• 125 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for rirse
#101 Posted by Rirse (328 posts) -

Don't give a crap about the XBone version of the game, until it out on the PC or PS4 it vaporware

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

@rirse said:

Don't give a crap about the XBone version of the game, until it out on the PC or PS4 it vaporware

Based on the agreed definition of "vaporware" you'd be totally wrong but y'know, whatever.

Avatar image for senate4242
#103 Edited by Senate4242 (224 posts) -

I own all three consoles and I think third party exclusives are silly. Especially so, when the first game is released on multiple systems.

I understand exclusive games are what sell consoles, but that's what first party studios are for.

Avatar image for forteexe21
#105 Posted by forteexe21 (2019 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.

The deal is obviously with the game. If it was the franchise, the recent isometric game would be exclusive as well. As MS and Square are being vague as hell, we won't really know unless the deal has leaked/became null, has passed the duration or Sony did something insane. To add Nintendo published Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge and that came out to PS3/360 6 months later. That may be weirder being an update, but still...

Avatar image for coldwolven
#106 Edited by Cold_Wolven (2530 posts) -

What I find disappointing is that I don't even get a choice of a PC version as the Xbox One version would not have been my first preference, at least SFV is coming to PC for those who care.

Avatar image for michael_katarn
#107 Posted by michael_katarn (112 posts) -

Good for Microsoft I guess. Fuck you to anyone who doesn't have an xboxone and loved the first game. This blows. I really hope Microsoft still cares at all about PC games cuz I'd love to see this still come to Steam. I really thought true third party exclusives were over. We have gotten used to timed exclusives, this seems backward.

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#108 Posted by spraynardtatum (4384 posts) -

Can't wait to play this on ps4 down the line.

Avatar image for cybexx
#109 Posted by Cybexx (1633 posts) -

I could swear Microsoft was talking about publishing Rise of the Tomb Raider back at E3 but its good to get clarity.

This ends up being a very similar situation to Dead Rising 3 where Microsoft took over publishing from Capcom and presumably contributed a fair amount to the development budget. A western developed game, the developer is owned by a japanese publisher who is currently facing financial difficulties.

Square Enix talked about the Tomb Raider reboot struggling to make its budget back despite selling well for the franchise. Dead Rising 2 did not seem to exactly set the world on fire, it sold 2.2 million in the first 5 months. So I think you have a case where both publishers were unhappy with the performance of the previous entries in the series and they may have had a bit of trepidation committing to the cost of creating current-gen sequels.

Microsoft doesn't care as much about the sales numbers of those games, they are mostly concerned about selling consoles. More exclusives makes the Xbox One a more attractive purchase and the reality is that an exclusive sequel in an established franchise is more likely to attract users to system than new IP. Timed-Exclusive DLC only has so much pull, Microsoft seems to be dedicated to staying ahead of Sony in terms of big exclusives and you can see Sony starting to respond with Street Fighter V. Things are going to get interesting.

Avatar image for rvone
#110 Posted by RVonE (5006 posts) -

@amafi said:

@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?

No, I don't think you're going insane, but if you are, I'm probably also insane. It's infuriating to read all these outlets label it as a 'timed exclusive' while the underlying statements by Microsoft are obtuse as fuck. If I recall correctly, in this week's Bombcast, Tomb Raider again was mentioned in the context of timed exclusives. It's really weird.

Avatar image for blitz_kill
#111 Edited by Blitz_Kill (36 posts) -

So they heard that Sony ruined them with SF5 and decided to get "serious" about their drake knockoff. Good for them i guess.

Avatar image for rolanthas
#112 Edited by rolanthas (261 posts) -

Gonna enjoy this on PC.

Avatar image for musim
#113 Posted by MusiM (158 posts) -

I don't think I've ever considered getting this game for anything but PC. Sucks for people who own a PS4 and not an Xbox One though.

Avatar image for bemusedchunk
#114 Posted by bemusedchunk (905 posts) -

I actually like exclusivity. It helps garner progress.

Avatar image for bojangle
#115 Edited by Bojangle (108 posts) -

@rvone said:

@amafi said:

@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?

No, I don't think you're going insane, but if you are, I'm probably also insane. It's infuriating to read all these outlets label it as a 'timed exclusive' while the underlying statements by Microsoft are obtuse as fuck. If I recall correctly, in this week's Bombcast, Tomb Raider again was mentioned in the context of timed exclusives. It's really weird.

Just to throw my lot in here. This news popping up in several outlets the past couple of days has been bothering me. There's literally nothing here to suggest the game has switched from a timed exclusive to a full blown exclusive.

The FAQ which Crystal Dynamics had to post after the initial announcement (because it was so unclear as to what the deal actually meant) says this:

  1. What does exclusive to Xbox mean?
    It means that Rise of the Tomb Raider is coming Holiday 2015 exclusively on Xbox One and Xbox 360.
  2. Does the exclusive to Xbox have a duration? Is it timed? How long is the duration? Can we expect a PlayStation 4 or PC release in the future?
    Yes, our deal with Microsoft has a duration. We aren’t discussing details of the deal, and are focused on delivering a great game on Xbox One and Xbox 360.


    So yes, the game IS a timed exclusive, my guess is for a year, so expect the game on other formats by Holiday 2016. On top of that, if the game had became an actual Xbox exclusive, Microsoft would be shouting about it from the rooftops.
Avatar image for nags
#116 Edited by Nags (189 posts) -

@bojangle: Yep. Here: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/12/09/microsoft-s-tomb-raider-publishing-deal-similar-to-dead-rising-3.aspx

SE reiterating that the deal has a duration.

Avatar image for itssexytime
#117 Posted by ITSSEXYTIME (253 posts) -

It won't be exclusive to xbox. Square will publish it on PS4 and PC.

Mark my words.

Avatar image for rvone
#118 Posted by RVonE (5006 posts) -

It won't be exclusive to xbox. Square will publish it on PS4 and PC.

Mark my words.

I just hope you're right and I'm wrong.

Avatar image for random45
#119 Posted by Random45 (1805 posts) -

This sucks. I was a huge fan of the original one, and hearing that I might be able to play it is just a huge bummer. Here's hoping for an eventual PC release.

Avatar image for nictel
#120 Posted by Nictel (2697 posts) -

This console generation, the PC is shaping up to be the best console.

Avatar image for humanity
#122 Posted by Humanity (18573 posts) -

@nictel said:

This console generation, the PC is shaping up to be the best console.

Except when games like Far Cry 4 come out for PC and are a broken mess.

Avatar image for broc
#123 Posted by broc (14 posts) -

I'd much rather have access to Uncharted 4 on Xbox One, then my friends who own Sony's console not get the chance to play the new Tomb Raider, but hey, that's the price of business.

Avatar image for beechbone
#124 Edited by Beechbone (123 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.

Publishing is actually much more than we usually realize. Publisher for example provide testing resources, localization, take care of certification process and other stuff. And there's obviously the whole marketing side which is also a big deal. Publishers manage if different portions of the game are developed by different teams, like outsourcing multiplayer to a different developer and so on.

Avatar image for ptys
#127 Posted by ptys (2213 posts) -

Tit for tat I guess. All these guys are doing is pushing more people to the PC so they can play both.

Avatar image for zojirushi
#128 Posted by Zojirushi (135 posts) -

I'don't get it. If this really meant XBox exclusivity for good (like a Bayonetta 2 situation) wouldn't Microsoft make a much bigger deal out of it? As in hey guys, this is only gonna come to XBox consoles, not just this fall, deal with it!

Avatar image for dedbeet
#129 Posted by DedBeet (698 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.

Yeah, it's not hard, but I have 0 desire to maintain a Windows PC after years of having to maintain Windows PC's. As easy as PC gaming is, console gaming is easier. I just don't understand how people can't accept that it's ok for both to exist. You like PC gaming? Great! I like console gaming? Great! Why we can't all live and let live is life's greatest mystery.

Avatar image for brandondryrock
#130 Edited by brandondryrock (890 posts) -
@dedbeet said:

@brandondryrock said:

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.

Yeah, it's not hard, but I have 0 desire to maintain a Windows PC after years of having to maintain Windows PC's. As easy as PC gaming is, console gaming is easier. I just don't understand how people can't accept that it's ok for both to exist. You like PC gaming? Great! I like console gaming? Great! Why we can't all live and let live is life's greatest mystery.

Totally man! I wasn't trying to insinuate that PC gaming is superior to console gaming, and I do both console and PC gaming. I was just commenting on how some people make PC gaming sound super complicated, when PC gaming is easier than ever right now. Sorry if my comment came off as being a "PC is superior" comment. I didn't mean it to come off like that.

Avatar image for enigma777
#131 Posted by Enigma777 (6285 posts) -

Good! Both sides need more exclusives!

Avatar image for ezekiel
#132 Edited by Ezekiel (2257 posts) -

@enigma777 said:

Good! Both sides need more exclusives!

We should be pressuring the three to make their consoles valuable by making more and better games instead of wanting other devs to do it for them and exclude people from their games for no good reason. Exclusivity just for the sake of exclusivity doesn't benefit us. A game made by the three for their own consoles is a different story. Microsoft should either fund and make games or leave the console business and focus on Windows.

Avatar image for enigma777
#133 Posted by Enigma777 (6285 posts) -

@ezekiel said:

@enigma777 said:

Good! Both sides need more exclusives!

We should be pressuring the three to make their consoles valuable by making more and better games instead of wanting other devs to do it for them and exclude people from their games for no good reason. Exclusivity just for the sake of exclusivity doesn't benefit us. A game made by the three for their own consoles is a different story. Microsoft should either fund and make games or leave the console business and focus on Windows.

Who says MS didn't fund (at least in part) Rise of the Tomb Raider? There have been 3rd party exclusives since the begging and all of that competition has only helped games and gamers alike.

I really fail to see the negative here...

Avatar image for amafi
#134 Posted by amafi (1497 posts) -
@humanity said:

@nictel said:

This console generation, the PC is shaping up to be the best console.

Except when games like Far Cry 4 come out for PC and are a broken mess.

When was that?

I've had zero issues with FC4. Tiny bit of frame hitching at times. Bit of screentear, but that's fucking it. Not a single crash, no serious AI bugs, no clipping into geometry, falling through the world, etc.

Didn't even know people had issues with the game at all.

Avatar image for ezekiel
#135 Edited by Ezekiel (2257 posts) -

@enigma777 said:

@ezekiel said:

@enigma777 said:

Good! Both sides need more exclusives!

We should be pressuring the three to make their consoles valuable by making more and better games instead of wanting other devs to do it for them and exclude people from their games for no good reason. Exclusivity just for the sake of exclusivity doesn't benefit us. A game made by the three for their own consoles is a different story. Microsoft should either fund and make games or leave the console business and focus on Windows.

Who says MS didn't fund (at least in part) Rise of the Tomb Raider? There have been 3rd party exclusives since the begging and all of that competition has only helped games and gamers alike.

I really fail to see the negative here...

This is unhealthy, unproductive competition. There's a difference between DMC or MGS2 being made for the PS2 because it was a successful, capable console and Microsoft just buying games. I highly doubt they'd fund the game if the exclusivity is only temporary, as hinted by Square Enix's comments a few days ago. They can say that they're funding it as damage control, but I doubt they'd be telling the truth.

Avatar image for poweronpub
#136 Posted by PoweronPub (17 posts) -

Eh, maybe we need weirder. Weirdness shakes things up...or so I'm told.

Avatar image for 014
#137 Posted by 014 (430 posts) -

I'll be righteously angry @microsoft if this game doesn't come to PC as quickly as the last one did.