By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Tomb Raider debuts at #5 in UK

Snoopy on 25 November 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:

You said: "If Sony had the power they had during the PS2 era, FF7 wouldn't have ever touched the Xbox at all." Thus, the "when has" was appropriate.

Next, "first on PlayStation" doesn't mean Xbox One at all. Like I said, with the trend of many multiplatform games going PS4/PC, it isn't unreasonable to assume the same for a game like Final Fantasy VII Remake (in fact, this would be THE title to make such an assumption, given it may not even exist without Sony's input).


Yes...and as I said to someone...Sony's power is political drawing from popularity and the sway that holds over the industry like the PS2 era. Microsoft has never had that and still doesnt have that. 

To the second part, no. You know as well that Square Enix would not sellout Microsoft this generation after last generation. In terms of sales for these types of games PS4> Xbox One> PC......as always. Unless Sony outbids Microsoft its not happening and their politics didnt stop Microsofts bid for FFXV. Whenever we see the "first on" situation we know its a tactic to draw the audience from direct competition. Microsoft and Sony have been doing timed exclusivity forever so I dont know how this cannot be seen.


This. However, nobody knows how long the time exclusive is going to last. It might only be a month long. Microsoft will have AT LEAST about 40 million xbox ones sold by the time FF7 remake release. Especially if we consider how easy it will be to port it over to xbox with little to no effort. Heck, Square Enix still talking to Microsoft for the FF14 port.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 25 November 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Again, try looking it up. It became profitable at the end of 2013. The remaster was released in 2014.

With the remasterer it apparently exceeded expectations.

The Tomb Raider struggling to be profitable story is greatly exagerated. Square Enix apparently hoped it would be profitable in a month because it was so awesome, that didn't happen. But what did happen is it became profitable in under a year. The game was ultimatley a success even before they made more money with the remaster.


Yes, they wanted profits equal to that of Uncharted. They werent happy until they exceeded profit expectations, which took five platforms. You can look it up. They were complaining. Breaking even is enough, its about major profits for Square. Thinking about why they gave an exclusive like Tomb Raider to a losing team like Microsoft exclusively baffles even me, but whats done is done. Im playing it and I'll be playing next year so either way neither Microsoft nor Sony could screw me. I feel bad for those affected by Microsofts business decision though, as well as Microsoft gamers who will have to wait for FFVII later on in the gen. Then agan...I dont really feel that bad about FFVII (for nostalgia reasons) because that was born on Playstation, but its still not fair in truth.

No, it sounds like they wanted profits bigger than Uncharted. They wanted to sell like 4 million copies in a month. Uncharted is successful, but not as successful as bundles make people think.

You said it took 5 platforms to break even. No, it broke even during 2013. Which was before the Remaster released. End of story, you were wrong.

I feel exclusive deals are generally bad. Its basically one company paying so other people cant play a game.

MS and SE handled this exclusive poorly. Bad timing or it should have been the only bundle MS was pushing this holiday for $350.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

RJ_Sizzle on 25 November 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:

You said: "If Sony had the power they had during the PS2 era, FF7 wouldn't have ever touched the Xbox at all." Thus, the "when has" was appropriate.

Next, "first on PlayStation" doesn't mean Xbox One at all. Like I said, with the trend of many multiplatform games going PS4/PC, it isn't unreasonable to assume the same for a game like Final Fantasy VII Remake (in fact, this would be THE title to make such an assumption, given it may not even exist without Sony's input).


Yes...and as I said to someone...Sony's power is political drawing from popularity and the sway that holds over the industry like the PS2 era. Microsoft has never had that and still doesnt have that. 

To the second part, no. You know as well that Square Enix would not sellout Microsoft this generation after last generation. In terms of sales for these types of games PS4> Xbox One> PC......as always. Unless Sony outbids Microsoft its not happening and their politics didnt stop Microsofts bid for FFXV. Whenever we see the "first on" situation we know its a tactic to draw the audience from direct competition. Microsoft and Sony have been doing timed exclusivity forever so I dont know how this cannot be seen.

Square/Enix wouldn't sell out MS? Man, what are you talking about? They're already not making some games for Xbox One as it is. What is it about FF7 remake that's supposed to be so special? We already have immense splits for for Japanese delveloped games between X1 and PS4 as it is. S/E is going to do what makes the most financial sense to them, and no, it's hasn't always been Xbox One > PC in terms of sales.  http://www.dsogaming.com/news/report-a-vast-number-of-multi-platform-games-sell-better-on-the-pc-than-on-xbox-one/

Is there an immense clamoring for FF7 on the Xbox One? I really doubt it. Sony doesn't have any more or less political power than Microsoft does over gaming, they just have the install base that works in their favor. That's the way it is. MS muscled their way in on pure cash, and sometimes, that's not always the answer.



Snoopy on 26 November 2015
CGI-Quality said:
Snoopy said:


This. However, nobody knows how long the time exclusive is going to last. It might only be a month long. Microsoft will have AT LEAST about 40 million xbox ones sold by the time FF7 remake release. Especially if we consider how easy it will be to port it over to xbox with little to no effort. Heck, Square Enix still talking to Microsoft for the FF14 port.

As I said, there's nothing hinting at an X1 release and the FFXIV comparison is pointless, given the situations are nothing alike. No, it's not impossible, just no hint of it.

The game will likely release at the original's 20th anniversary (2017). Since it will probably be, at least, a year of exclusivity, I just don't see an X1 version on the cards. In fact, I'd expect an NX release before that.


First on playstation pretty much says it all. Japan is pretty much irrelevant in the console gaming industry. They have to rely on US and Europe Markets. The few japanese games that don't come over here are very niche and low budget. 



Snoopy on 26 November 2015
CGI-Quality said:
Snoopy said:


First on playstation pretty much says it all. Japan is pretty much irrelevant in the console gaming industry. They have to rely on US and Europe Markets. The few japanese games that don't come over here are very niche and low budget. 

Uh, nah, Japan definitely ISN'T irrelevant to PS4. It's one of Final Fantasy's biggest markets and a place that will sell PlayStation units on the heels of it. It IS irrelevant, however, regarding Xbox. 

And "First on PlayStation" is just that. Doesn't signify Xbox at all.


If it was coming to PC they would've just say it. Trust me, Sony would've said "Its console exclusive" and make sure we know it if they paid for it. PC isn't their competition. Also, FF15 and KH3 are coming to xbox one and the fact square enix is still wanting to port FF14 to xbox, but microsoft is blocking them like they probably did with ff7.



Around the Network
Snoopy on 26 November 2015
CGI-Quality said:
Snoopy said:


If it was coming to PC they would've just say it. Trust me, Sony will be all like "Its console exclusive" and make sure we know it if they paid for it. PC isn't their competition.

Thus, it's a waiting game, which is part of my point. Everybody else that really wants it will buy it on PS4 or buy a PS4 for it. 


We don't even know how long it is exclusive for. I say for a few months. All this however is really early. I don't even think the game will be out in 2017. We didn't see any gameplay or anything else.



tokilamockingbrd on 26 November 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
CGI-Quality said:

1. When has FFVII ever released on Xbox?

2. There's not even been a corporate hint of FFVII Remake for the X1 (which, again, makes sense, given how it will sell more in territories where the X1 isn't doing too well). It's most likley for PC a year later, like Street Fighter V.


1. Not "When has"..but rather..."When will" is the correct wait to question this, but i'll answer anyway. They didnt have it, but Microsoft has leveled out the share of major third party support so that they can sustain themselves.Both consoles have 90% the same games and Square Enix needs as much money as possible. Staying exclusive these days stops you from getting the most profit possible, so first party is more inclined to invest in their own games and they have to.

2. Yes there was....It say "First on Playstation". Watch the reveal video. Common sense. You're an intelligent gamer. You know the lingo and bullshit by now.

or 1st on Playstation. Then on PC. Just. Like FF7 back in 1997.



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.

S.T.A.G.E. on 26 November 2015
Mr Puggsly said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Yes, they wanted profits equal to that of Uncharted. They werent happy until they exceeded profit expectations, which took five platforms. You can look it up. They were complaining. Breaking even is enough, its about major profits for Square. Thinking about why they gave an exclusive like Tomb Raider to a losing team like Microsoft exclusively baffles even me, but whats done is done. Im playing it and I'll be playing next year so either way neither Microsoft nor Sony could screw me. I feel bad for those affected by Microsofts business decision though, as well as Microsoft gamers who will have to wait for FFVII later on in the gen. Then agan...I dont really feel that bad about FFVII (for nostalgia reasons) because that was born on Playstation, but its still not fair in truth.

No, it sounds like they wanted profits bigger than Uncharted. They wanted to sell like 4 million copies in a month. Uncharted is successful, but not as successful as bundles make people think.

You said it took 5 platforms to break even. No, it broke even during 2013. Which was before the Remaster released. End of story, you were wrong.

I feel exclusive deals are generally bad. Its basically one company paying so other people cant play a game.

MS and SE handled this exclusive poorly. Bad timing or it should have been the only bundle MS was pushing this holiday for $350.


Me saying it took five platforms to break even was a mistake. It actually took three, but as I said before, Square was complaining which led me to believe there was an issue. The development and expectation of profit was definitely expecting the excessive sales of the Uncharted franchise. Luckily it took five consoles to eventually reach that goal.



S.T.A.G.E. on 26 November 2015
tokilamockingbrd said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


1. Not "When has"..but rather..."When will" is the correct wait to question this, but i'll answer anyway. They didnt have it, but Microsoft has leveled out the share of major third party support so that they can sustain themselves.Both consoles have 90% the same games and Square Enix needs as much money as possible. Staying exclusive these days stops you from getting the most profit possible, so first party is more inclined to invest in their own games and they have to.

2. Yes there was....It say "First on Playstation". Watch the reveal video. Common sense. You're an intelligent gamer. You know the lingo and bullshit by now.

or 1st on Playstation. Then on PC. Just. Like FF7 back in 1997.

In 1997 PC was affected by the Playstations entrance. Of course PC would be the second choice. Now it is Microsoft. 



Mr Puggsly on 26 November 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Mr Puggsly said:

No, it sounds like they wanted profits bigger than Uncharted. They wanted to sell like 4 million copies in a month. Uncharted is successful, but not as successful as bundles make people think.

You said it took 5 platforms to break even. No, it broke even during 2013. Which was before the Remaster released. End of story, you were wrong.

I feel exclusive deals are generally bad. Its basically one company paying so other people cant play a game.

MS and SE handled this exclusive poorly. Bad timing or it should have been the only bundle MS was pushing this holiday for $350.


Me saying it took five platforms to break even was a mistake. It actually took three, but as I said before, Square was complaining which led me to believe there was an issue. The development and expectation of profit was definitely expecting the excessive sales of the Uncharted franchise. Luckily it took five consoles to eventually reach that goal.

Like I said before, this whole Tomb Raider selling poorly discussion is greatly exagerated. The media and forum dwellers are probably to blame for that.

Again, SE didn't want Tomb Raider to sell like Uncharted. Tomb Raider apparently sold better than any Uncharted game but it was still below what they hoped. Bottom line, it was still profitable the same year it was released.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)