Tomb Raider: Underworld DLC 'especially made' for 360

by Ludwig Kietzmann { Oct 23rd 2008 at 10:45AM }

The word "exclusive" isn't what it used to be. In recent times, it's fluctuated wildly between being an outright lie and a partial truth that slowly erodes with time. When it was announced that Tomb Raider: Underworld would be granted "exclusive" DLC on the Xbox 360, you can understand why we viewed it with skepticism -- surely it'll just be a code that unlocks content already on the disc?

Not so, Crystal Dynamics' creative director, Eric Lindstrom, tells VideoGamer. "The DLC that we're making for Microsoft is especially made. It's not part of the main game that we saved - we put all the game out there that we were going to put out there." The game, which is out there on November 18th, will be extended by some six hours through two downloadable chunks, developed at the behest of Microsoft. In other words, Lara's additional tomb jaunts in "Beneath the Ashes" -- due to arrive before Christmas -- and "Lara's Shadow" will most likely be "exclusive" to the Xbox 360 in the old-fashioned, what-the-word-actually-means sense.

Tags: Crystal-Dynamics, DLC, Exclusive, Lara-Croft, Tomb-Raider, Tomb-Raider-Underworld, Xbox-Live

Related From Joystiq

Fight Night Round 4 DLC pulled due to freezing issues
4 days ago
Tomb Raider studio seeking multiplayer devs for 'AAA title development'
4 days ago
Beatles: Rock Band 'Sgt. Pepper's' DLC debuts Nov. 17
27 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

The-E @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:49AM

As much as I would love exclusive DLC i find it kind of mind boggoling that it can't be put on the disc at launch since it is due out what like less than 2 months after release.....I guess the money must be it...I guess Eidos do kinda need it:P

Vcize @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:39AM

Because two months from now does not equal right now?

I mean, by your logic, they should just go ahead and release Prince of Persia. It's due out in less than 2 months so it must be 100% done, right?

eldee @ Oct 23rd 2008 2:59PM

regardless of whether it's finished or not- they shouldn't be announcing DLC before the game comes out. It sends a bad message..

IE) "We're purposely excluding content from this game so you're forced to pay for it later".

ExMcCloud @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:53AM

Wait doesn't somebody have to actually buy the game? For that to be profitable?

Supino @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:54AM

Exclusive DLC is just flat out bad service - bought or not.

Mike @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:00AM

I know they're only somewhat similar, but do you feel the same way about exclusive titles? In both cases code would have to be ported. It basically boils down to M$ giving Eidos an incentive (read: cash) to keep the content exclusive. GTA IV would also agree.

Krycek @ Oct 23rd 2008 4:23PM

@Mike

personally I feel that exclusive titles are ok, but I think exclusive DLC is just a slap in the face, if the game is released on both consoles, it should be equal on both consoles.

Mike @ Oct 23rd 2008 12:40PM

Krycek, it definitely sucks for those that only have one of the two consoles and the one being the console not getting the content. You'd think that it would be in the developers interest to release the DLC for all releases to help prevent used game sales. Microsoft must have given Eidos enough money to keep the content for themselves. That amount had to be larger than the expected revenue of selling the DLC on the PSN. I don't remember how much Microsoft gave Rock Star for exclusive GTA IV DLC, but I remember it being quite large. I doubt Eidos got the same amount though.

JoeTheBlow @ Oct 23rd 2008 2:11PM

It was $50,000,000
Fifty....fucking......million. For that amount i'm sure they could get publishers to do anything.
No way can they make that back, even if it was $10 per episode the game hasn't even sold enough to make it up.

More like a big dick-swinging gesture from Microsoft more than anything else.

Solid Warri0r @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:58AM

Sweet :)

I love tomb raider, more content! :D

Marty @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:59AM

Irregardless of whether it was especially made for the 360, I think... er...

Okay, I don't really have anything to say. I just wanted to say 'irregardless' because it makes about as much sense as 'especially made.'

Vcize @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:38AM

Wow, good thing I bothered to finish reading the rest of your post rather than hitting you up for saying "irregardless" after reading the first word like I was going to.

west @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:55AM

"Irregardless" is a perfectly acceptable word. It means the exact same thing a "regardless," just much sloppier sounding/looking to most.

JoeTheBlow @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:50AM

What if this game flops? Which is entirely likely considering this wallet-obliterating holiday season.

I can't see Microsofts logic in throwing a money hat at this. Would anyone torn in their console choice pick up a 360 just because of some bonus pay-for DLC levels.

engine_man @ Oct 23rd 2008 12:23PM

I think you mean 'behest,' not 'beheft' here.

Ludwig Kietzmann @ Oct 23rd 2008 5:25PM

100% correct! And there's an entire "d" in-between those letters too.

Adis @ Oct 23rd 2008 4:51PM

I think its so sad that Microsoft is basically buying up everything insight. Once players like Sony and Nintendo leave the playing field we will have junk like Windows flying around and no choice but to use there, junk they make. Honestly, I bought a 360 about 2 years ago and played GOW,Halo,CoD3 and some other stuff but the breaking down of the system was annoying and i sold it on craigslist and bought a PS3. I’m totally happy with the PS3. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say PS3 has no good games.. Seriously... 360 is full of FPs.. that’s all... a couple of RPS and sports games found everywhere else...

anyhow, I just get annoying ready time and time again that Microsoft paid this company and that company.. annoying!!! If a company makes a game on both or all systems then they SHOULD all have the same content.

Jacksons @ Oct 23rd 2008 5:56PM

You know, I've never played this franchise. Am I missing something great?

chris @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:16PM

Jackson, not any more. I love it when when they trow cash around. It's completely dumb, Lora is a little washed up and old now, put tomb raider on the back burner for a generation or two, then bring her back and she'll be hot shit again. DLC I could give a shit, If I where going to buy Tomb raider, which im not, I would still buy it for the ps3 over the 360 just so Microsoft can waist more of their cash. What the fuck does it matter, if it where free to the people then I could see it, hey MS next time you want to waist a large some of money how about giving it the the American citizens to get our economy going, People might actually like you then, at lest for a short period of time.

cxm @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:30PM

Homonyms have to be the bane of your existence, huh? Anyway, there are plenty of people who liked the recent Tomb Raider games, so I don't see how you could equate that to being "washed up and old".

cxm @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:51PM

As far as exclusivity, has anyone considered that maybe MS didn't pay Eidos just to keep the DLC exclusive? Maybe they're footing the bill for development. After all, making these things cost a ton of money, and we all know that Eidos is hurting for cash. Maybe that's why it's exclusive to 360...Microsoft is actually paying to get it made, not just to keep it exclusive. It would make the fact that it's not even being considered for PSN make a little more sense...after all, why would MS pay to make something for the competition.