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.

Is PC not a gaming platform any more? I could have sworn SFV was coming to PC on the same day it launched on PS4. I dunno, it seems like some people consider PC a gaming platform when it suits their argument and not a gaming platform when it doesn't suit their argument. And people claim PC is a MS platform when it suits and claim it's not a MS platform when it doesn't suit.

I wonder what you call it when a company puts money into a game and that game releases on a competitor's platform. 'Cause it certainly ain't moneyhatting.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network
Bandorr said:
Azzanation said:

This is all speculations. We dont know what MS did with Sqaure. All we know is that Sqaure said MS is helping fund the development. No different to what Sony did with SFV. Reason why TR is probably coming out on all platforms is based off how much money they spent on it. Sony obviously spent more on SFV and we are talking about MS, there not picky on where there games go. Theres rumours claiming Rare's Replay might be coming to a Nintendo Platform.  

The more money spent on a game the more chance the game gains more quality. MS helped fund it which helps Square and Crystal produce RoTR. These inside deals Sony, MS and Nintendo make are complicated. They will never tell the world the truth behind it.

At the end of the day, both Sony and MS help fund the development of both games which leads to some exclusive rights except Sony keeps SFV and MS enjoyed a years exclusivness.

Why do i care? I dont, i game on PC, i get both anyway. My point is gamers are blinded by what they read and how it presents itself and not looking at the core of the subject. Sony might have said it in a nicer way then MS but its all the same thing. Just like Bayonetta 2 on WiiU.

Yet you dodge the question time, and time, and time.

If Microsoft funded tomb raider to the extent it only exist because of Microsoft -why it is on steam and coming to ps4?

If They didn't - then how is it similiar to street fighter?

Also Bayonetta isn't similiar to either. Bayonetta 2 is only on the wii U because Sony AND Microsoft turned them down. There was no money hatting at all, nintendo saved it.

To sum it up. 1) Bayonetta exist because nintendo supported it. 2) Street fighter exists (this early) because sony supported it. 3) Tomb raider would have already existed, and was delayed because of Microsoft.

edit: Also they are VERY picky of where their games go. Otherwise they would be on steam - not windows 10. Quantum? SSO? Dead rising? Ryse etc etc would be on playstation 4. They are exclusives - so of course Microsoft cares where they go.

                               

No one is dodging questions, you seem, to avoid what Square said. MS helped fund the development of RoTR. Exclusive deals happen all the time and it all goes under how much they spend for it. Clearly MS spent less then Sony to make it a pure exclusive. Sony got in early and made sure SFV was never coming to other consoles while MS got in a little later and made it a 1 year deal. Sony just said it better on the internet and gamers think they did no wrong.

Both games were coming out regardless, there is no difference to what they have done. They both gave money to 3rd party devs and both made exclusive deals.

Let’s look at it like this, 1 franchise with a history of being a big multiplat game, gets a permanent exclusive tag for one platform which is ok but the other game with a similar history gets a 1 year deal and its wrong?

The logic on these threads amaze me.



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.

 

 

 

Azzanation said:
Bandorr said:

Yet you dodge the question time, and time, and time.

If Microsoft funded tomb raider to the extent it only exist because of Microsoft -why it is on steam and coming to ps4?

If They didn't - then how is it similiar to street fighter?

Also Bayonetta isn't similiar to either. Bayonetta 2 is only on the wii U because Sony AND Microsoft turned them down. There was no money hatting at all, nintendo saved it.

To sum it up. 1) Bayonetta exist because nintendo supported it. 2) Street fighter exists (this early) because sony supported it. 3) Tomb raider would have already existed, and was delayed because of Microsoft.

edit: Also they are VERY picky of where their games go. Otherwise they would be on steam - not windows 10. Quantum? SSO? Dead rising? Ryse etc etc would be on playstation 4. They are exclusives - so of course Microsoft cares where they go.

                               

No one is dodging questions, you seem, to avoid what Square said. MS helped fund the development of RoTR. Exclusive deals happen all the time and it all goes under how much they spend for it. Clearly MS spent less then Sony to make it a pure exclusive. Sony got in early and made sure SFV was never coming to other consoles while MS got in a little later and made it a 1 year deal. Sony just said it better on the internet and gamers think they did no wrong.

Both games were coming out regardless, there is no difference to what they have done. They both gave money to 3rd party devs and both made exclusive deals.

Let’s look at it like this, 1 franchise with a history of being a big multiplat game, gets a permanent exclusive tag for one platform which is ok but the other game with a similar history gets a 1 year deal and its wrong?

The logic on these threads amaze me.

So first you are saying the game exists because of Microsoft. Then you are saying it was was coming out regardless of. Add that to the long list of odd things you've said. Like Microsoft not being picky where games are going.

This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere. You are just flip flopping and saying whatever you want no matter any facts already in evidence. This will be my last response to you on point. To believe Microsoft was instrumental in the game actually coming out, but also assuming that Microsoft would be ok with it coming to both steam AND playstation 4 is just beyond belief.

Have a good day.



  • 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)
DucksUnlimited said:
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.

This happens plenty of times if it involves Xbox One, some choose to ignore you guys for obvious reasons, I'm not even surprise the OP omitted "digital" in the title of the thread.



Proud to be a Californian.

It amazes me how ppl will always defend any deal sony does blindly and bash Microsoft for doing any deals . The logic is such bs



GAMERTAG IS ANIMEHEAVEN X23

PSN ID IS : ANIMEREALM 

PROUD MEMBER OF THE RPG FAN CLUB THREAD

ALL-TIME FAVORITE JRPG IS : LOST ODYSSEY

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=52882&page=1

Around the Network

Made all the more depressing by the knowledge that Squenix will likely learn nothing from this venture.





Azzanation said:
Bandorr said:

Yet you dodge the question time, and time, and time.

If Microsoft funded tomb raider to the extent it only exist because of Microsoft -why it is on steam and coming to ps4?

If They didn't - then how is it similiar to street fighter?

Also Bayonetta isn't similiar to either. Bayonetta 2 is only on the wii U because Sony AND Microsoft turned them down. There was no money hatting at all, nintendo saved it.

To sum it up. 1) Bayonetta exist because nintendo supported it. 2) Street fighter exists (this early) because sony supported it. 3) Tomb raider would have already existed, and was delayed because of Microsoft.

edit: Also they are VERY picky of where their games go. Otherwise they would be on steam - not windows 10. Quantum? SSO? Dead rising? Ryse etc etc would be on playstation 4. They are exclusives - so of course Microsoft cares where they go.

                               

No one is dodging questions, you seem, to avoid what Square said. MS helped fund the development of RoTR. Exclusive deals happen all the time and it all goes under how much they spend for it. Clearly MS spent less then Sony to make it a pure exclusive. Sony got in early and made sure SFV was never coming to other consoles while MS got in a little later and made it a 1 year deal. Sony just said it better on the internet and gamers think they did no wrong.

Both games were coming out regardless, there is no difference to what they have done. They both gave money to 3rd party devs and both made exclusive deals.

Let’s look at it like this, 1 franchise with a history of being a big multiplat game, gets a permanent exclusive tag for one platform which is ok but the other game with a similar history gets a 1 year deal and its wrong?

The logic on these threads amaze me.

I sometimes wonder if you're just messing with us.



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

ROBOTECHHEAVEN said:
It amazes me how ppl will always defend any deal sony does blindly and bash Microsoft for doing any deals . The logic is such bs

It also amazes me how that's even a subject in here. 



                                                                                                                                            

Bandorr 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.

 

 

 

Azzanation said:
                               

No one is dodging questions, you seem, to avoid what Square said. MS helped fund the development of RoTR. Exclusive deals happen all the time and it all goes under how much they spend for it. Clearly MS spent less then Sony to make it a pure exclusive. Sony got in early and made sure SFV was never coming to other consoles while MS got in a little later and made it a 1 year deal. Sony just said it better on the internet and gamers think they did no wrong.

Both games were coming out regardless, there is no difference to what they have done. They both gave money to 3rd party devs and both made exclusive deals.

Let’s look at it like this, 1 franchise with a history of being a big multiplat game, gets a permanent exclusive tag for one platform which is ok but the other game with a similar history gets a 1 year deal and its wrong?

The logic on these threads amaze me.

So first you are saying the game exists because of Microsoft. Then you are saying it was was coming out regardless of. Add that to the long list of odd things you've said. Like Microsoft not being picky where games are going.

This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere. You are just flip flopping and saying whatever you want no matter any facts already in evidence. This will be my last response to you on point. To believe Microsoft was instrumental in the game actually coming out, but also assuming that Microsoft would be ok with it coming to both steam AND playstation 4 is just beyond belief.

Have a good day.

IKR? 

LMAO @ insisting that a sequel to a game that sold 8.5M copies "wouldn't exist without MS". 

Meanwhile, Capcom literally saying they don't have the money for SFV and MS giving them the finger with their no cross-play policy which Sony gladly accepted="moneyhat".