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:
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.

 

 


The issue is that Tomb raider DID exist before Microsoft. The game was mostly finished. Why do you think it is coming to ps4, and came out on steam? Microsoft offered some money for time - that is it.

If Microsoft actually funded tomb raider from top to bottom - why would it ever go to Playstation?

Do you actually think Microsoft would have allowed it out of the goodness of their heart? There is lots of evidence for the exact opposite of that. Ryse, deadi rising, sunset overdrive? They were funded - they went where Microsoft said.

Microsoft offered publishing of the game in exchange for a time advantage - thats it.



  • 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

Great sales It will get even more when it launches on PS4/



Own:Nes,Snes,N64,Gamecube,Wii,WiiU,Gameboy Pocket,Gameboy Advance SP,DS,DSi,3DS XL,Sega Genesis,Sega Dreamcast,PS1,PS2,PS3,PSP,PSVita and Xbox 360.

Looking to get: Original Xbox 

A significant portion of my soul died with the first "SMT X FE" footage reveal.

Add me on PSN: afnanthekooltrex 

Check out my YouTube channel:  

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzZ6P0251NWOf7WUTsHmw_Q

Azuren said:
Azzanation said:

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. 

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/

Sqaure were expecting 6m sales on the Reboot, and Square were not happy with the game sales. MS kept TR to be a major AAA title, while Sqaure were looking at other ways to produce TR and probably cutting the costs. If it wasnt for MS's funding TR might not be as good as it is today. The funding made sqaure make it a big AAA game and not cheapening out on us gamers.

As for SFV Sony did the exact same thing, they gave Capcon money to not only realease the game sooner but to also keep it off other platforms. Why is it ok for Sony to boycott competitors and MS arent? MS helped fund the development of RoTR which is why Sqaure allowed MS to have some of the benefits. Sounds fair to me doesnt it. If you paid with your own money to help develope a game wouldnt you want benefits? Both games are the same, they both took money to keep it off competitors platforms. Theres no right or wrong here. There both as low as each other.

If you think Sony did great with the SFV deal then you should be thankful to MS for allowing TR to maintain its AAA budget and giving us one of the best games last year.



CGI-Quality said:
Good to see it pulling in some decent numbers, but hopefully, this means future releases will launch, day-and-date, on all three platforms.

Chances of them doing this again must be close to 0.


Edit - by 'this' I mean timed exclusivity and a triple staggered launch.



Azzanation said:
Azuren said:

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. 

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/

Sqaure were expecting 6m sales on the Reboot, and Square were not happy with the game sales. MS kept TR to be a major AAA title, while Sqaure were looking at other ways to produce TR and probably cutting the costs. If it wasnt for MS's funding TR might not be as good as it is today. The funding made sqaure make it a big AAA game and not cheapening out on us gamers.

As for SFV Sony did the exact same thing, they gave Capcon money to not only realease the game sooner but to also keep it off other platforms. Why is it ok for Sony to boycott competitors and MS arent? MS helped fund the development of RoTR which is why Sqaure allowed MS to have some of the benefits. Sounds fair to me doesnt it. If you paid with your own money to help develope a game wouldnt you want benefits? Both games are the same, they both took money to keep it off competitors platforms. Theres no right or wrong here. There both as low as each other.

If you think Sony did great with the SFV deal then you should be thankful to MS for allowing TR to maintain its AAA budget and giving us one of the best games last year.

Regardless of what you're saying or arguing, if it was the same thing then RotTR would never appear on PS4.

 

But it is. 

 

So it isn't. 

 

Reference all the links you want, there's something fundamentally different at the very core of these exchanges, or RotTR would be an MS console exclusive. 



Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
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.

 

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.

It being an x1 exclusive was the bigger issue not fallout....not sure why people are using fallout as a scape goat.



Azzanation said:
Azuren said:

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. 

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/

Sqaure were expecting 6m sales on the Reboot, and Square were not happy with the game sales. MS kept TR to be a major AAA title, while Sqaure were looking at other ways to produce TR and probably cutting the costs. If it wasnt for MS's funding TR might not be as good as it is today. The funding made sqaure make it a big AAA game and not cheapening out on us gamers.

As for SFV Sony did the exact same thing, they gave Capcon money to not only realease the game sooner but to also keep it off other platforms. Why is it ok for Sony to boycott competitors and MS arent? MS helped fund the development of RoTR which is why Sqaure allowed MS to have some of the benefits. Sounds fair to me doesnt it. If you paid with your own money to help develope a game wouldnt you want benefits? Both games are the same, they both took money to keep it off competitors platforms. Theres no right or wrong here. There both as low as each other.

If you think Sony did great with the SFV deal then you should be thankful to MS for allowing TR to maintain its AAA budget and giving us one of the best games last year.

Insiders on gaf  in the know with Sq uare say it was already being made and is being made for all platforms..MS didn;pt fund shit or it would nt be on PS4. Your posts here are embarassing. Sony even had it on their 2013 e3 show. TR didn;t need any money for budget, it ws allready fully funded by square, you are naive iof you think this was anything other then a desperate atrempt to get an uncharted like game as MS cannot make them theirself, Phil evensaid this.

Alt Account Banned - Miguel_Zorro



SplendidSolis said:
Azzanation said:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/

Sqaure were expecting 6m sales on the Reboot, and Square were not happy with the game sales. MS kept TR to be a major AAA title, while Sqaure were looking at other ways to produce TR and probably cutting the costs. If it wasnt for MS's funding TR might not be as good as it is today. The funding made sqaure make it a big AAA game and not cheapening out on us gamers.

As for SFV Sony did the exact same thing, they gave Capcon money to not only realease the game sooner but to also keep it off other platforms. Why is it ok for Sony to boycott competitors and MS arent? MS helped fund the development of RoTR which is why Sqaure allowed MS to have some of the benefits. Sounds fair to me doesnt it. If you paid with your own money to help develope a game wouldnt you want benefits? Both games are the same, they both took money to keep it off competitors platforms. Theres no right or wrong here. There both as low as each other.

If you think Sony did great with the SFV deal then you should be thankful to MS for allowing TR to maintain its AAA budget and giving us one of the best games last year.

Insiders on gaf  in the know with Sq uare say it was already being made and is being made for all platforms..MS didn;pt fund shit or it would nt be on PS4. Your posts here are embarassing. Sony even had it on their 2013 e3 show. TR didn;t need any money for budget, it ws allready fully funded by square, you are naive iof you think this was anything other then a desperate atrempt to get an uncharted like game as MS cannot make them theirself, Phil evensaid this.

Please don't muddy up this conversation with hate. 



Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Machina said:
CGI-Quality said:
Good to see it pulling in some decent numbers, but hopefully, this means future releases will launch, day-and-date, on all three platforms.

Chances of them doing this again must be close to 0.


Edit - by 'this' I mean timed exclusivity and a triple staggered launch.

Hopefully this deal only last fot his game.

OP- this si digital sales only and considering howe many PC games just buy their games digitally im not shocked. 



Azzanation said:
Azuren said:

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. 

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/

Sqaure were expecting 6m sales on the Reboot, and Square were not happy with the game sales. MS kept TR to be a major AAA title, while Sqaure were looking at other ways to produce TR and probably cutting the costs. If it wasnt for MS's funding TR might not be as good as it is today. The funding made sqaure make it a big AAA game and not cheapening out on us gamers.

As for SFV Sony did the exact same thing, they gave Capcon money to not only realease the game sooner but to also keep it off other platforms. Why is it ok for Sony to boycott competitors and MS arent? MS helped fund the development of RoTR which is why Sqaure allowed MS to have some of the benefits. Sounds fair to me doesnt it. If you paid with your own money to help develope a game wouldnt you want benefits? Both games are the same, they both took money to keep it off competitors platforms. Theres no right or wrong here. There both as low as each other.

If you think Sony did great with the SFV deal then you should be thankful to MS for allowing TR to maintain its AAA budget and giving us one of the best games last year.

Actually they were quite happy with the sales - when they hit 8.5 million.

Think of it this way - if Microsoft funded the game enough it only existed because of Microsoft - why is it on steam and ps4?

If the game existed without them funding it - then what is your point?



  • 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)