No clue. All I can/will say is that no one can call the Tomb Raider exclusivity deal "stupid" if they don't know how much money MS gave to get the game as a console exclusive for a year.
Rise of the Tomb Raider announced for PC (Early 2016) and PS4 (Holiday 2016)
- Thread starter ZombiesRUCrazy
- Start date
No clue. All I can/will say is that no one can call the Tomb Raider exclusivity deal "stupid" if they don't know how much money MS gave to get the game as a console exclusive for a year.
Tomb Raider didn't hit the black/profit until it sold 5 million copies. The "didn't sell as much as expected" is about the 3.4 million in the first 4 weeks. Square Enix expected 5-6 million in that time frame.
When a game has a $100 million budget it needs a lot of sales to be profitable.
A mention that this is the second game of a trilogy, and that the IP isn't going to be exclusive.
"Phil Rogers, CEO of Square Enix Americas referred to the Tomb Raider series as a “trilogy,” signaling that a third game for the Lara Croft reboot is planned. Rogers referred to the series as a trilogy when discussing the upcoming title’s exclusivity with Microsoft at Gamescom.
“We believe first and foremost this is the right thing to do with Tomb Raider right now,” Rogers said about Rise of The Tomb Raider coming to Xbox first. “What it’s done for the sake of the studio and the next beat with the Tomb Raider trilogy… But the backlash is–we’ve watched carefully and we believe it’s the right thing to do.”
"Playstation fans don’t have to worry – Square Enix doesn’t plan to make Tomb Raider an Xbox exclusive IP.
“We don’t see this over time becoming an Xbox IP,” Rogers said about Tomb Raider. “This is a story and we’ll look back over the Tomb Raider franchise and history, and it will be a chapter where it was a timed-exclusive with Xbox.”
http://www.gamespresso.com/2015/08/...r-a-trilogy-thats-not-exclusive-to-microsoft/
"Phil Rogers, CEO of Square Enix Americas referred to the Tomb Raider series as a “trilogy,” signaling that a third game for the Lara Croft reboot is planned. Rogers referred to the series as a trilogy when discussing the upcoming title’s exclusivity with Microsoft at Gamescom.
“We believe first and foremost this is the right thing to do with Tomb Raider right now,” Rogers said about Rise of The Tomb Raider coming to Xbox first. “What it’s done for the sake of the studio and the next beat with the Tomb Raider trilogy… But the backlash is–we’ve watched carefully and we believe it’s the right thing to do.”
"Playstation fans don’t have to worry – Square Enix doesn’t plan to make Tomb Raider an Xbox exclusive IP.
“We don’t see this over time becoming an Xbox IP,” Rogers said about Tomb Raider. “This is a story and we’ll look back over the Tomb Raider franchise and history, and it will be a chapter where it was a timed-exclusive with Xbox.”
http://www.gamespresso.com/2015/08/...r-a-trilogy-thats-not-exclusive-to-microsoft/
As every part of every CEO's job.... assure all the whiners and Nervous Nancy's get some attention.
Amazing how the CEO's of IBM, Apple, GM, Walmart and all the big oil companies will chime in during quarterly earnings calls and that's pretty much it. When Steve Jobs was around, you'd hear from him what? Each quarterly report and the annual Mac show?
But for the games industry, there's so many babies out there crying about one or two of the 1,000 games out there that upper management has to get on the bullhorn and waste time.
Not mad at all. Probably won't even play the game unless it becomes a GwG freebie at some point.
Don't worry Xbox still has other exclusives.
But I'm sure the CEO's comments were a huge sigh of relief for Sony fans, so they can feel comfort one extra game (among an ocean of 1,000 games out there) can be part of the game library. lol
Gee, Intelly, you sure were happy about the CEO's comments last week, when he was praising MS's passion. What changed? lol.
TR's a big franchise, and Sony has most of the market share. He'd be dumb to not attend to all those customers.
Console wars notwithstanding, I was more interested to hear they plan this as a trilogy. I haven't heard it referred to like that before.
That post had nothing to do with the CEO getting on the bullhorn. It had to do with MS not giving up and throwing in the towel like some people think MS will do.
It was just funny that when the CEO praised MS, you were tickled as punch, but when he said something geared toward PS4 owners, he was a lackey CEO who was only speaking to appease the "whiners and Nervous Nancies" and "crying babies." If I didn't know better, I'd think you were biased.
A game like this needs as many platforms as possible! I want bigger budgets, bet he's!
I doubt it will sell 6million plus in 4 weeks as an exclusive...
I doubt it will sell 6million plus in 4 weeks as an exclusive...
Honestly, it'll be a better game overall from them not having to focus on too many versions at the same time. That and they have a year to polish up the PC and PS4 version; you can pretty much rest assured it's going to be a well optimized and spotless port when the time comes.
Doesn't need to. The last game needed that because of the huge budget Square Enix laid down. This time they have funding from MS--who will have bigger ideas than just software sales--and MS is publishing, which means they do marketing and incur all the distribution costs.
So, for Square Enix to make profit, the game will only need to sell a fraction of their expectations for the last game.
The Rise of Tomb Raider is game that is three times the size of the last game and a game with expensive next gen game assets. Did Square-Enix say detail this game as having a lower budget or are you just assuming Microsoft picked up the entire bill?
Last edited:
I am talking about the direct cost to Square Enix, and not the overall game budget. The deal with Microsoft means Square no longer need to publish, which means they no longer incur advertising or marketing costs. Plus, Microsoft is directly investing in the game budget. Which lessens the Square Enix cost even more.
I assume this game will have the same overall game budget as the last.
Why would you assume the game has the same budget as the last? A game that is three times the size of the last game and a game with expensive next gen game assets. How much of the tab are you assuming Microsoft is picking up?
You really think they are going to add more budget to a game that needed 5 platforms and 2 generations of hardware to make decent profit?...although, this is Square Enix...
All of that is fine. But if Tomb Raider (2013) really did take five platforms just to become profitable, then why would someone assume a single platform with an install base with less than 20 million can single handedly make their even far more ambitious sequel profitable?
I didn't say profitable. I said make a decent profit. If I recall correctly, the first game just about started to make profit before the current-gen version released. However, it still needed 3 platforms, and a considerably bigger install base.
Like I was saying, though, Square Enix's budget for this game will have shrunk significantly thanks to this partnership with MS. I wouldn't be surprised if MS was footing half the development costs as well as the marketing and publishing. If that is the case, than Square will be alughing all day long. They will easily make there money back, it just might take a year.
"Profitable" and "make a decent profit" mean the same thing. And both mean that your income is exceeding your expenses, which Microsoft's consoles can't do alone. You are misusing the word, but i understand what you are saying. But there is a lot of assuming that Microsoft is just picking up the literal majority of the entire bill of a game more ambitious than the 2013 released game to make Square-Enix's expenses literally be a fraction of what they were. Those are huge assumptions. I'm just wanting to point that out.
One penny gained is profitable. Decent profit means the money gained is satisfactory. Pretty big difference.
We know MS is publishing. What do publishers do?...so we know they are doing the advertising and distribution, that alone is a huge cost. We also know MS is helping to fund the development of the game. How much, who knows, but given how big this game was, and the fact that Square Enix were doing it already, I would assume MS had to part with some big bucks for this exclusivity.
It was just funny that when the CEO praised MS, you were tickled as punch, but when he said something geared toward PS4 owners, he was a lackey CEO who was only speaking to appease the "whiners and Nervous Nancies" and "crying babies." If I didn't know better, I'd think you were biased.
Hold up. Are you suggesting there might be an agenda behind those posts? My mind is blown.
I'm not sure what the smiley should be, but we really need a "straight face" one.
Marketing is a HUUUGE cost. Sometimes as much or more than the development, so yeah. Beyond that, Tools are likely better now, so they can do more with less, and they have the reboot to springboard off of. I also image it's an updated version of their engine, which should cost much less than building one from scratch like they did for the first.
I don't think I heard anyone recently say MS was going to throw the towel in during this generation.