Quantcast
Rise of Tomb Raider 3X the sales on PC compared to Xbox One's debut.

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Rise of Tomb Raider 3X the sales on PC compared to Xbox One's debut.

Azzanation said:
HylianYoshi said:
Who's stupid idea was it to pit up RotTR against Fallout day one? Anyway, I'm glad to see that the game found more success on one of the platforms it deserved to release on DAY ONE.

Screw timed exclusivity. What's the point if you're going to release it on other platforms later on? Just to piss people off for a certain amount of time and walk away with the cash handed to you. I don't know anyone who goes out to buy a console when they know it'll come to their own in a matter of months.

Because MS helped SE out with funding. Why should the game come out on other platforms if MS had to help the Devs financially? Atleast it is coming out on other platforms unlike the moneyhatted SFV which Sony was supposedly help develope which i call BS on.

Anyway TR is a game worth playing regardless of platform.

One is a game that was "moneyhatted" after it was mostly completed so they could compete with uncharted 4.

One is a game that wouldn't actually exist (at least in 2016) without all of Sony's help.

So one is delayed because of the money spent, and one is actually coming out much earlier because of the money spent.

Vastly different.



  • Deadliest mass shooting by an individual in US history (10/01/2017)
  • Deadliest high school shooting in US history (02/14/2018)
  • Deadliest massacre of Jews in US history (10/27/2018)
  • Political assassination attempt of TWO former presidents(and 10+ other people)  (10/23/2018 - and beyond)
Around the Network
Azzanation said:
HylianYoshi said:
Who's stupid idea was it to pit up RotTR against Fallout day one? Anyway, I'm glad to see that the game found more success on one of the platforms it deserved to release on DAY ONE.

Screw timed exclusivity. What's the point if you're going to release it on other platforms later on? Just to piss people off for a certain amount of time and walk away with the cash handed to you. I don't know anyone who goes out to buy a console when they know it'll come to their own in a matter of months.

Because MS helped SE out with funding. Why should the game come out on other platforms if MS had to help the Devs financially? Atleast it is coming out on other platforms unlike the moneyhatted SFV which Sony was supposedly help develope which i call BS on.

Anyway TR is a game worth playing regardless of platform.

Based on what?

OT: Good for Tomb Raider. From what everyone says, it's a fantastic game and I'm glad more people get to play it. I'll probably have to wait until 2017 to play it though.



Of course it's going to sell more digital copies than the xbox one considering the release date and the fact that most console owners buy physical copies (I wouldn't be surprised if the PC version outsold the Xbox one overall tho), still good to hear because Tomb Raider deserves it.



                                                                                     

Misleading title and only one paragraph from link copied.

It means digital only. Also talks about release in the stacked holidays launching next to other AAA titles.



Profrektius said:

Misleading title. They are only talking about digital sales. Which is not surprising at all, since most PC sales are digital, and most Xbox One sales are physical copies. Would be interesting to see actual numbers of how did the game do on PC.

Clearly nobody is interested in listening to us lol. I'm kind of curious as to how many people are going to just respond to the title.



Around the Network



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

The PC version outdid the XB1 version? I would say impressive, but those XB1 numbers weren't very good...



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Bandorr said:
Azzanation said:

Because MS helped SE out with funding. Why should the game come out on other platforms if MS had to help the Devs financially? Atleast it is coming out on other platforms unlike the moneyhatted SFV which Sony was supposedly help develope which i call BS on.

Anyway TR is a game worth playing regardless of platform.

One is a game that was "moneyhatted" after it was mostly completed so they could compete with uncharted 4.

One is a game that wouldn't actually exist (at least in 2016) without all of Sony's help.

So one is delayed because of the money spent, and one is actually coming out much earlier because of the money spent.

Vastly different.

You need to do some reading. If you think theres a big difference between the two games on how they got developed your kidding yourself.

http://www.windowscentral.com/square-enix-praises-microsoft-rise-tomb-raider

*Square-Enix stated previously that Microsoft are helping fund Rise of the Tomb Raider's development*

What difference does it make, both TR and SF were in bad postitions. You saying if it wasnt for Sony SFV wouldnt exist.. is the exact same thing in saying if it wasnt for MS, TR wouldnt exist. They both funded the projects and in TR's case, Sony didnt want a bar just like when MS didnt want a bar of SF. Both Square and Capcon wanted a company to help publish there game. First in first serve is exactly what happen.

There was always going to be another SF and TR game. Except you think Sony did no wrong with SF but MS did with TR. Thats the problem there. Infact Sony did worse becasue they completely moneyhatted the game to avoid other consoles where as MS didnt and still allow its competitors the game.

You give company money, they will give you exclusives.

 

 



Azzanation said:
Bandorr said:

One is a game that was "moneyhatted" after it was mostly completed so they could compete with uncharted 4.

One is a game that wouldn't actually exist (at least in 2016) without all of Sony's help.

So one is delayed because of the money spent, and one is actually coming out much earlier because of the money spent.

Vastly different.

You need to do some reading. If you think theres a big difference between the two games on how they got developed your kidding yourself.

http://www.windowscentral.com/square-enix-praises-microsoft-rise-tomb-raider

*Square-Enix stated previously that Microsoft are helping fund Rise of the Tomb Raider's development*

What difference does it make, both TR and SF were in bad postitions. You saying if it wasnt for Sony SFV wouldnt exist.. is the exact same thing in saying if it wasnt for MS, TR wouldnt exist. They both funded the projects and in TR's case, Sony didnt want a bar just like when MS didnt want a bar of SF. Both Square and Capcon wanted a company to help publish there game. First in first serve is exactly what happen.

There was always going to be another SF and TR game. Except you think Sony did no wrong with SF but MS did with TR. Thats the problem there. Infact Sony did worse becasue they completely moneyhatted the game to avoid other consoles where as MS didnt and still allow its competitors the game.

You give company money, they will give you exclusives.

Yet you say Sony "moneyhatted" SFV, but won't say the same about Microsoft and TR.



Azzanation said:
Bandorr said:

One is a game that was "moneyhatted" after it was mostly completed so they could compete with uncharted 4.

One is a game that wouldn't actually exist (at least in 2016) without all of Sony's help.

So one is delayed because of the money spent, and one is actually coming out much earlier because of the money spent.

Vastly different.

You need to do some reading. If you think theres a big difference between the two games on how they got developed your kidding yourself.

http://www.windowscentral.com/square-enix-praises-microsoft-rise-tomb-raider

*Square-Enix stated previously that Microsoft are helping fund Rise of the Tomb Raider's development*

What difference does it make, both TR and SF were in bad postitions. You saying if it wasnt for Sony SFV wouldnt exist.. is the exact same thing in saying if it wasnt for MS, TR wouldnt exist. They both funded the projects and in TR's case, Sony didnt want a bar just like when MS didnt want a bar of SF. Both Square and Capcon wanted a company to help publish there game. First in first serve is exactly what happen.

There was always going to be another SF and TR game. Except you think Sony did no wrong with SF but MS did with TR. Thats the problem there. Infact Sony did worse becasue they completely moneyhatted the game to avoid other consoles where as MS didnt and still allow its competitors the game.

You give company money, they will give you exclusives.

 

 

Eeeeeeexcept both games would exist, regardless. SF is too big of a series to end, and Tomb Raider was a really good reboot that couldn't not have a sequel.

 

The difference is Capcom is becoming a fairly reserved company and avoiding risks, so a SFV wouldnt have happened for a long time unless Sony ponied up for development and development cost. Square, on the other hand, is one of the largest publishers in the world and doesn't shy away from the ridiculous. They didn't need help with Tomb Raider, nor did Microsoft's influence speed it up. If Microsoft really did play a legitimate role in RotTR, then it would never appear on a PlayStation console. Instead, they simply paid for timed exclusivity. 

 

SFV: Owned in part by Sony as a game but IP owned by Capcom, will never be on Xbox

RotTR: Owned entirely by Square, will appear on PlayStation as soon as the contract to not release it ends.

 

They're totally different based simply on the fact that RotTR will be on PS4 by the end of the year. 



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames