| sales2099 said: Well Tomb Raider is big in Europe. Throw in a exclusive bundle and MS is set. Plus I know this is controversial, but X1 has had Killer Instinct, a continuously evolving and meaty game. Xbox gamers had their fighter fix for over a year and by next year the game will be even bigger through character additions and updates. |
Bro, that's not how gaming works. CoD: AW just came out and sold alot. That mean nobody got the MCC? You can (and people do) buy more than 1 game in a particular genre.
OT: TR is the bigger one. It was multiplatform at first, and then snatched into an exclusive. And I have a 'megaton' for the people saying "I looked, and I only saw it announced for Xbox". Every time MS has a press conference somewhere, and the game is exclusive, they'll say "an experience you can only get on Xbox" and then at the end of the trailer will say "only on Xbox" or "exclusively on Xbox". You can look at every Xbox game or Xbox conference as precedent. Tomb Raider didn't have that. And their E3 page, which separates "blockbuster exclusive games" and "featured games" (aka multiplatform games that they demonstrated at the conference) has TR under the "featured games" list. Why not a "blockbuster exclusive"?! Because it wasn't at the time of the announcement, otherwise an entirely separate exclusivity announcement wouldn't have needed to be made.
So, you have a game, whose franchise has always sold better on PS, the reboot sold significantly better on PS3 than on 360 and the Definitive Edition of the game had PS4 outsell XBone 3:1, and was multiplatform at first become exclusive to Xbox (timed, but so what). Not even sharing with the PC at first, which every Tomb Raider has shipped day and date with the console version
vs.
A game being made console exclusive that sells better on PS, sells the majority of its copies in EU+JP (regions the XBone isn't selling well in while PS is selling great) and the developer says they don't have the budget for it, so this could very well be a Titanfall/Bayonetta 2 type situation, and if money is an issue, the smart thing to do would be to go to the market leader for the best chance of making a return and profit.
From a business perspective, which was a "bigger move"? Seems like a no brainer to me.
Unless the question was "who spent more money?" I'd still say TR, because with a PC release coming as well for SFV, I doubt Sony would spend a whole lot to go that route. And with Ono saying they didn't have the budget, I'm losing belief that Sony's involvement was only "keep this off Xbox" and more "make this game exist", and if that's the case, that's not a moneyhat at all. So, again: no brainer
