It all started in 1996, on the Sony Playstation. In fact, after Tomb Raider, all subsequent releases until Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation, the fourth game in the franchise, were available on no other console outside of Sony's. Most people would argue that not only did Tomb Raider get the reputation it has from its time on the Playstation, but it's home is and should be on the Playstation console. So why would Square Enix, who absorbed Eidos Interactive in 2009, deny gamers on the Playstation 4 a game that would no doubt earn them a healthy chunk of change?
"Having been working with us on previous games in a lesser sense, they’ve been supportive. [However], for Rise of the Tomb Raider, they’ve just brought this passion and belief that has really enabled us to blow people away. People should feel that about Microsoft. Their commitment to Tomb Raider is just amazing for us."
While Square CEO Phil Rogers chalks it all up to Microsoft's committment, however it would seem that it would really translate to a healthy payoff. The reason for this thought comes after seeing Square's reaction to the game's poor sales in Europe and North America and its financial predictions being way off. As of March 2013, the last game procured Square Enix quite a profit after selling 3.4 million copies (not including digital sales), which they were not pleased with, despite the game releasing just four weeks prior. Not only were the sales lackluster according to Square Enix, but the then CEO of the company, Yoichi Wada, "resigned" his position. Around a year later, the release of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition in February 2014 racked up 8.5 million copies sold in about two months. Of those 8.5 million sold, which console brought in more money for Square Enix? The PS4.
"I hope fans know that it wasn’t an easy decision. I think any sort of partnership at this level is a decision that took a long time for us to get to. The decision at a studio level, we took very, very seriously. We knew it would, in the short-term, disappoint fans."
So if the PS4 earned so much for Square Enix in sales of the last title, why in the world would they make the "difficult" decision to give a years worth of exclusivity to the Xbox One and Xbox 360? There are several factors that probably came into their decision. Not only did the production costs of Rise of the Tomb Raider run Square Enix the same 100 million that the Tomb Raider reboot cost them, but the company no doubt worries about being able to earn that money back and be profitable within a much shorter time frame. For a title that expensive, it's estimated that they would need to sell five to ten million units just to break even. What better way to get a good start on that money than to give exclusive rights to Microsoft without even having to sell a single copy of the game? Maybe they aren't getting a check cut on the spot, but if Microsoft covers marketing costs, helps out with production, or offers royalty rates, Square Enix didn't make a difficult decision. Whatever amount of money offered to them made it perfectly clear that profits were in their near future.
We can at least admit that Square Enix didn't make a poor choice. They get a head start on reaching profits and make their job a whole lot easier, while Microsoft gets to hold on to a very profitable property that will have no competition until March 2016. This will no doubt sell a ton of Xbox One consoles and games. It's clear Microsoft had a 'spend money to make money' attitude on this decision, one can only imagine how much Microsoft spent to make this happen.
"Yes, the deal has a duration. I didn't buy it. I don't own the franchise." -Phil Spencer
Rise the Tomb Raider releases later this year on November 10th sort of exclusively on Xbox One and Xbox 360 leaving PC fans forced to wait until early 2016 and slapping PS4 gamers with a grueling year-long wait until Holiday 2016. But at what cost? Microsoft's Phil Spencer isn't talking.
"People ask me how much did we pay. There are certain things I'm just not going to talk about because it's a business deal between us and them."
[Examiner, Ars Technica, GamesIndustry.Biz]
