www.tombraiderforums.com

www.tombraiderforums.com (https://www.tombraiderforums.com/index.php)
-   Future of Tomb Raider (https://www.tombraiderforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   Why Square Enix should learn from Ubisoft and Naughty Dog recent actions (https://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=223586)

Kurtis666 26-10-19 05:53

Why Square Enix Should Learn From Ubisoft's and Naughty Dog's Recent Actions
 
Just recently, Naughty Dog announced it will delay The Last of Us: Part II due to the team's realization that they couldn't deliver the level and amount of polish that they are aiming for in their upcoming game.
This decision might upset many people who are anticipating this game but in the long run, it will be beneficial for both developers and gamers as the game will be launched at its best possible state for players and developers could get enough time to polish the game and not experience a high amount of crunch time.

Ironically on the same day, Ubisoft had its press release where they announced that they are going to delay all of their upcoming games: Watch Dogs Legion, Gods & Monsters and Rainbow Six Quarantine.
The reasoning behind it according to Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot was the missed sales and reception targets with the recent Ghost Recon: Breakpoint and The Division 2.
The statement provided in a very PR'ish way unlike Naughty Dog with a more direct approach to the audience but at the end of the day the reasoning behind both companies delays are the same: lack of polish.

Square Enix needs to understand that if they want the Tomb Raider game to succeed they need to give it time and provided with the right talent they will only see an increase in their popularity and sales.
With Shadow of the Tomb Raider, it was obvious that the game wasn't polished enough for release, many glitches, reused animations, lack of polish and consistency with graphics (especially character models) and of course an unintentional, supposed to be deleted ending.
All of the examples above should've been a red flag for Square Enix and Eidos Montreal for them to decide to delay the game for at the very least 6 months.

The next Tomb Raider will be the final chance for this franchise to retain itself in the gaming market, it needs to be good and financially successful, it needs to bring back classic fans to the franchise and also bring newcomers.
With that being said, in order for the next Tomb Raider game to be popular and successful, Square Enix should give enough time for the developers they choose to develop this IP.


Sources:
https://blog.us.playstation.com/2019...to-ps4-in-may/
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...w-6-quarantine

biscuits 26-10-19 06:51

I agree with you. Square is piss poor at managing their western IP. Shadow was clearly a game that needed an extra 6 months in the oven; look at how much polish it lacks. The older animations and all the reused assets really showed that the game was a bit of a rush job. Eidos Montreal themselves stated they only worked on the game for 2 years. That's too little time!

All of Square's western properties have been struggling as of late due to poor management from higher ups. Just Cause 4's PC release was rushed and broken and was in no state for launch. The game itself also had various downgrades in the graphical department from it's predecessor. Deus Ex: Mankind divided was forcefully cut in half because Square wanted a sequel for quick cash. Look where that got the series; it's now shelved for who knows how long!

Let's not forget the famous exclusivity deal :mad:

Chamayoo 26-10-19 07:43

I am hopeful that now the trilogy is over and the fact the next game is not a very direct sequel, they could take their time and delay the game if necessary. Just because there is no cliffhanger this time, not a story to end, the pressure to be released sooner is unnecessary there.
At least it seems the delay they did for TR 2013 certainly made good for the game, even if I suspect it was mainly to add the multiplayer mode at the last minute. Square Enix could be as caring as this time again.

jajay119 26-10-19 11:32

I donít agree and here are my perceptions as to why:

Iím willing to bet The last of Us part 2 has been delayed so it can be toted as a PS5 launch title as by that time even if itís on PS4 no doubt people will wait to get the better experience. Letís be honest thatís the reason itís been delayed and it would be stupid not to capitalise on it. This is even more cemented by Ghosts of Fukushima being delayed as a result of TLOU being delayed - I donít see why that would be a factor for a completely different studio personally. Itís clearly Sonyís decision as the publisher.

Ubisoft games have been delayed because the most recent release was a mess due to their poor work ethic and now they need to curry favour again just like they did a few years ago when they Ďlearned from their mistakesí with Assassinís Creed.


Tomb Raider doesnít belong to either of those situations but I do agree moving forward SE need to not botch the promo and release period because there has not been on game in the trilogy that hasnít been marred for one reason or another. I do think Shadow could have done with a couple more months in the oven and maybe released in February. I appreciate SE will have been aiming for the holidays for sales but January is becoming an increasingly popular month for games as RE2 remake proved.

SpyrosMonster 26-10-19 12:21

I don't know about Ubisoft but every single title from ND is a big step up in every single way possible from the former one.

The same thing can't be said for the TR franchise.
What they need is to not just push out mediocre games (at best) every few years but try to make an impact with them.

JoelCaesar 26-10-19 12:38

Naughty Dog would be under so much pressure to make TLOU2 a spectacular game. If the game releases it and it is subpar it would receive so much negative press. Hence the delay.

SpyrosMonster 26-10-19 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoelCaesar (Post 8144156)
Naughty Dog would be under so much pressure to make TLOU2 a spectacular game. If the game releases it and it is subpar it would receive so much negative press. Hence the delay.

Which is also why most of the fans don't mind at all and are only disappointed because of how unfortunate the timing isthat it had to happen so little after the initial release date was revealed.

XXIIXX 26-10-19 16:56

I think that Square Enix doesn't seem to care all that much for their Western IPs if I'm being honest.

They spent tons of money on TR2013 to promote it, and they did a really good job. Not to mention that five years had passed since Underworld, the largest time gap in between releases for the series, so people were hungry for a new game so that worked in their favour. But when the game didn't reach their ridiculous sales mark they stopped trying as hard with the next two games.

It's almost as if they just need TR to stay afloat while they make Final Fantasy and those Disney ◊ Final Fantasy spinoff games.

Look at the remake of Final Fantasy VII, they've been making it for a thousand years. I wish they gave as much love and attention to Tomb Raider.. Even if it meant waiting a thousand years to play the next game in both franchises!

They could also take more advantage of the Lara Croft side series. They're doing okay so far with it but I feel like they can do more.

Kapu 26-10-19 17:25

In respect to Naughty Dog...

I don't think there's a good comparison to be drawn here between Shadow and TLOU Part 2. I am of the unpopular opinion that Shadow did not lack polish, but rather it never set out to be an evolution of the TR series - it was just derivative and therefore somewhat boring.

Unlike TR, The Last of Us was built as a standalone title. The TR reboot was always going to be a series (later turned "origins trilogy"). TR has a pretty predictable timeline, going all the way back to the original Core games. First TR game is a smash hit. Gets 4 sequels. It's gotten boring by 5th title. 6th title is botched, series shifts to Crystal. First Crystal TR is a smash hit. Gets 2 sequels. Starts to get boring by 3rd title. Series is rebooted. First reboot game is a smash hit. Gets 2 sequels. Starts to get boring by the 3rd title.

So the OG series was dragged out into 5 games, but honestly it was boring by game 3 (objectively).

Would an additional 6 months have brought Shadow from boring-3rd-game level to generational-jump-smash-hit level? No. TR games come out on a predictable schedule until they get boring. Instead of following a strict release schedule, maybe TR should take a page from Naughty Dog's (recent) book and only release a new title when there's enough new ideas, a story worth telling, and the right technology to make those new ideas a reality. We're not going to get generation-jump smash hits on a 2-year release schedule.

TL;DR: More development time would be nice, but if we want a big evolution between each TR game it's going to take a completely different approach in the way the sequels are developed.

TrustyBow 26-10-19 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapu (Post 8144234)
In respect to Naughty Dog...

I don't think there's a good comparison to be drawn here between Shadow and TLOU Part 2. I am of the unpopular opinion that Shadow did not lack polish, but rather it never set out to be an evolution of the TR series - it was just derivative and therefore somewhat boring.

Unlike TR, The Last of Us was built as a standalone title. The TR reboot was always going to be a series (later turned "origins trilogy"). TR has a pretty predictable timeline, going all the way back to the original Core games. First TR game is a smash hit. Gets 4 sequels. It's gotten boring by 5th title. 6th title is botched, series shifts to Crystal. First Crystal TR is a smash hit. Gets 2 sequels. Starts to get boring by 3rd title. Series is rebooted. First reboot game is a smash hit. Gets 2 sequels. Starts to get boring by the 3rd title.

So the OG series was dragged out into 5 games, but honestly it was boring by game 3 (objectively).

Would an additional 6 months have brought Shadow from boring-3rd-game level to generational-jump-smash-hit level? No. TR games come out on a predictable schedule until they get boring. Instead of following a strict release schedule, maybe TR should take a page from Naughty Dog's (recent) book and only release a new title when there's enough new ideas, a story worth telling, and the right technology to make those new ideas a reality. We're not going to get generation-jump smash hits on a 2-year release schedule.

TL;DR: More development time would be nice, but if we want a big evolution between each TR game it's going to take a completely different approach in the way the sequels are developed.

I agree. I'm more than fine with getting a TR game every 5+ years (as opposed to 2-3) if it means that each title will be memorable.

XXIIXX 26-10-19 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapu (Post 8144234)
TL;DR: More development time would be nice, but if we want a big evolution between each TR game it's going to take a completely different approach in the way the sequels are developed.

Honestly I think would be the only way to, hopefully, truly please everyone.

Don't think it will happen but I think it would greatly up the franchise boost sales and prestige.

larafan25 30-10-19 23:50

They should definitely take more careful consideration when tarnishing the Tomb Raider name, I mean at least do it gracefully and with finesse. :gabisoapbox:

killchan 31-10-19 09:31

ND did what every studio does, except others delay their projects before providing a release date, so they don't need to be public about the delay.
looks like yet another excuse to give ND more credit than due to me~

Ubi's fault is releasing a ton of clones of the same 2 kind of games for the sake of making investors happy. That's not what Square Europe have been doing so I see no risks there.


If there's one thing SE needs to learn from ND is that, like it or not, The Last Of Us didn't became a smash-hit by making things easier for the player: it had a very specific vision, was supported by right marketing, looked good enough to impress and never lied to the players.

Error96 31-10-19 12:29

I don't think development time was the major issue with Shadow's success. I believe a lot of it was down to marketing which wasn't done particularly well for this game. In the game itself Paititi seems to be the section most often criticised but the issue is about the direction of having this slow pace social hub rather than a problem of polish. More time would bring little difference.

I don't think they necessarily need more time they just need to get their marketing sorted and be more receptive to the feedback coming back.

suli 09-11-19 10:43

it really pisses me off that Square give their Japanese IPs all the time in the world (and they still suck major balls) while CD and EM delivered far better games on tighter budgets and time schedules, and they make them more profit (FF15 10 years in the making sold 6 million copies. Rise 2 years in the making sold 7,5 million copies). TR should be their priority at this point and given all the budget and time needed to be made.

Chamayoo 09-11-19 10:58

Maybe they should take the series away from Square Enix Europe (hi Eidos) and give it to the core team. :ponder:

Tomb Raidering 09-11-19 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chamayoo (Post 8150451)
Maybe they should take the series away from Square Enix Europe (hi Eidos) and give it to the core team. :ponder:

I see a lot of confusion around the forums regarding the dev/publishersí relationship with TR.

Developer studios Core Design and Crystal Dynamics were under the publisher Eidos Interactive. Then a British publisher company named SCi bought Eidos Interactive, owning the studios and the IPs. Then SCi openned a game studio called Eidos Montreal, which had no relation with Eidos Interactive apart from developing video games for them. Now there were 4 game studios under SCi/Eidos Interactive (IO Interactive, Core Design, Crystal Dynamics, Eidos Montreal). Core Design got sold off and Square Enix began offering biddings to acquire SCi/Eidos. Eventually they acquired the company, renaming Eidos Interactive to Square Enix Europe. Everything is mostly the same, apart from re-naming and moving offices...

On a side note: I wonder how it would have been if Core Designís selling was postponed until Square Enixís acquisition? Would SE had helped them re-flourish?

Legends 09-11-19 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapu (Post 8144234)
TL;DR: More development time would be nice, but if we want a big evolution between each TR game it's going to take a completely different approach in the way the sequels are developed.

Agreed. Hopefully Tomb Raider gets a new developer for future games that will do just that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomb Raidering (Post 8150458)
On a side note: I wonder how it would have been if Core Designís selling was postponed until Square Enixís acquisition? Would SE had helped them re-flourish?

Oh, what could have been.

suli 09-11-19 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomb Raidering (Post 8150458)

On a side note: I wonder how it would have been if Core Designís selling was postponed until Square Enixís acquisition? Would SE had helped them re-flourish?

people romanticize about core being still the developers of TR all the time here. but in actuality they said it themselves, yes they said it, they weren't able to make bigger games for next gen. hence why TRAE was a psp game.

XXIIXX 09-11-19 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by suli (Post 8150486)
people romanticize about core being still the developers of TR all the time here. but in actuality they said it themselves, yes they said it, they weren't able to make bigger games for next gen. hence why TRAE was a psp game.

This pretty much. I don't know if Square Enix's budget would help things but I think they would struggle in any case.

cephasjames 09-11-19 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomb Raidering (Post 8150458)
I see a lot of confusion around the forums regarding the dev/publishersí relationship with TR.

Developer studios Core Design and Crystal Dynamics were under the publisher Eidos Interactive. Then a British publisher company named SCi bought Eidos Interactive, owning the studios and the IPs. Then SCi openned a game studio called Eidos Montreal, which had no relation with Eidos Interactive apart from developing video games for them. Now there were 4 game studios under SCi/Eidos Interactive (IO Interactive, Core Design, Crystal Dynamics, Eidos Montreal). Core Design got sold off and Square Enix began offering biddings to acquire SCi/Eidos. Eventually they acquired the company, renaming Eidos Interactive to Square Enix Europe. Everything is mostly the same, apart from re-naming and moving offices...

On a side note: I wonder how it would have been if Core Designís selling was postponed until Square Enixís acquisition? Would SE had helped them re-flourish?

Great post! I would also add that, probably, SE determines when TR games are released and how they are advertised. Just like Sony (who owns Naughty Dog) determines when ND games are released and how they are advertised. Sony, seemingly, is willing to give more leeway to their developer than SE. Thus ND gets to push back TLOU2 while CD/EM got what they got.

jajay119 09-11-19 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomb Raidering (Post 8150458)
I see a lot of confusion around the forums regarding the dev/publishers’ relationship with TR.

Developer studios Core Design and Crystal Dynamics were under the publisher Eidos Interactive. Then a British publisher company named SCi bought Eidos Interactive, owning the studios and the IPs. Then SCi openned a game studio called Eidos Montreal, which had no relation with Eidos Interactive apart from developing video games for them. Now there were 4 game studios under SCi/Eidos Interactive (IO Interactive, Core Design, Crystal Dynamics, Eidos Montreal). Core Design got sold off and Square Enix began offering biddings to acquire SCi/Eidos. Eventually they acquired the company, renaming Eidos Interactive to Square Enix Europe. Everything is mostly the same, apart from re-naming and moving offices...

On a side note: I wonder how it would have been if Core Design’s selling was postponed until Square Enix’s acquisition? Would SE had helped them re-flourish?

I always thought Sci was American, not British. Hence why TR was given to an American developer in the first place. It’s bizarre they’d send an institution of British gaming across the pond.

Tomb Raidering 09-11-19 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by jajay119 (Post 8150510)
I always thought Sci was American, not British. Hence why TR was given to an American developer in the first place. It’s bizarre they’d send an institution of British gaming across the pond.

Really? I’ve once read somewhere that it was ‘London-based.’ Ah well... Thanks for correcting (or confusing? :p)... ^.^

EDIT: Didn’t find the ‘London-based’ one, but these shall do...
Quote:

Shortly thereafter, the small but financially strong UK publisher SCi Games tabled a counter offer,
Quote:

Another suitor emerged for Lara Croft on Tuesday as SCi Entertainment, the UK games publisher

jajay119 09-11-19 16:07

No, it was British you’re correct. I had a quick check. But I just thought since they took TR to an American studio they were an American company.

Also, as of this year SE has been I charge of TR for 10 years!

suli 09-11-19 16:13

Crystal made legacy of Kain and Gex before TR. Both were published by Eidos.. their working relationship precedes TR.

Tomb Raidering 09-11-19 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by suli (Post 8150523)
Crystal made legacy of Kain and Gex before TR. Both were published by Eidos.. their working relationship precedes TR.

I was talking about TR specifically. ‘Cause some people think that ‘Edios’ developed the Classics, Crystal Dynamics developed the LAU, and Square Enix developed the reboots...

charmedangelin 09-11-19 16:39

I would say after recent events I would wish for more community engagement. More openness and transparency. Not that I'm curious about day to day operations or anything like that, just every now and then an update if something is delayed or if something isn't going to happen with a few reasons as to why. No need for anything else beyond that.

In regards to Tomb Raider I could accept certain changes as long as they acknowledge and respect all that came before it. Imo I believe that respecting the fanbase is important because they are the ones who really see a franchise through both thick and thin.

XXIIXX 09-11-19 22:09

I agree. They really need to work on communicating with us a bit more.

They were doing good as long as the DLC kept coming but then this abrupt and awkward pause. Radio silence forever... I wish this sort of thing wouldn't happen going forward.

TRF 18-11-19 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurtis666 (Post 8144091)
[LEFT]The next Tomb Raider will be the final chance for this franchise to retain itself in the gaming market, it needs to be good and financially successful, it needs to bring back classic fans to the franchise and also bring newcomers.

I think THIS is the most important thing for them to do right now.

Many people aren't happy the way the Reboot is going and they are missing there LARA.

And the end of SotTR, many expected to have the Dual Pistol back, but it didn't. So in order to get the Classis fans back, the might re-imagen Lara yet again, but fit the old and new one.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:43.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.