tablet/phone/glasses/prince albert type smart device takes off? Nothing. They'll offload the Xbox brand and their handful of IPs to the highest bidder and walk out for greener pastures.

First party development is a statement. It defines how proactive the first party is to bringing new, unique content to their systems long term and it defines how committed they are to the industry as a whole. Sony was in the console world before Playstation and it will likely be one of the last parts of the company to close the doors if they collapse. Sega is still in games after Dreamcast. Microsoft continues to refuse making a similar commitment. I've been a gamer since Commadore 64 and Apple II, I'm not going anywhere, I'd like to feel the same way about the companies I financially support.

Also, this isn't some kind of company love here. It's a business transaction. When I hire a plumber I care less about your rates today than I do about the likelihood that in five years when a pipe is leaking I can still call you up and you'll be able to fix it. I don't want the guy's third cousin who bought the name off him coming out to fix it. Just like I don't see the appeal to Halo without Bungie, at least as long as 343 is going to approach development as a CoD meets Halo mash-up. I'm not looking for a one-off relationship when I know I'll still be gaming in 20 years. I want someone who can tell me they'll still be there delivering new experiences 20 years later and it's worth getting attached to their IPs and studios now.

I completely get what you're saying and in principle, I agree with it. Prior to the PS2, I even would preach this, but the industry is changed whether you like it or not.
Who has arguably the best and most recognized 1st party right now? Most would say Nintendo right? Well their games perform well and are barely keeping their system afloat.
Last gen, the Wii performed amazingly, but it wasn't completely because of their 1st party games. The novelty of motion control brought in the casual player and family into the videogame marketplace. It was proven to be unsustainable.

The PS3 had arguably the better 1st party lineup for most of the last gen and it couldn't beat the 360 in the US at all. 1st party is great, but it can only get you so far.

Back in the day, Video games systems were about games. This last gen showed how much money could be made from a system which provided services. Microsoft has always been about services and realized that they weren't as great nurturing studios as the other guys and maybe couldn't compete. However, the Xbox live service was printing money for them and it still is. the consumer demands more and more services. They watch Netflix and Hulu, stream music, Play content through their networks, browse the web, and watch TV. Hell, PS3 wouldn't have had the adoption rate if it weren't the fact that the Bluray player in it was one of the best on the market at the time of it's launch.

Microsoft introduced a profitable ecosystem which Sony has had to mimic and in some ways(PS+) even better it. Nintendo is still way behind and they are struggling. It's now about subscriptions and providing content in addition to the games. Sony, Nintendo and MS do it different ways.

Nintendo relies on its 1st party only. 3rd party isn't really a driver for their systems

Sony has a good mix and has a good stable amount of 1st and 2nd party studios as well as an improving service based console experience.

Microsoft prefers to let the established game studios design and develop their 1st and 2nd party games for them exclusively. Their XBL service is robust and makes them a ton of money.

None of these philosophies are "wrong". They may not gel with your beliefs, but they are all profitable in their own way.

 

[Spazznid]

--HERE BE TRUTHS--

 

[cormack12]

Won't requote Dreks post but damn, it was excellent.

I'm a bit bummed because I enjoyed the reboot quite a lot and was looking forward to the inevitable improvements after listening to player feedback. However, realistically I'm just expecting UC4 to release around the same time to plug the gap on the Sony side.

Also, cross gen? Turns me off immediately. Going to be crippled compared to games that are being released at the same time.

 

[Killing_Joke]

Holy shit 75 pages.

This has been MS's MO since forever. Weak first party (in terms of game releases) with a big hat full of cash. Just look at their so called "superior" launch lineup. DR3 and Ryse already ported to PC. Titanfall was on PC day one.Timed exclusives aren't going to help anyone anymore. Let 3rd party be 3rd party. Put your time and money on first party instead. That's how it should always be.

 

[TalonJH]

If only there was this much "outrage" at Sony during the PS2 era when nearly every third party game was kept off the DC Xbox and Gamecube. When even some third party exclusives on the xbox that would have the sequels go to the PS2 with no xbox version of said sequel. Oh yeah i forgot the "PS2 sold a lot so it's ok" excuse.

I wonder how many of the angry people condemning SE and MS right now would be angry and condemning SE and Sony had things gone a different way. MS isn't the only corporation with money, Sony isn't a fucking non profit organisation either last i checked. In fact didn't they recently "moneyhat destiny DLC" for a year?

As an xbox owner i am fairly indifferent to TR being exclusive. I am more looking foward to SO, Scalebound and Phantom Dust nevermind Halo but.i may get it if its good.( I have yet to finish the remaster)

I can't speak for everyone and understand that If it was exclusive to XB1, I would just buy it there. You're not getting that the problem isn't that it's exclusive. That's why you didn't get this reaction from Scalebound, Phantom Dust or Sunset Overdrive. The vitriol comes from them releasing a multiplatform Reboot, getting everyone invested and then narrowing the down to one platform for the sequel.

Think of it like this. Imagine reading a book for three chapters, becoming invested in the characters, and by looking at the remaining pages you can tell that there is more story. But upon turning to chapter 3 you realize the rest of the story is in another language that you don't understand and will never be released in your language. Now if that entire book was in that second language the whole time, you wouldn't really care. You may wish that one day that it would be translated but you would understand that the story is at home in that language and any translation would be appreciated.

Now, the degree of hate going around is unnecessary but you're angle on this is incorrect. How would you feel if in order to finish Halo or Mass Effect, you would have to by a Kindle TV or PS4 because it was no longer made on Xbox. There is nothing wrong with exclusive games. If the first Tomb Raider reboot was exclusive to Xbox 360, the sequel being exclusive to Xbox would not be a problem

 

[Superflat]

I can't speak for everyone and understand that If it was exclusive to XB1, I would just buy it there. You're not getting that the problem isn't that it's exclusive. That's why you didn't get this reaction from Scalebound, Phantom Dust or Sunset Overdrive. The vitriol comes from them releasing a multiplatform Reboot, getting everyone invested and then narrowing the down to one platform for the sequel.

Yup.

 

[dose]

Do you have a link to these tweets? They aren't in the OP, so I didn't know about this before. If that's really the case then I agree that they are doing a fucking horrible job communicating again.

May be a reference to the response to Geoff Keighley's tweet seen here:

Yeh, that was one of them, plus MS's French twitter posted

Rise of the #TombRaider sera une exclu définitive

(see here http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125164553&postcount=7121 )
The tweet is no longer there btw lol.

 

[Thrakier]

I'm guessing at this point MS already wishes that they didn't do this.

I love it.

 

[Chobel]

So is Sony ponying up the funds to gain Bloodborne as an exclusive scummy? It's not a direct sequel, but it's definitely a spiritual successor to Demon's Souls/Dark Souls, and there are a legion of fans on Xbox and PC platforms gained across Dark Souls 1 and 2 that won't be able to play it. Yes, Sony has a hand in the development and funding of the game, but considering the franchise's success and its influence on the industry, it's safe to say that a Demon's Souls/Dark Souls-esque game was in the works regardless of Sony's involvement. The means through which money switches hands is different between Tomb Raider and Bloodborne, but the end result is the same for both. The platform holders effectively purchased exclusive rights to a game, and fans exclusively gaming on competing platforms are adversely effected.

I personally don't see anything wrong with either scenario. I agree 100% with Phil Spencer. The platform holder's duties lie solely with consumers of its products. The fact that fans on competing platforms are adversely effected by it's business decisions should not cross their mind. It's business at the end of the day, but then again, consumers are perfectly in their right to complain. I just disagree with there being some kind of moral code to exclusivity,

And yet we still have stupid comparisons to Bloodborne... Jesus People it's not the same thing.
Sony funded Bloodborne which otherwise wouldn't exist, Sony truly brought the game to their fans.
MS chose a game which was 100% coming To xbox, and payed money to delay all the other versions.

it's safe to say that a Demon's Souls/Dark Souls-esque game was in the works regardless of Sony's involvement.

No, it's not safe to say that. Prove it.

 

[KageMaru]

Yeh, that was one of them, plus MS's French twitter posted

(see here http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125164553&postcount=7121 )
The tweet is no longer there btw lol.

I saw the pic of Aaron's tweet but didn't realize he was disputing the exclusive deal being temporary, I couldn't see his link for context. Now that I know, plus that other tweet, I agree now that their messaging surrounding this deal is embarrassing to say least. Thanks.

 

[woen]

Sony makes LBP3: Great company they keep supporting their console and install base. MS is terrible they abandon the user base.

MS gets Tombraider on 360: Geesh. They are idiots and why are they supporting old consoles. Look at Sony they have ported all the PS3 games from Journey to Last of US to PS4

There is no way for MS to win. If you dont support your console.. you are betrayer. If you support your console .. you are a idiot.

Wrong and wrong

LBP3 is 2014 and won't need to use the full PS4 hardware, will run great on PS3 in a transition between the 2 gens

TR2 is 2015, marketed as the best/beautiful ever, so it needs all he power of the XBO, X360 version will be terrible (sub-HD/20-25fps?), and end of the 2015 will be the end of the transition (which means bad sales on 360 too)

Microsoft abandoned 360 2 years ago, you won't make anyone think this a good strategy for them or for consumers

You're off-topic with TLOU and Journey

 

[Huggers]

I'm guessing at this point MS already wishes that they didn't do this.

I love it.

It's gone from nice little purchase to PR disaster. They shouldn't have worded it ambiguously and all of this could have been avoided. People don't like being lied to

And yet we still have stupid comparisons to Bloodborne... Jesus People it's not the same thing.
Sony funded Bloodborne which otherwise wouldn't exist, Sony truly brought the game to their fans.
MS chose a game which was 100% coming To xbox, and payed money to delay all the other versions.



No, it's not safe to say that. Prove it.

Haha I wonder how many times someone has come in this thread with 'BUT BLOODBORNE'.

 

[Drek]

None of these philosophies are "wrong". They may not gel with your beliefs, but they are all profitable in their own way.

None of them are wrong for the companies executing them if they're turning a profit, sure. But again, I'm not in love with any of these companies. If I own stock in them it is entirely a coincidence based on my 401k. I don't care about their bottom line. So for me, the gamer, Microsoft's unwillingness to invest in provocative new content is unarguably "wrong" for my interests.

That's my point. Did MS and SE commit a crime here? Of course not. They think this is the best financial move for both of them. That's great. What I'm saying is that as gamers we have a responsibility to our own interests just like they do to theirs. When a company persistently chooses a path to compete with Sony, Nintendo, etc. that only puts up arbitrary barriers between gamers and games because reasons we have every right to push back against it.

This isn't Xbox 180 DRM or whatever the kids are calling it now, but it is inherently anti-consumer. They're disadvantaging a large swath of people they WANT to buy their games in order to tempt them into buying their games. That is the wrong way to court customers, but it has been MS' strategy for most of their time in the industry. That is a problem. As a gamer I'm done supporting it.

The responsibility of the first parties as it pertains to their primary customers (gamers) is to offer us new and compelling experiences thanks to the additional revenue we're granting them by buying the system, accessories, and 3rd party games. Otherwise we could all just game on a nice PC and play 70% of the same games anyhow.

Nintendo gets this. Very few touch on their core genres and none with the consistent quality Nintendo delivers.

Sony has started to understand this, delivering a ton of compelling PSN offerings and a growing library of compelling first party funded projects. This is why Bloodborne doesn't piss me off. Sony funded the first Demon's Souls, so the Souls games wouldn't even exist without them. They're now funding a new direction for that sub-genre themselves once again, putting their money behind a project that is attempting to innovate. Meanwhile they have a strong first party core constantly pushing out new meaningful exclusive content in IPs that they own and work hard to grow.

Microsoft needs to do the same if they really care about core gamers supporting their platforms. Otherwise they shouldn't be at all surprised when gamers are disinterested in their system and irritated by their continued tactic of buying out future multi-plats in order to create the pretense of being competitive on exclusive titles.

I really liked some of the unique Xbox games that came out during it's life. I have zero faith that MS will find similar unique titles for the Xbox One. Not because they can't, but because they've so perverted their business model that making good unique games for gamers isn't something they look to engage in beyond paying lip service.

 

[Chobel]

If only there was this much "outrage" at Sony during the PS2 era when nearly every third party game was kept off the DC Xbox and Gamecube. When even some third party exclusives on the xbox that would have the sequels go to the PS2 with no xbox version of said sequel. Oh yeah i forgot the "PS2 sold a lot so it's ok" excuse.

I wonder how many of the angry people condemning SE and MS right now would be angry and condemning SE and Sony had things gone a different way. MS isn't the only corporation with money, Sony isn't a fucking non profit organisation either last i checked. In fact didn't they recently "moneyhat destiny DLC" for a year?

As an xbox owner i am fairly indifferent to TR being exclusive. I am more looking foward to SO, Scalebound and Phantom Dust nevermind Halo but.i may get it if its good.( I have yet to finish the remaster)

Hey look, someone with persecution complex. I know you hate those words, but it describes exactly your comment.

You make it look like everyone here are Sony fans hating MS because it's MS, and this thread is just "let's hate MS" thread, that's bullshit.

If you see hypocrisy in some posts, quote them, and stop making fucking generalization that everyone here are hypocrites.

 

[LycanXIII]

Tomb Raider's Xbox exclusivity likely means more sales, higher profits - Polygon

BUT THEY’RE LOSING SALES… RIGHT?
Maybe not. You’re going to hear from the players who only own the PlayStation 4, because they have the most to lose from this deal. They don’t get to play the game until it’s released on their platform. But that number is smaller than you think, as many gamers buy both consoles.

Let’s assume a market of 100 people, because the math is easy. Maybe 25 people will only own the Xbox One. Maybe 25 people will only own the PlayStation 4. It’s also very possible that 50 of those people own both consoles. "So it’s not that they’re cutting off half their market, they may only be cutting off 25 percent," Zatkin said.

The number of lost sales is only about the customers who only own the PS4, and that number is smaller than you think once you take into account customers who own both systems.

A bunch of ifs and butts, with no mention of PC. Only comparing Xbox and PS sales.

 

[bananafactory]

Tomb Raider's Xbox exclusivity likely means more sales, higher profits - Polygon

I can't read Polygon since it's blocked at work - can someone tell me what possible reasoning they are using for this statement?

 

[RE_Player]

Tomb Raider's Xbox exclusivity likely means more sales, higher profits - Polygon

Zero mention of how this also affects the PC. Only talks about the consoles. Ben Kuchera is trolling.

 

[bishoptl]

So is Sony ponying up the funds to gain Bloodborne as an exclusive scummy? It's not a direct sequel, but it's definitely a spiritual successor to Demon's Souls/Dark Souls, and there are a legion of fans on Xbox and PC platforms gained across Dark Souls 1 and 2 that won't be able to play it. Yes, Sony has a hand in the development and funding of the game, but considering the franchise's success and its influence on the industry, it's safe to say that a Demon's Souls/Dark Souls-esque game was in the works regardless of Sony's involvement. The means through which money switches hands is different between Tomb Raider and Bloodborne, but the end result is the same for both. The platform holders effectively purchased exclusive rights to a game, and fans exclusively gaming on competing platforms are adversely effected.

Utter nonsense. This false equivalency was pretty amusing at first - almost as good as the guy claiming that this deal now allows for Kinect support - but it's tired now.

 

[Pocky4Th3Win]

Funny thing is that MS made a deal with a company that backs out of exclusive deals regularly. FF13 and FFv13(FF15 now) were both originally announced as PS3 exclusive.

Wonder if they will keep this deal if the PS4 continues to widen its lead and by holiday 2015 its substantially ahead of the XB1.

 

[Some Nobody]

Instead of this (which probably cost them $50M or better), Titanfall (which also likely cost them $50M or better) the stated NFL deal at $400M, and buying the Gears IP from Epic (likely a solid $50-$100M price tag) Microsoft could have funded over a half dozen of the biggest, most expensive AAA exclusives EVER. They gave the NFL more money for a fantasy football app than Take 2/Rockstar spent on Grand Theft Auto 5. Let that sink into your head when you excuse their lack of first party studios as "taking time".

*reads, winces* The shit that makes your soul burn slow.

As a side note, this explains why in 13 years the only games they've ever had that I wanted to play were like...Lost Odyssey and Shenmue II. Basically some third party publishers who were mad at Sony. They've got a few games lately but even those are just the result of moneyhats. Wow.

 

[Camp Freddie]

If you read the interview and the statements, they both imply a permanent exclusive.

"coming holiday 2015" is surrounded by commas in the press release, indicating that it is separate information.

Phil Spencer talks about the IP being for a duration, not the game. He is trying to pacify the interviewer by saying that they haven't permanently bought the Tomb Raider IP like they bought the Halo IP.

Now maybe it is a "timed exclusive", but he has not said that.

It's a dick move, excecuted in the most dickish way possible.

 

[TeRey09]

Very interesting article from Ben Kuchera. Maybe I picked the wrong excerpt. Tomb Raider's Xbox exclusivity likely means more sales, higher profits

Why would the business people say yes to this deal? Because Square Enix thinks they're going to make more money from it, and it’s very possible they’re going to sell more units of the game. Claiming otherwise is ignorant of the realities of development and the business of exclusives.

 

[Alcibiades]

If only there was this much "outrage" at Sony during the PS2 era when nearly every third party game was kept off the DC Xbox and Gamecube. When even some third party exclusives on the xbox that would have the sequels go to the PS2 with no xbox version of said sequel. Oh yeah i forgot the "PS2 sold a lot so it's ok" excuse.

I wonder how many of the angry people condemning SE and MS right now would be angry and condemning SE and Sony had things gone a different way. MS isn't the only corporation with money, Sony isn't a fucking non profit organisation either last i checked. In fact didn't they recently "moneyhat destiny DLC" for a year?

As an xbox owner i am fairly indifferent to TR being exclusive. I am more looking foward to SO, Scalebound and Phantom Dust nevermind Halo but.i may get it if its good.( I have yet to finish the remaster)

Yeah, I wonder if there was this much outrage when Sony money-hatted Rockstar back in the day to make GTA Vice City exclusive. My guess is not.

Sony and Microsoft are both greedy corporations (and hey Nintendo too) that would do anything in their power to beat the competition and make their products and brands a success. They all "care" about gamers insofar as they are there to use their disposable income on their videogame consoles and ecosystems.

Both would gobble up major third party exclusives at the "expense" of competitor's audiences if they could. For a number of reasons neither can do this much anymore but on occasion something like this happens. I don't necessarily agree with the practice but consider that there was a time when companies could use their muscle and influence to get dozens of "AAA" exclusives (Nintendo NES era, Sony PS2 era, etc...). Hard to be outraged about a single timed exclusive that will be available day one on XBox 360 which has a userbase the dwarfs the combined PS4/XBox One. And eventually this will be available to everyone (except Nintendo :/).

Is it sleazy? Yeah, and no more than many actions taken by Sony and Nintendo.

Would there really be this much outrage on here if it had been Sony making the announcement instead of Microsoft? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[benny_a]

Yeah, I wonder if there was this much outrage when Sony money-hatted Rockstar back in the day to make GTA Vice City exclusive. My guess is not.

Yeah, the forum that is famous for "THE AGE OF SONY IS DONE" never criticized Sony.

You guys just don't get it. Shitty practices get called out. It's always been this way on GAF.
Microsoft is currently the king of the hill of shit mountain so they get called out the most.

 

[licktheenvelope]

Sure you don't build a first party stable overnight, but in MS' case when they hell are they going to start?

Lets recap:
Started Turn 10, who went on to make Forza, the one truly original IP from Microsoft to ever succeed.

Bought Bungie when Halo was months from release, had them port it to Xbox, cancelling a much hyped PC version which did later arrive, not to mention the Mac version Bungie had been promising.

Purchased FASA as part of another acquisition in 1999. After doing very little with the Shadowrun and MechWarrior IPs on the Xbox family of consoles closes FASA in 2007, licences out all their worthwhile IPs to small studios.

Bought Rare in 2002, since they have mined the Perfect Dark, Banjo, and Conker IPs with zero success, made one new mascot IP for Xbox 360's launch that never got a follow up despite being a pretty solid (kid friendly) game (Kameo, FYI). Have since been largely relegated to Kinect titles, weren't even the ones who made the Killer Instinct reboot.

Purchased Lionhead in 2006. Proceeded to have them make nothing but Fable games, including a crappy Kinect Fable game. Stopped making PC versions entirely, games progressively got further and further away from the original concept for Fable. A large number of staff has been laid off over the past two years, another large group up and left with Molyneaux, which if it was anything like his departure from Bullfrog to found Lionhead constituted his core staff he's had everywhere (i.e. the real talent in the studio). Making yet another Fable game that is even further removed from the original premise.

Started up 343 studios as a replacement for Bungie when Bungie wanted out as opposed to eternally making nothing but Halo. Now 343 makes nothing but Halo, only not as well as Bungie. The game they wouldn't let Bungie make, Destiny, is now the most pre-ordered game yet. Winning?

Disbanded Ensemble Studios, Aces Studio, MS Flight Team, MS Victoria Studio (never released anything) and Carbonated Games. Have in the last several years purchased BigPark (absorbed into MS Game Studios), Twisted Pixel (who's next game was a full blown stinker), Press Play (nothing of note, so basically shuffling deck chairs with this and closing Carbonated).

Also, Black Tusk isn't new. It's Microsoft Vancouver. They just cleaned house and renamed it after Vancouver went years without finishing anything. Black Tusk is doing an admirable job keeping that history alive.

This is just a quick sample of how MS has handled their first parties. Forza is the only new IP they've generated and maintained worth a shit in their entire time as a console first party. Everything else was bought, mismanaged, and typically shuttered.

Buying their way into the industry with the Xbox with Bungie, Lionhead, etc. is one thing. Sure, you need meaningful exclusives and that was the fastest way to get them. They've been in the console business for nearly 13 years now though. The proof is in the pudding. Microsoft has never shown a commitment to developing their own legitimate first party stable. They closed much of what they did start with the Xbox during the X360 generation because Sony's failure to deliver with PS3 allowed them to pick off former exclusives and have a comparable 3rd party library at a lower price, so they weren't needed. The only significant reinvestment they've ever shown in software development was for Kinect, which they've now pulled back on nearly completely as well.

Microsoft brings nothing to this industry other than dump trucks of money. They're in the video game industry for all the wrong reasons. Making and selling video games is a secondary part of the business model and that has been the case from day one. Originally it was a Sony denial tactic. As Sony fell on hard times and the X360 emerged as a successful product they used XBL to turn it into a marketing push where their real customers were advertisers and games were just the gateway to get people in the door looking at all the ads. The XB1's original concept took this to the next level planning to have Kinect effectively mining data from within our homes while we lived around the system. Obviously the blow back was too great to continue that little project, but that was the original intent and Microsoft stated as much during a conference for their advertising partners.

Instead of this (which probably cost them $50M or better), Titanfall (which also likely cost them $50M or better) the stated NFL deal at $400M, and buying the Gears IP from Epic (likely a solid $50-$100M price tag) Microsoft could have funded over a half dozen of the biggest, most expensive AAA exclusives EVER. They gave the NFL more money for a fantasy football app than Take 2/Rockstar spent on Grand Theft Auto 5. Let that sink into your head when you excuse their lack of first party studios as "taking time".

Dem truths...

 

[TheOMan]

Tomb Raider's Xbox exclusivity likely means more sales, higher profits - Polygon



A bunch of ifs and butts, with no mention of PC. Only comparing Xbox and PS sales.

That...is some incredible logic. Really, really poor, but incredible logic. Expose game to fewer people, expect more sales.

Buh?

 

[bishoptl]

Yeah, the forum that is famous for "THE AGE OF SONY IS DONE" never criticized Sony.

You guys just don't get it. Shitty practices get called out. It's always been this way on GAF.
Microsoft is currently the king of the hill of shit mountain so they get called out the most.

/thread

 

[GamerJM]

Sure you don't build a first party stable overnight, but in MS' case when they hell are they going to start?

Lets recap:
Started Turn 10, who went on to make Forza, the one truly original IP from Microsoft to ever succeed.

Bought Bungie when Halo was months from release, had them port it to Xbox, cancelling a much hyped PC version which did later arrive, not to mention the Mac version Bungie had been promising.

Purchased FASA as part of another acquisition in 1999. After doing very little with the Shadowrun and MechWarrior IPs on the Xbox family of consoles closes FASA in 2007, licences out all their worthwhile IPs to small studios.

Bought Rare in 2002, since they have mined the Perfect Dark, Banjo, and Conker IPs with zero success, made one new mascot IP for Xbox 360's launch that never got a follow up despite being a pretty solid (kid friendly) game (Kameo, FYI). Have since been largely relegated to Kinect titles, weren't even the ones who made the Killer Instinct reboot.

Purchased Lionhead in 2006. Proceeded to have them make nothing but Fable games, including a crappy Kinect Fable game. Stopped making PC versions entirely, games progressively got further and further away from the original concept for Fable. A large number of staff has been laid off over the past two years, another large group up and left with Molyneaux, which if it was anything like his departure from Bullfrog to found Lionhead constituted his core staff he's had everywhere (i.e. the real talent in the studio). Making yet another Fable game that is even further removed from the original premise.

Started up 343 studios as a replacement for Bungie when Bungie wanted out as opposed to eternally making nothing but Halo. Now 343 makes nothing but Halo, only not as well as Bungie. The game they wouldn't let Bungie make, Destiny, is now the most pre-ordered game yet. Winning?

Disbanded Ensemble Studios, Aces Studio, MS Flight Team, MS Victoria Studio (never released anything) and Carbonated Games. Have in the last several years purchased BigPark (absorbed into MS Game Studios), Twisted Pixel (who's next game was a full blown stinker), Press Play (nothing of note, so basically shuffling deck chairs with this and closing Carbonated).

Also, Black Tusk isn't new. It's Microsoft Vancouver. They just cleaned house and renamed it after Vancouver went years without finishing anything. Black Tusk is doing an admirable job keeping that history alive.

This is just a quick sample of how MS has handled their first parties. Forza is the only new IP they've generated and maintained worth a shit in their entire time as a console first party. Everything else was bought, mismanaged, and typically shuttered.

Buying their way into the industry with the Xbox with Bungie, Lionhead, etc. is one thing. Sure, you need meaningful exclusives and that was the fastest way to get them. They've been in the console business for nearly 13 years now though. The proof is in the pudding. Microsoft has never shown a commitment to developing their own legitimate first party stable. They closed much of what they did start with the Xbox during the X360 generation because Sony's failure to deliver with PS3 allowed them to pick off former exclusives and have a comparable 3rd party library at a lower price, so they weren't needed. The only significant reinvestment they've ever shown in software development was for Kinect, which they've now pulled back on nearly completely as well.

Microsoft brings nothing to this industry other than dump trucks of money. They're in the video game industry for all the wrong reasons. Making and selling video games is a secondary part of the business model and that has been the case from day one. Originally it was a Sony denial tactic. As Sony fell on hard times and the X360 emerged as a successful product they used XBL to turn it into a marketing push where their real customers were advertisers and games were just the gateway to get people in the door looking at all the ads. The XB1's original concept took this to the next level planning to have Kinect effectively mining data from within our homes while we lived around the system. Obviously the blow back was too great to continue that little project, but that was the original intent and Microsoft stated as much during a conference for their advertising partners.

Instead of this (which probably cost them $50M or better), Titanfall (which also likely cost them $50M or better) the stated NFL deal at $400M, and buying the Gears IP from Epic (likely a solid $50-$100M price tag) Microsoft could have funded over a half dozen of the biggest, most expensive AAA exclusives EVER. They gave the NFL more money for a fantasy football app than Take 2/Rockstar spent on Grand Theft Auto 5. Let that sink into your head when you excuse their lack of first party studios as "taking time".

You know, I clicked on this topic expecting a bunch of crazy fans on both sides of the spectrum with few if any well thought-out arguments but this is actually really solidly constructed. I don't necessarily dislike Microsoft's presence in the industry and I don't really think "buying" everything about your console is necessarily the worst thing ever, but I still agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed here.

I still think anyone who's seriously frustrated about this needs to let it go though. It's only a timed exclusive anyways. All of this "buying of exclusives," might seem scummy on MS' part, and it is, and they deserve to get called out on it, but on a personal level I can't really see this affecting most people a great deal. In general I just think all console war stuff is kinda BS though.