By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mad55 on 16 August 2014
Edit Thread
Scoobes said:
Mad55 said:
Scoobes said:

The article wasn't saying that and most people on this thread haven't said that (although many have commented on MS' lack of quality first party output).

It simply pointed out that money being spent on securing a "timed" exclusive from a third party has numerous caveats including negative PR and the simple fact that the money could be spent on funding internal development of another title which MS would be able to wholly own and control.

Microsoft have a lot of first party studios. Maybe they arent using all of them right, but they have plenty. In general the article could be aplied to sony or Nintendo as well as they have done the exact same thing. 

That doesn't mean they can't invest in those studios more, especially with the money they spent on securing short-term exclusivity.

And the article can't really be applied to Sony or Nintendo anymore. What makes this case rather unique is that

1. Tomb Raider is an established franchise that has a rather large (60-80%) fanbase already on PS/PC.

2. Third-party deals are becoming too expensive (the amount of lost revenue from initial sale and potential DLC sales is simply too big, especially if your console isn't leading in sales/momentum) to the point where truly securing big name exclusives would cost more than the development of a new AAA title. This is the first time in a long-time that any of the big three have splashed out to completely secure a full exclusive.

3. This is a full game, not just DLC

Now maybe Rob Fahey could write an article about how stupid paying for exclusive DLC or other platform specific content is for the three console manufacturers (it wouldn't surprise me if he has already), and that would also be equally valid. But this situation is specifically different for the three points above. Point 1 and 3 leads to annoying the fanbase of the franchise (negative PR) whilst point 2 suggests the sheer amount of investment MS would have to make in this could have been spent elsewhere, perhaps even helping to build MS' next Halo/Gears level IP.

 

@ bolded: Yes it can as they have done things like this before nitpicking for specific differences isn't exactly fair as each game in this situation has unique circumstances. 

@ 1: So, if they want to play it they can wait or get an xbox one to play it first. 

@2: What company has told you that the third party deals they have made are too expensive and they aren't getting a return on their investment? Too much assuming going on. 

@3:lol so, same difference imo. Getting dlc last shouldn't be that big a deal so long as the time frames reasonable and 

If owners of other consoles never got to play it I would say thats unfair because they played the game that preceded it, but seeing as how it will evetually come to ps4 and pc it shouldn't be that bg a deal regardless if the games last iteration was on your system of preference or not. In my last post I said that Microsoft has a lot of studios and that maybe they just aren't using them right, but I feel lke its a new gen and it's early so time will tell. Though Microsoft have announced some interesting exclusive ip's already whether they be from 1st or third party.