Home » News » Game On or Game Over: Fall of the Tomb Raider
News

Game On or Game Over: Fall of the Tomb Raider

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Nicholas: With GamesCon taking place last week there’s a whole lot to talk about. There’s new screenshots and videos to drool over, previews to check out and announcements to discuss. I’d love to devote this week’s article purely to the latest Forza Horizon 2 news, but there’s something specific out of last week’s conference that I’d like to delve into. Reason being, this one story caused so much outrage and in the process, highlighted a lot of concerns about not just the gaming industry, but it’s consumers as well.

I am of course referring to the GamesCon trailer for Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel. Alright, I lie. What I’m really talking about, is the announcement that Rise of the Tomb Raider would be a (timed) exclusive for the Xbox One.

Granted it wasn’t until 24 hours later from the initial announcement that it was revealed the game would only be a timed exclusive for the Xbox One, but it’s amazing how this once piece of news seemed to overshadow everything else from last week. To kick things off this week I’d like to get your initial thoughts on the decision for the latest Tomb Raider game to be an exclusive to the Xbox One. Is this just a part of the competition that’s taking place within the industry? Do you think the same amount of uproar would have happened if it was the other way around?

Andy: I do think it’s part of the console competition going on right now and I think it’s something gamers should be more concerned about to be honest. We’ve already seen a trend with one console getting timed DLC before another console, e.g. Call of Duty DLC is released for Xbox a month before PlayStation and the upcoming Destiny will have DLC debuting on PSN first. Third-party games should be the same across the board on all platforms they are released on. No matter what side of the Xbox/PS isle you’re on it’s only going to get worse, and seeing the Tomb Raider announcement we have officially moved on from timed DLC to timed game releases and that’s troubling.

It’s even more troubling that a game where the publisher publicly said sales of 3 million were disappointing after its release across multiple platforms, would then turn around and release the next game in the series on only one platform. We obviously have no idea how much money Microsoft threw at Square Enix, but it’s disappointing. Disappointing to me because I’m a gamer first and an Xbox fan second, so if I had a PS4 I’d be pissed. Yet, many of those PlayStation fans who are up in arms are the same group who were laughing about the DLC for Destiny and how long it will take to get to Xbox. It just goes to show that no console is safe and it’s not just DLC or exclusive content missions (ala Watch Dogs and Assassin’s Creed) that is getting this treatment anymore.

I’m worried about where this trend will go and how bad it will get. I think PlayStation owners have every right to be upset, but will it amount to anything that makes Square Enix change its mind? I doubt it, after all it’s all about the money. The first shoe has fallen though, I think it’s now only a matter of time before it gets bad. What do you think though, with the Tomb Raider announcement will other publishers judge the gamer reaction and think twice, or do you think they are already cutting their own deals with Microsoft and Sony? Should gamers be worried about it?

Go-Go-Fall-Raider-01

Nicholas: We know for certain that companies are using gamer’s reactions as a way to judge if their decisions are right or not, and we know too that these companies are adjusting their actions accordingly as well. The best example comes from the very first article we started Game On or Game Over with last year – Microsoft and its DRM backflip. Granted Microsoft weren’t publishers in that situation, but it proves the point. I think publishers are definitely cutting deals with the major console manufacturers (as we’ve discussed in the past, any ‘money-hungry’ practice is seemingly getting worse each year), and if so, this is only business. Before I answer your last question though, I want to really look into this ‘its business’ thing further.

Last week I was reading an article by Mark Ankucic where he was discussing, amongst other topics on this whole Tomb Raider fiasco, the fact that it’s all business. As you mentioned, Square Enix and Microsoft most likely exchanged a good amount of money to make this happen, but why are we as gamers so surprised by it? I know we like to think of gaming as that pure and honest pastime because we remember the early days of playing Donkey Kong Country or Crash Bandicoot when there were no microtransactions or DLC, but why does it seem like gamers are so stubborn of accepting that gaming is no different to any other goods-based industry?

PlayStation gamers have mentioned that the reason so many of them are frustrated is because Tomb Raider initially started as a PS exclusive. Where are the Nintendo or SEGA gamers coming out proclaiming how angry they were that they couldn’t experience the original Tomb Raider without being forced to purchase a new console? How come gamers don’t complain whenever Nintendo releases a new Mario game that isn’t on the Xbox One or PS4? Why the new Halo game isn’t on the PS4? Why the next Uncharted game isn’t on XB1? Exclusives have happened from the very beginning of gaming, and they continue to happen now, so why is it that gamers seem to forget this whenever one publisher decides to side with one manufacturer over another? Is there really any logical reason why gamers still think gaming isn’t a business?

Andy: Man, that’s a lot to talk about there. Let me whittle away at it here. First, with games like Uncharted, Halo or Mario, those studios are owned by the respective console makers. I think gamers understand that when games are made by a developer that a console maker owns there’s no reasonable expectation those games will appear on rival consoles. It wouldn’t make any sense because you would have a more difficult time selling systems if every game was available for every system. I don’t think the real issue here is about first-party exclusives which you listed above, I think the issue is when a third-party developer like Square Enix decides to make an exclusive and shaft the fans that have supported the series regardless of its platform.

The irony here is I’m an Xbox guy through and through, so one could reasonable assume I’d be happy, or at the very least indifferent, about the Tomb Raider announcement because it doesn’t affect me as I can get it right away. What has me worried is that other developers and publishers are going to be keeping a very close eye on it and possibly doing their own similar deals. Sure Xbox “won” by getting Tomb Raider first, but Ubisoft has already shown a willingness to give Sony platforms extra gameplay with Assassin’s Creed and Watch_Dogs, so what’s to stop them from taking the next step and saying the next Assassin’s Creed game will be available exclusively on PS4 for the holiday period of 2015? Nothing at all, there’s already precedent now. What’s to stop EA or Activision from doing the same thing too? Can you imagine the internet rage if was EA the publisher that made this deal? It would be crazy.

You raise an interesting point though that I have never really thought of before, but the more I think about it the more I’m inclined to think we don’t agree on it. You state that gaming is no different than any other goods-based industry and I don’t think I can wrap my head around that. Sure, I can agree that buying a disc is in line with traditional goods-based products, but once that disc goes into the tray then I think it’s a paradigm shift from a goods-based model to a service (content) based model. There are fundamental differences between the two, but, and this is a big but, when you have business people (“suits”) who have no real video game experience being in-charge of pleasing stockholders and making the most profit possible, they keep video games at the goods-based model and don’t necessarily lookout for the gamers. Which, when you think about it that way, should make gamers even more worried. For the CEO’s of these publishing companies it’s all about monetization and bleeding as much as they can from the gamers is it not? That makes me very worried for where our hobby and pastime is going. What about you?

Go-Go-Fall-Raider-05

Nicholas: I often wonder whether we (as gamers) are over-dramatizing the ‘issues’ of the gaming industry. Let’s take a look at the example of Assassin’s Creed further. When Assassin’s Creed 2 launched almost five years ago, there were two special editions of the game – the white edition and the black edition. Of the two, the black edition offered more and was exclusive to the PS3. Fast-forward five years and what do we have now? A whole string of sequels, where there is a little bit of extra content on one platform, but essentially the game is the same across all platforms. Is it really a big deal?

Let’s continue this further with Tomb Raider. Yes the game is going to be released a little later on the PS4, but when is it scheduled for release? Q4 of 2015 – that’s almost a year away! Sure it’s a little inconvenient, but what will a month or two of waiting mean when we’re already waiting a year from now for its release anyway? A non-essential level here and a delay (read: delay) in a game’s release there – is it really that significant? Is it really at a stage where we need to start counting down until the gaming gods declare doomsday? I don’t think so. Even with microtransactions – sure it’s an unwelcomed change to some games, but it’s honestly not ruined my gaming experience at all in the year or so that they’ve been a ‘thing’.

You mentioning that a game goes from being just a good to a service is interesting, but is that just because gaming is something you hold dear? Can a reader claim that a book becomes a service once they open the first cover? Does a song become an experience from the moment you press “play”? Does a driving become a service from the moment you encounter your first windy track? Don’t get me wrong, I love gaming as much as the next person, but are we letting our love for gaming cloud what it really is? Just another form of entertainment? Why do you think gaming deserves to be put on another pedestal, and do you really think, for all the ‘money-grabbing’ things we’ve discussed in previous articles, that gaming really is that much different to what it was 20 years ago?

Andy: Let me explain what I mean about going from a goods-based model to a service-based model. When you buy a book you get everything between the front cover and the back cover. You don’t get an extra chapter if you get the book from Amazon or any other retailer. When you buy a T-shirt you know what it’s made of – there is no changing it once you buy it. Those are goods-based things, where what you buy once you buy it is what you get. Video games transcend the typical goods-based model not only because the mode of delivery, but also how the content of a game evolves over time. The game that you buy on release day often times is dramatically different a year down the road. I can see why people would look at games as only a goods-based industry but I think it’s a hybrid of the two. When I mentioned “suits” being in charge what I mean with that is many of the CEOs in charge of these big publishers look at each game and franchise as purely dollar signs. The downside of that is all the decisions are based on dollar signs and the ‘magic’ of gaming takes a back seat.

Yes, I know games are a for-profit business and I respect that for what it is. Maybe it’s the nostalgia in me, but I’d like to think about games as more than me just handing a publisher $60 and calling it a day. To me gaming is about the experience once I hit play. When I do this, then the game moves from a goods base to a service base. Here’s the thing, I’m completely OK with buying DLC, season passes and what have you. What I don’t like are some of the practices like pushing a season pass without telling gamers what the content will be. Look at the Watch_Dogs season pass. I know two people that bought it on release day without knowing what it would include, both of them are pissed off right now because aside from retailer exclusive preorder bonuses there hasn’t been much to it. I am more OK with micro-transaction then poorly outlined season passes. That’s what I mean about suits being in-charge, they think “Hey, we need a season pass to drive more revenue!” Instead, they should be thinking “I like the idea of the season pass, what can we do to give gamers the best value.”

That’s probably my biggest point of contention with where the industry has gone in the past couple of years. It feels like some companies deliberately remove content from the game only to either sell it to me later, or sell it to a platform and make it exclusive. I don’t think gaming is necessarily on a pedestal I just wish developers and publishers were more cognizant of the gamer and not just the dollar sign. Gaming is a unique animal in that developers need gamers to constantly interact with their product, and gamer need developers to keep making content (again back to a service model). It’s a very symbiotic type of relationship, but right now it feels that the pendulum is shifted too far towards the developer/publisher and gamers are only giving, giving, giving and unless there are dollars coming back publishers just take, take, take. Does that make any sense, or is that just my mind only making sense to me? I don’t want to make it sound all negative, I like where we are as an industry for the most part, but even you have to admit there are some things that could be better for the gamers right?

Go-Go-Fall-Raider-04

Nicholas: Of course there are certainly things that could be better for gamers, but that’s like saying there are ways that any industry can be improved for its consumers. I think we have to agree to disagree regarding our definition of goods and services, and where video games lie in that spectrum. Yes, the game you purchase on launch mightn’t be entirely the same 12 months later, but when you combine DLC, patches and the game itself together, it still comes under the banner of being ‘a game’ – and whether it’s downloaded digitally or purchased in-store, it still qualifies as a good in my opinion.

You mentioning the issue with season passes is worth delving into a little further too I think. Keeping with the Watch_Dogs example, you mentioned that people purchased it on launch without knowing what it entailed, and as a result of this, some gamers have ended up disappointed. The question I ask is – whose fault is this? Sure we can blame Ubisoft for a lack of clarification about what the pass included, but why are we taking responsibility away from those people who decided to spend $20 or so on DLC that they didn’t know the specifics of? The term ‘carpe diem’ applies here. It’s like getting mad at a trading card company for buying a booster pack that contains rubbish cards – it’s a chance game, either you get something good or you don’t. The reason I don’t buy booster packs is the same reason I don’t buy season passes – most of them are rubbish. I can get angry at the publishers, or alternatively I can take responsibility for where I spend my money. I think it’s a prime example of gamers getting angry at the industry when they should really be more cautious with their cash.

All this leads me to the final point I’d like to address this week, and it was something that Mark Ankucic discussed in his article. In the past we’ve spoken about gamer entitlement by talking about the outrage against things like microtransactions, the endings of certain games and also people not liking the fact that main characters often share the same physical characteristics. In each example we’ve mentioned that  gamers should ‘talk with their wallets’ – if there is something they don’t like they should not purchase the product rather than merely ranting on social media and supporting the publishers regardless.

Now I know you and I have certainly disagreed with one another on a lot of points this week, but do you agree that this outrage against Rise of the Tomb Raider being a timed exclusive is just another example of ‘gamer entitlement’? Putting aside the fact that Tomb Raider began as a PS exclusive and putting aside what we’ve discussed above – is there any reason why gamers should expect that a certain game would be released on all consoles at the same time? Is there really anything that gamers should feel entitled to before they’ve spent $60 on a game?

Andy: Gamer entitlement is an interesting thing isn’t it? It’s easy to sit back and say “I can’t believe they are bitching about that!” when those things don’t affect you all that much. I can certainly see why the PlayStation crowd is upset about the decisions about releasing on Xbox first. Does it make it right? No, not really. Should gamers expect one game to release across all platforms the day it’s released? No. It’s easy to have that expectation because of how things have been in the past and the precedent that has been set. Call of Duty releases every November across every platform it’s a given. There are certain things in gaming that you just take for granted and one of those is multi-platform releases. Maybe that’s something we will see change with this current generation of gaming.

Change is one of those things that gamers have a tendency to not like. We complain about games that don’t innovate and push the envelope, when we determine a game has changed “too much” we complain about that as well. It’s a no win situation for the developers. Do they try to please those who want something new, or do they try to please those who are happy with the formula from the past? I hate to say this, but you are absolutely 100% right about most of the blame on being disappointed in season passes on the gamers. It’s easy to get caught up in the moment when the clerk behind the counter is selling you that new game. The reality of the season pass though is I have yet to see content released on launch that was included in a season pass. It’s OK to say no and wait until more information is announced on it. Heck I have a friend that bought a season pass for a game and after he played it he realized he didn’t like it as much as he though, but he was still stuck with the extra cost.

While we disagree on parts of this discussion, I think we see eye to eye on others. I don’t think the Tomb Raider thing is as bad as some people are making it out to be. For starters, we really don’t even know how long the exclusive window is. Maybe Square Enix wants to focus on one platform at a time to make the best game possible – that’s certainly not a bad thing. As we’ve seen with other stories in gaming sometimes how the company chooses to deliver the message and the reasoning behind it, is as important as the message itself. I know as a gamer, even I am guilty of jumping to conclusions and connecting dots to reach those conclusions that aren’t always accurate. Gamers are a passionate lot, we all game for one reason or another, but at the end of the day the one thing we can all agree on is wanting to get the best experience possible for whatever game we are playing. Maybe with the current generation some gamers will get those experiences before others. Honestly, I’m OK with that as I will always have a backlog of games to play. Maybe it’s time gamers reevaluate what our expectations are and change them to fit how the industry is, instead of us expecting the industry to change to fit our expectations.

A special thanks to Mark Ankucic for the inspiration behind this week’s article.

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.

Tags

This article may contain affiliate links, meaning we could earn a small commission if you click-through and make a purchase. Stevivor is an independent outlet and our journalism is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative.

About the author

Nicholas Simonovski

Events and Racing Editor at Stevivor.com. Proud RX8 owner, Strange Music fan and Joe Rogan follower. Living life one cheat meal at a time.