Intrinsic said:
Sorry what are you talking about? This isn't about why games didn't get sequels. Or how some games don't do as well as others. This is about them saying that they expect everyone unhappy about how a game that did well, primarily cause of them, that is obviously getting a sequel should rather than be unhappy try and understand that a platform holder gave them money to delay when the game comes to the user base that attributed to a majority of the games sales. Its not like SE was in trouble and couldn't make the game, its not like the previous title wasn't a commercial success, its not like the game sold beter on xbox platforms.... besides greed their simply is no reason for this partnership. None. As a gaming media outlet.. they should be on top of these facts and not contributing to the blatant PR spin. Thats the only problem I have with what they are saying. I don't care about it going timed exclusive, its not my problem; will still buy the game much later in 2016 (after all I waited for a remastered edition to buy the first one). |
Ok I understand your point, but the article is about profitabilty and I think the points brought up in it (excluding the math part at the end) are good and help defend SE's decision.
SE publicly said that they were not happy with Tomb Raider's sales and that it failed to meet targets, even after shipping 3.4m units. At the end of 2013, they announced that it finally became profitable. It took them nearly 10 months and almost 4 million units sold for it finally become profitable. Clearly the budget of the game was huge. This article does actually bring up a few good reasons of why MS can help SE with the development and marketing.