Tomb Raider unearths exclusive XBL DLC

Eidos' Underworld will see Lara Croft exploring six hours' worth of additional content on Microsoft's platform beginning this holiday season.

by

Grand Theft Auto IV and Fallout 3 won't be the only cross-platform games to see exclusive downloadable content on the Xbox 360. Microsoft and Eidos announced today that Xbox 360 owners will be able to download two additional single-player chapters for Tomb Raider: Underworld that will add approximately six hours of content. The first chapter, titled Beneath the Ashes, will arrive on XBL Marketplace around the Christmas holiday, with Lara's Shadow slated to follow in the first part of 2009.

Beneath the Ashes works as an epilogue of sorts to Tomb Raider: Underworld. Included in the chapter will be a new environment, complemented by new puzzles and a cast of unique enemies. Eidos was far vaguer on the description for Lara's Shadow, saying only that the chapter "will introduce players to a new kind of playable character and create a unique Tomb Raider experience."

Behind the wheel of Lara's Humvee will again be Crystal Dynamics. The California-based studio took over development of the series with 2006's reboot Tomb Raider: Legend, and was also responsible for last year's 10th Anniversary edition. As detailed in GameSpot's previous coverage, Crystal Dynamics hopes to marry the action-oriented approach seen in Legend with the franchise's traditional puzzle-solving in Underworld.

Along with today's DLC announcement, Eidos said that a demo for Tomb Raider: Underworld will be available on Xbox Live in October. The game proper is expected to arrive for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 2, Wii, Nintendo DS, and PC in November.

Discussion

166 comments
badga66
badga66

it's about time Eidos pack thier bags... bye bye we won't miss you...

Gruff-182
Gruff-182

Yuck_Too and darkride66, you guys seriously need to get a room. Half of the comment spaces on Gamespot have you too argueing over PS3 and 360, if your so happy with the console choice you've made, why do you spend half your time talking about the other.

John-08
John-08

it might be free.. dont get so hasty most games have some kind of free dlc. And if its not good or free who cares.just dont pay for it

snake3rules
snake3rules

bs, levels that should be in every version of the game to begin with-- Count me out.

suicidaldys
suicidaldys

So there sayin after iv paid my £40 for the game there probably going to charge me again around xmas if i want the full experience? Why not just put all the extras on the disc and release the game around xmas time?

bballabarry
bballabarry

first of all they shouldnt already b announcing dlc for a game that hasnt come out yet. all of this should come with the game already like it used to b. then later they should add dlc for a better replay value.

goldeneye_basic
goldeneye_basic

@darkride66, Valve does not favor ATI over NVIDIA. I don't know where you read that but since you play Valve's games on a PS3 instead of a PC, then you wouldn't know that NVIDIA sponsors Valve. Many times over the last year NVIDIA's logo would appear when I started Steam. Yeah, a while back, you could buy an ATI card with HL2, but video card makers have bundled games with their cards for years. There is no way NVIDIA would give money to Valve if Valve does what you say they do. The whole NVIDIA mention must be because the PS3 currently uses NVIDIA while MS uses ATI. Why else would you bring that up? Also, Valve did not sabotage the Orange Box for the PS3. They are a small company that primarily produces games for the PC. Making a version of the Orange Box for the 360 was not difficult for them because of the similar architecture with the PC. Being a small company, they didn't have the resources to port it to the PS3. If they did, then why would they share the profits from it with EA? I remember you once said that EA put the blame for the graphical glitches on Valve. Of course they would say that! However, that is the same company that had Madden running at 30 fps on the PS3 and 60 fps on the 360 a couple years ago. That wasn't because of any hardware superiority, since the PS3 and 360 are nearly identical in performance based on the top games out there. EA just didn't have the knowledge and experience with the PS3 at the time. It is clear to me EA messed up the Orange box, not Valve. If Valve really wanted to sabotage the PS3, it never would have been released for it. Anyway, one could make the argument that a sequel is the same thing as a super DLC pack, the only conceptual difference is the sequel is bought in stores. Aside from COD4 and GTA4, the other games that I mentioned are basically a continuation of the story with more levels, improved graphics, a few new enemies, weapons, etc... Yuck_Too made a great point that sometimes DLC can be a better value. I agree that making a game without an ending just to release the ending as DLC later would suck. It may happen, but I don't think it would last long because a lot of people would get upset. Then again, Halo 2 had that cliff hanger ending and people put up with that kind of stuff with tv shows like 24, Heroes, etc.

darkride66
darkride66

@ TheArcade. Valve is headed up by ex-Microsoft employees who made millions with the company and still have very close ties. Not only did Valve refuse to port the Orange Box but it is rumored that they actively sabotagued EA's efforts to bring it over. This isn't the first claim of this nature to be leveled at Valve. They threw their weight behind ATI video cards with a business partnership and suddenly their new games wouldn't run nearly as well on Nvidia cards. Go figure. Despite these rumors, I thought the Orange Box rocked on the PS3. I just finished it last weekend and while I did get stuck in a wall once and had a couple of instances of slowdown these were just very minor annoyances and didn't hurt my enjoyment of this fantastic game in the slightest. Most reviews I saw mentioned a bit of slowdown on the PS3 version but I didn't see anyone lower their scores because of it and I see why, because it was no big deal. You'd think it was unplayable the way people on these forums were going on. I did hear there was something wrong with Team Fortress though, however I haven't tried it out yet so I can't speak to that.

TheArcade
TheArcade

I heard that most people who work at Valve didn't like the PS3 console. I remember reading an article some where about that claiming the head of the company ragged on it saying "The PS3 is a waste of time." I know MS bribes developers however I haven't heard of any fowl play being dished out on their end. The decision to disrespect the PS3 was Valve's. It was all their fault the PS3 version of the Orange Box isn't on par with 360's. Matter of fact when it came time to port it Valve refused to do so themselves instead they left it in EA's hands and look what they did to my masterpiece. =( EA butchered it.

darkride66
darkride66

@ Yuck_too. Just to clarify, I have nothing against MS paying for exclusive content..I have nothing against MS in general and I have nothing against DLC. I like DLC, it's a nice option later on down the road if I want to continue to play a title I enjoy. It's different when a game ships and doesn't have all the costume packs. I just thought it would be nice that if these levels are ready to go, release it with the retail version. Apparently Eidos is confident enough with their title that they believe people don't need those extra 2 levels even though they're completed and could ship with the retail game. We'll see.

Yuck_Too
Yuck_Too

--darkride66-- Even so...MS paid for extra content to make it exclusive and that has nothing to do with the fact that the disk version of both games is identical. Again, sometime after the disk version ships 360 owners will have the option of buying additional content, which extends the story. Also I fail to see how MS contributing to the success of a developer is upsetting to you, and now that you mention it the fact MS paid up-front for that content means extra resources were available for development that would have ended up going into the full version of the game. I called the death of exclusive 3rd party titles well over 2-years ago, but MS has surprised me in that while the exclusive title is dead they in effect just scaled it back and if anything have made it more profitable for both themselves and the developers. Exclusive DLC is basically nothing more then icing to a cake. ~~~~ Edit: Actually if you want to place blame for DLC it belongs on Oblivion's shoulders. $2.50 for that piece of horsebuttwrapper, micro-transaction. That not only was deliberately withheld from the final version, it was actually removed prior to shipping. Whoever bought that is directly responsible for the way things work today.

darkride66
darkride66

@ Yuck_Too. In this case though the content is finished (Eidos confirmed this) so it could have gone out with the retail copy. That was my point. If they announce that they're doing something extra, and it comes out months later, for some reason that doesn't bother me but content that could have shipped with the retail copy sticks in my craw a little. And you'll never hear me crowing about exclusives. Personally, I think exclusives are on their way out as the cost of developing games goes up and up and I don't have issue with that. If they wanted to port God of War or MGS4 to the 360, more power to em. They're great games that everyone should play. Same goes if Halo or Gears were to come to the PS3. I couldn't understand all the moaning about the new FF moving to the 360. It's not like the series originated on Playstation. As a gamer I feel the more people who get to play good games the better.

Yuck_Too
Yuck_Too

--darkride66-- They announced the extra content for GTA4 prior to the game shipping...and now 9-months later we might actually get to see it. The fact they announce something hardly means it's under development much less finished content. Why must it always be good news when Sony buys exclusives and evil empire when MS does? Make no mistake Sony has and would do the exact same thing if they had the money and were not simply trying to survive at this point. --Timstuff-- wow...that is so incorrect and out-of-whack it's not even worth trying to correct...so I won't bother.

darkride66
darkride66

Yuck_Too said "In fact with the average game of this type sitting around 20-hours and costing $60, paying $10 for 6 hours is a better deal." Huh. I never thought of it that way. That's an excellent point. I'm not against DLC in general. I happily paid for the Shivering Isles, Knights of the Nine, etc... and even plan on playing them one day! But these are expansions that were released later on. For some reason I find it a little harder to swallow knowing that these levels are done now and could be included in the retail version if they wanted. It makes me wonder if this was the plan all along, or if everyone else is missing out on what should have been in the retail game because MS needed to throw some money around. What's next? MS bribing companies to purposely dumb down multiconsole games to run worse on competitor's platforms? I'm looking at you, Valve! Don't pretend that you don't, we all remember what you did to Nvidia. That's my conspiracy rant for the day.

Timstuff
Timstuff

Manatassi, the reason people complain when Microsoft does things like this is because they only do it to punish people for not owning Xbox 360s. All it is is something to add kindling to the console wars and give their fans something to rub in the faces of PS3 fans. No-one wins in a scenario like this except for Microsoft, because no-one is going to trade in their PS3 for an Xbox 360 just because some games have more downloadable goodies that MS paid for. This has nothing to do with the technical specifications of either system, and entirely with who is more eager to spend money. Furthermore, this practice isn't fair to developers since big games like GTA and Tomb Raider, will always get preferential treatment when MS is deciding who to throw money at. As the old English phrase goes though, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Of all the console makers, MS seems to always be the first one to resort to the "throw money at it!" solution. They are losing ground to the PS3 on a monthly basis, and returning to these failed tactics represents nothing less than an act of desperation on MS's part.

Yuck_Too
Yuck_Too

--darkride66-- So what exactly is your complaint? Clearly this DLC is more akin to the Shivering Isles expansion of content with as you say 6 hours of extra play after the end. It's not like watching a incomplete movie that just stops and leaves you hanging. Both versions on disk will end exactly the same way, then some time later that story will pick up and continue again for 360 owners. That is the proper use for DLC. In fact with the average game of this type sitting around 20-hours and costing $60, paying $10 for 6 hours is a better deal.

darkride66
darkride66

@ goldeneye_basic. I think equating sequels with DLC is a bit of a stretch. Sequels are different games, full games, with different stories and can be a completetly unique artistic vision. Just witness the vast difference between GTA San Andreas and GTA4. DLC is a couple of extra maps for multiplayer. Or different costumes. I read on another site that Eidos says the extra levels are a continuation of the end of the game with two complete stories. Are we really that far off from buying a game, and then having to pay an extra $10 to see how the storey unfolds?

goldeneye_basic
goldeneye_basic

To anybody that thinks DLC is a ripoff or companies are creating DLC to nickel and dime you, then maybe you shouldn't have bought Halo3, COD4, GTA4, MGS4, or any other sequel. DLC that adds new levels and missions is the same thing as a sequel, only smaller and costs less. I don't hear anybody whine about how Epic Games is scamming you out of more money by making Gears of War 2. People really look forward to sequels like that. Yet if it comes out with some new levels six months after release for $10, then some people will say what are rip off. You don't have to buy the DLC. The product released was already a complete game. It seems to me that much of this complaining is because some of the DLC out there is exclusive. If you don't like that, than don't by the game. Don't buy any sequels either because than you are getting ripped off by six times the amount! I am glad that you people are in the minority though. Most people like me actually like having companies make new things and improve on their designs. I guess farmers are trying to nickel and dime you too by growing more and more food.

Manatassi
Manatassi

Unbelievable. Microsoft goes out of their way to secure a better experience on the Xbox platform for its customers, and what do people do? Complain. It seems like thats all people do on Gamespot these days. Microsoft are doing extremely well leading the online space with Xbox Live. They have catered extremely well for the staple core of the Games playing audience and are attempting to please that market extremely well while trying to reach out to a larger audience.... they could have gone the way of Nintendo, is that what you guys want? 4 or 5 games that are great and then nothing, unless you like pretending to play a flute. I have all 3 consoles the Xbox and PS3 I am more than happy with, each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Sony has been doing extremely interesting things in the online space with games like Warhawk and Wipeout HD. I barely touch my Wii but really its not aimed at me as an audience, my 10 year old son however adores it. Nintendo have taken a different aproach to this generation which has worked extremely well. What I'm basically saying is that whenever information is released on this site all I ever see is a tirade of hostility Fanboyism and negative comments, this used to be tempered by some positive reactions providing some balance. This generation of consoles has produced some of the most interesting and rewarding experiences I have had in Gaming in many years. And yes I know that its all about the money for Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Of course it is, everything is about the money. Thomas Hardy one of the most highly respected English authors is well known to have written all his books for financial gain. Does that de-value his work? The fact of the matter is that these companies continue to expand and create and innovate, improving each generation above the last. So why cant we have some positive feedback on these forums eh? Maybe some of you could consider that yes they want your money, but they are trying to please you to get that money. There are far bigger things out there to go get angry at, why not try being this negative at something that deserves it for a change.

Timstuff
Timstuff

I don't think this will make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. Only a small minority of customers own both platforms, so it's not like they're in a position to choose between both versions, and on top of that Joe consumer probably doesn't even know that these games will at one point have Xbox exclusive content. And chances are if someone hasn't already bought a current-gen system, they're not the sort of person who would care enough about DLC for it to be a deciding factor in buying Xbox 360 over PS3. I think Microsoft is starting to get careless with their money again now that the Xbox brand has FINALLY started making a profit.

CureForLiving
CureForLiving

I'd really like to know how much money Micro$oft is giving these companies to secure exclusive DLC? And does exclusive DLC really equal higher sales figures? From what I can tell all MS is doing is sticking it to Sony (who still refuses to play the 'throw money at a problem' game)

Dumper1
Dumper1

I will never pay for DLC, we just get shorter games and are then expected to pay more for a few extra hours of game play which should have been included in the original product. Also I want a physical product, DLC means I will never properly own the content, what happens in years to come if I want to play the game on the next gen Xbox console? I will own the disc but not the DLC.

HyruleCrusader
HyruleCrusader

@TheArcade: These aren't the benefits of paying for XBL - this is what happens when Microsoft tries to buy the video game industry little by little.

-Grieves-
-Grieves-

Well, as a PS3 owner, this is another title that I won't be picking up.

darkride66
darkride66

@ Yuck_Too. Who said anything about needing a Gold membership for this? Also, tonicmole stated there was NO debate as to which service is better and clearly there is. As if there were any doubts as to my feelings, I like XBL but I feel that the PSN being offered up at no charge trumps the expanded chat features that currently separate the two services. The rest of his post was excellent.

TheArcade
TheArcade

@cloud1000 "kind of annoying as Tomb Raider was homegrown on the PS. And whats wrong with putting a demo on PSN." And Saturn, it was home to the Saturn as well.

cloud1000
cloud1000

kind of annoying as Tomb Raider was homegrown on the PS. And whats wrong with putting a demo on PSN.

jrafa90
jrafa90

Just one question. I know is a little bit of ignorance from me but I started with XBL just one month ago...this chapters are going to be free or you must buy them?

dolljack
dolljack

since they already announced 2 additional chapters, couldnt they add it to Ps3's blu-ray??

TheArcade
TheArcade

By the way tonicmole WELL PUT! *thumbs up*

TheArcade
TheArcade

I look forward to enjoying the soon to be expanded chat options, game installs, DLC, XBLA exclusives, Achievement support for all titles, and dedicated servers for most of the games I play. These are just some of the benefits of paying for XBL and I think it's a sweet deal. I also appreciate the fact that Sony's online is free. I get precisely what I pay for with them, a different, perhaps unique gaming experience. Still waiting on Home though... I really want to see what offerings it may have in store.

Yuck_Too
Yuck_Too

--darkride66-- No not really...people agree PSN has improved on what it was, but they also agree XBL is still better. Also just to clear it up, you do not need a Gold account for this; The free Silver membership still allows you access to all the additional content in the marketplace.

darkride66
darkride66

tonicmole said "You can buy generic cheaper, but lose quality, or pay a little extra and get the brand name. I'm just saying that the free online service is exactly what you get. There is NO debate on who is better." There wasn't a year ago, but there sure is debate now raging across editorial spaces and forums throughout the entire gaming community. Personally, at this point I think all you're paying for is expanded chat features. That's the only difference now, and even that soon won't be a factor, and this is coming from a long time XBL user. I 100% agree that the higher cost of developing is leading to more and more DLC.

godzillavskong
godzillavskong

Very well put Tonicmole. Thats a different perspective, but correct and makes perfect sense.

tonicmole
tonicmole

They actually have to start on making the DLC now, but I doubt it will be done in time for the release of the game. Also it is extra content that wouldn't fit in with the game content. Shivering Isles for instance. What is happening is that MS pays for part of the development and in return the developer gives them exclusive content. The reason MS has the money to spend on expanding the consoles library and online service is because of membership fees and normal game sales. If you only want to play online games, the PS 3 is cool and free, if you want a larger experiance then you'll have to pay $7. It's like buying anything else. You can buy generic cheaper, but lose quality, or pay a little extra and get the brand name. I'm not saying that the PS 3 sucks, I'm just saying that the free online service is exactly what you get. There is NO debate on who is better, one is free and the other costs $7. The rest is up to your personal opinion. I will tell you that game developers are having trouble making these games at due to the high cost of Dev. One bad selling game can take down 3 homeruns. This kind of content, along with deals with MS, are what keep it going. $60 is alot of money for a game, yet barely pays their bills. If it cost $200 to make a pencil, you still would think $5 is too much to pay for it. I would too, but something has to give. Either we give more money to the Devs for these Next Gen games or we all move to the Wii and PS 2. The production of games is exceeding the value of the final product.

godzillavskong
godzillavskong

I'm all for DLC, but it depends on when and how it was released. For instance, EA was thinking of charging for different weapons in Battlefield Bad Co., which after severe scrutiny, they decided against it. Or when a game is released, then DLC is available after 2-3 weeks, c'mon, that could've fit on the disc.But all in all, I really appreciate DLC and the extra enjoyment it brings to a title. Especially new maps for multiplayer or extra content for a single player game that extends the life of that game.This new Tomb Raider title looks truly amazing and looks to bring it back to its early days on Saturn/PS2.Can't wait.

Boggy_d
Boggy_d

With this being announced still at least a month away from hitting the stores you can't help but feel cheated that it isn't in the game in the first place. Especially if you're buying it on another platform like pc or ps3.

TheArcade
TheArcade

@Yuck_Too "MS gives a lot of money to developers, who in turn use that money to make better games for everyone. If you don't like it, don't buy it." Yeah, some of which the consumer has used paying them to receive XBL, lol. DLC such as this is the reason why I pay for Live it's totally worth my while (please note I'm only speaking for myself). @dmish82 I do. Plenty of people I know buy Tomb Raider games so there definitely still is a market for the franchise. If DLC is solid and not sucky I'm buying, I love Tomb Raider.

darkride66
darkride66

@ Yuck_Too. Then let it go. First you question my intelligence, I reply and here you are not only bringing it up again, but accusing me of not letting it go. Don't insult me and expect me to not respond. You were the one who drug XBL pricing into this, in between insulting my profession and taking my comments out of context. I think it's pretty clear from my previous post that I'm trying to stick to the topic at hand.

Yuck_Too
Yuck_Too

--darkride66-- "$7.99/month cdn and I thought great! It was actually on these forums years after the fact that someone mentioned $50/year and it made me stop and think "Wait a sec? How much am I paying?" MS has quite the little scam going there." ~~~ Oh my...yes MS was the first company in the existence of mankind and corporate greed to actually price something for less when bought in quantity...what a scam, who could possibly have seen that coming, someone should sue... We'll ignore the fact all the prices are listed up on the screen when you first pick your payment option. Again...can you give it a rest...it's getting tiresome.

Commando3200
Commando3200

Microsoft really puts its money to good use... Gaining so many exclusive dlc's (GTAIV anyone?) because of their wealth. What this means for the 360 owner? Fun, fun, fun!

Yuck_Too
Yuck_Too

Try to focus a little bit here Dark. This is about DLC, not a pity party for how you think you've been treated by customer support. I find it strange that out of the 4 Million people who have had to deal with it and not had any issues yet you're the only one who continually goes about how it sucks. Also I've never once complained about the PS3, much to your annoyance I'm sure. Now if this topic were about crappy customer support, I'd have plenty to say about Sony and the PS2. Aside from that, I stick by my original comment: "All you saying the DLC should be in the game to start with, you do realize they have not done any work on that extra content yet. Just like GTA4, or Shivering Isles, they start on it AFTER the game ships. And how would you feel if they announced it say a week later after you bought the title for the other platform and then realized you missed out. You'd all be sitting here still bashing them for having NOT told you before. MS gives a lot of money to developers, who in turn use that money to make better games for everyone. If you don't like it, don't buy it"

darkride66
darkride66

kz1den made a very valid point when he said "All of this DLC is just another scheme of nickle and dime-ing the consumers by any means." Although I have nothing against full on expansion packs like the Shivering Isles, I certainly don't agree with an extra 6 hours...for a fee. For something like this, if it's done right now and it's worthwhile, put it in the retail version of the game if you want my $60. I can understand if you release a game and then come out with something big and new a few months later offering it for download, but how long until they start releasing games that we have to pay an extra $10 to play the ending. If it's complete now, put it in the damn retail version of the game!

thecakeisalie47
thecakeisalie47

Video games are losing ethics daily, becoming hollywood.

necronaux
necronaux

Two extra chapters? And the game isn't even released (why couldn't they be included in the game? size? money?) Any chance they'll be free (included in the price of the $60 gamepurchase)? Doubt it.

darkride66
darkride66

@ Yuck_Too. My post was meant to be funny! Sorry you didn't see it that way. As for buying XBL monthly, at the time I set it up the cost was about $11.50 a month Cdn. I thought I'd try it for a few months and see if I liked it. I ended up keeping it, they dropped the price down to $7.99/month cdn and I thought great! It was actually on these forums years after the fact that someone mentioned $50/year and it made me stop and think "Wait a sec? How much am I paying?" MS has quite the little scam going there. So what does that say about me? It says I don't lose sleep over having overpaid $30 each year on XBL, the money was never a concern. I think it's a fantastic service that I used to use regularly. Now I don't. As for your 5 year XBL credit, that's great for you. I didn't receive squat. Mind you, I also heard that on your second RROD you get a new console and free games. I got 1 month free of XBL all 3 times. (Saved me 3 x $7.99) I also heard they would automatically refund the $170 spent on 360 repairs each time they extended the warranty. Both times I had to fight for it. The last time I had to escalate to a supervisor and prove to them (they had no record) by faxing my credit card statement that they even charged me the $170 the second time. Sounds to me like the service you received vs the service I received was a little different. I believe that's your cue to hit us with some Sony service storey.

kz1den
kz1den

I agree with a lot of the comments on this evergrowing issue of DLC. All of this DLC is just another scheme of nickle and dime-ing the consumers by any means. And sad to say, it is apparently working, as this is quickly becoming a trend in the gaming industry. Now, I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the overall quality and length of the soon-to-be released original game (TR) or any future DLC, but the first thought to come to any thinking man's mind (especially considering the influx of 5 to 7 hour games that's been hitting the shelves lately) is "here's another shortened game in which the publisher/developer is charging $XX.00 for 'extra' content that should've originally been in the game from the start". Not only is gaming becoming more watered down than ever, but the industry is finding conniving ways of swindling more money from out of the consumers' pockets in the process.

oliver47
oliver47

This is horrible! Tomb Raider is my all time favorite game...and I have a Playstation 3!! =( Not good, I desperately hope that some kind of contract is made with sony for the Playstation Network, after all Edios will be the only ones that lose profit!