Rise of the Tomb Raider PS4 sales are off to a rough start.

[DonFerrari]

padib said:

Faelco said:

Some Xbox fans on Twitter tried to start a riot because the Titanfall 2 devs used the photo of a PS4 disc to announce that the development was over, with threats, boycotts and every other usual thing. "How dare you take a picture of a PS4 disc when your real fanbase is on Xbox, because the original game is Xbox exclusive"....

 

No, it's not "our fanbase it perfect and the other one is mean".

That's twitter though, nobody cares about fans on that, it's full of garbage posts.

Anyways on Vgchartz, yes it is that. Not perfect but not bad either.

Yes, we all know that on VGC and in the rest of the world PS fanbase is the worse there is and that all the others are fair and square.

Faelco said:

padib said:

No Twitter is bad man. I don't know do you enjoy reading bad posts on Twitter? I usually never go there to read about video game stuff it just makes me uneasy.

Why are you saying I'm crying, you're the one who's crying right now... It's decent business decision to get money-hatted, because it's free.

I'm barely exaggerating on the crying if you read the entire thread with the complaints about PS fans being mean ^^.

What do you mean, "I'm crying" ? You said, and I quote :

padib said:

Wow. For the rare timed exclusive they get this kind of reaction. Think of how many times it was the other way around when Xbox got games after PS. I don't see people react so intensely when that happens.

And I explained why it's normal that there are a lot more reactions when a game skips the PS4 than when it skips the XOne. One of them is a lot more risky and makes less sense than the other.

It's not at all a good business decision when the money hat makes you lose money at the end. We could argue about "does MS check for this game cover for the losses in sales because of this fiasco, for this game and the next one", but the CEO of Crystal Dynamics "left" after the failed launch last year, and the next TR game is apparently given to another studio entirely. Square Enix kinda answered this question already.

If Square Enix sold the exclusivity of FF15 on the XBox One for a million dollar, would it be a "decent business decision"? It's "free" after all according to you.... 

The thing I don't quite get is, wasn't SE that made the decision since they are not only the publisher but also the mother company?

padib said:

Faelco said:

And nobody knows that. The exclusivity announcement was made almost a year after the PS4 and XOne released. And 2 months before that, they first revealed the game without any talk about exclusivity. Phil Spencer explained after the Gamescom 2014 "I'm a fan of Uncharted, we don't have a good enough game like Uncharted so this one was an opportunity". Nothing indicates that the exclusivity deal wasn't definitely made between the E3 reveal and the Gamescom announcement. Uncharted 4 was really revealed at E3 2014 with the announcement of the release for Christmas 2015 after all. Tomb Raider was announced at the same time for the same release window. And all of a sudden, 2 months later, they go XBox exclusive while Spencer explains that it's the "Xbox Uncharted". But no connection ? ^^

 

Anyway, even if we imagine that the deal was made a long time ago... Some developers, like other SE studios, announced games for the Xbox One, even Japanese games usually PS-only (FF, Kingdom Hearts...). That's what you do when you don't know how it will turn out, you play carefully. Square Enix announced several Japanese games as multiplatforms, then they saw that Japanese games still don't sell well on XBox, and now all of their recent announcements for Japanese games are PS4 only (or Vita/3DS/Switch). That's the way : you minimize the risks, and when you have more information you can aim better.

But if you're right, then Crystal Dynamics went the other way and did an "all-in", restricting their playerbase without knowing at all how the consoles marketshares would turn out (well, in reality, several months before launch the Xbox One was in an even worse place than now...). Meanwhile, the previous game was obviously already released and sold more on PS3. And the guys just guessed that they could forget about Playstation and that the XBox would win, no need for caution or anything.

How many third party developers placed their bet on restricting the playerbase of an already existing multiplatform IP on an unique console before the launch of the new generation? Not a lot... I honestly don't care about "they didn't know at the time" : they took a risk, unfortunately for them they failed, and now they lost the IP and the CEO his job. If you take a risk with your game or studio and you lose, you're responsible for the risk you took. "I couldn't have known" is an excuse for when you play safe (AKA "go multiplatform"), not when you take a risk.

I know, but the result is something that happened after (CEO losing his job and losing the IP). You can't blame that on a decision made much before knowing the outcome.

I understand that there's a good chance the decision was made a little later after launch, but the same logic applies. I know you consider it safer to release multi-platform before risking early in launch, but in all gens some devs took a risk. It even happened with games like Blue Dragon and other Mistwalker games and sure some people were unhappy but the reaction aren't like the people who feel like MS was trying to get a UC rip-off. And that's what displeases me about the reactions. A game like Gears of War was exclusive to the X360 early in the existence of the console, and it did very well. The same could be said about Mass Effect. On the other hand, for PS3, you had exclusives and most were japanese which fit with the console and it paid off. The best example is the Souls series. It's not like Tomb Raider isn't a popular series in America. Also, in the GC days, Resident Evil 4 was a gamecube timed exclusive, yet it still ended up doing great on the PS2. Is it possible then perhaps that there is some kind of snubbing by PS fans because this game was trying to compete with a Sony exclusive? Perhaps last gen Tomb Raider worked on PS because UC was still new, but now UC has cemented itself to be the goto game for this type of experience on PS.

We don't have the answers to any of those questions, so I would submit to you that it's best not to be bitter about this kind of thing, especially when it happens on both sides all the time, and I don't hear that many Nintendo or Xbox fans (nowadays at least) complaining about it. It's been years Nintendo fans have been starving for a mainline final fantasy. Think about that for a second.

All decisions are made before knowing the result of that decision, for that you make scenarios. And is perfectly health to hold the decision maker accountable for their decision. Risk is necessary, but need to be calculated, and when you make such a bad decision it's natural that it will haunt you.

You are comparing new franchises (that is quite natural to bet on a exclusivity deal to gain exposure) to ones that were previously recognizable on the other platform. It's quite different situation.

And sorry to inform you, there were a lot of bitter X1 consumers about SF V deal, and in this case it was clearly show that Capcom didn't had money to make SF V by themselves but TR was already on the making when the deal was struck.

No people weren't upset because the game became set to compete against UC4, because that was fully know that UC4 would smoke it in sales.

d21lewis said:
I see the "$60 for a year old game!?!" comment more and more.

As if "Game of the Year" editions never existed.
As if Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock didn't cost $60 when they were ported to PS3
As is EVERY game that released in 2015 costs less than $60, now.
As if RotTR doesn't technically push the PS4 Pro, offer all of the DLC, AND an exclusive PSVR mode.

It's not a rip-off. Fun doesn't have an expiration date, does it?

Well you do know about perceived value and considering we had UC4 so close to fill the needs and this is a year old port that on the competition is already selling for 30 it's hard to justify selling it for 60 even more when the person can consider that the publisher made then wait for one year so why not wait another one and pick it cheaper?