190°

Rise of the Tomb Raider: Strategy Of Microsoft

Microsoft has taken some bold steps in distinguishing the Xbox One as the ultimate gaming console. Not simply content with resting on its own superb line-up of first party titles from the explosive continuation of Master Chief’s adventures to the mind bending temporal high jinks of Quantum Break the company is reaching out to secure a terrific collection of third-party exclusives that’ll shape the future of the console.

daBUSHwhaka3495d ago

Bring it on.Loved the last game and I'm sure this will not disappoint.2015 is gonna be a great year for xbox owners.

TheWatercooler3495d ago (Edited 3495d ago )

Only Microsoft would ever pull a D@*k move like this. They paid for exclusion. Plain and simple. All they care about is sales of new consoles. Being exclusive doesn't benefit current xbone owners one bit. Why? Because this game was already coming to the Xbone. So what difference has it made? All they have done is pay for exclusion because they think it will shift more xbones. The back lash has taught them what a mistake it was.

And the fact that it is only timed (after they outright lied that it wasn't) makes this deal even worse. It makes it pointless infact. It will probably be a waist of money. They have very little studio's so this is all they can resort to. At least Sony have a real commitment to gaming by investing and growing there own games from conception to reality and taking some risks.

There is no company lower than Microsoft in the gaming business.

@Yarbie. By not buying it? err ok. I suppose Microsoft are used to that with their sales getting trounced

umair_s513495d ago

MS is running a business. Was MGS4 not a Sony exclusive last time round and Bayo 2 on Wii U

yarbie10003495d ago

the fact that you've had such an emotional response to a game being exclusive i would say bodes well for Microsoft

GameSpawn3495d ago (Edited 3495d ago )

I'm paraphrasing here, but someone could surely find the interview. Microsoft was asked about having their version of Uncharted and responded in reference to the Tomb Raider one year exclusivity buyout with "We'd love to have our [version of] Uncharted, we just don't want to make it".

THIS is why Microsoft is the scum of the gaming industry. Instead of investing in 1st party games and studios they just "commission" 3rd party studios to make all their games. I'm using that word loosely by the way.

What is bad is that even Nintendo puts more effort into their first party offerings -- and without too much effort.

Seriously it would not take much for Microsoft to grow their 1st party studios if they are good about finding and keeping talented developers. Microsoft's problem is that it is run by people who care about money and the bottom line first and constantly seeking out the lowest risk for reward situation possible. Think about it...what is worse...a 3rd party exclusive game failing that had most of the development cost on the 3rd party's shoulders and very little risk from Microsoft or a 1st party game failing that had ALL the cost and risk on Microsoft's shoulders?

From a business perspective you can see why Microsoft has always gone with the former. However business perspective aside, big risks DO pay off. Uncharted is the perfect example and Naughty Dog not only hit it out of the park once, but three freaking more times (UC2, UC3, and LoU). LittleBigPlanet is another risk/reward that paid off well for Sony.

In the end this decision was in poor taste from both Microsoft and Square. Both companies are run by nutbags that have no place in the gaming industry and only stand to further stagnate and hold back the evolution of the gaming industry.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen3495d ago

It's an interesting idea to get exclusivity deals with 3rd party developers, however, Microsoft does run the risk of alienating gamers on other platforms. I'm sure that the Tomb Raider deal did nothing to encourage PS4 owners to run out and buy an Xbox One. For some, it's just another reason not to get an Xbox One.

ScorpiusX3495d ago

That could have happen either way , no matter who secured the deal.this is more of let's compete with UC in some form during that release window.

strangeaeon3495d ago

Microsoft should have had Black Tusk working on their own UC instead of a new Gears. I will get TR because I loved the last game, but I don't think it's fair to PS4 gamers.

OpieWinston3495d ago

@Strangeaeon

That is the worst idea ever... Please go back to what ever corner you crawled out of.

Gears a Billion dollar franchise...

And they've now got plenty of ex Gears devs including Rod helming the project. They'd have been crazy NOT to push Gears.

Considering Gears is pretty much the king of competitive TPS.

Ryan7413495d ago ShowReplies(2)
lelo2play3495d ago (Edited 3495d ago )

When Microsoft and Nintendo (remember Bayonetta 2) get 3rd party exclusives, it's very very bad. When Sony get 3rd party exclusives, then it's great.

Such hypocrisy...

I have a PS4 but I can't stand Sony fanboys. They unable to understand that Sony does the exact same thing.

InTheLab3495d ago

There's a difference here and the difference is TR is a long established franchise that really started on Playstation.

No one gives a s$;& about Quantum Break or Dead Rising. Could care less about those games being exclusive even though I like Remedy. Could care less about Ryse as its a dud anyway and even if it was at least decent, exclusives are there for a reason.

But this.... All MS did was pay to delay a game for PS and PC and its bulls$&&.

lelo2play3495d ago (Edited 3495d ago )

@InTheLab

You are a perfect example of what's wrong with Sony fanboys. You try to find excuses and justifications where there is none. Simply put, Tomb Raider is a business deal just like many business deals Sony has done with countless 3rd party developers.

For you everything Sony does is perfectly justifiable.

umair_s513495d ago

@lelo2play Agree 100% with you, Bayo 2 is a pristine example also MGS4 on PS3 was equally unfair to 360 owners

GameSpawn3495d ago

Bayonetta and Metal Gear Solid were made exclusive by decision of the developer NOT Nintendo or Sony. In fact MGS4's exclusivity was heavily influenced by Kojima himself. Konami like any 3rd party publisher wanted as many platforms as possible, but at the time Kojima had so much control over the Metal Gear Solid franchise and a powerful position within Konami that his choice to release it solely for PS3 won over (for those that don't know Kojima is VERY MUCH a "PlayStation guy" because of the success of the Solid franchise on the original PlayStation).

I'm sorry that some people are too "jaded" to see past their own hypocrisy.

Tomb Raider's situation is VERY much a different situation as Microsoft initiated the exclusivity by approaching Square with the offer (NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!). All you people are doing is enforcing bad business practices by actually trying to defend them on this.

InTheLab3495d ago (Edited 3495d ago )

Way to generalize dude....go back through my comments. Not a fan of Vita or how ass PSN has been this gen. Not a fan of Nintendo and the WiiU. Not a fan of the shady bulls*() MS pulls.

This so called business decision benefits Xbox gamers how? How does this help you? All it does is prevent fans on other platforms from playing the game in 2015 and some of us will probably skip it all together.

I didn't even mention sony let alone defend them so you just have this stock answer for everyone that has a problem with Microsoft. "Well you're a fanboy" is all you have?

How about challenge what I actually said and not bring up conversations you've had with other people?

jb2273494d ago

@lelo

Let's see the facts to back that statement that Sony does exactly what Microsoft did in this situation. Where they were lacking in first party studios & games, and instead of creating more for the industry, they just threw money at a developer to exclude other gamers from continuing a journey they already started on the platform of their choice?

It's like Phil Spencer's reasoning of "wanting an Uncharted type game", when Sony wanted a Halo type game, they created a new ip & gave big funds to a publisher to try to make one…that's good for the industry, more true competition, more games & studios for gamers, more jobs for developers. Rise of the Tomb Raider is a game that was already on the way, it was already coming to everyone, including Microsoft fans so don't use the excuse I see a lot that it might not have happened if they didn't secure a deal w/ MS. There really is no way to spin this deal as being good for gamers, and that whole garbage about "this is a business" doesn't work either because unless you are in the business of creating and selling games, you are a gamer whose desires have absolutely nothing to do w/ the business of the industry & in some cases run completely against those tactics.

lelo2play3494d ago (Edited 3494d ago )

@InTheLab, GameSpawn, jb227

How do you guys know Sony don't pay for 3rd party exclusives games that were originally suppose to be multiplatform?

For example, let's take a look at From Software's PS4 exclusive Bloodborne. With the sales the Dark Souls series had on the X360/PC, don't you guys think Bloodborne would have been a multiplatform game if Sony hadn't struck a exclusive deal? So basically Sony took the game away from the X1/PC gamers. Was that good for gamers ? Was that good for X1/PC Souls fans ? Will that help PS4 gamers that the game is PS4 exclusive? NO... but it will sell more PS4's, just like Tomb Raider will sell more X1's. BUSINESS!

Can you guys see where I'm getting at ?

To sum it up, every PS4 3rd party exclusive could have originally been a multiplatform game, but due to Sony's deals, they are PS4 exclusives. You guys can come up with lame excuses and justifications, but Sony does the exact same thing Microsoft did with Tomb Raider.

So... STOP being HYPOCRITES (if you don't know what it means, look it up).

BTW... no more bubbles :(

GameSpawn3494d ago (Edited 3494d ago )

lelo I'm sorry your out of bubbles, but you are grasping at straws to suit your agenda.

You do know From Software is a small developer that does not have the ability to publish their own games worldwide right? Most of their games are released in Japan first and sometimes ONLY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Demon's Souls (Published by Sony in Japan, Atlus in the US and Namco in Europe)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Demon's Souls was localized by Atlus and Namco, BUT because Sony already owned the right to the IP because of first publishing it in Japan it NEVER could be ported to other consoles. AGAIN DIFFERENT FROM THE TOMB RAIDER SITUATION!!!!

Dark Souls (Published by Namco worldwide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Dark Souls II (From Software only published in Japan, Namco published worldwide)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Bloodborne (Being published by Sony Japan Studio and Sony Entertainment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Again because this game is PUBLISHED by Sony, Sony owns the IP. Ratchet & Clank is another example of a game made by a 2nd/3rd party, but published by Sony and thus owned by Sony.

Last I checked Tomb Raider is STILL being published by Square/Eidos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

If I am correct Titanfall, as another example, was NOT published by Microsoft and Microsoft MUCH like Tomb Raider paid for that game, but didn't publish it themselves!!! In fact Titanfall was going to be just like Tomb Raider (a timed exclusive) until EA and Microsoft made a deal behind Respawn's back for complete exclusivity. Thank GOD!! Square has not proven to be this freaking dumb yet.

Again, developing is one thing and publishing is another and 9 times out of 10 the publisher reserves the right to which systems that the final product lands on as the publisher is the one footing the bill to land it on those systems!!!

Please come up with better examples where Sony (or Nintendo) actually paid to keep a game out of Xbox owners hands that they themselves did not end up publishing and again DO NOT say MGS4 because it is already public knowledge that was a decision of Kojima as it is HIS game to do with what he pleases.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3494d ago
DoubleM703495d ago (Edited 3495d ago )

You don't have to be loyal to any of these companies. Just bring on the games regardless what console they own. Back in the day Sony didn't just buy IP they would buy the whole studio. Just like they did with Naughty Dog. I don't want to hear any excuses not be a gamer. I guess some of you all are just too young to remember when Sony was the big fish.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3494d ago
qwerty6763495d ago (Edited 3495d ago )

Title was a little misleading, but i guess its to get people to click.

they only hinted at Microsofts strategy to focus more on gaming for like one sentence

then talked about something completely different the rest of the article.

and we already know Microsofts strategy for the game. as Phil Spencer said himself. it was to combat Uncharted 4 next year.

SnakeCQC3495d ago

Making a game that was originally a multi plat into a exclusive was a pretty crappy move imho

mcstorm3495d ago

People seem to forget that Tomb Raider was originally an exclusive on the Saturn so it has a history of moving platforms.

This could be a good move for Microsoft as they could pickup extra sales next year for this game but we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

Spotie3495d ago

An exclusive going multiplat isn't nearly the same, and you know this. Unless the original platform gets left out, you're only expanding your audience; that's generally acceptable.

But cutting off your original fanbase? Who does that?

More importantly, why are so many of you guys so eager to say that's okay?

I got it. From now on, Halo will be exclusive to Nintendo. Makes sense, right?

mcstorm3495d ago

So would you be saying the same thing if it was only on the PS4? Looking at your comment history that's a no.

InTheLab3495d ago

It was never originally exclusive but the Saturn was the lead platform. Eidos assumed Sega would dominate so they developed the game first for the saturn but quickly launched a port along side the Saturn version so there was never any exclusivity. Sony dominated the market share so they focused on the PS. Lara even became the mascot of the PS along with Crash.

Speaking of Marketshare. This still makes no sense anyway you slice it. Alienating the larger market can't possible make up for the millions MS paid for this game and what does this deal do for Xbox One owners? They were getting the game anyway...

mcstorm3495d ago

@InTheLab Its still not an exclusive now its a timed exclusive so it will be coming to the PS4 a few moths after too.

I do agree with you on the side of the PS4 being so far ahead of the xbox one that its a strange decision but we don't know what has gone on in the background on why its coming the 360 and One 1st.

Plus will PS4 users really pickup Tomb Raider the same time UC4 is out?

Im not saying its good or bad for the industry but a lot goes on in the gaming industry we don't know about an never will.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3495d ago
Unarmed_Civilian3495d ago

Get serious, its only a timed exclusive and 6-12 monts a Definite Edition will be released for PC and PS4.

BLow3495d ago

Actually we really never got a straight answer for that. During the announcement, they said exclusive for 2015. I do agree with you with you that it will come. The answer is when. I mean if MS just paid for the holidays then technically it can come out January 1st.But I'm predicting Feb or March 2016. So no sweat off my back. The holidays are going to be stacked with games just to worry about 1. Plus the PS4 version will have improvements anyways.

Oh and I forgot, PS4 has that little game called Uncharted to tide us over. That is assuming that these games don't get delayed and that's a whole other story.

Show all comments (68)
150°

10 Biggest Xbox Mistakes of All Time (So Far)

The Xbox brand has done a lot of good over the years, but their various blunders are pretty wild to look back on in their magnitude.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
piroh7d ago (Edited 7d ago )

Ironically number 9 can save them at this point (releasing games on multiple platforms)

ChasterMies6d ago

By “save them” you mean make more profit for Microsoft. Xbox will still be a dying hardware platform.

OtterX7d ago

You could add the naming scheme for the consoles, it just confuses customers. I know they wanted to avoid traditional numbering bc it would always be lower than their competitor, but this whole 360 then One then Series thing is confusing af. Imagine a Soccer Mom trying to figure this stuff out. I still mistakenly call the Series X the One from time to time on accident.

RNTody7d ago

Don't forget about the Xbox One, Xbox One X and Xbox Series X! Good luck to Soccer moms around the world.

S2Killinit6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

They did that on purpose to confuse and direct attention away from the generational numbering.

MS doesn’t like reminding people that they joined the industry after others had already been involved in gaming.

For instance, they called the xbox “360” to combat PlayStation “3” because they wanted to seem like “more” than “3”, so instead of xbox 2, they opted for xbox 360. Also this had the additional benefit of selling consoles to uninformed parents who might purchase a “360” instead of a “3” by mistake, or because they thought 360 was more than 3. Kind of a disingenuous move.

They have been continuing with their confusing naming patterns for pretty much the same reasons. Frankly, it fits with who and what they are as a brand.

FinalFantasyFanatic6d ago

I can understand their reasoning, but whoever came up with that naming scheme should be fired, bad naming schemes have killed consoles (I'm pretty sure it was the major reason for the downfall of the WiiU). They should have had unqiue names like Nintendo and Sega have had for their consoles, far less confusing for the consumer.

rob-GP2d ago

@FinalFantasyFanatic "They should have had unqiue names like Nintendo..."

lol, you mean:

NES, SNES
GameBoy, GameBoy Advanced, GameBoy Colour, GameBoy SP
DS, DSi, DSXL
3DS, 3DS XL, New 3DS, New 3DS XL
Wii, Wii U
Switch, Switch OLED

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
Cacabunga7d ago (Edited 7d ago )

Phil Spencer is the worst that has happened to Xbox.
They built a respectable brand up to Xbox one. Then this guy took over and things became a joke

Reaper22_7d ago

He still has his job. Something you can't say about Jim Ryan.

Cacabunga7d ago

Both bad execs. One is on job and one thankfully retired.

FinalFantasyFanatic6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

I didn't like either person, both people damaged their respective brands and produced worse outcomes, but Phil did save the Xbox brand from being retired by Microsoft. Although in hindsight, he should have just let it die, rather than languish in limbo like it is now.

Rainbowcookie5d ago

Yeah but the one that was "bad" didn't even affect sales.

bunt-custardly6d ago

Phil Spencer was also on the team back when 360 was around, alongside Shane Kim, Peter Moore etc. I think the damage that did the most harm was the Don Mattrick "Always Online" console (ahead of its time basically). They handed Sony and Nintendo a free-pass when that was revealed. It went downhill from there. Then the corporate machine went into full swing to try and recover. They have to a degree as a games company for the masses, and less so for the core gamer. Outside USA, the Xbox brand does not sell as well as Japanese based consoles (citation needed).

Cacabunga6d ago

Want a decision maker. The always online and TV plans was a disaster yes, but they caught up by announcing 1st party games that gamers actually kept the hype going.. until this moron took over and introduced the PC day one release.. e all know where that ended..

S2Killinit6d ago

I dont think they were ever a respectable brand, not since the beginning, when their goal was never to be involved and share in the gaming space. I think the OG xbox was an exception because MS as a brand was still getting its foot in and so the people behind that were people of the gaming industry.

FinalFantasyFanatic6d ago

The 360 was the brand in its prime though, everything went downhill towards the end of that generation. Its staple games like Halo, Forza and Gears are what kept the console relevant and afloat for so long.

MaximusPrime_7d ago

Really good video.

I remember the days with RRoD was big news on here, N4G.

Microsoft had it turbulence number of years.

Looking at the success of Sea of Thieves despite being 6 years old, time to release Halo, Forza horizon 4 & 5 on PS5. It'll help their revenue

shinoff21837d ago (Edited 7d ago )

2 of the 4 games they did already sold really well. So it's definitely going down. Idk about halo or forza but I feel those studios they've bought in the last 5 years, their coming

ChasterMies6d ago

I found this video painful to watch. Can someone list them out?

Top 10 for me from are:
1. 2013 reveal presentation
2. Bundling Kinect 2 with Xbox One
3. RRoD or why rushing to market with hardware is always a bad idea.
4. Buying studios only to close them.
5. Ads on the Home Screen
6. Letting Halo die.
7. Letting Geard of War die.
8. Every console name
9. Charging for Xbox Live on Xbox 360 when Sony let PS3 players play online for free.
10. Cancelling release of OG Xbox games after the Xbox 360 launched.

Show all comments (31)
150°

Microsoft to Add Copilot AI to Video Games

Microsoft recently revealed its plans to incorporate Copilot directly into video games, with Minecraft being the first showcased example.

Read Full Story >>
xpgained.co.uk
Fishy Fingers11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

F*** AI

"Hey Copilot, what's a good meme to prove I dislike AI".... https://giphy.com/clips/sou...

Einhander197211d ago

Two trillion dollar company that just can't wait to put as many people possible out of work as fast as possible.

It feels like every single thing they do is making gaming worse and destroying the industry.

11d ago
11d ago
11d ago
darthv7210d ago

....you know it takes people to program the AI.... right? It isnt like it is sentient. We haven't reach skynet level of situation or anywhere close to the matrix just yet.

That's next Thursday.

Einhander197210d ago (Edited 10d ago )

It takes a people to program the AI then that AI is used for who knows how many games eliminating countless jobs which only grows as AI is used for more and more game creation functions.

What you're saying is so ridiculously short sighted and truly larking any kind of understanding and foresight.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 10d ago
CaptainFaisal11d ago

Why all the hate? Im actually excited about this! Always wanted this kind of immersion, and an AI companion with me all the time helping me out knowing the status of my skills/inventory/progress and giving me tips on the best approach or how to craft something specific is game changing for the industry.

Hate all you want about AI, but this is just the start and I can see the potential already. You wont be complaining in the next 5-10 years about this, but rather complain if a game hasn’t implemented it.

MrDead11d ago

Yes we can't wait for the work of others to be used without the need to pay them so that MS can profit even more from the people they fire.

I_am_Batman11d ago (Edited 11d ago )

There is no chance I'd ever use something like this, especially if it's not part of the core game design, but a layer on top of it. It's way too much handholding. Many games already feel like busy work, because they don't let the player figure things out on their own. Having a real-time interactive guide defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place in my opinion.

If this were to become the standard like you predict, we'll see more and more video games get away with bad design, because people will just be used to ask for help from the AI companion anyway.

Number1TailzFan11d ago

Well Nintendo don't need this with some of their games these days, with invincible characters, items, easy bosses etc.. they do the hand holding built in

helicoptergirl11d ago

Takes "hand holding" in games to a whole new level.

BlackDoomAx9d ago

Because human nature xD Almost every new technology had these kind of comments.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 9d ago
Show all comments (19)
70°

Activision team is opening a new game studio in Poland 'Elsewhere Entertainment' to build new AAA IP

Microsoft's Activision subsidiary announced today that it is opening a new game development studio to take advantage of the huge talent pool growing in Poland. It'll be the second Activision studio based in the region, joining Infinity Ward Krakow, although this studio is, in fact, not working on Call of Duty.

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
Psychonaut8515d ago

They’re not working on Call of Duty? Give it time.