Rise of the Tomb Raider announced for PC (Early 2016) and PS4 (Holiday 2016)

[Hissatsu]

I never said there won't be DLC or that it won't look better. Show me where I said any of that. Quit making stuff up. In fact I said there would be DLC because that's how it usually works.

I'm saying the fact that you claimed there would be "a lot more" content is wishful thinking and based on nothing. Thank you

So basically you are nitpicking my words? The last tomb raider has a dlc pack of 26 items. I'd say that is a lot. Why can't I assume the next one won't have the same? Also I never said you said anything. I quoted you and said I don't understand your point and explained why I thought the point you might be trying to make was silly. Why are you so defensive? You are the one who originally quoted me with nonsense in the first place.

I'm sure the Xbox One will get the ultimate version next year when the PS4 gets it. Unless there's no DLC which probably isn't the case.

Yep! We all know the "Definitive Version" Will be coming to both.

 

[Andy]

Forbes: The PS4/Xbox One Console War Has Taken A Decidedly Stupid Turn

"... But recently, the things that divide the PS4 and Xbox One are becoming less and less interesting, and focused less on providing new and interesting perks and games for their systems and more about mildly annoying those who own their rival console.

"This happens in a number of ways, but one of the most prominent is a practice that has spawned with this new generation, timed-exclusive content, and now as the concept evolves, timed-exclusive games.

"We’ve seen Sony do this with Activision since the dawn of the PS4. They worked out a deal where PS4 Destiny players get certain “bonus” content in the base game and its expansions. So far, that’s meant that PS4 players have gotten weapons, armor, ships, missions and multiplayer maps that Xbox players haven’t, and though it’s not a ton of stuff, it’s certainly enough to be irritating.

"Microsoft reportedly “invested” enough in the development of Square Enix’s Rise of the Tomb Raider that they get to call themselves a co-publisher. It’s one thing if a developer makes a commitment to purchase a franchise for themselves, but again, this ended up being a timed deal. It was just revealed that Rise of the Tomb Raider will indeed come to PlayStation, but players will have to wait a solid year for the honor of playing it. Rather than buying one of PlayStation’s most iconic franchises for their own, Microsoft is merely leasing it to annoy PS4 players.

"I suppose we’re seeing a shift where developers and publishers would rather develop games released for all consoles rather than having to choose sides. Console sales have never been higher this early in a generation, so everyone wants a piece of every pie. The cost of retaining developers to make exclusive games is likely rising.

"But the problem is that the solution that’s been found is nothing but an annoyance to players. Console timed exclusive content and timed exclusive games are like mobile games that throw up paywalls. One side gets angry enough at the other to develop an intense hatred of the brand in question, yet the “convenience” of getting some content a week or a year early isn’t enough to make them actually run out and buy a console.

"It’s a different sales pitch when you have Microsoft and Sony listing off their exclusive franchises as to why you should join their team, compared to saying “Get select Destiny content a year early on PlayStation” or “play Tomb Raider first on Xbox.” It’s not enough punch to produce an actual console sale, but enough to make the other side grumble quite a bit.

"As such, this console war has stagnated and become rather dull. Both major systems have slowed to releasing what seems like one or two major exclusive games a year, and are more concerned with squabbling over crumbs given to them by developers (in exchange for millions of dollars)."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...onsole-war-has-taken-a-decidedly-stupid-turn/

 

[Dno69]

So basically you are nitpicking my words? The last tomb raider has a dlc pack of 26 items. I'd say that is a lot. Why can't I assume the next one won't have the same? Also I never said you said anything. I quoted you and said I don't understand your point and explained why I thought the point you might be trying to make was silly. Why are you so defensive? You are the one who originally quoted me with nonsense in the first place.




Yep! We all know the "Definitive Version" Will be coming to both.

That's true. I probably nitpicked your wording. But 26 items doesn't sound like impactful DLC honestly. Extra missions or areas does.

It's just that people are assuming things without any info at all. Some already have the game running 1080p/60 just because the last one did.

 

[Hissatsu]

That's true. I probably nitpicked your wording. But 26 items doesn't sound like impactful DLC honestly. Extra missions or areas does.

It's just that people are assuming things without any info at all. Some already have the game running 1080p/60 just because the last one did.

I think somethings are safe to assume. I dunno about 1080p/60fps though but I definitely would expect it to run or look better than the xb1 version considering the extra year. I think it's safe to assume that for example. I mean it would be pretty sad if they didn't do anything more after a year longer and stronger hardware. ;(

 

[Plainview]

I think somethings are safe to assume. I dunno about 1080p/60fps though but I definitely would expect it to run or look better than the xb1 version considering the extra year. I think it's safe to assume that for example. I mean it would be pretty sad if they didn't do anything more after a year longer and stronger hardware. ;(

Remember, after that year, they'll also be able to optimize and take better advantage of DX 12. It's safe to assume both versions will be improved over this years version. How much, who knows?

 

[penguinpig]

unless they add substantial content, dont see it selel much. funny to see the people on here so adamant it would be exclusive.

 

[TeKPhaN]

So basically you are nitpicking my words? The last tomb raider has a dlc pack of 26 items. I'd say that is a lot. Why can't I assume the next one won't have the same? Also I never said you said anything. I quoted you and said I don't understand your point and explained why I thought the point you might be trying to make was silly. Why are you so defensive? You are the one who originally quoted me with nonsense in the first place.




Yep! We all know the "Definitive Version" Will be coming to both.

One version will very likely perform better though.

 

[TeKPhaN]

unless they add substantial content, dont see it selel much. funny to see the people on here so adamant it would be exclusive.

very funny that a handful here said it was staying exclusive

 

[Frozpot]

Forbes: The PS4/Xbox One Console War Has Taken A Decidedly Stupid Turn

"... But recently, the things that divide the PS4 and Xbox One are becoming less and less interesting, and focused less on providing new and interesting perks and games for their systems and more about mildly annoying those who own their rival console.

"This happens in a number of ways, but one of the most prominent is a practice that has spawned with this new generation, timed-exclusive content, and now as the concept evolves, timed-exclusive games.

"We’ve seen Sony do this with Activision since the dawn of the PS4. They worked out a deal where PS4 Destiny players get certain “bonus” content in the base game and its expansions. So far, that’s meant that PS4 players have gotten weapons, armor, ships, missions and multiplayer maps that Xbox players haven’t, and though it’s not a ton of stuff, it’s certainly enough to be irritating.

"Microsoft reportedly “invested” enough in the development of Square Enix’s Rise of the Tomb Raider that they get to call themselves a co-publisher. It’s one thing if a developer makes a commitment to purchase a franchise for themselves, but again, this ended up being a timed deal. It was just revealed that Rise of the Tomb Raider will indeed come to PlayStation, but players will have to wait a solid year for the honor of playing it. Rather than buying one of PlayStation’s most iconic franchises for their own, Microsoft is merely leasing it to annoy PS4 players.

"I suppose we’re seeing a shift where developers and publishers would rather develop games released for all consoles rather than having to choose sides. Console sales have never been higher this early in a generation, so everyone wants a piece of every pie. The cost of retaining developers to make exclusive games is likely rising.

"But the problem is that the solution that’s been found is nothing but an annoyance to players. Console timed exclusive content and timed exclusive games are like mobile games that throw up paywalls. One side gets angry enough at the other to develop an intense hatred of the brand in question, yet the “convenience” of getting some content a week or a year early isn’t enough to make them actually run out and buy a console.

"It’s a different sales pitch when you have Microsoft and Sony listing off their exclusive franchises as to why you should join their team, compared to saying “Get select Destiny content a year early on PlayStation” or “play Tomb Raider first on Xbox.” It’s not enough punch to produce an actual console sale, but enough to make the other side grumble quite a bit.

"As such, this console war has stagnated and become rather dull. Both major systems have slowed to releasing what seems like one or two major exclusive games a year, and are more concerned with squabbling over crumbs given to them by developers (in exchange for millions of dollars)."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...onsole-war-has-taken-a-decidedly-stupid-turn/

Err. that author hasn't been gaming long, I guess. Like 3rd party exclusives and timed exclusive just started with this generation. Lame.

It's also funny that as a Forbes article, they'd at least see snapping up these deals is about giving their product and edge, and not about "annoying" people gaming on another console. There is a tinge of entitlement here, and it's not at all surprising. The whole world is falling into this bulls*** mentality.

 

[Andy]

Err. that author hasn't been gaming long, I guess. Like 3rd party exclusives and timed exclusive just started with this generation. Lame.

It's also funny that as a Forbes article, they'd at least see snapping up these deals is about giving their product and edge, and not about "annoying" people gaming on another console. There is a tinge of entitlement here, and it's not at all surprising. The whole world is falling into this bulls*** mentality.

I get what he's saying, though. It is small potatoes compared to real exclusivity deals, and in most cases it doesn't do more than annoy people who own the other console. Annoy them enough to buy the other console? Maybe eventually. Just seems like a rather small-stakes drama, petty almost, compared to some real console war stuff, like he alluded to (not that I'm a big fan of console wars, but you know, if you're going to have one, you might as well make it interesting).

 

[Frozpot]

I get what he's saying, though. It is small potatoes compared to real exclusivity deals, and in most cases it doesn't do more than annoy people who own the other console. Annoy them enough to buy the other console? Maybe eventually. Just seems like a rather small-stakes drama, petty almost, compared to some real console war stuff, like he alluded to (not that I'm a big fan of console wars, but you know, if you're going to have one, you might as well make it interesting).

It's all good to me. I actually would rather have a timed exclusive than a full one (unless it's first party. I think exclusives are completely necessary to drive competition and differentiate yourself from your competitors.) Timed exclusives give them a bit of an edge (especially if you can get them consistently), but still allow those on other systems to get their hands on a great game if they don't have a need for multiple systems. The console "War" can go f*** itself.

 

[Dno69]

I think that games like Bloodborne or Scalebound are how exclusives should be done via third party. But whatever.

I understand business but as a gamer, exclusives on established third party games are kind of annoying.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Bloodborne isn't a 3rd party game.
Not even close.

 

[Intellivision]

Bloodborne isn't a 3rd party game.
Not even close.

Sure it is. Sony doesn't own From Software, so whether it's 1 person at From Software or 100 working on Bloodborne, it's still a third party game though Sony also contributed to the game.

It sounds like all Sony did was act as publisher, so in reality it's a third party game backed by financial resources from a console maker. So it's really a third party game at heart.

Big companies do it all the time. The act as publisher, but the game is made by some independent smaller studio. It may be claimed as first party, but the development was really third party, NOT made in-house at a console maker's own studios.

 

[TeKPhaN]

From Software doesn't own Demons Souls or Bloodborne NOR are they the sole developers.

 

[Dno69]

Bloodborne isn't a 3rd party game.
Not even close.

I mean in the sense that Sony co produces the game with a third party. That makes more sense then buying up exclusivity to established games.

 

[Intellivision]

From Software doesn't own Demons Souls or Bloodborne NOR are they the sole developers.

Ownership of franchise is one thing. Working on it is another.

Similar to all the Sony/Insomniac games. Sony may own the IP, but Insomniac is an independent studio who did the work.

It may be first party owned, but third party developed.

That is different than a game/franchise that is both owned and made by the a console maker or third party dev.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Ownership of franchise is one thing. Working on it is another.

Similar to all the Sony/Insomniac games. Sony may own the IP, but Insomniac is an independent studio who did the work.

It may be first party owned, but third party developed.

That is different than a game/franchise that is both owned and made by the a console maker or third party dev.

in the case of bb and ds this is incorrect

 

[Registered User 1]

So demon/dark souls is first party to all consoles?

 

[TeKPhaN]

So demon/dark souls is first party to all consoles?

Did i say Dark Souls?

Demons Souls and Bloodborne were programed by Sony's Japan Studio's and From Software.
Published and owned by Sony.

Dark Souls is the spiritual predecessor/s to Demons Souls as From Soft don't have the rights to do a Demons Souls Sequel.

 

[Registered User 1]

You only said 'ds', so it was ambiguous.

 

[Andy]

Off topic again, folks. Rise of the Tomb Raider, Rise of the Tomb Raider...

 

[starseeker]

getting this on PC.

 

[Registered User 1]

The elite, or a higher level of people, rarely consume the same media as the plebians. We don't listen to the same music. We don't watch the same movies. We don't spend our free time the same way as the public does. And here's the thing...

Elite media doesn't sell (comparatively).

There is a reason the cliche hipster (who tend to be perceived as more intelligent) disassociates him or herself with something when it becomes popular. Think about.

Oooh... Now all your posts make sense.

You're a hipster!

You know, you can buy detatchable man-buns in a variety of hair colors on ASOS now. You can also get beard-baubles.

 

[Mcmasters]

I am sure there are better and more effective ways for him to get the attention he craves.

Like attempting the Roger Rabbit in the middle of a Los Angeles freeway? ( I know no one does the Roger Rabbit anymore, but THL seems like a Roger Rabbit kind of guy...)

 

[Zcythe]

I'll own up to it. I was one of the people who stated that it was possible that this game (not the franchise) would be full exclusive. I didn't say it would be definitively, but that it was possible. I stated that at the very least it would be an exclusivity of significant duration, which a year actually is.

I know some of you are having your fun poking at us who considered this a possibility, even to the point of trying to make us look like we were stupid for thinking such a possibility existed. However, it was a perfectly reasonable speculation considering that by all accounts MS is publishing this in addition to other development costs associated with the title and no assurance was provided from either MS or CD that it would come to other consoles. In fact the letter from CD told Playstation fans they could have Tomb Raider on their console in the form of TR: Definitive Edition or Temple of Osiris.

I'm not particularly surprised that this will come to PC or PS4, but I don't think our speculation that it wouldn't was baseless either.

 

[yankeessuck]

I'll own up to it. I was one of the people who stated that it was possible that this game (not the franchise) would be full exclusive. I didn't say it would be definitively, but that it was possible. I stated that at the very least it would be an exclusivity of significant duration, which a year actually is.

I know some of you are having your fun poking at us who considered this a possibility, even to the point of trying to make us look like we were stupid for thinking such a possibility existed. However, it was a perfectly reasonable speculation considering that by all accounts MS is publishing this in addition to other development costs associated with the title and no assurance was provided from either MS or CD that it would come to other consoles. In fact the letter from CD told Playstation fans they could have Tomb Raider on their console in the form of TR: Definitive Edition or Temple of Osiris.

I'm not particularly surprised that this will come to PC or PS4, but I don't think our speculation that it wouldn't was baseless either.

It was reasonable to think it could be. I would only poke fun at someone that considered it to be a lock.

 

[This_Hard_Land]

It was reasonable to think it could be. I would only poke fun at someone that considered it to be a lock.

It really wasn't reasonable because every few months, when someone close to the game would speak on it, they would basically confirm that it was going to come to other platforms (if you were able to read between the lines).

It would have been reasonable if they announced it as a timed exclusive and then went totally quiet on the game (only to reintroduce it as a real exclusive later on). It was the constant refusal to say the game was an XBO exclusive whenever they would market the game that made the notion ridiculous.

 

[Zcythe]

It really wasn't reasonable because every few months, when someone close to the game would speak on it, they would basically confirm that it was going to come to other platforms (if you were able to read between the lines).

It would have been reasonable if they announced it as a timed exclusive and then went totally quiet on the game (only to reintroduce it as a real exclusive later on). It was the constant refusal to say the game was an XBO exclusive whenever they would market the game that made the notion ridiculous.

Nope. The whole reason it was up in the air is because no confirmation was given, and all available dialogue ambiguous in nature. Confirmation was given just a few days ago. It would be ridiculous to continue to assume or speculate otherwise in light of this recent and official confirmation.

In actuality, it is more ridiculous to speculate and/or make assumptions on things you don't know. As someone who has followed the game's coverage and read the comments from people involved (i.e. Phil Spencer, CD, etc.), the known details of this deal alluded more towards either a period of longer exclusivity or full exclusivity. Reading between the lines is colored by bias and it is better to go from what is known instead of what isn't. Now we know from an official source.

 

[yankeessuck]

Nope. The whole reason it was up in the air is because no confirmation was given, and all available dialogue ambiguous in nature. Confirmation was given just a few days ago. It would be ridiculous to continue to assume or speculate otherwise in light of this recent and official confirmation.

In actuality, it is more ridiculous to speculate and/or make assumptions on things you don't know. As someone who has followed the game's coverage and read the comments from people involved (i.e. Phil Spencer, CD, etc.), the known details of this deal alluded more towards either a period of longer exclusivity or full exclusivity. Reading between the lines is colored by bias and it is better to go from what is known instead of what isn't. Now we know from an official source.

The one thing I always said is if the game was exclusive they would have made it more clear. Thats a good reason why people shouldn't have had such confidence in it being exclusive. When they have a game that isn't coming to PS4 they will find a way to make it clear.