The Next Tomb Raider is Xbox One Exclusive

[ETC]

Good article about it

here

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/08/12/exclusivity-big-mistake-tomb-raider

If it's already there my bad

[Sam The Man]

Tomb Raider died to me years and years ago. It hasn't been as good since the PS1 days and with the exception of TR Anniversary i have paid little attention to the series. Regarding the new one being Xbox One exclusive i don't think it's a major coup like TR2,3,4 were for Sony back in the late 90s as back then it was a much bigger franchise and Sega didn't really have anything to go up against it. I think it's a mistake on Crystal Dynamics part as it will massively impact it's sales potential. Besides Sony has plenty of exclusives and i don't think it will hurt them at all. I do think Sony should of got Final Fantasy XV as an exclusive though.

[wakka]

It's funny really. People are pissed off about this, but on other corners of here/the gaming web in general, you often hear people bemoan the lack of 'proper exclusives' these days and the homogenised nature of modern home console libraries.

[PeteJ]

I own a One, I really enjoyed the reboot. I'm OK with this.

[teddymeow]

So I play this on my Xbox One and Uncharted 4 on my PS4.

I am more than fine with that.

[Adam]

Eh, they just baught the series back to being good and now it's essentially finished already for me. I just don't want an Xbox.

This is funny though:

[Paddy]

Although reading the news on Siliconera made my eyes widen a little, having read comments and speaking with my friend since has calmed me, realising this will most likely be a timed exclusive. Many PS4 owners will wait for it to come to their console of choice as they know for definite that they will have access to the next Uncharted title as well upon release.

Hey, if Crystal Dynamics get some funding up-front from Microsoft for releasing the game on the Xbox One first I'm entirely fine with that. Reminds me of Resident Evil: Code Veronica with later versions of that game having additional content/looking nicer on its respective machines, etc.

If people are highly desperate to play the game upon its initial release day, better have ?350-?400 spare somewhere.

[Kit]

Is this 'Tomb Raider is an exclusive!' like Resident Evil was exclusive to Nintendo, Metal Gear to Sony, etc... or have MS bought the company rare style - that's the only way you get a true exclusive these days lets be honest.

[sj33]

It's funny really. People are pissed off about this, but on other corners of here/the gaming web in general, you often hear people bemoan the lack of 'proper exclusives' these days and the homogenised nature of modern home console libraries.

I suppose in my case, I differentiate between first party exclusives and cases like this.

With a first party exclusive, this is the platform holder investing in new IP and series' to differentiate their format. These are good because it results in new games being released. They are exclusive by nature, but would not have existed had the platform holder has not invested the money in the first place. There are also borderline cases such as Bayonetta 2 and the recent Project Zero games, where these games were only able to be developed because Nintendo themselves invested in their development.

This is markedly different from cases like this, where the game has been intentionally withheld from other formats due to one of the platform holders deciding to bung money their way. The game would have been released anyway - the release of the game did not depend on the investment from the platform holder. Instead, a platform holder has decided to simply pay the publisher millions of pounds to only release said game on their format - money that Microsoft could more positively invest in their own IPs. These cases are bad because vast amounts of people lose and nobody actually gains anything.

From a gamer's perspective, who actually wins out of this? Other than 12 year old kids getting some bragging rights?

[CMcK]

Funny how there wasn't this outrage when Tomb Raider went from being a multi platform title which launched first on the Saturn to a PlayStation exclusive.

[amorenod]

It was released simultaneously on PC, Saturn and PS1. As for the outrage, I guess not really having broad internet access left only the option of writing angry letters, published a month after reading the news on CVG. I miss the calm of those days.

[wakka]

I suppose in my case, I differentiate between first party exclusives and cases like this.

With a first party exclusive, this is the platform holder investing in new IP and series' to differentiate their format. These are good because it results in new games being released. They are exclusive by nature, but would not have existed had the platform holder has not invested the money in the first place. There are also borderline cases such as Bayonetta 2 and the recent Project Zero games, where these games were only able to be developed because Nintendo themselves invested in their development.

This is markedly different from cases like this, where the game has been intentionally withheld from other formats due to one of the platform holders deciding to bung money their way. The game would have been released anyway - the release of the game did not depend on the investment from the platform holder. Instead, a platform holder has decided to simply pay the publisher millions of pounds to only release said game on their format - money that Microsoft could more positively invest in their own IPs. These cases are bad because vast amounts of people lose and nobody actually gains anything.

From a gamer's perspective, who actually wins out of this? Other than 12 year old kids getting some bragging rights?

True enough.

[Golgo]

If CD actually now turn it into a Tomb Raider game with tombs and suchlike, rather than some breezily murderous coming-of-age saga ("But I'm only a feeble archaeology student...gnn.gnn..gnnn...I can DO this!!" / 10 hours later, hundreds lie slaughtered), I will be peeved. Otherwise, not a big loss. Nathan Drake is always good for wanton slaughter in Indiana Jones type settings.

^ Fanboy sulk alert!

[sj33]

The original game did release a week earlier on the Saturn. And more significantly, the Saturn was the lead development platform.

There was almost a mirror situation there though - Core did start development of Tomb Raider 2 on the Saturn, and there was nothing in Tomb Raider 2 that could not have been done on the Saturn. Same basic engine, after all. The Saturn version might have taken a framerate and resolution hit like the original game, but they could have released the game as planned.

Instead, Sony bunged money their way for an exclusive deal until 2000. Which Sony deny, but the series suddenly went multiplatform again then.

[Lebowski]

Good article about it

here

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/08/12/exclusivity-big-mistake-tomb-raider

If it's already there my bad

some good points raised in that article

Exclusivity on any terms is a bizarre choice for Square Enix to make, but it's especially bizarre when you look at the sales breakdown for Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, which made 69% of its total sales on PS4. So not only is Square Enix going with an exclusive partner here, letting down literal millions of fans, it's partnered with the less popular platform for Tomb Raider players

I think this highlights the strangeness of the partnership, what do you reckon Microsoft paid for this game, the last game sold 6.5 million across multiple platforms so have Microsoft compensated crystal dynamics somewhere in the region of 6.5 million in sales, less what its projected to sell on the xbox one.

For the deal to make sense they have to cover the majority of what it would have sold or it just doesn't make financial sense on crystal dynamics part, yeah there not gonna cover every sale as a big pile of money is quite enticing when you don't have to sell a single copy. Could this sort of thing breed lazyness and a rush job on CD' part, its not even out yet and its made its ps4 sales one year early.