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

FAILSAFE 00

_Redzer_ wrote: »

You do realise that the Xbox division has an annual budget and that's it, right? The Xbox decision is taking big losses, they will not get all of MS money because investors will block such a move because they won't get a return on their investment.
So it doesn't make a difference that MS is "drowning in profit", because that doesn't mean the Xbox decision is, and it certainly isn't.

A massive statement is them putting all their cash into first party studios and bringing them up to Sony and Nintendo standards. This is good in the long-run.
Buying timed exclusives and one offs doesn't help build your exclusive pedigree one bit, and is a short sighted strategy. It's what happened to the 360.

What's more desirable; a company that produces many AAA exclusives, creative projects, or a company that blocks multiplat games to make them exclusive, coupled with timed exclusivity?

Microsoft can invest money wherever they wish to. It quite obvious with the investment in first part studios as well as investment in securing third part exclusives that the Xbox division have a gigantic budget due to Microsoft's gigantic profits.

Xbox doesn't need to get all of Microsoft's profit to be successful, in fairness the money needed is like petty cash when compared to Microsoft's overall profit.

Otacon

Davei141 wrote: »

if people are going to adopt certain stances they can at least be consistent.

Has someone been inconsistent?

Also, I can only speak for myself, but when those rumours that it was a console exclusive to PS4 were circulating, I assumed it was so because Hello Games were such a small team and couldn't work on multiple versions of the game at the same time - not that money had changed hands or anything.

FAILSAFE 00

Davei141 wrote: »

There was always rumours of it being a console exclusive (Still nothing about it being on X1) and funny enough many said it was another reason to buy a PS4. Not a hint of anything resembling anti-consumering from people then, just pure positivity. I'm not talking about you but if people are going to adopt certain stances they can at least be consistent.

Absolutely. Spot on.

If Tomb Raider had of been a PS4 exclusive there wouldn't be a word about it here.

_Redzer_

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Microsoft can invest money wherever they wish to. It quite obvious with the investment in first part studios as well as investment in securing third part exclusives that the Xbox division have a gigantic budget due to Microsoft's gigantic profits.

Xbox doesn't need to get all of Microsoft's profit to be successful, in fairness the money needed is like petty cash when compared to Microsoft's overall profit.

Then how come we're not seeing many new first party studios, non-kinect ones, and them growing, but instead seeing them buy off 3rd parties for timed exclusivity instead?

You keep missing the point, or wilfully dodging it, would you not rather them invest much more heavily in first party like Sony and Nintendo (who have much lower cash reserves, yet are still doing it) or their trend of minimal first party investment and timed exclusivity everywhere else?

Because I'm not seeing both going on, despite MS gigantic cash reserves, as you put it.

Otacon

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

If Tomb Raider had of been a PS4 exclusive there wouldn't be a word about it here.

Otacon wrote: »

There were rumours yesterday that Sony were going to confirm they had secured full console exclusivity of No Man's Sky. If that had happened, I, like many others, would have criticised them for doing so.

It's a tactic that is anti-consumer, no matter which company does it.

.

richymcdermott

I remember the same situation not so long ago with bayonetta 2 fans took it to themselves to give death threats to platinum games on twitter.
this is not a new model of business as we seen this for years , if companies come to wave a big bag of money around publishers faces then by all means we either accept it and move on or we buy another console just to play that game.


Its not like in fairness lads to be moaning about it since xbox needed a title to rival up uncharted 4 which in fairness between tomb raider series inspiring uncharted then uncharted inspiring the reboot they are two very similar games and you have by all means loads of games to play you will not miss it that much unless you were hardcore over the TB reboot.

is it anti consumer ? possibly as I wish to see all multiplatform games to be treated equally than timed exclusive this or exclusive dlc that while one games extra maps and world and levels and the other does not the price of the games are the same though one clearly lacking content than the other.

But this has always been the way it has for years now. playstation fans dont get tomb raider or pc for that matter and xbox and pc fans don't get bloodbourne as alot of fans were upset over another soul series wont be coming to that platform.

it is what it is unfortunately

abbir

richymcdermott wrote: »

I remember the same situation not so long ago with bayonetta 2 fans took it to themselves to give death threats to platinum games on twitter.

The big difference with Bayonetta 2 is that the game would not be made without the money from Nintendo. Rise of the Tomb Raider was going to be made regardless.

NotorietyH

EDIT: Nevermind

Otacon

The situation with Bayonetta 2 is entirely different however, as without Nintendo funding the project, it would never have been made.

That is entirely pro-consumer as they are getting a game that would otherwise have not been available to them at all.

EDIT: Damn you abbir!

Davei141

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Hang on, after the flooding there was a huge thing made about MS stepping in to help out, with failsafe posting a load of links and spoke about how much money MS had, and how beneficial it all is.
If anything I thought it was coming to X1 first.

When did it shift back to Sony helping them out?

What are you on about?

Otacon wrote: »

Has someone been inconsistent?

Also, I can only speak for myself, but when those rumours that it was a console exclusive to PS4 were circulating, I assumed it was so because Hello Games were such a small team and couldn't work on multiple versions of the game at the same time - not that money had changed hands or anything.

See that is the thing though, it is always assumed that when Sony get something exclusive there are these nice genuine reasons that crop up time and time again. If it is MS it is pure evil anti-consumerism. No doubt the Tomb Raider deal was crap but Hello Games can make the game for PC and PS4 but suddenly run out of resources to make an X1 version in time or even announce it will come out in future.

FlyingIrishMan

This is a good recap of Microsoft's commitment to first party studios.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125163689&postcount=7090

pleasant Co.

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Absolutely. Spot on.

If Tomb Raider had of been a PS4 exclusive there wouldn't be a word about it here.

If it had been a ps4 exclusive the reaction from those not emotionaly involved with their console of choice would be the same as it currently is, obviously.

Davei141

pleasant Co. wrote: »

If it had been a ps4 exclusive the reaction from those not emotionaly involved with their console of choice would be the same as it currently is, obviously.

More like there would be a load of "Tomb Raider was originally a PS game so this makes sense" type of rational going on.

abbir

Davei141 wrote: »

More like there would be a load of "Tomb Raider was originally a PS game so this makes sense" type of rational going on.

Wasn't it out on the Saturn fiirst?

I would think it would be just as ridiculous that a traditionally multi-platform title was paid off for no benefit other than simply to block off another console.

_Redzer_

Davei141 wrote: »

More like there would be a load of "Tomb Raider was originally a PS game so this makes sense" type of rational going on.

Well not from me there wouldn't be. I'd be annoyed about how stupid they'd be to pay obscene amounts to block a game that was already coming instead of making another Journey type game -something really different and creative like that.

richymcdermott

Oh yeah i know this is different all together but I thought I bring it up anyways. Still we should be use to this by now , if square who complained the first time around that tomb raider did not sell up to there expectations first time around on all platforms bar wii u and want to sell it exclusive to a system that the game sold far less than on pc and ps4 then by all means lets square dig themselves in a further hole.

pleasant Co.

Davei141 wrote: »

More like there would be a load of "Tomb Raider was originally a PS game so this makes sense" type of rational going on.

I don't agree that that is "more likely", why would a neutral come to that POV?

Otacon

richymcdermott wrote: »

Oh yeah i know this is different all together but I thought I bring it up anyways. Still we should be use to this by now , if square who complained the first time around that tomb raider did not sell up to there expectations first time around on all platforms bar wii u and want to sell it exclusive to a system that the game sold far less than on pc and ps4 then by all means lets square dig themselves in a further hole.

I think everybody understands why the decision was made by MS and SE - MS wanted an exclusive and SE wanted some guaranteed money upfront.

I am not an MS or SE shareholder so their financial health doesn't mean much to me. The problem is the move is anti-consumer and I am a consumer - hence the criticism.

Davei141

abbir wrote: »

Wasn't it out on the Saturn fiirst?

I would think it would be just as ridiculous that a traditionally multi-platform title was paid off for no benefit other than simply to block off another console.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Well not from me there wouldn't be. I'd be annoyed about how stupid they'd be to pay obscene amounts to block a game that was already coming instead of making another Journey type game -something really different and creative like that.

It is stupid and ridiculous but it would be interesting to see the slant put on it by people if they had.

heebusjeebus

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

This is a good recap of Microsoft's commitment to first party studios.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125163689&postcount=7090

That makes for sad reading, especially what they've done with Rare.

Microsoft brings nothing to this industry other than dump trucks of money. They're in the video game industry for all the wrong reasons. Making and selling video games is a secondary part of the business model and that has been the case from day one.

Kinect was really the start of the downfall for the XBox brand. They put all their focus on controller-less gaming and forgot about what people really want.

_Redzer_

Davei141 wrote: »

It is stupid and ridiculous but it would be interesting to see the slant put on it by people if they had.

Coulda woulda shoulda.

That's not what we're discussing here, though.

Timmyctc

heebusjeebus wrote: »

That makes for sad reading, especially what they've done with Rare.



Kinect was really the start of the downfall for the XBox brand. They put all their focus on controller-less gaming and forgot about what people really want.

What about ensemble I miss AOE

calex71

Calling a Tomb Raider game being X1 exclusive anti-consumer is a bit much no

I mean by that logic you could extend that to every game that comes out on one console and not the other or PC game that doesn't get a console port.

I know many fans of the Souls series here are disappointed Bloodborne is PS exclusive including me but but the reaction towards tomb raider is a bit much surely, exclusives have been part of the deal since the "console wars" of old.

Timmyctc

calex71 wrote: »

Calling a Tomb Raider game being X1 exclusive anti-consumer is a bit much no

I mean by that logic you could extend that to every game that comes out on one console and not the other or PC game that doesn't get a console port.

I know many fans of the Souls series here are disappointed Bloodborne is PS exclusive including me but but the reaction towards tomb raider is a bit much surely, exclusives have been part of the deal since the "console wars" of old.

The issue isnt that its an exclusive game though. Its that its a sequel to a game that came out multiplat last year. Was intended to be multiplat next year but MS spunked money on it only coming to them. Its not the same as a new IP going out exclusively or even if the entire reboot had been made exlcusive.

Magill

The thing that is probably pissing people off is that a lot of people played Tomb Raider on their PS4 (It outsold the XB1 version 2:1) and now they can't play the sequel unless they spend money on a console they don't want or wait/hope for a PS4 release a few months later... thats just scummy, especially on the part of the publisher.

I honestly think this will do more harm than good to all involved, MS are making people dislike them even more as a company, CD being classed as sellouts and in general its just leaving a bad taste in peoples mouth.... all the while... its tomb raider and lets be real, its not a system seller... especially considering it will be competing with Uncharted 4 come release and its extremely likely it will get extremely overshadowed.

FAILSAFE 00

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Then how come we're not seeing many new first party studios, non-kinect ones, and them growing, but instead seeing them buy off 3rd parties for timed exclusivity instead?

You keep missing the point, or wilfully dodging it, would you not rather them invest much more heavily in first party like Sony and Nintendo (who have much lower cash reserves, yet are still doing it) or their trend of minimal first party investment and timed exclusivity everywhere else?

Because I'm not seeing both going on, despite MS gigantic cash reserves, as you put it.

Unless you can tell me exactly how much money Microsoft has invested in first party studios compared to what Sony have invested there is nothing that lends weight to your points.

The fact is you don't know how much as been invested. Neither do I but I do know that Microsoft owns more first party game studios compared to Sony

Davei141

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Coulda woulda shoulda.

That's not what we're discussing here, though.

Might expose a lot of hypocrisy though..

tok9

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

This is a good recap of Microsoft's commitment to first party studios.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125163689&postcount=7090

That post honestly sums up everything I think about Microsoft to be honest except I'd never be able to write it as well.

Timmyctc

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Unless you can tell me exactly how much money Microsoft has invested in first party studios compared to what Sony have invested there is nothing that lends weight to your points.

The fact is you don't know how much as been invested. Neither do I but I do know that Microsoft owns more first party game studios compared to Sony

I don't get why you're celebrating this (if its true) Quality over quantity surely?

Davei141 wrote: »

Might expose a lot of hypocrisy though..

It really wouldn't. That people would be lauding Sony as genius for buying off a franchise for a sequel is idle speculation on your end and no more.

FAILSAFE 00

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

This is a good recap of Microsoft's commitment to first party studios.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125163689&postcount=7090

That's a load of 1 sided bitter rubbish

Any credible sources?