You'd be surprised.  There was a big videogame reasearch paper back in the late days of the PS2 that showed a lot of people bought the PS2 specifically for movie tie in games and that they were the biggest factor for a shockingly large percentage of sales.   Essentiallly if you counted "movie tie ins" as one game it'd be the biggest system seller.

Unfortunitly I can't find the artice due to how crappy search engines have beome and derivvitive bullshit like "10 worst movie videogames" articles existing about a dozen times per website.

well thats interesting, but i wonder how accurate that article was?

also, not sure about movie tie-in sales back then, but now days they seem pretty low to call to say that they effect a large portion of systems sold.

Was thinking the same thing.

There's no way it could be, isnt it being published by Activision?, you dont pee off the big publishers. In fact when it comes to it, the big companies get way more leeway in releasing shoddy games with day1/30 patches than other companies can.

That's not to say Ms are not concerned with how the Xbox resolution issue has affected them, from all of the posts/news on the internet, I think they are pretty annoyed by the whole sega and want to make it look like parity where they can. AC and other games with day 1 PS4 patches, or game events where they had forgot to switch on PS4 high resolution etc. All seems pretty fishy to me.

First, it smell like BS.

secondo, since when does MS doesnt allow a game to released based on quality? If there's a penny to be made by them, good or not the game will release. 

If it would be a 1st pty or exclusive game, qc theory would be plausible.

The data seemed pretty deent from what I remeber.  The thing that i think is important to realize is that as gaming fans, pretty much anybody on this site or really any gaming website is way far off in the fringe.

Most gamers get basically all their information on videogames from TV commrecials, Word of mouth, and just looking at boxes and stuff.   It's like way back when I was a kid, when you went to the store, all you had to go on was the box art and the back of the box to decide what NES game you wanted to get the slip for.  (They had ALL the games behind the counter back then.)

So, really they've likely got an outsized amount "system purchasing" sales vs other games simply for the recognition.   I get to play James Bond, means a lot more then I get to play Kratos to the average joe as crazy as that sounds to us.

Well, it wouldn't make sense to release the game months after the movie was in the cinema so that it seems logical not to release the Xbox One version if they couldn't finish it in-time. They are probably happy that they got at least the PS4 version running. Quality isn't necessary for these games but the correct time of release is. 

I don't understand this at all.

I'm not sure thats exactly true.

People tend to make the mistake of looking a Production Budget and comparing it vs the Box Office and thinking that's all there is it.

Marketing budgets are highly expensive.  The current one being nearly ~200 M itself.

Then distribution costs.

Then Movie theatres take 30% off the top...

Then up until 2011, Marvel actually got a percentage of theatre gross.  Which apparently is why Sony makes no money off Spiderman movie games or any spiderman merchandise including anything movie related.

Pure Box Office wise seems like the Original Trilogy Spiderman movies lost money overall past the first.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/16/the-key-question-for-sony-can-the-spider-man-movie.aspx

To those that dont understand, is it really that difficult to understand that they decide not to invest on a port for a console with a 4m userbase?

I think people forget that sometimes.