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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Rise of the Tomb Raider is being published by Microsoft

darkknightkryta on 10 December 2014
Soundwave said:
darkknightkryta said:

I still actually have the EGM laying around. 

They announced Street Fighter II Champion Edition for Genesis first. Sega made a big fuss about it, it was a big "exclusivity" deal. This was the big "megaton" of its day.

Then like a month later Capcom 'quietly' announced Street Fighter II Turbo for SNES, which did actually end up coming out before the Genesis version (though the release dates were fairly close IIRC). 

Scans of EGM?  Or was it just "journalists" running their mouths off?  Though back on topic, and as I mentioned earlier, Capcom didn't have the funds for Street Fighter 5, Sony did.  Capcom had the funds for 10 different ports of Street Fighter 2.  Square Enix has the funds for PS4 version of Tomb Raider, Microsoft paid for it NOT to go to the PS4.  Street Fighter 5 is as likely to go to the Xbox One as Bayonetta 2 is.


I'd have to go into my attic and open up a ton of old dusty boxes, maybe some other time. This is the magazine ad for it though, this ad ran in magazines of the day, I remember this:

Note the "Only On Genesis" part. 

I don't really buy that Capcom didn't have the funds for SFV either. SFIV sold so many copies that they're still making iterations of SFIV, lol. It's a 7 million+ seller. If they don't have money for that I doubt they have money to make anything. This is not like Bayonetta, SFIV sold like several times to amount of Bayonetta. 

How many games sell 8 million copies and can't get financing for a sequel? 

That technically isn't a lie though.  Genesis was the only game to have Champion Edition.  It was Hyper on SNES, but there were some other differences between the two titles.  Like, if I recall the SNES version correctly, it was vanilla with the boss characters added, and the turbo select/tweaks.  The Champion Edition was technically a port of both arcade titles: Champion Edition and Hyper Edition.  I think you can't do air hurricane kicks in the Champion version but you could in Hyper.

I don't think you realize how dire Capcom is for money.  Resident Evil 6 is their 3rd highest selling title ever.  It lost them money...



Around the Network
Jadedx on 10 December 2014

With MS publishing and saying that is the same type of deal as DR3 then it will probably only be on PC a year later.



IamAwsome on 10 December 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

If MS didnt buy third party products the Xbox as a brand would be nowhere. The other two are not primarily known for that even though in their prime they all had exclusive third party.

And if Sony didn't use loads of money to buy their way into the industry (eating huge losses on hardware, cheaper licensing fees than anyone else, and 3rd party moneyhats) the Playstation brand wouldn't be anywhere either. Turns out you gotta spend money to make money.

S.T.A.G.E. said:
busbfran said:
Tomb Raider will no longer come to ps4 if this is the case


I know what this really is. Its bullshit and we've seen it before. MS did the same thing with Mass Effect. They believed in the project and paid for an Xbox 360 version to be ported from the PC. Paying for the port of a console version of a game and trying to keep it exclusive before the launch is nothing new to them.

You're right, we have seen it before. Hell, this isn't even the first time this very franchise has been bought to prevent other console versions. Sony did this same thing with this franchise during the PSone days. Just one of those moneyhat 3rd party scenarios I mentioned above ;)


Sony didnt buy their way into the industry dude.... Nintendo was using Ken Kutaragi  who was a contracted worker for Sony to develop a CD Rom drive for the next Nintendo console behind Sony's back. Sony caught Kutaragi in the act and his friend who was the head of Sony saved his ass. Sony claimed what was theirs since he was under contract with R&D to them and made a legitimate contract with Nintendo to do business with them. When the console was going to be shown off at CES Nintendo read the contract that Sony and their lawyers had made since the product was theirs and wanted a larger cut of the profits than Nintendo is willing to allow so they walked out on them. Kutaragi from there convinced Sony to join the industry to get back at Nintendo and they ended up dominating it.

 They got devs hooked on the new format (most notably Squaresoft..whom they bought shares of) and did favors by producing the discs for the companies and thats one of the reasons the majority of them left Nintendo. The discs had more space than the cartridges so they could do more with their games even though the N64 had better graphics. Nintendo refused to play ball with format si nce they jumped back to the cartridge and continued to feign ignorance for twenty years since Sony took the third party from them. Nintendo's relations with third party was never that great to begin with. All third party needed to leave Nintendo was a reason and Sony gave it to them. They just ran them because they dominated the industry. As for Sega....that was a tragedy that was caused by their own hands Sega practically handed third party exclusivity over to Sony because they pissed off so many third party devs by screwing up their launch date that many withdrew from them. Look it up...the reason they screwed up their launch date was because Sony had arrived in the industry. Sega spent so many years struggling to gain third party support only to lose it because of a launch.

Still the only major Moneyhat Sony did to keep a game away from MS was the GTA Trilogy (Outside of funding SFV and helping with crossplay). Since then they've pretty much beaten Microsoft very well themselves. You must remember by the time the PS3 era had started, Microsoft had taken a lot of third party games from Sony and had paid to keep a good enough portion of third party games from Sony so the perception would be that Sony had no games and they had exclusives. The same thing is happening now...just not a year ahead. In other words....we know better. Lets be real here if Sony is majorly moneyhatting at all this gen its mostly not even of the AAA variety. It is indie.

 

By your definition of buying ones way into the industry it was Microsoft. They bought Halo from under Apples nose because they had no other software of value to enter the industry that could amass a crowd like that game. What they saw at the Apple show wowed them so they took it and wowed people with it. Also, the only reason MS is responding right now about Tomb Raider is because Sony manages to explain themselves without pissing everyone off. MS basically just said yet again (this gen) "yeah...what they said...we did that".

GTA isn't the only game Sony bought in the past. They bought Tomb Raider, and EVERY other game that Square released on the PS1 and PS2. The first two Resident Evils were timed exclusives too IIRC. Sony definitely "bought" sales in the past just as much as Microsoft does now. 



darkenergy on 10 December 2014

So how many threads of "rise of the tomb raider exclusive" related threads are we going to get?



Proud to be a Californian.

Sharpryno on 10 December 2014

This has always been known. They people who did not believe it just try to bash MS for anything to feel better.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 11 December 2014
zero129 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

If MS didnt buy third party products the Xbox as a brand would be nowhere. The other two are not primarily known for that even though in their prime they all had exclusive third party.

Yes cos when Sony first entered with the ps1 they came with a bunch of first party software.. oh wait .

More known first party than MS had had. Ever played Parappa the Rapper? Legend of Legaia? Syphon Filter? Legend of Dragoon? Come on....those games were all made by Sony first party in their first gen. MS cannot even claim to have done that in their first gen. Thats only a small portion of the games.  Thats back when Sony was known for RPG's alongside Squaresoft giving them exclusive support.



Justagamer on 11 December 2014

I think it's hilarious that ps4 people would actually think that MS would fund this game, only for them to slap it on the ps4.... wow. Ok guys. Sure.



S.T.A.G.E. on 11 December 2014
IamAwsome said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

If MS didnt buy third party products the Xbox as a brand would be nowhere. The other two are not primarily known for that even though in their prime they all had exclusive third party.

And if Sony didn't use loads of money to buy their way into the industry (eating huge losses on hardware, cheaper licensing fees than anyone else, and 3rd party moneyhats) the Playstation brand wouldn't be anywhere either. Turns out you gotta spend money to make money.

S.T.A.G.E. said:
busbfran said:
Tomb Raider will no longer come to ps4 if this is the case


I know what this really is. Its bullshit and we've seen it before. MS did the same thing with Mass Effect. They believed in the project and paid for an Xbox 360 version to be ported from the PC. Paying for the port of a console version of a game and trying to keep it exclusive before the launch is nothing new to them.

You're right, we have seen it before. Hell, this isn't even the first time this very franchise has been bought to prevent other console versions. Sony did this same thing with this franchise during the PSone days. Just one of those moneyhat 3rd party scenarios I mentioned above ;)


Sony didnt buy their way into the industry dude.... Nintendo was using Ken Kutaragi  who was a contracted worker for Sony to develop a CD Rom drive for the next Nintendo console behind Sony's back. Sony caught Kutaragi in the act and his friend who was the head of Sony saved his ass. Sony claimed what was theirs since he was under contract with R&D to them and made a legitimate contract with Nintendo to do business with them. When the console was going to be shown off at CES Nintendo read the contract that Sony and their lawyers had made since the product was theirs and wanted a larger cut of the profits than Nintendo is willing to allow so they walked out on them. Kutaragi from there convinced Sony to join the industry to get back at Nintendo and they ended up dominating it.

 They got devs hooked on the new format (most notably Squaresoft..whom they bought shares of) and did favors by producing the discs for the companies and thats one of the reasons the majority of them left Nintendo. The discs had more space than the cartridges so they could do more with their games even though the N64 had better graphics. Nintendo refused to play ball with format si nce they jumped back to the cartridge and continued to feign ignorance for twenty years since Sony took the third party from them. Nintendo's relations with third party was never that great to begin with. All third party needed to leave Nintendo was a reason and Sony gave it to them. They just ran them because they dominated the industry. As for Sega....that was a tragedy that was caused by their own hands Sega practically handed third party exclusivity over to Sony because they pissed off so many third party devs by screwing up their launch date that many withdrew from them. Look it up...the reason they screwed up their launch date was because Sony had arrived in the industry. Sega spent so many years struggling to gain third party support only to lose it because of a launch.

Still the only major Moneyhat Sony did to keep a game away from MS was the GTA Trilogy (Outside of funding SFV and helping with crossplay). Since then they've pretty much beaten Microsoft very well themselves. You must remember by the time the PS3 era had started, Microsoft had taken a lot of third party games from Sony and had paid to keep a good enough portion of third party games from Sony so the perception would be that Sony had no games and they had exclusives. The same thing is happening now...just not a year ahead. In other words....we know better. Lets be real here if Sony is majorly moneyhatting at all this gen its mostly not even of the AAA variety. It is indie.

 

By your definition of buying ones way into the industry it was Microsoft. They bought Halo from under Apples nose because they had no other software of value to enter the industry that could amass a crowd like that game. What they saw at the Apple show wowed them so they took it and wowed people with it. Also, the only reason MS is responding right now about Tomb Raider is because Sony manages to explain themselves without pissing everyone off. MS basically just said yet again (this gen) "yeah...what they said...we did that".

GTA isn't the only game Sony bought in the past. They bought Tomb Raider, and EVERY other game that Square released on the PS1 and PS2. The first two Resident Evils were timed exclusives too IIRC. Sony definitely "bought" sales in the past just as much as Microsoft does now. 


See...that goes to show you how great the Playstations installed base was that it clouded your understandig of what really happen. From the start Tomb Raider was on the Playstation, Saturn and PC. Sony popularized it because it became a console hit and became synonymous with Playstation. Resident Evil and a lot of games came to Sony because of the space of the platform and Sony was willing to provide the discs necessary to make the developmental process easier for third party. Look it up. Formats were one of the major ways Sony wooed over third party. Sony moneyhatted GTA and still to this day no one is defended it, but MS has returned the favor ten fold since their first party isnt up to snuff. Microsofts idea of true first party is comissioning the iP of third party. Sony moneyhats, but they dont moneyhat  like Microsoft. They even had a policy where they refused to pay for games (hence why they lost FFXV exclusivity). Also unlike MS they dont moan, complain and create hypocritical parity clauses that gives all of the power to the one who jots down the contract.



Fusioncode on 11 December 2014
Justagamer said:
I think it's hilarious that ps4 people would actually think that MS would fund this game, only for them to slap it on the ps4.... wow. Ok guys. Sure.

Microsof payed for tons of 360 games that ended up on PS3. Is 5 seconds of research too much? 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Justagamer on 11 December 2014
Fusioncode said:
Justagamer said:
I think it's hilarious that ps4 people would actually think that MS would fund this game, only for them to slap it on the ps4.... wow. Ok guys. Sure.

Microsof payed for tons of 360 games that ended up on PS3. Is 5 seconds of research too much? 


Such as? Only game I can think of is mass effect... and that was because of the buyout. Name all these tons of games, there must be hundreds. Lol. Sure. 5 seconds huh? Shouldn't take you long then to come up with this huge list. Lol... lmao. Thanks for the laugh. So, instead of spending less than 5 seconds on that post of yours, put up, or shut up.