Support NeoGAF

[Matriox]

Obviously what I said was my definition of moneyhat, and I believe most here agree with it.

Correct. Moneyhat in 99.9% of conversations is about a game that has been paid off to create an "unfair for consumers" situation. Bloodborne, Sunset Overdrive, Uncharted, Halo are NOT moneyhats because they would not have existed had it not been for the (Edit : Platform holder) paying for it. Tomb Raider however was announced and had zero reason to believe would be exclusive. Hell, the pc version of TR had a special tressfx whatever to go with it, why would the sequel be exclusive? It sure as hell wasnt said at the reveal. No, we don't know if TR wasn't moneyhatted for certain, but things are way too fishy to think otherwise.

Look what Sony is doing with Destiny....that's from the creators of Halo. Bungie made 4 of the biggest Xbox games, now Sony is throwing money at them to make a bunch of exclusive stuff for ps4. What goes around comes around.

Not saying this isn't shitty either. Moneyhatting sucks on both sides.

EDIT: Also need to take into consideration what is being taken from either side though. Had Destiny been entirely moneyhatted off of Xbox consoles, then we would have a way different story to talk about here.

 

[lpchrys]

Moneyhatting an already established multiplat series and cutting people out who are already invested in the series is scummy. Regardless who does it. Bloodborne doesn't fit that criteria so why do you keep bringing it up?

I'll give you an example. Let's say Bioshock comes out on all systems and is a huge success. If Sony moneyhatted the sequel it would absolutely be scummy. But if MS moneyhatted Bioshock as a new IP so that the first title only came out on their system, that's not as bad, as its not cutting out people who already played the first game and who are invested in the story.

Although I think the focus should also be on the dev and their decision to section off their property.

Look what Sony is doing with Destiny....that's from the creators of Halo. Bungie made 4 of the biggest Xbox games, now Sony is throwing money at them to make a bunch of exclusive stuff for ps4. What goes around comes around.

 

[Kikujiro]

You guys either have a severe bias towards Sony, or a deep-seated moral opposition to subcontracting.

You have a severe bias towards Microsoft or don't know what you're talking about.

 

[watershed]

So this is a timed exclusive. When the initial announcement was made it really sounded like a full exclusive, meaning forever and only on the Xbox One. Now the confusion makes sense.

 

[David___]

Look what Sony is doing with Destiny....that's from the creators of Halo. Bungie made 4 of the biggest Xbox games, now Sony is throwing money at them to make a bunch of exclusive stuff for ps4. What goes around comes around.

Because 2 maps and pieces of gear in a game about loot is obviously the same thing as denying a full game to a platform.

 

[Sayers]

We know SE didn't need help from MS to develop the game.

I don't know, man, funding development of a game for 8 years with nothing but a new logo and a short trailer to show for it is pretty expensive.

 

[plasmawave]

So to make a broad summary, moneyhatting is okay if in your highly subjective opinion, a game could never have been made without financial intervention by a first party publisher?

That is a reasonable position to take, but I have pretty strong doubts that Bloodborne or No Man's Sky would have completely died if not for Sony's intervention. From Software has tons of revenue from the Dark Souls titles, and Hello Games are ambitious enough to attract VC money without an exclusivity deal. If you believe otherwise, then I suppose that's just where we have to agree to disagree.

You clearly didn't read through the thread.

 

[loaf of bread]

Look what Sony is doing with Destiny....that's from the creators of Halo. Bungie made 4 of the biggest Xbox games, now Sony is throwing money at them to make a bunch of exclusive stuff for ps4. What goes around comes around.

Just stop.

 

[The Don]

Look what Sony is doing with Destiny....that's from the creators of Halo. Bungie made 4 of the biggest Xbox games, now Sony is throwing money at them to make a bunch of exclusive stuff for ps4. What goes around comes around.

You're comparing a multiplayer map to an triple A game.....



You're comparing a multiplayer map to an triple A game.

 

[Mononoke]

Look what Sony is doing with Destiny....that's from the creators of Halo. Bungie made 4 of the biggest Xbox games, now Sony is throwing money at them to make a bunch of exclusive stuff for ps4. What goes around comes around.

You are comparing exclusive DLC to a new IP (that is on all platforms) to a sequel of a major multiplat?

 

[gatti-man]

This thread is crazy.

Ms bought timed exclusivity for a multiplatform IP. If some of you can't see why that's a dick move then idk what more to say that 126 pages already hasnt. Everyone would be much better served if MS would invest in first party IP and stock trying to force it through 3rd party moneyhats.

 

[Gorillaz]

Compare timed multiplayer maps to timed full game moneyhats, brehs

 

[RiccochetJ]

This thread is crazy.

Ms bought timed exclusivity for a multiplatform IP. If some of you can't see why that's a dick move then idk what more to say that 126 pages already hasnt. Everyone would be much better served if MS would invest in first party IP and stock trying to force it through 3rd party moneyhats.

I'm wondering if it's cheaper for MS to lock in for the long term third party games than funding internal studios.

 

[barit]

So business as usual. Sony and Nintendo takes money in the hand to found and buy new studios so that they can make 1st & 2nd party games and keep the industry going. MS takes money in the hand to prevent other versions of a game so that they can have a timed exclusive.

Now I ask you, what seems more healthy for this industry ? And some of you´re wondering why the majority of gamers don´t like MS ? Smh

I´m just glad that it was a franchise I don´t care about. But if this was Fallout 4 or something bigger, i would go on rage. Then you would see some epic meltdown from my side but so I shrug and go away.

 

[anonymous_abc]

So let me get this straight:

• SE had astronomical expectations for Tomb Raider
• Tomb Raider sells really well by any legitimate measure available
• SE is very disappointed with that
• In response SE decides to cut out a majority of the potential market for a sequel
• In order to what exactly?
• I don't understand

 

[HORRORSHØW]

Look what Sony is doing with Destiny....that's from the creators of Halo. Bungie made 4 of the biggest Xbox games, now Sony is throwing money at them to make a bunch of exclusive stuff for ps4. What goes around comes around.

oh god. the levels of dumb are reaching new heights in here with false equivalences.

 

[Byron Bluth]

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/prod...spx?path=4cf29cb93dc40625774bc8925cbaab96en02

My PS4 preorder for this game hasn't been cancelled yet! I got it at $49.99 too!

Has anyone had their preorder cancel?

 

[mcbradle]

Not good for the industry?

Economics lesson: competition (read: exclusivity) means better products and offerings. Remember when Sony laid the smackdown on Microsoft last summer with the always-online stuff? That forced Microsoft to reverse the policy to stay competitive. Same with the recent Kinect-less price drop.

Exclusives will come and go. Sure, be mad if you don't want a $400 system just for one game that you wanted to play that's now exclusive. But to say that it's bad for the industry is a childish accusation that has no merit. If these deals didn't happen, neither side would have incentive to bring something good or interesting to the table to combat the other. What are the odds that this isn't retaliatory to Bloodborne's exclusivity? From Software could have the same deal with Sony as CD does with Microsoft. So if we are gonna start ranting at Microsoft for doing it, then we need to start raising hell that Sony is too.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I'll never fully understand all the hate involved when a game is announced as an exclusive. I know the facts and don't need someone to reiterate them or spin them or give their perspective. I understand all that.

It is the hate, cussing out people who aren't here, the vile, and attacking other people for thinking differently that tends to become absurd, in my opinion.

I'm just trying to express my opinion on the matter without unintentionally antagonizing anyone cause sometimes you just want to put your opinion out there.

It doesn't bother me that Tomb Raider is an exclusive for xbox one. That is a console I don't own and don't plan on owning currently. I'm all PC for the last 3-4 years. I most definitely would like to play Tomb Raider. Maybe some day I will. And I won't exactly be hurting for the experience and I've seen bigger console exclusives take long to come to PC (GTAV still not PC yet - although coming soon) and I survived just fine. There are way too many awesome games to play that I just can't get angry over games being exclusive anymore. I'll just patiently await the day when tomb raider is on PC or maybe I'll even just forget about it and move on to equally appealing or better games.

 

[kitch9]

You're comparing a multiplayer map to an triple A game.....



You're comparing a multiplayer map to an triple A game.

I wouldn't call Tomb Raider AAA. It's a receeding franchise where the last games managed decentish sales numbers in a drought.

I can't see who gains from exclusivity. MS get to sell a dozen extra consoles, SE get to marginalise a franchise that needs extra exposure and the PS4 consumer has to play something else for 9 hours.

 

[spannicus]

Not good for the industry?

Economics lesson: competition (read: exclusivity) means better products and offerings. Remember when Sony laid the smackdown on Microsoft last summer with the always-online stuff? That forced Microsoft to reverse the policy to stay competitive. Same with the recent Kinect-less price drop.

Exclusives will come and go. Sure, be mad if you don't want a $400 system just for one game that you wanted to play that's now exclusive. But to say that it's bad for the industry is a childish accusation that has no merit. If these deals didn't happen, neither side would have incentive to bring something good or interesting to the table to combat the other. What are the odds that this isn't retaliatory to Bloodborne's exclusivity? From Software could have the same deal with Sony as CD does with Microsoft. So if we are gonna start ranting at Microsoft for doing it, then we need to start raising hell that Sony is too.

Bravo bravo

 

[quest]

So let me get this straight:

• SE had astronomical expectations for Tomb Raider
• Tomb Raider sells really well by any legitimate measure available
• SE is very disappointed with that
• In response SE decides to cut out a majority of the potential market for a sequel
• In order to what exactly?
• I don't understand

Not that hard to understand. They get money hats for the game to sit out during a time on a platform that it would be over shadowed by the leading game of the genre. Then they get to release the game on that platform once the shadow of the leading game of the genre has left. Maybe they could of delayed the game on all platforms but not get any money hats to do so. Those money hats are cash in hand for the game and make it easier for it to make money hence making it easier to justify making another TR game.

 

[plasmawave]

Not good for the industry?

Economics lesson: competition (read: exclusivity) means better products and offerings. Remember when Sony laid the smackdown on Microsoft last summer with the always-online stuff? That forced Microsoft to reverse the policy to stay competitive. Same with the recent Kinect-less price drop.

Exclusives will come and go. Sure, be mad if you don't want a $400 system just for one game that you wanted to play that's now exclusive. But to say that it's bad for the industry is a childish accusation that has no merit. If these deals didn't happen, neither side would have incentive to bring something good or interesting to the table to combat the other. What are the odds that this isn't retaliatory to Bloodborne's exclusivity? From Software could have the same deal with Sony as CD does with Microsoft. So if we are gonna start ranting at Microsoft for doing it, then we need to start raising hell that Sony is too.

Because MS didn't say such a thing when they willy nilly showed off the ROTR trailer at E3?
If it was exclusive to the Xbox you don't think MS would be boasting about it non-stop like they did with Titanfall?

have you seen ROTR?

 

[mcbradle]

So business as usual. Sony and Nintendo takes money in the hand to found and buy new studios so that they can make 1st & 2nd party games and keep the industry going.

And I'll show you're wrong by pointing out From Software. Who was not founded or bought by Sony. Yet still has an exclusivity deal with them.

 

[LowEndTorque]

They probably didn't want to launch this game against Uncharted 4. So take a check from MS and delay release on PS4 and PC. win/win.

 

[Zen]

It must be slightly concerning for Microsoft that the overwhelming reaction to this announcement is that you have pissed everyone off.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

Not good for the industry?

Economics lesson: competition (read: exclusivity) means better products and offerings. Remember when Sony laid the smackdown on Microsoft last summer with the always-online stuff? That forced Microsoft to reverse the policy to stay competitive. Same with the recent Kinect-less price drop.

Exclusives will come and go. Sure, be mad if you don't want a $400 system just for one game that you wanted to play that's now exclusive. But to say that it's bad for the industry is a childish accusation that has no merit. If these deals didn't happen, neither side would have incentive to bring something good or interesting to the table to combat the other. What are the odds that this isn't retaliatory to Bloodborne's exclusivity? From Software could have the same deal with Sony as CD does with Microsoft. So if we are gonna start ranting at Microsoft for doing it, then we need to start raising hell that Sony is too.

uhhh, what about exclusive first party games? Why did MS have to say "fuck you" to all PS3, PS4 and PC players so that they could compete?

 

[rokkerkory]

It must be slightly concerning for Microsoft that the overwhelming reaction to this announcement is that you have pissed everyone off.

Gaf represents everyone?

 

[IJoel]

I suppose this was the rumored 3rd party exclusive way back months ago. Rather odd for SE to take this approach, but big MS exclusives tend to do pretty well with their marketing muscle behind them, so it may pay off.

 

[Nizz]

This thread is crazy.

Ms bought timed exclusivity for a multiplatform IP. If some of you can't see why that's a dick move then idk what more to say that 126 pages already hasnt. Everyone would be much better served if MS would invest in first party IP and stock trying to force it through 3rd party moneyhats.

This I agree with. I can understand if a new first party IP is unveiled for a particular platform. Tomb Raider came out on multiple platforms already. Same as Titanfall, it's MS cockblocking other platforms from getting a title that was most likely multiplatform.

I think this was a stupid move. You aim to bring back Tomb Raider, create good mindshare with a game I thought was great. I seriously had doubts, being a fan of the original Tomb Raider games and seeing how the reboot was turning out. Then I got the Definitive Edition on PS4 and loved the game.

Then after you get people back on board with the franchise you go and pull this shit. That PR statement is a big middle finger to all the people on PS3/4 and PC, it's like "thank you all for buying and enjoying Tomb Raider 2013, now to enjoy the continuing adventures please shell out another $400 to continue enjoying it".

I like the TR franchise but not enough to spend another $400 to play the next game. Thanks a lot SE. :/ That is if it's fully exclusive. If timed, I'll tell you what it won't be day one for me like the Definitive Edition.

 

[mcbradle]

uhhh, what about exclusive first party games? Why did MS have to say "fuck you" to all PS3, PS4 and PC players so that they could compete?

The same reason Sony said it to all non-PS4 owners who like the Souls series.

 

[gatti-man]

I'm wondering if it's cheaper for MS to lock in for the long term third party games than funding internal studios.

It can't be long term. You need a stable of IP it builds loyalty with gamers and gives the impression you are in it for the long haul. MS feels like a seasonal store right now. I'm not sure if they even have a generation plan right now. I mean they have created one great IP per gen, that's just terrible (Halo and gears). I say this as a MS primary gamer from xbox/360 generations.

 

[David___]

And I'll show you're wrong by pointing out From Software. Who was not founded or bought by Sony. Yet still has an exclusivity deal with them.

The same reason Sony said it to all non-PS4 owners who like the Souls series.

You mean the game where Sony is funding the entire thing and having them collab with one of their studios?

 

[Cirekiller]

Gaf represents everyone?

Pretty sure everyone who bought the game on PS3 and PS4 are pissed off that they are cut off from playing the sequel of a game they really enjoyed unless they shell out 300+$.

 

[mooksoup]

It must be slightly concerning for Microsoft that the overwhelming reaction to this announcement is that you have pissed everyone off.

I think they knew exactly what the reaction would be. Big fuss, and then everyone will remember that xbox has a big name exclusive coming up.

 

[HORRORSHØW]

Not good for the industry?

Economics lesson: competition (read: exclusivity) means better products and offerings. Remember when Sony laid the smackdown on Microsoft last summer with the always-online stuff? That forced Microsoft to reverse the policy to stay competitive. Same with the recent Kinect-less price drop.

Exclusives will come and go. Sure, be mad if you don't want a $400 system just for one game that you wanted to play that's now exclusive. But to say that it's bad for the industry is a childish accusation that has no merit. If these deals didn't happen, neither side would have incentive to bring something good or interesting to the table to combat the other. What are the odds that this isn't retaliatory to Bloodborne's exclusivity? From Software could have the same deal with Sony as CD does with Microsoft. So if we are gonna start ranting at Microsoft for doing it, then we need to start raising hell that Sony is too.

what the hell are you talking about? bloodborne is co-produced with sony's backing, the same as scalebound is with microsoft's help. in that regard, their exclusivity completely makes sense. the tomb raider situation is diametrically opposed to that notion insofar that microsoft is effectively blocking its release on a competitor's system. these scenarios are nothing alike. it really isn't difficult to comprehend.

 

[Superflat]

From Software could have the same deal with Sony as CD does with Microsoft. So if we are gonna start ranting at Microsoft for doing it, then we need to start raising hell that Sony is too.

And I'll show you're wrong by pointing out From Software. Who was not founded or bought by Sony. Yet still has an exclusivity deal with them.

Aside from SCE Japan Studios being billed as co-developer for Bloodborne?

 

[anonymous_abc]

Not that hard to understand. They get money hats for the game to sit out during a time on a platform that it would be over shadowed by the leading game of the genre. Then they get to release the game on that platform once the shadow of the leading game of the genre has left. Maybe they could of delayed the game on all platforms but not get any money hats to do so. Those money hats are cash in hand for the game and make it easier for it to make money hence making it easier to justify making another TR game.

So is it confirmed timed? I am getting mixed messages all over the place.

 

[spannicus]

uhhh, what about exclusive first party games? Why did MS have to say "fuck you" to all PS3, PS4 and PC players so that they could compete?

Shit man when you're sinking you do what you gotta do. Exclusives mean more consoles sold. This shouldnt be hard to understand. Sony nor Microsoft gives two shits about any of you. They wanna sell consoles!

 

[rokkerkory]

Pretty sure everyone who bought the game on PS3 and PS4 are pissed off that they are cut off from playing the sequel of a game they really enjoyed unless they shell out 300+$.

Everyone? Really?

They'll get it in 2016

 

[Matriox]

The same reason Sony said it to all non-PS4 owners who like the Souls series.

What?... Sony paid for Bloodborne's existance, not just for ps4 exclusivity. You're saying Sony should have paid for Bloodborne to be multiplat??

 

[RiccochetJ]

It must be slightly concerning for Microsoft that the overwhelming reaction to this announcement is that you have pissed everyone off.

Pretty sure that MS isn't concerned about the fringe cases that will not buy a XB1 because of this particular timed exclusive.

 

[plasmawave]

The same reason Sony said it to all non-PS4 owners who like the Souls series.

You guys really need to stop with this BS.
Bloodborne is not Dark Souls 3. No one is taking away anything from anyone.

 

[cafemomo]

If this is a time exclusive I don't see why people should get angry

PC and Sony peeps will probably get the GOTY version with all the DLC in it

 

[Jmanunknown]

I'll never fully understand all the hate involved when a game is announced as an exclusive. I know the facts and don't need someone to reiterate them or spin them or give their perspective. I understand all that.

It is the hate, cussing out people who aren't here, the vile, and attacking other people for thinking differently that tends to become absurd, in my opinion.

I'm just trying to express my opinion on the matter without unintentionally antagonizing anyone cause sometimes you just want to put your opinion out there.

It doesn't bother me that Tomb Raider is an exclusive for xbox one. That is a console I don't own and don't plan on owning currently. I'm all PC for the last 3-4 years. I most definitely would like to play Tomb Raider. Maybe some day I will. And I won't exactly be hurting for the experience and I've seen bigger console exclusives take long to come to PC (GTAV still not PC yet - although coming soon) and I survived just fine. There are way too many awesome games to play that I just can't get angry over games being exclusive anymore. I'll just patiently await the day when tomb raider is on PC or maybe I'll even just forget about it and move on to equally appealing or better games.

This is a good attitude to have. It does suck though that Microsoft keeps freezing out its own platform (PC) from games though.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

The same reason Sony said it to all non-PS4 owners who like the Souls series.

"You're out of your element Donny." Bloodborne is not Dark Souls 3. Are you pissed that you don't get to play Demon's Souls, another game by From...that Sony co-developed.

I'm serious guys, let's make an FAQ/sticky with what the Official Neogaf Approved MoneyHat Definition is, and others?

 

[libregkd]

The same reason Sony said it to all non-PS4 owners who like the Souls series.

Bloodborne isn't part of the Souls series. Rise of Tomb Raider is part of the Tomb Raider series. Dark Souls 3 is going to get made and and I can guarantee you that it's going to be out on PS4/XBO/PC. If it wasn't and was exclusive to any platform, there would be just as much (if not more) outrage over it.

 

[Vyrance]

Shit man when you're sinking you do what you gotta do. Exclusives mean more consoles sold. This shouldnt be hard to understand. Sony nor Microsoft gives two shits about any of you. They wanna sell consoles!

I tend to think that if they would have taken that money to develop another exclusive game, they probably could have sold more consoles. Tomb Raider + an exclusive game sound better than just Tomb Raider, in my opinion.

 

[quest]

Pretty sure everyone who bought the game on PS3 and PS4 are pissed off that they are cut off from playing the sequel of a game they really enjoyed unless they shell out 300+$.

I bought the game on the PS3 and loved it I am not pissed at all since I know it will be coming shortly after. Not like I would of bought it day 1 that money is reserved for Uncharted 4. If it was a real exclusive I could understand people being angry.

 

[gatti-man]

This I agree with. I can understand if a new first party IP is unveiled for a particular platform. Tomb Raider came out on multiple platforms already. Same as Titanfall, it's MS cockblocking other platforms from getting a title that was most likely multiplatform.

I think this was a stupid move. You aim to bring back Tomb Raider, create good mindshare with a game I thought was great. I seriously had doubts, being a fan of the original Tomb Raider games and seeing how the reboot was turning out. Then I got the Definitive Edition on PS4 and loved the game.

Then after you get people back on board with the franchise you go and pull this shit. That PR statement is a big middle finger to all the people on PS3/4 and PC, it's like "thank you all for buying and enjoying Tomb Raider 2013, now to enjoy the continuing adventures please shell out another $400 to continue enjoying it".

I like the TR franchise but not enough to spend another $400 to play the next game. Thanks a lot SE. :/ That is if it's fully exclusive. If timed, I'll tell you what it won't be day one for me like the Definitive Edition.

Yeah I have an x1 and it's irritating to me too. I'd much rather see unique software (like something cool on kinect since you made me buy it at launch microsoft). How about a sequel to Kameo or a real Conker sequel. Take a chance and be different.