Shadow Of The Tomb Raider Will Be Out This Spring

Shadow Of The Tomb Raider Will Be Out This Spring

A new teaser countdown from Square Enix promises big Tomb Raider news tomorrow, but a quick HTML check will give it to you right now: Shadow of the Tomb Raider is coming out this September.

Screenshot: Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015)

Head to the official Tomb Raider website and you’ll see a message promising an announcement on 15 March 2018 at 6AM PT (16 March 2018 at 12AM AEDT). Inspect the HTML, however, and you’ll see the announcement early:

“tagline”:”Shadow of The Tomb Raider is the climatic finale of Lara’s origin story. Available September 14th 2018″

If this is an accident, it isn’t the first time. In October 2016, a Redditor spotted the name of Lara Croft’s next adventure because it was on the laptop of someone next to him on the train.

At the time, we confirmed with our own sources that Shadow of the Tomb Raider was indeed the next game in the series. This one, as we reported then, is developed by Eidos Montreal, the studio behind Thief (2014), Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.

The previous two games were made at the San Francisco, California-based Crystal Dynamics, which is now working on an Avengers game. Eidos Montreal is also entering the Marvel universe with a Guardians of the Galaxy game that has not yet been announced.

We’ve heard that Square invited some reporters to see the game in Montreal recently, so expect a wave of new previews when the official announcement hits tomorrow.

A teaser trailer for the game appears to have leaked as well:


    • Shirley that would cost Microsoft waaaaaaaay more than it would be worth at this point?

    • I wondered the same thing and hope nobody involved would be so stupid after the backlash of the last announcement.
      (Money is money though)

      That debacle always interested me because it appeared MS was forced to break their own contract and admit the timed element well ahead of schedule and I beleive it was Eidios and Square that would’ve pressured.
      Phil Spencer was pretty pissed when he back peddled, the vague announcement and release timing was clearly meant to move consoles under the implied exclusive during the Christmas quarter.

      Not going to hate on MS for it, they were just trying to improve their own position and Rise of the Tomb Raider was just another bad decision after a long list of mistakes for them.
      (It’s why I kinda hope they don’t try and repeat it)

      • I don’t quite understand why there’s such a gulf in the gaming communities reaction when Microsoft buys an exclusive off a studio (EVIL!) but if they buy the studio and prevent them from releasing multi-platforms that’s absolutely fine? Nobody complains that Sony is using their money to purchase an underhanded advantage when they buy studios outright. It’s just a different business model.

        Does anyone really think that if it were up to the developers of Zero Dawn or Gran Turismo that they wouldn’t maximise their sales by porting their games to Xbox and PC if they weren’t owned by Sony?

        • Sony supports those studios in house really well and those titles become genuinely exclusive, rather than just going out and trying to buy a year of exclusivity while creating nothing.

          We wouldn’t have games like Bloodborne if Sony weren’t willing to put money into exclusive development.

          • This is exactly what I’m talking about.

            Sony “supports” them….. does that support involve giving them money to make software and withhold it from other systems where it could turn additional profit? Or are they just buddies?

            “We wouldn’t have games like Bloodborne if Sony weren’t willing to put money into exclusive development”….. .
            No, you wouldn’t have games like Bloodborne if they didn’t make money for Sony.
            OR, more likely you’d have games like Bloodborne but they wouldn’t be exclusive.

            It’s the f*cking same thing. It just seems different because you perceive it in a buddy-buddy way and not as a business model. Sony buys developers or funds projects on the basis of exclusivity, Microsoft subsidises developers for exclusivity in a way that clearly benefits both parties (otherwise it wouldn’t happen).

            Either way these games could and would exist as multiplatform games because they turn a profit, nobodies doing anything out of charity. It makes ZERO difference to you as a consumer, both sides are trying to carve out a niche that separates them from the competition.

            It’s ridiculous that people get mad about one and support the other. It’s purely marketing spin.

          • Sony fronted the money for the game, which the devs used to make a new IP they couldn’t fund themselves and was a risk. It’s different to buying exclusivity. Microsoft make games and Nintendo make games by providing seed funding, infrastructure and personnel sometimes. They then use that stuff to make a game for their own system. So Japan Studio games being made for Sony systems using Sony money is fine. Anyone developing in house for their system is fine. Paying for timed exclusivity on a sequel should and is frowned upon.

            It is ridiculous that people get mad, yourself included. I am very excited to play the PS4 exclusive game Death Stranding next year thanks to Mr House.

          • Sony funds these games because they expect them to make them a profit because they know there’s a market for them. It’s no different at all.

            If Sony wasn’t funding these projects, these talented developers would be working for themselves or others making multiplatforms because there’s a market for them.

            It’s only in crazy gaming land that companies manage to convince people that business works any other way. They aren’t doing you a favour by paying for these exclusives, they’re just capturing a market portion for themselves by funding a developer.

            We are all crazy though. Don’t get me started on the Shenmue 3 kickstarter…..

          • They’re exactly the same as executive producers on a film. They get some credit for selecting and funding projects.

        • It’s a little more complicated than that, especially in this instance
          MS didn’t purchase a studio or simply an exclusive, they purchased an eagerly awaited sequel to a massively well received reboot and played it off as a full exclusive.

          Im not sure how how Sony buying studios is in anyway stopping MS from doing the same.
          Sony chooses to invest and MS has been choosing not to.
          (And also many AAA and indie studios are weary about entering in to such deals based purely on MS’s own reputation in that area, that to their benefit, have been trying to rectify in the past few years)
          I didn’t see any (real) complaints about Titanfall or that Sunshine one.

          The other factor is that if any of the aforementioned studios were to complain about Sonys hardball tactics, it would be a different story, but their own changes in contacts since he days of the PS2 and early PS3 has AAA’s and Indies lining up to take part and having nothing bad to say as often ownership of their IP’s are now retained.
          (Something MS has also started to do, to their benefit)

  • It’ll be interesting to see what they do with the story this time around. I felt like the second game lost out badly because they couldn’t replicate the vulnerable-Lara origin story. I think sometime around the slaughter of her 600th armed man I stopped buying that she was hurt, starving, cold or scared.

    There’s only so many Die Hard formulas for throwing the same person into the shit over and over again.

    You can normally get away with two sets of unfortunate occurrences (“How does the same shit happen to the same guy twice”), followed by a Die-hard 3 where a disgruntled (but previously unknown) 3rd party pulls the unwilling hero into an adventure due to an unforeseen consequence of a pervious action…. but after that you need to mix it up and send them to Russia (Die Hard 4?5? I lost track) or Brazil (Max Payne 3 style).

    I’m guessing the story will be ridiculous.

    • I play games for gameplay. The stories are pretty much b-movie fare most of the time.
      The second tomb raider game improved on the original reboot in every way imaginable.

      • I care about the story and setting, so IMO the sequel improved on every part of the second half of the first game (once it became an outright action game).

        The survival setting in the first half of the first game was my favorite bit.

    • That’s a good point lol, a third time would have most people saying, “Screw this, never leaving the house again”

  • I am interested in this despite the fact that Rise of the Tomb Raider was a pretty poor follow up to the previous game imo.

    Just hoping that it is an Xbox timed exclusive this time.

  • Still waiting until I get a new monitor to play Rise, loved the first of this trilogy. I really hope that after this trilogy they really go all out with the story, jump to 10 years later or something when she’s pretty much the most badass woman in the world and knows it too.

  • Thing I learned today: The first game wasn’t Lara’s origin story, despite it being the story of her origin as a tomb raider. They played us like a damn fiddle and made it into a trilogy.

  • Tentatively interested. The reboot was fantastic and Rise was largely very good. I’m just a bit wary because this is going to a different developer (it’s with Eidos Montreal, the people behind the kind of shit Thief 4 and Deus Ex, rather than with Crystal Dynamics) and with the way games have gone recently, I’m half expecting they’ve turned this into another Generic Open World Action RPG, especially since Rise tried to go halfway that direction already. As long as it’s still more in the Metroidvania style like the first two I’m in, but if it’s an Open World they can fuck off with it IMO.

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!