By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why do a timed exclusive for Tomb Raider

McDonaldsGuy on 25 August 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:

,


Sony had shares in square around that time and much like Eidos Sony was giving them CD roms and helping them. Square had also chosen Sony as the platform of choice instead of Nintendo for Final Fantasy because of CD Roms. Sega had theirs but Sony had been actively working with many development houses and using their assets as a hardware manufacturer to help with ease of coding and format for peoples games. Sega at that time was trying the patience of third party by rushing the launch of the Saturn leaving third party confused.

"Smith was playing the game an hour before the PlayStation version went to Sony, when Lara fell off a ledge and he couldn't get her back up. "If Sony found a bug it would b nuclear here, but we're almost there." Then they found that they'd sent out thousands of demo CD-ROMs with the copy-protection timers already expired, making then unplayable. Then they went nuclear. Fortunately, someone came up with a patch, and they recalled the discs to make the fix. That's par for the course in the high-stakes world of game design, says Adrian's brother and managing director Jeremy Smith. "You're working under pressure to meet deadlines, an somehow you forget to take out one line of code. Still, it could have been worse. It could have gone out to the whole game," he laughs."

http://web.archive.org/web/20050425124945/http://www.cubeit.com/ctimes/news0094a.htm

 

From your link

"Given the worldwide domination of the PlayStation system, it's a natural for Eidos to partner with Sony Computer Entertainment America and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe," said Mike McGarvey, chief operating officer, Eidos Interactive. "We want our best-selling franchise to reach the greatest number of consumers and the PlayStation and its powerful CD-ROM software format satisfies this demand.

If Sony continues to dominate this gen they will get exclusives by default. Much like it says here from the link you posted. 

That's just PR. Sony got Tomb Raider because Sony paid them, period. Sony used to do this ALL the time. They did it with Grand Theft Auto for example. Did you know Grand Theft Auto IV was also supposed to be timed exclusive for the PS3 but Sony couldn't afford it?

The thing is is that Sony buying exclusives doesn't fit with the "Sony is gracious to gamers" narrative. If Sony could afford to today they would have bought a ton of exclusives this gen as well.

I don't see a problem with buying exclusives or timed exclusives... it gives a console a competitive edge. I don't know why everyone is freaking out over what Microsoft is doing.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 26 August 2014
McDonaldsGuy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

,


Sony had shares in square around that time and much like Eidos Sony was giving them CD roms and helping them. Square had also chosen Sony as the platform of choice instead of Nintendo for Final Fantasy because of CD Roms. Sega had theirs but Sony had been actively working with many development houses and using their assets as a hardware manufacturer to help with ease of coding and format for peoples games. Sega at that time was trying the patience of third party by rushing the launch of the Saturn leaving third party confused.

"Smith was playing the game an hour before the PlayStation version went to Sony, when Lara fell off a ledge and he couldn't get her back up. "If Sony found a bug it would b nuclear here, but we're almost there." Then they found that they'd sent out thousands of demo CD-ROMs with the copy-protection timers already expired, making then unplayable. Then they went nuclear. Fortunately, someone came up with a patch, and they recalled the discs to make the fix. That's par for the course in the high-stakes world of game design, says Adrian's brother and managing director Jeremy Smith. "You're working under pressure to meet deadlines, an somehow you forget to take out one line of code. Still, it could have been worse. It could have gone out to the whole game," he laughs."

http://web.archive.org/web/20050425124945/http://www.cubeit.com/ctimes/news0094a.htm

 

From your link

"Given the worldwide domination of the PlayStation system, it's a natural for Eidos to partner with Sony Computer Entertainment America and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe," said Mike McGarvey, chief operating officer, Eidos Interactive. "We want our best-selling franchise to reach the greatest number of consumers and the PlayStation and its powerful CD-ROM software format satisfies this demand.

If Sony continues to dominate this gen they will get exclusives by default. Much like it says here from the link you posted. 

That's just PR. Sony got Tomb Raider because Sony paid them, period. Sony used to do this ALL the time. They did it with Grand Theft Auto for example. Did you know Grand Theft Auto IV was also supposed to be timed exclusive for the PS3 but Sony couldn't afford it?

The thing is is that Sony buying exclusives doesn't fit with the "Sony is gracious to gamers" narrative. If Sony could afford to today they would have bought a ton of exclusives this gen as well.

I don't see a problem with buying exclusives or timed exclusives... it gives a console a competitive edge. I don't know why everyone is freaking out over what Microsoft is doing.


Sony's worst money hat of all time happened thirteen years ago. Thirteen years ago with the GTA trilogy and that deal was dirty, but seriously.

MS has been moneyhatting games and has not stopped and it was them who started the DLC war. Sony isnt going to fight them for exclusives in their current position. Who forced Sony to better their first party because MS kept moneyhatting? Microsoft. Who took in the indies when they had disagreements with Microsoft? Sony. Who took in the third parties when they had disagreements with Sega? Sony. Who took in third parties when they had disagreements with Nintendo about formats? Sony. Sony has always worked with third party better where others have failed. Microsoft is the only company that has given them competition there, but outside of helping and working with third party MS has been moneyhatting since this generation started from bell to bell.

The problem isnt not in the fact that a game was moneyhatted. Games get moneyhatted all the times but when MS moneyhats they go straight for the nuts. They went for an established franchise which only survived based on  combined sales of five different platforms to be exclusive to theirs. Eidos sites domination as the main reason why they were glad to be with Playstation. Xbox Ones are selling half what the PS4 is selling 2:1 in sales man. MS screwed not just Sony gamers but PC gamers. Everyone just because they admitted they dont have an Uncharted nor could they make one.

MGS was scheduled to come to Playstation, N64 and 3DO much like Final Fantasy but 3DO had a small install base and Nintendo didnt have a CD ROM even though the N64 cartridge was more powerful it didnt have as much space and didnt have the benefits of a rom at that time. Sony also was giving companies discounts on CD Roms to sweeten the deal.



PullusPardus on 26 August 2014
bananaking21 said:
its sqaure. they are experts at making stupid decisions.

#rekt

Me and square are twins separated at birth.



McDonaldsGuy on 26 August 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Sony's worst money hat of all time happened thirteen years ago. Thirteen years ago and that deal was dirty, but seriously.

MS has been moneyhatting games and has not stopped and it was them who started the DLC war. Sony isnt going to fight them for exclusives in their current position. Who forced Sony to better their first party because MS kept moneyhatting? Microsoft. 

The problem isnt not in the fact that a game was moneyhatted. Games get moneyhatted all the times but when MS moneyhats they go straight for the nuts. They went for an established franchise which only survived based on  combined sales of five different platforms to be exclusive to theirs. Eidos sites domination as the main reason why they were glad to be with Playstation. Xbox Ones are selling half what the PS4 is selling 2:1 in sales man. MS screwed not just Sony gamers but PC gamers. Everyone just because they admitted they dont have an Uncharted nor could they make one.

Sony can't moneyhat because they don't have money. If Sony could moneyhat like they could in the PS1-PS2 era they would. In fact, Final Fantasy XV was almost moneyhatted, but Sony likely couldn't afford it.

See, Microsoft is getting nailed for moneyhatting but this is what Sony did all the time. When Sony does it, it's OK and excuses come out for them (PlayStation was the best selling console! It used CD-ROMs!). When Microsoft does it they are evil and want to destroy everything. Eidos "sites" domination as the main reason, but we all know the main reason - money. It's always been about the money.

If Sony moneyhatted Rise of the Tomb Raider no one would care, but now that MS did it, everyone cares. As I said, I don't think moneyhatting is a problem if it gives the console a competitive advantage.



Mr Puggsly on 26 August 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:

"Given the worldwide domination of the PlayStation system, it's a natural for Eidos to partner with Sony Computer Entertainment America and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe," said Mike McGarvey, chief operating officer, Eidos Interactive. "We want our best-selling franchise to reach the greatest number of consumers and the PlayStation and its powerful CD-ROM software format satisfies this demand.

If Sony continues to dominate this gen they will get exclusives by default. Much like it says here from the link you posted. 

 

The games that will come to PS4 exclusively will mostly be niche stuff.

Even with a smaller userbase the X1 does a great job at moving software and that's why it will continue to get support.

That quote was from 1997 and circumstances were very different. Cartridges with limited space weren't good for the games Square was making and Saturn was DOA.

Look at this way. PS Vita lost support because it couldn't move software. Not because 3DS sold much better.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 26 August 2014
McDonaldsGuy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Sony's worst money hat of all time happened thirteen years ago. Thirteen years ago and that deal was dirty, but seriously.

MS has been moneyhatting games and has not stopped and it was them who started the DLC war. Sony isnt going to fight them for exclusives in their current position. Who forced Sony to better their first party because MS kept moneyhatting? Microsoft. 

The problem isnt not in the fact that a game was moneyhatted. Games get moneyhatted all the times but when MS moneyhats they go straight for the nuts. They went for an established franchise which only survived based on  combined sales of five different platforms to be exclusive to theirs. Eidos sites domination as the main reason why they were glad to be with Playstation. Xbox Ones are selling half what the PS4 is selling 2:1 in sales man. MS screwed not just Sony gamers but PC gamers. Everyone just because they admitted they dont have an Uncharted nor could they make one.

Sony can't moneyhat because they don't have money. If Sony could moneyhat like they could in the PS1-PS2 era they would. In fact, Final Fantasy XV was almost moneyhatted, but Sony likely couldn't afford it.

See, Microsoft is getting nailed for moneyhatting but this is what Sony did all the time. When Sony does it, it's OK and excuses come out for them (PlayStation was the best selling console! It used CD-ROMs!). When Microsoft does it they are evil and want to destroy everything. Eidos "sites" domination as the main reason, but we all know the main reason - money. It's always been about the money.

If Sony moneyhatted Rise of the Tomb Raider no one would care, but now that MS did it, everyone cares. As I said, I don't think moneyhatting is a problem if it gives the console a competitive advantage.


Final Fantasy was going to be exclusive to the PS3...not the PS4. Its obvious Microsoft was able to squeeze through the contract because the contract of exclusivity was for a specific platform.This leads me to believe one of two things.

1) Square could not complete the game in time for the PS3's gen thus voiding the FF Versus contract and thus voiding the contract.

2) Microsoft paid Square to drag out the duration of the contract until expiration while feeding them money, thus making the game the development drag out into next gen territory and no longer being apart of the Nova Cyrstallis Universe and officially becoming FFXV.

 

As for Sony not having the money to moneyhat, you're right.....Sony put their money where their mouth is...first party. MS should try it.



S.T.A.G.E. on 26 August 2014
Mr Puggsly said:

 

The games that will come to PS4 exclusively will mostly be niche stuff.

Even with a smaller userbase the X1 does a great job at moving software and that's why it will continue to get support.

That quote was from 1997 and circumstances were very different. Cartridges with limited space weren't good for the games Square was making and Saturn was DOA.


We'll see what Sony gets. As for the rest, I agree. Cartridges were  the reason Nintendo lost out on the N64, and Business is the reason Sega lost out with the Saturn. All Sega fans should read up or watch a documentary on the demise of Sega.



cheshirescat on 26 August 2014

The reason is simple, square has no idea how to work within a budget. They were horrified that it took so long for the last tomb raider game to become profitable, so microsoft lining their pockets with money to cover much, if not all, of the cost to produce the game alleviates most of those fears. It's obviously not about maximizing sales.



Lyrikalstylez on 26 August 2014

Omg, sick of this topic.......
Why make bayonetta 2 exclusive to wii u (which in my opinion will sell less than the two)
Because it makes the consoles library grow and potentially gain customers that want to play them ..that's why!



Soundwave on 26 August 2014

Honestly if Sony had money-hatted say Destiny to be exclusive to the PS4 in 2014, we'd probably be having people falling over themselves telling us what a great move that was, how it was smart for Sony to get something to counter Halo, and how Sony are genius' for getting to it before MS did, etc. etc. etc.