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

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox boss Phil Spencer says Tomb Raider Xbox Exclusivity Is A Win/Win, Not An Attack On PlayStation Players

DerNebel on 18 August 2014

Well, I can easily think of one party that doesn't win here...

Also does anyone else find it weird that he uses the word "I" in phrases like:

"Do I wish I had an owned IP first-party action adventure game? Absolutely. But I don't right now"

"I didn't buy the IP. I didn't buy the studio. It's not mine."

"I don't own them building Tomb Raider on other platforms, so I'm just not the person to talk to. I can't talk about the franchise that way. I can talk about the deal I have."

?



Around the Network
Burek on 18 August 2014
Puppyroach said:
Arkaign said:
Puppyroach said:
This is how you communicate with the gamers! I still prefer that they create their own IPs but they are releasing alot of them and this is just a bonus in my view :).

How is this a bonus to you? Honest question. I'm just curious since the deal doesn't add a game to the XB lineup. It merely removes it elsewhere.

I feel this is a dangerous and anti consumer practice. It's bad enough that Sony has a bunch of exclusive destiny stuff, timed dlc already sucks.

Bying timed exclusivity has been going on since the NES era, not really a new practice :).

Well, it does indeed add something. It adds a competitive element to the X1 that PS4 will not have, even though it is a timed exclusivity deal.  I think what Phil is getting at is that MS can then market X1 as the only place with both an exclusive FPS in Halo 5 AND and exclusive TPS in TR next fall. Perception is everything.


But it will not be the only place with an exclusive TPS. There is Uncharted. And who knows, maybe Sony will have an exclusive FPS as well. Logic is everything.



Puppyroach on 18 August 2014
Burek said:
Puppyroach said:
Arkaign said:
Puppyroach said:
This is how you communicate with the gamers! I still prefer that they create their own IPs but they are releasing alot of them and this is just a bonus in my view :).

How is this a bonus to you? Honest question. I'm just curious since the deal doesn't add a game to the XB lineup. It merely removes it elsewhere.

I feel this is a dangerous and anti consumer practice. It's bad enough that Sony has a bunch of exclusive destiny stuff, timed dlc already sucks.

Bying timed exclusivity has been going on since the NES era, not really a new practice :).

Well, it does indeed add something. It adds a competitive element to the X1 that PS4 will not have, even though it is a timed exclusivity deal.  I think what Phil is getting at is that MS can then market X1 as the only place with both an exclusive FPS in Halo 5 AND and exclusive TPS in TR next fall. Perception is everything.

But it will not be the only place with an exclusive TPS. There is Uncharted. And who knows, maybe Sony will have an exclusive FPS as well. Logic is everything.

Exactly, and if TR was multiplatform, MS wouldn´t have been able to use TR as an exclusive TPS to pit against Uncharted.



Areym on 18 August 2014

How is that a win/win? What about PC owners and PS3/PS4 owners? We don't win shit from that.
Granted, we still get to play the game later on but still leaving us out to dry.

If he is looking for a game to compete with Uncharted 4, he is shit out of luck.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

DigitalDevilSummoner on 18 August 2014
Puppyroach said:,

Bying timed exclusivity has been going on since the NES era, not really a new practice :).

Game ?



Around the Network
betacon on 18 August 2014
Puppyroach said:
Arkaign said:
Puppyroach said:
This is how you communicate with the gamers! I still prefer that they create their own IPs but they are releasing alot of them and this is just a bonus in my view :).

How is this a bonus to you? Honest question. I'm just curious since the deal doesn't add a game to the XB lineup. It merely removes it elsewhere.

I feel this is a dangerous and anti consumer practice. It's bad enough that Sony has a bunch of exclusive destiny stuff, timed dlc already sucks.

Bying timed exclusivity has been going on since the NES era, not really a new practice :).

Well, it does indeed add something. It adds a competitive element to the X1 that PS4 will not have, even though it is a timed exclusivity deal.  I think what Phil is getting at is that MS can then market X1 as the only place with both an exclusive FPS in Halo 5 AND and exclusive TPS in TR next fall. Perception is everything.


Killzone and Uncharted ?



RenCutypoison on 18 August 2014
pokoko said:
That was an honest interview--at least, as honest as you're going to get about business deals. You can't reveal contractual terms unless both parties agree to it.

As I've said before, if someone isn't using clear language then there is probably a good reason why.

I don't like the Tomb Raider deal. I really don't. However, I blame Square rather than Microsoft. Microsoft is responsible for Xbox, Square is responsible for Tomb Raider.


I rather have square investing in FF than Tomb Raider, so I'm kinda glad they got some money out of that deal ;)

But yeah, exclusivity deals, especially on an already existing franchise, has always been bad for gamers. I'm just grateful there are less and less third party exclusive since last gen



Burek on 18 August 2014
Areym said:
How is that a win/win? What about PC owners and PS3/PS4 owners? We don't win shit from that.
Granted, we still get to play the game later on but still leaving us out to dry.

If he is looking for a game to compete with Uncharted 4, he is shit out of luck.

The way I look at it as a PS4 owner, it will actually turn out win/win only for us. We will get a better game, a definitive edition with all DLC for free, sometime in late spring when titles are scarce, and we still get Uncharted for holiday 2015, and with an usually packed holiday schedule, we wouldn't have time to play TR anyway.



alabtrosMyster on 18 August 2014

This whole thing is ridiculous, as if he did not know on what other platform(s) a big titles like this one is coming?

He needs to demonstrate the "win-win" thing, not just say it, right now XB1/360 owners do not "win" anything, this game was going to be released on their system anyway, however PS/PC (maybe even Wii U) owners certainly loose an option.

So as far as customers go, nobody wins (it's not a win if you have to buy a new console because you want to play game X that was obviously planned on a device you already own...

So the companies involved do have some potential "wins" MS is poised to sell a few consoles, especially considering that the game will not have a better PS4 version and an even better PC version (depending on your config) to compare it to....

Now that also shows you the difference in attitude, when Sony saw they may need some 3rd person action shooter to respond to Gears of War (I assume a lot of things here) they got one of their studio to build something from scratch, a new world, characters, etc. they took a risk. MS on the other hand, they went out, and placed a bid to have a game taken away from gamers on other platforms, and Square Enix took the money.

I am still not sure who's worst in this, MS for corrupting, Square for being corrupt? MS/Square for implying they don't know what will happen once the timed exclusivity clause expire?

I would much rather companies go in and create games than prevent them from being published on competing platforms (ideally even first party titles would show up at least on PC, that would make preservation of old games SO much easier).



Azerth on 18 August 2014

its a win win because ms gets another xbox exclusive for next year and square doesnt have to put up as much money to fund the game