• 125 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for theterriblefamiliar
#51 Edited by TheTerribleFamiliar (209 posts) -

@gaggle64 said:

This is why dedicated consoles are going to die.

Yes. They are just doing terribly. Look at how slow sales of both the PS4 and Xbox One have been. How will they ever recover?

I've been hearing the same tired stories about the rise of the PC master race for 25 years. Yes, I have.

Avatar image for striderno9
#52 Posted by StriderNo9 (1351 posts) -

I'm all for this! Not weirder Patrick, better! I own both consoles, this reminds me of the 16 bit days :)

Avatar image for csl316
#53 Posted by csl316 (14959 posts) -

I'm more than fine with developers focusing on maximizing the strengths of a single platform.

It's not as different as 16-bit and PS/N64, but after seeing stuff like Uncharted 3 on PS3 I feel like there's something to be said for focus.

Avatar image for meptron
#54 Edited by Meptron (1320 posts) -

Hopefully it does find it's way to the ps4. Though I might not be interested in it by the time it does.

Avatar image for benmo316
#55 Posted by Benmo316 (1091 posts) -
Avatar image for rafaelfc
#56 Posted by Rafaelfc (2243 posts) -

Too bad for them. I'll be happy playing Uncharted, RIP Lara!

Avatar image for cooljammer00
#57 Posted by cooljammer00 (3089 posts) -

The wording is still so damn vague that I expect we'll be seeing Rise of the Tomb Raider GOTY Edition on PC and/or Sony platforms soon enough. If MS really had ROTTR locked up, they'd be shouting it from the heavens right now during the holiday season. Instead, they're just saying more confusing stuff and hoping no one asks questions.

Avatar image for sethshandor
#58 Posted by sethshandor (159 posts) -

Bummer, I really liked that last one but I'm not buying an XBox for Tomb Raider... while I will buy a PS4 for Uncharted.

I'm not messing with PC games, never have. Every time I hear the guys on the podcast talk about how much easier gaming on PC has become, I kinda laugh because within the same pod they usually have also spent a bunch of time talking about some weird PC quirk or setup bullshit. Yes, it has gotten easier, but still not that easy. I could figure it out, but have neither the time or the desire to do so.

Avatar image for haruko
#59 Edited by Haruko (567 posts) -
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for achoyq
#60 Posted by achoyq (145 posts) -

I'd play TR over Street Fighter. Good for Xbox owners I guess. Also, PC please!

Avatar image for avenlaya
#61 Posted by avenlaya (133 posts) -

I think this is really a brilliant move by SE really... They get money from microsoft for making it a "exclusive". They don't have to spend money on Publishing it to Xbox, AND by the sounds of it, they can add it to PC and PS4 later if they find a good audience on the Xbox..

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
#62 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (7538 posts) -

Whatever....

Still if 'I was ever going to play it' that playing will be elsewhere, it certainly won't be on Xbox One.

Well played Microsoft, well played indeed.

Avatar image for almightyboob
#63 Posted by AlmightyBoob (99 posts) -

Squeenix has straight up come out and said the exclusivity deal has a time limit and Microsoft has said it's exclusive for Holiday 2015. It's coming to PC and PS4 after that

Avatar image for dezvous
#64 Edited by dezvous (660 posts) -

@wsowen02 said:

So absolutely nothing has changed? Good to know.

Right? I don't understand what has changed except that someone spoke about it again. Square Enix has already said it's a timed exclusivity deal correct? Nothing being said here is contradictory to that correct?

Avatar image for forteexe21
#65 Posted by forteexe21 (2026 posts) -

Why does this matter when they already admitted its timed exclusive?

Avatar image for brendan
#67 Posted by Brendan (9212 posts) -

Not a big deal either way. If it sells well enough Microsoft will move some consoles and make a cut of the PC and Ps4 sales when the timed exclusivity comes out, or at least curbs some of the cost of paying for all the marketing. For the gamers it means everyone'll eventually be able to play and have a good time with the game if it delivers on expectations.

For myself, I'll be getting an Xbox at some point during this generation so it's doubly a moot point for me.

Avatar image for wiqidbritt
#68 Posted by WiqidBritt (600 posts) -

@somejerk said:

Street Fighter V would not have been in production right now without Sony picking it up, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Titanfall were being made for everything until Microsoft intervened, and Infinite Undiscovery while silly at first glance is a better title than Rise of the * once you get down to it.

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that SF5 wouldn't be in production without Sony's help considering that just a few months ago Ono said they were looking into developing the game for PS4 AND Xbox One. Also considering the sheer amount of money Capcom spends on the Capcom Cup and other SF4 tournaments every year it's unlikely they would refuse to bring Street Fighter to the new generation.

The only reason it doesn't piss you off is because Adam Boyes and John Drake work for Sony are are likely the ones most responsible for the exclusive deal.

Avatar image for yukoasho
#69 Posted by yukoasho (2248 posts) -

Interesting MS is pushing so hard for a TR game, and one that's only a timed exclusive. TR isn't going to sell millions of systems, certainly not the way SFV will. Microsoft NEEDS to make its own games what aren't Halo or Forza again. Nintendo and Sony have shown the value or having a diverse first party offering, and MS needs to get on the bandwagon too.

Avatar image for treetrunk
#70 Posted by TreeTrunk (616 posts) -

Tomb Raider seems to be the competitor to Uncharted they've always wanted.

Avatar image for dizzyhippos
#71 Posted by Dizzyhippos (4629 posts) -

@dezvous said:

@wsowen02 said:

So absolutely nothing has changed? Good to know.

Right? I don't understand what has changed except that someone spoke about it again. Square Enix has already said it's a timed exclusivity deal correct? Nothing being said here is contradictory to that correct?

This is supposed to be them "hitting back" over the SFV announcement. Though I dont know in what universe Tomb Raider is on the level of street fighter.

Avatar image for dartastic
#72 Posted by Dartastic (18 posts) -

@mageboysa: Are you kidding? If Microsoft is publishing the damn game, why would they publish it on PS4? You'll still probably be able to get it on PC, but... come on man. Think.

Avatar image for privodotmenit
#73 Edited by PrivodOtmenit (553 posts) -

Fine by me. There are very few games I'd buy a console for and Tomb Raider is not close to being one of them. Played enough Uncharted already, I feel soured on Uncharted 4 as playing the first three feels like enough of that style of game for me.

Avatar image for ravelle
#74 Posted by Ravelle (3305 posts) -

@corevi said:

Rise of the Tomb Raider is still the dumbest name for a videogame I've ever heard.

Stonkers is a less embarrassing name.

How silly the name is, they should have named the first game that.

Avatar image for rvone
#75 Posted by RVonE (5009 posts) -

Why does this matter when they already admitted its timed exclusive?

They didn't.

Avatar image for corvak
#76 Posted by Corvak (1968 posts) -

Ugh, I really hate third party exclusives. Even when you own every console they still plain suck.

As someone who also owns all of them - I agree.

Now when talking online about Street Fighter V or Rise of the Tomb Raider will inevitably lead to console war scuttlebutt. :<

Avatar image for thatdutchguy
#77 Edited by thatdutchguy (1301 posts) -

Why would you want to play Tomb Raider if you can get Uncharted 4 ?

Avatar image for takahashiro
#79 Posted by Takahashiro (48 posts) -

Microsoft just really wants to have their own uncharted franchise, even if it's only a timed exclusive.^^ Well I have no problems waiting for the ps4 version.

Avatar image for dedbeet
#80 Edited by DedBeet (700 posts) -

Really didn't see this coming, however since Sony has Uncharted, Tomb Raider feels like a franchise they can do without. If you take this announcement combined with the FFVII rope-a-dope Squenix did at PSX and it looks like Squenix is giving the finger to Sony (I don't really believe this, I just think it's a funny coincidence). This is going to be the weirdest console generation.

Oh, and stop with the "buy a pc" crap. I've built many pc's over the years and it's something I just don't want to do anymore. I like the relatively trouble free aspect of console gaming way more than I care about the shiniest graphics. Plus, maintaining a Windows pc is one of my least favorite things in the world.

Avatar image for humanity
#81 Posted by Humanity (18731 posts) -

@thatdutchguy: cause Tomb Raider was a much more diverse and interesting game than any of the Uncharted releases. The platforming wasn't automatic and upgrades helped keep the gameplay feeling fresh.

Also Patrick is nuts thinking that there is some moral chasm between what Sony is doing and what Microsoft did. Seeing how they're publishing the game it's basically the exact same thing - except MS won't keep it locked up forever as Sony tends to do.

Avatar image for rvone
#83 Posted by RVonE (5009 posts) -

@humanity said:

@thatdutchguy: cause Tomb Raider was a much more diverse and interesting game than any of the Uncharted releases. The platforming wasn't automatic and upgrades helped keep the gameplay feeling fresh.

Absolutely, I only wish the upgrade paths weren't linear. I really want them to make me choose in the next game.

Avatar image for slowbreakdown
#84 Posted by slowbreakdown (31 posts) -

Third party exclusives have returned to help usher in the oncoming apocalypse. But seriously, just put every game everywhere. Impossible? Yes. Illogical? Probably. But man it would be a hell of a lot less confusing.

Avatar image for mjhealy
#85 Posted by MjHealy (2008 posts) -

What is deeply involved @patrickklepek ? Sending a single engineer to Crystal Dyamics over to make sure the game reaches the much fabled 1080p? Sending a batch of sandwiches in crunch time? You're giving too much credit to Microsoft on publishing a game. That's not deeply involved but par for course on any type of exclusive publishing deals.

While I'm sure there are producers who's roles are not particularly key when the game is finished, the publishing aspect is crucial simply considering that Microsoft are funding the game. Left on its on own terms with Square Enix, it is likely this game would not have existed in the first place, or so the story goes.

Avatar image for forteexe21
#86 Edited by forteexe21 (2026 posts) -
Avatar image for extomar
#87 Posted by EXTomar (5047 posts) -
@wsowen02 said:

So absolutely nothing has changed? Good to know.

Do you mean nothing has changed from when Microsoft flubbed the original announcement of the game causing a raging crap-storm? I suppose that is true.

Avatar image for caesius6
#88 Edited by caesius6 (260 posts) -

@somejerk: Since when was Titanfall ever confirmed for other platforms? It was revealed as an Xbox/PC game since it was shown at E3.

Avatar image for caesius6
#89 Posted by caesius6 (260 posts) -

@eaxis: Hopefully Uncharted has something more than pretty graphics next year as well. We shall see when both are released. They both sound / look pretty promising though.

Avatar image for snail
#90 Posted by Snail (8908 posts) -

Used to be Sony felt they needed a Tomb Raider clone, so they made Uncharted.

Now Microsoft feels they need an Uncharted clone, so they got Tomb Raider.

Avatar image for rvone
#91 Posted by RVonE (5009 posts) -

Yes, this was in Patrick's article as well, but did you read the actual wording instead of the headline? He says "Yes, the deal has a duration. I didn't buy it. I don't own the franchise." What does that even mean?

In other stories we see the same narrative in which Microsoft keeps distinguishing between the current game and the franchise. Given the fact that they're being this opaque still means that it can go either way: (1) this game will make its way to PC eventually, or (2) the sequel to Rise of the Tomb Raider hasn't been secured by Microsoft yet (because the "don't own the franchise") meaning they just aren't in the position to make claims regarding that game.

And to the people pointing out Mass Effect, yes, Microsoft published that game but it took 5 years for it to appear on PS3 which was the result of EA buying BioWare instead of Microsoft wanting to publish it on PS3.

Avatar image for mr_creeper
#92 Edited by mr_creeper (2458 posts) -

As long as there's a PC release, I'm fine with this.

Avatar image for crimsonavenger
#93 Posted by CrimsonAvenger (374 posts) -

We know it's a timed exclusive but timed is pretty vague. We really don't know how long that is. Could be several years.

Avatar image for thiago123
#94 Edited by Thiago123 (745 posts) -

So this is a timed exclusive where we don't know the window AND, when it closes, it will fall on Square or someone else to determine if they want to bring it to PS4. Got it.

As an Xbox One owner who doesn't have a PS4 (yet...?), all I can say is that, while I am really looking forward to this Tomb Raider sequel, I would have preferred to have SF5. That specific title seems to be much more locked up on PS4, BUT knowing Capcom's shadyness, all that means is that SF5 will be on PS4, then, a year or so later, "Super/Ultra/Hyper SF5" will likely be multiplatform.

Avatar image for amafi
#95 Posted by amafi (1497 posts) -

@rvone said:

Yes, this was in Patrick's article as well, but did you read the actual wording instead of the headline? He says "Yes, the deal has a duration. I didn't buy it. I don't own the franchise." What does that even mean?

In other stories we see the same narrative in which Microsoft keeps distinguishing between the current game and the franchise. Given the fact that they're being this opaque still means that it can go either way: (1) this game will make its way to PC eventually, or (2) the sequel to Rise of the Tomb Raider hasn't been secured by Microsoft yet (because the "don't own the franchise") meaning they just aren't in the position to make claims regarding that game.

And to the people pointing out Mass Effect, yes, Microsoft published that game but it took 5 years for it to appear on PS3 which was the result of EA buying BioWare instead of Microsoft wanting to publish it on PS3.

I feel like I'm going insane whenever I read anything about this whole story.

The original crystal dynamics statement very clearly said it was not a timed exclusive, and the follow-up statement said absolutely NOTHING except "we don't own the tomb raider franchise for eternity", it certainly didn't say it's a timed deal.

Yet every fucking thing I've seen online before I saw your post has been parroting the same shit. I know my understanding of english isn't perfect, but I'm pretty sure it's not dire enough that I'm the one in the wrong here. It might be exclusive, but no statement released about the deal has said it is.

I'm not insane, right?

Avatar image for gaspower
#96 Edited by GaspoweR (4899 posts) -

@rvone said:

Yes, this was in Patrick's article as well, but did you read the actual wording instead of the headline? He says "Yes, the deal has a duration. I didn't buy it. I don't own the franchise." What does that even mean?

In other stories we see the same narrative in which Microsoft keeps distinguishing between the current game and the franchise. Given the fact that they're being this opaque still means that it can go either way: (1) this game will make its way to PC eventually, or (2) the sequel to Rise of the Tomb Raider hasn't been secured by Microsoft yet (because the "don't own the franchise") meaning they just aren't in the position to make claims regarding that game.

And to the people pointing out Mass Effect, yes, Microsoft published that game but it took 5 years for it to appear on PS3 which was the result of EA buying BioWare instead of Microsoft wanting to publish it on PS3.

You pretty much answered the question with that Mass Effect example though if the deal however was really console exclusive, Sony can still probably make a deal with Square Enix to have a "different edition" and can still get the game down the line but it might be around the same time the next sequel would be announced.

Avatar image for gaspower
#97 Edited by GaspoweR (4899 posts) -

@wiqidbritt said:

@somejerk said:

Street Fighter V would not have been in production right now without Sony picking it up, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Titanfall were being made for everything until Microsoft intervened, and Infinite Undiscovery while silly at first glance is a better title than Rise of the * once you get down to it.

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that SF5 wouldn't be in production without Sony's help considering that just a few months ago Ono said they were looking into developing the game for PS4 AND Xbox One. Also considering the sheer amount of money Capcom spends on the Capcom Cup and other SF4 tournaments every year it's unlikely they would refuse to bring Street Fighter to the new generation.

The only reason it doesn't piss you off is because Adam Boyes and John Drake work for Sony are are likely the ones most responsible for the exclusive deal.

About more than a year ago, Ono did say that they didn't have the budget or staff to make Street Fighter V and with this recent development I think Capcom only greenlit the project when they also had extra support from a third party. With the way Ono was saying that the best partner was Sony for this project, Capcom might have been shopping this idea to both Sony and MS and Sony ended up giving a much better deal with allowing the game to also be launched for the PC and having cross platform online play.

Phil Spencer saying that "business deals happen" and saying that they won't do all of them and rather investing in their own 1st party franchise seem to suggest that they too were aware and were probably also pitched the idea by Capcom.

Avatar image for parsnip
#98 Posted by Parsnip (1396 posts) -

This is non news, considering Phil said as much back in August. I still have zero doubt that Squenix will publish the PC and PS4 versions 6 months later.

Avatar image for professoress
#99 Edited by ProfessorEss (7961 posts) -

@snail said:

Used to be Sony felt they needed a Tomb Raider clone, so they made Uncharted.

Now Microsoft feels they need an Uncharted clone, so they got Tomb Raider.

Both games are in a weird place together.

Uncharted, a stellar IP showing it's first signs of potential fatique vs. Tomb Raider: Reboot, a surprising breath of fresh air to what appeared to be a fully-milked franchise.

Avatar image for brandondryrock
#100 Edited by brandondryrock (890 posts) -

It is weird seeing some people talk about how hard PC gaming is. I made the switch to PC gaming from a 360 about four years ago, and the amount of problems I've had is similar to what I had on 360. I've never had to do "weird stuff" to get a game to run. The most work I have to do to get a new PC game running is change the resolution and graphics settings, which is all built into the game, or built into the game launcher.

The only time I've had to mess with games is if it is an older game, and that could be going into an .ini file and changing a variable, or installing a patch, which is super easy. Maybe it is because I've used computers my whole life that the transition to PC gaming was easy, but some people make it sound like it is the most inconvenient thing in the world to get a game working on a PC.