By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - (Rumour) Rise of the Tomb Raider sells less than 200k in November (U.S.)

BMaker11 on 15 December 2015
Hiku said:

There were digital sales for the first Tomb Raider as well. We only go by what we know, and unless there's a specific reason to think that one game would have had significantly more digital sales than the other, sales for this game are not looking good at the moment compared to the last game, and considering the budget this game probably has. (Square were still complaining about sales not meeting expectation for the previous game when they were over 4 million.)

As for the GTA IV DLC, you're actually not clarifying what you mean, you're just pointing it out, and that's why I'm asking why selling 1,25 million at $20 each digitally would not cover the 50m loan from MS, if MS takes the full share of the sales up until that point, as it was speculated that they did? What takes away from the profit of digital sales, besides the cost of bandwith?

Because 1.25M x $20 each is only $25 million? Am I missing something? Because that seems obvious. 





Around the Network
oniyide on 15 December 2015

game would have done better had it not been exclusive, people would have bought it on PS4 and PC, thats just common sense.



brendude13 on 15 December 2015
walsufnir said:
Eddie_Raja said:

I didn't even own a PS1, but when I think of that era - I always see Tomb Raider as synonomous with Playstation (And I know many others do too).

Yes, because Sony bought the franchise in the 90s so it wasn't allowed to come out on other consoles.

Maybe it just had the loyal fanbase fanbase to sell millions instead of 200k?

Maybe the Playstation was the preferable platform to develop on instead of the cartridge constrained N64 and the difficult to work with and poorly performing Sega Saturn?

Maybe they would have expanded from the Playstation if they were presented with more promising platforms to develop on?

 

Oh.

OT: It got the sales it deserved.



AsGryffynn on 15 December 2015
walsufnir said:
Eddie_Raja said:
AsGryffynn said:
Eddie_Raja said:
Synesthesia said:
Maybe, just maybe... They should have been a little bit more worried about Fallout 4. :P

Well it's pretty much more indication that the Tomb Raider timed exclusivity deal was one of the worst ideas ever. It didn't help Microsoft, it didn't help Square... It pissed allot of their fanbase off which coincidentally many if not the most are on a different system so they didn't even release it to where most their fans were. This may effect the budget of the next game and significantly alter the franchises future, but hey... They said they were not worried!

The perfect storm of stupid is complete.

 

Pretty much hit the nail on the head.  A Tomb Raider game not coming to Playstation is laughable!  (I mean it is, but you know what I mean).

Don't worry, it will launch 1 year from now on PS4 with DLC on disc and sell 3x more on Playstation - and SE will never be this dumb again.

Why is it so laughable that it launches first on another system?

I didn't even own a PS1, but when I think of that era - I always see Tomb Raider as synonomous with Playstation (And I know many others do too).

 

Yes, because Sony bought the franchise in the 90s so it wasn't allowed to come out on other consoles.

Odd thing is, I owned the TR PSOne games but not once did I see them as exclusive...

walsufnir said:
OneKartVita said:
Wow I'd never have thought the order would sell more. Genuinely legit shocked.

 

How so? The game had actually marketing, it was very much spoken about in the "media", it had many, many people who said that the game is still amazing or good and it had close to no competition when it came out. Also, it had the smell of a PS exclusive where people automatically think it's good.

But yeah, the sad part is that a bad game sells more than a good game.

I don't think The Order was bad. I played it and while it didn't blow my socks off, it was pretty nice... now, Bloodborne...

oniyide said:
walsufnir said:

 

How so? The game had actually marketing, it was very much spoken about in the "media", it had many, many people who said that the game is still amazing or good and it had close to no competition when it came out. Also, it had the smell of a PS exclusive where people automatically think it's good.

But yeah, the sad part is that a bad game sells more than a good game.

you sound bitter

and do you have proof that Sony bought the rights to have it released exclusively on PS1? kinda sounds like crap considering the series was never exclusive the original released on Saturn and the rest released on PC, hell even GB color had a TR game.

A game flopping is rather bitter. I felt bad for games in the PS3 flopping last gen... honestly, who expects us to be happy that a game not on our system flopped?

LudicrousSpeed said:
Nate4Drake said:
T

 

oniyide said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

That's rich, as if CoD isn't the lead franchise on PS4 as well.

Not gamers fault they released it sandwiched between Halo 5, Blops 3, and Fallout 4.

gamers could have chose to get TR over those other 3

 

Flagship franchise, king of shooters and Todd Howard's masterpiece? I don't think anyone thinks choosing RotTR over those is a good idea...

I asked my friends and their response was what you'd expect... "blew all my cash on those three, no money for RotTR left"...



Mr Puggsly on 16 December 2015
Hiku said:

There were digital sales for the first Tomb Raider as well. We only go by what we know, and unless there's a specific reason to think that one game would have had significantly more digital sales than the other, sales for this game are not looking good at the moment compared to the last game, and considering the budget this game probably has. (Square were still complaining about sales not meeting expectation for the previous game when they were over 4 million.)

As for the GTA IV DLC, you're actually not clarifying what you mean, you're just pointing it out, and that's why I'm asking why selling 1,25 million at $20 each digitally would not cover the 50m loan from MS, if MS takes the full share of the sales up until that point, as it was speculated that they did? What takes away from the profit of digital sales, besides the cost of bandwith?

Tomb Raider wasn't day one digital (not on 360). Also, digital sales of $60 titles was likely lower on last gen.

Again with this Square was complaining about sales? Again, it failed to be profitable in a matter of weeks. Square's expectations were ridiculously high for the reboot but the game was still profitable the same year it released. People don't know that minor detail, it was still a profitable game in spite of not meeting expectations.

Common sense tells me the expectations for this Tomb Raider were more realistic.

Lets just not talk about GTAIV anymore. Bottom line 1.25 million sales is not gonna cover a $50 million loan. It just won't. More games would be insanely profitable if that was the case.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
walsufnir on 16 December 2015
brendude13 said:
walsufnir said:
Eddie_Raja said:

I didn't even own a PS1, but when I think of that era - I always see Tomb Raider as synonomous with Playstation (And I know many others do too).

Yes, because Sony bought the franchise in the 90s so it wasn't allowed to come out on other consoles.

Maybe it just had the loyal fanbase fanbase to sell millions instead of 200k?

Maybe the Playstation was the preferable platform to develop on instead of the cartridge constrained N64 and the difficult to work with and poorly performing Sega Saturn?

Maybe they would have expanded from the Playstation if they were presented with more promising platforms to develop on?

 

Oh.

OT: It got the sales it deserved.

 

So many maybes, yet they still bought it.



walsufnir on 16 December 2015
AsGryffynn said:
walsufnir said:
Eddie_Raja said:

I didn't even own a PS1, but when I think of that era - I always see Tomb Raider as synonomous with Playstation (And I know many others do too).

 

Yes, because Sony bought the franchise in the 90s so it wasn't allowed to come out on other consoles.

Odd thing is, I owned the TR PSOne games but not once did I see them as exclusive...

 

And this matters how exactly? I have given proof in this thread that Sony opened their pockets for TR in the 90's. What you see or saw is not of any matter here.



walsufnir on 16 December 2015
oniyide said:
game would have done better had it not been exclusive, people would have bought it on PS4 and PC, thats just common sense.

Eh, it's not common sense, it's only logical. MGSV sold more because it also released on last gen consoles. The more platforms, the more sales.



AsGryffynn on 16 December 2015
walsufnir said:
AsGryffynn said:
walsufnir said:
Eddie_Raja said:

I didn't even own a PS1, but when I think of that era - I always see Tomb Raider as synonomous with Playstation (And I know many others do too).

 

Yes, because Sony bought the franchise in the 90s so it wasn't allowed to come out on other consoles.

Odd thing is, I owned the TR PSOne games but not once did I see them as exclusive...

 

And this matters how exactly? I have given proof in this thread that Sony opened their pockets for TR in the 90's. What you see or saw is not of any matter here.

I didn't say otherwise, just that it didn't look that way... I always thought the games were also on PC, even if they really weren't...





DJEVOLVE on 16 December 2015
dangerguy said:
I'm sure this was discussed at length in this thread, but this failure was purely due to the launch date. The moment I heard Nov 10 at E3 (keep in mind, this was after Fallout 4 had been announced to also launch Nov 10), I knew it was doomed. The 3 biggest games of the year (COD, Battlefront, and Fallout 4) and they try to launch Tomb Raider right smack dab in the middle.

It should have released much earlier in October or January/February.

Everyone blaming the Xbox exclusivity is wrong. Yes, PS4 would have added maybe another 200K, but the arrogant release date takes the blame.

This, I thought exactly the same at E3, They should have launched in October, even early October, this was a bad idea to launch with all these games.