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

Forums - Gaming - Rise Of The Tombraider Releases In January On PC

d21lewis on 27 December 2015
Netty said:
This Tomb Raider is better than the previous one in every way but...after finishing it I couldn't help but feel slightly disappointed. The game was big on spectacle but ultimately it was kind of a forgettable experience.

I wouldn't mind them doing another reboot of sorts, cutting way back on the action and killing, and putting in more exploration and puzzle solving.

 

I kinda agree. It did everything right except the story. The deaths just lacked impact.



Around the Network
Faust on 27 December 2015
oniyide said:
are some people fronting like they knew it would be coming in Jan 2016?

 




binary solo on 03 January 2016
oniyide said:
binary solo said:

 

Sure, but what good is exclusivity if it doesn't lead to anything? There is no benefit to exclusivity unless it leads to a measurable increase in hardware sales. What was MS's main mistake was releasing on 360 in 2015. MS's main targets with this exclusivity are 7th gen gamers who are thinking about getting into the 8th gen. 360 owners are the most likely to go for Xb one but a lot of them are also switching to PS4. If they are well disposed to games like Tomb Raider and Uncharted then they would be leaning towards PS4 more than the Halo/Gears fans. So by putting Tomb Raider on 360 you actually end up incentivising fans of this genre to go for PS4, because they can play Tomb Raider on last gen and then buy PS4 when Uncharted comes out. PS3 owners OTOH may be tempted into xb one as they have no platform capable of playing Tomb Raider, but as there is considerable cross over of Tomb Raider fans and Uncharted fans is xbox exclusivity for a year enough when Uncharted is just around the corner?

 

It seems to me that this exclusivity deal was poorly thought out in terms of strategic benefits to MS, as there never seemed to be much in it for them.

 

The lessons we're likely to learn from SFV are that 1 letting a game go to PC doesn't matter too much, and it is better to take exclusivity on a franchise that is more popular on your platform. Fall Out 4 was the game MS should have taken console exclusive. It was far more popular on Xb 360 than ps3 and wasn't so big as to be way to expensive to keep off Ps4 for a year.

 

 

Fallout 4 probably wouldve cost more

Probably not all that much more. FO was more popular on Xbox, so MS had better sales potential to offer Bethesda than they had for RoTR. And it would have earned them more console sales, with more XBLG subscribers etc than RoTR has.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

oniyide on 08 January 2016
binary solo said:
oniyide said:

 

Fallout 4 probably wouldve cost more

Probably not all that much more. FO was more popular on Xbox, so MS had better sales potential to offer Bethesda than they had for RoTR. And it would have earned them more console sales, with more XBLG subscribers etc than RoTR has.

COD was also more popular and we kinda see what happened with that. I think in the case of games like Fallout, TR and stuff that sold about the same it really comes down to userbase, there are just too much more PS4s out there than xones where people are really gonna go out and get one game a few months early that they know is coming to a system that they already have





KManX89 on 09 January 2016
LudicrousSpeed said:
Knitemare said:
Im sorry for M$... seems like their money didint bought them much exclusive time...

One of the most puzzling double standards is how when MS has a game go PC its the end of the world but when you have a situation like SFV its almost like its seen as a good thing that Sony is allowing PC users to play too LOL.

What double standard? 

ROTTR: sold and ran better on PS4, was announced as a multiplat until MS paid up to keep it AWAY from their biggest fanbase for an entire year.

SFV: last game sold over a million more copies on PS3, Capcom said they didn't have the resources for a next-gen SF, Sony agreed to help out with developing it and yet still let it go to PC WITH CROSS PLAY.

There's no double standard whatsoever. MS literally paid to keep a game that was already well in development off the console with its biggest fanbase while Sony merely paid to help a game get made, huge difference.