Playstation 4 Or Xbox One? (See mod warning in the first post)

FlyingIrishMan

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Interesting that you mention defensive :cool:

Microsoft are doing both so its all cool on Xbox One.

You're defending MS's actions.. so defensive?

You dodged the question. MS can't have X money, spend it on option 2, and then use the same money to fund a first party game. The money is already spent. Sure they can spend different money, but that's not the question I asked.

They can either spend it on option 1 or option 2.

(And for the record, I didn't like the last one, and probably wouldn't have bought this one so it doesn't affect me. I just don't like MS's approach to getting exclusives.)

ems_medic

Otacon wrote: »

They didn't pay to fund the game's development - just to stop the development on PC and PS4.

If they paid a lump sum to a developer then technically they did help to fund the games development as MS have just paid them a lump sum to offset their development work on the basis that its exclusive to XB1.

Sounds a bit like double standards from Playstation people being honest.

johnny_ultimate

kunst nugget wrote: »

What were the major problems with it? The story was a bit goofy and she went from innocent lass to cold hearted killer in jig time but apart from that I didn't have many issues with it.

Mostly that it completely abandoned its promising early survival mechanics and dark tone for a repetitive series of bland, impossible setpieces. The game played well when it just let you potter around looking for artefacts (even if it lacked strong puzzles), but when you had to push forward it quickly became dull. It was a game that I felt was actively contradicting itself - for all the fragility, dark tone and character development attempted in cutscenes, there was nothing of the sort in the gameplay itself, which more often than not resorted to being an inferior Uncharted clone when it should have developed on the identity it established in the excellent opening hour. The first time you had to take down an army of enemies the game fell apart for me, and it didn't recover - it was rarely less than mechanically and technically competent, but it was also utterly uninspired.

Pushtrak

The 1 TB Xbox One is nice, though I'd like if they had 1 TB standalone consoles but I'm not thinking that's likely in the short term.

FlyingIrishMan

ems_medic wrote: »

If they paid a lump sum to a developer then technically they did help to fund the games development as MS have just paid them a lump sum to offset their development work on the basis that its exclusive to XB1.

Sounds a bit like double standards from Playstation people being honest.

The game would have been released anyway though, even without the money from MS for exclusivity.

ems_medic

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

They can either spend it on option 1 or option 2.

Or take option 3, spend the money on both

GottaGetGatt

ShadowHearth wrote: »

well, first of all, those are timed exclusives and second of all, those are indy developers, which need a hand. So Sony has an Indy friendly mindset with PS4. No surprise they helping out and getting timed exclusives. Tomb Raider is from massive triple A Studio. MS just payed money to cock block PS4.

Did sony not do the same for No Mans Sky no.Just asking?

Otacon

ems_medic wrote: »

If they paid a lump sum to a developer then technically they did help to fund the games development as MS have just paid them a lump sum to offset their development work on the basis that its exclusive to XB1.

Sounds a bit like double standards from Playstation people being honest.

They made the deal with the publisher, not the developer. Development money for PC and PS4 was more than likely set aside before the project was even initiated.

If MS had not paid for the exclusivity, TR would be releasing on all three platforms next year.

If Nintendo had not paid for Bayonetta 2, it would have never been made. Similar to Sony funding Everybody's Gone to the Rapture and Hohokum.

Two completely different situations.

Grayditch

I thought the last game was class and I think it's a big coup for Xbox, but I wonder how many people who didn't care about the last one are using this as fodder for the console war.

I'll be checking achievements, lads...

ShadowHearth

Jaysus. Some people in this thread really make me lose faith in humanity.

FlyingIrishMan

ems_medic wrote: »

Or take option 3, spend the money on both

There is no option 3. You can't do both with one set of cash.

ems_medic

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

The game would have been released anyway though, even without the money from MS for exclusivity.

Same can be said for PS4 exclusives as well just would have taken longer to release. Either way it doesnt change the fact that MS giving SE money is directly supporting the development of the game and future development of other Tomb Raider games should they be exclusive

FAILSAFE 00

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

You're defending MS's actions.. so defensive?

You dodged the question. MS can't have X money, spend it on option 2, and then use the same money to fund a first party game. The money is already spent. Sure they can spend different money, but that's not the question I asked.

They can either spend it on option 1 or option 2.

I have the best of both worlds, MS are investing money in first party games studios and the power of Microsoft buying game exclusivity.

Microsoft's biggest advantage is that they are swimming in profit so you can't expect them not to use it to their advantage. As an Xbox One owner I am delighted.

This is what happens when a company that previously had dominance in the US gets knocked off the top, they fight back. Fair play to them.

Otacon

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

Did sony not do the same for No Mans Sky no.Just asking?

Hello Games were in trouble after the flooding last year and Sony sorted them out.

FlyingIrishMan

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

Did sony not do the same for No Mans Sky no.Just asking?

We don't really know the full story, No Man's Sky team is extremely small and they don't have a publisher so Sony are supposedly funding them in return for timed exclusivity.

kunst nugget

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I dont even go in do discussion anymore as its pointless. If what, policies like that just pushing me away from Xbox one again.

GottaGetGatt

I would have prefered MS investing in some more big IP's then buying out an existing one tbh.

ems_medic

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

There is no option 3. You can't do both with one set of cash.

But your the only one saying there is one "set" of cash.

Clearly MS have thought outside the box and come up with an option 3 that involves them supporting their own studios as well as third party studios.

Your opinion might be that there is no option 3, but the facts simply speak for themselves that there is

Penn

ems_medic wrote: »

Or take option 3, spend the money on both

That's not what's being asked.

Let's say Microsoft have $100m to spend. They could spend $40m securing TR as an exclusive, and $60m on first party games. Or they could spend $100m on first party games, considering TR is already coming out on their console anyway.

The point they're making is that Microsoft is spending money to prevent games coming out on PS4, rather than using that money (the $40m for example) to fund more first party games.

Pushtrak

I played the first one on PC and honestly it didn't impress me as much as I'd have liked. The game had an over reliance on QTEs, for one thing and the stupid waves of enemies in a game once again. I usually like doing everything in a game but I just wanted to get it done, really. I'll also agree that I'd rather see them fund their own stuff than try to secure exclusives like that. Timed DLC, timed anything, buying exclusives... Any fanboy of any system should think of a game in similar circumstances that could be done by the competition. If for instance, Xbox only people, you were a big fan of The Witcher 3 and that was to go to PS4 only you'd not be a fan of that. Multi console owners will be fine no matter what happens so in the future it'll not matter to me, but I don't have the One or PS4 yet.

Otacon

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

As an Xbox One owner I am delighted.

Why are you delighted? You were getting the game anyway.

Is your delight in gloating or something?

Grayditch

Ah now. I'd hardly call this move 'thinking outside the box'.

More like a decent move while 'trapped into a corner'.

FlyingIrishMan

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I have the best of both worlds, MS are investing money in first party games studios and the power of Microsoft buying game exclusivity.

Microsoft's biggest advantage is that they are swimming in profit so you can't expect them not to use it to their advantage. As an Xbox One owner I am delighted.

This is what happens when a company that previously had dominance in the US gets knocked off the top, they fight back. Fair play to them.

You're still dodging the question.
I'll use a simple analogy since you can't understand it.

Dick has one coin. Harry has no coins.
Tom is going to give a sweet each to Dick and Harry for free.
Dick can use his coin to buy more sweets in the shop, but instead, uses his one coin to buy both sweets from Tom. He then throws one sweet in the bin, and eats the other.
Dick now has no coins.

Understand now? Of course MS can spend different money on first parties, but they can't spend the same money on both.

I'll give you an option 3 though.

3. MS spends money on both, but X-1 is their game count. The -1 being the game they could have developed rather than the Tomb Raider deal.

Generic Dreadhead

It's like the kid who enjoys his ice-cream all the more since he has an ice cream and you don't.
In fact you not having an ice cream is more important than weather the ice cream is nice or not

dunworth1

ShadowHearth wrote: »

well, first of all, those are timed exclusives and second of all, those are indy developers, which need a hand. So Sony has an Indy friendly mindset with PS4. No surprise they helping out and getting timed exclusives. Tomb Raider is from massive triple A Studio. MS just payed money to cock block PS4.

oh i see so when sony does it. its ok because they are helping indie devs :pac:
we dont know what the money ms gave will be used for maybe for dev of new ip/more games.

FAILSAFE 00

Otacon wrote: »

Why are you delighted? You were getting them game anyway.

Is your delight in gloating or something?

Due to exclusivity the game will be optimised perfectly for Xbox One.

FlyingIrishMan

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Due to exclusivity the game will be optimised perfectly for Xbox One.

I thought the gap was closing anyway?

Generic Dreadhead

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Due to exclusivity the game will be optimised perfectly for Xbox One.

Ladies and Gentlemen, from the company that brought you Windows Vista and Windows 8 :rolleyes:

tok9

FlyingIrishMan, I admire your stubbornness but if you are hoping to get an answer to that question, you've come to the wrong place!

Timmyctc

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Due to exclusivity the game will be optimised perfectly for Xbox One.

Good point. Might be hitting the dizzying heights of 962p