GI.biz Microsoft's Checkbook Warfare is bound to fail...

[Scoobes]

Mad55 said:

Scoobes said:

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. 

1. Yes they can wait, but this is a large amount of negative PR for SE from 60-80% of a loyal fanbase. This is extra true because of the way the PR speak was worded (attempts to make the exclusivity appear permanent). Annoying your fanbase is essentially damaging to the brand, especially in the long-term.

2. A reasonable assumption based on the major lack of true third-party exclusives anywhere. We still get second-party titles where the manufacturers are publishing the titles, but third party exclusives are completely limited to extra missions or DLC (which costs a lot less to develop than an entire game).

3. Personally, I don't think third-parties should bother with exclusive timed DLC. Just release the whole lot to as wide an audience as possible, as soon as possible. We have a difference of opinion on this one so I'll just leave it there.