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

Forums - Microsoft - Rise of Tomb Raider 3X the sales on PC compared to Xbox One's debut.

Azuren on 26 February 2016
Azzanation said:
Bandorr said:

Yet you dodge the question time, and time, and time.

If Microsoft funded tomb raider to the extent it only exist because of Microsoft -why it is on steam and coming to ps4?

If They didn't - then how is it similiar to street fighter?

Also Bayonetta isn't similiar to either. Bayonetta 2 is only on the wii U because Sony AND Microsoft turned them down. There was no money hatting at all, nintendo saved it.

To sum it up. 1) Bayonetta exist because nintendo supported it. 2) Street fighter exists (this early) because sony supported it. 3) Tomb raider would have already existed, and was delayed because of Microsoft.

edit: Also they are VERY picky of where their games go. Otherwise they would be on steam - not windows 10. Quantum? SSO? Dead rising? Ryse etc etc would be on playstation 4. They are exclusives - so of course Microsoft cares where they go.
                               

No one is dodging questions, you seem, to avoid what Square said. MS helped fund the development of RoTR. Exclusive deals happen all the time and it all goes under how much they spend for it. Clearly MS spent less then Sony to make it a pure exclusive. Sony got in early and made sure SFV was never coming to other consoles while MS got in a little later and made it a 1 year deal. Sony just said it better on the internet and gamers think they did no wrong.

Both games were coming out regardless, there is no difference to what they have done. They both gave money to 3rd party devs and both made exclusive deals.

Let’s look at it like this, 1 franchise with a history of being a big multiplat game, gets a permanent exclusive tag for one platform which is ok but the other game with a similar history gets a 1 year deal and its wrong?

The logic on these threads amaze me.

I sometimes wonder if you're just messing with us.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
KManX89 on 02 March 2016
Bandorr said:
Azzanation said:

You need to do some reading. If you think theres a big difference between the two games on how they got developed your kidding yourself.

http://www.windowscentral.com/square-enix-praises-microsoft-rise-tomb-raider

*Square-Enix stated previously that Microsoft are helping fund Rise of the Tomb Raider's development*

What difference does it make, both TR and SF were in bad postitions. You saying if it wasnt for Sony SFV wouldnt exist.. is the exact same thing in saying if it wasnt for MS, TR wouldnt exist. They both funded the projects and in TR's case, Sony didnt want a bar just like when MS didnt want a bar of SF. Both Square and Capcon wanted a company to help publish there game. First in first serve is exactly what happen.

There was always going to be another SF and TR game. Except you think Sony did no wrong with SF but MS did with TR. Thats the problem there. Infact Sony did worse becasue they completely moneyhatted the game to avoid other consoles where as MS didnt and still allow its competitors the game.

You give company money, they will give you exclusives.

 

 

 

Azzanation said:
                               

No one is dodging questions, you seem, to avoid what Square said. MS helped fund the development of RoTR. Exclusive deals happen all the time and it all goes under how much they spend for it. Clearly MS spent less then Sony to make it a pure exclusive. Sony got in early and made sure SFV was never coming to other consoles while MS got in a little later and made it a 1 year deal. Sony just said it better on the internet and gamers think they did no wrong.

Both games were coming out regardless, there is no difference to what they have done. They both gave money to 3rd party devs and both made exclusive deals.

Let’s look at it like this, 1 franchise with a history of being a big multiplat game, gets a permanent exclusive tag for one platform which is ok but the other game with a similar history gets a 1 year deal and its wrong?

The logic on these threads amaze me.

So first you are saying the game exists because of Microsoft. Then you are saying it was was coming out regardless of. Add that to the long list of odd things you've said. Like Microsoft not being picky where games are going.

This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere. You are just flip flopping and saying whatever you want no matter any facts already in evidence. This will be my last response to you on point. To believe Microsoft was instrumental in the game actually coming out, but also assuming that Microsoft would be ok with it coming to both steam AND playstation 4 is just beyond belief.

Have a good day.

IKR? 

LMAO @ insisting that a sequel to a game that sold 8.5M copies "wouldn't exist without MS". 

Meanwhile, Capcom literally saying they don't have the money for SFV and MS giving them the finger with their no cross-play policy which Sony gladly accepted="moneyhat".



TheMessiah on 02 March 2016

Good game. Glad the PC crowd are enjoying it as I did. Deserves the sales.



RexSad on 07 March 2016
DucksUnlimited said:
I'm pretty sure this is just talking about digital sales, which will naturally be higher on pc. We know the x1 version sold over 1m and steamspy has the pc version a little above 500k. Unless ms is completely lying and the game sold less than 200k on x1 or steamspy is only reporting 1/6 of the pc sales, your title is incorrect.

The X1 version and the 360 version sold over 1mil, nit the X1 version alone and that was after being given away as a free game on BF as well as December deals. MS counts everything together remember?



RexSad on 07 March 2016
Azzanation said:
HylianYoshi said:
Who's stupid idea was it to pit up RotTR against Fallout day one? Anyway, I'm glad to see that the game found more success on one of the platforms it deserved to release on DAY ONE.

Screw timed exclusivity. What's the point if you're going to release it on other platforms later on? Just to piss people off for a certain amount of time and walk away with the cash handed to you. I don't know anyone who goes out to buy a console when they know it'll come to their own in a matter of months.

Because MS helped SE out with funding. Why should the game come out on other platforms if MS had to help the Devs financially? Atleast it is coming out on other platforms unlike the moneyhatted SFV which Sony was supposedly help develope which i call BS on.

Anyway TR is a game worth playing regardless of platform.

No they didn't so stop spreading this lie. The game was being developed along side the PS4 and PC versions (until MS money hated) so MS paid for those versions too?



Around the Network
RexSad on 07 March 2016
Azzanation said:
Bandorr said:

One is a game that was "moneyhatted" after it was mostly completed so they could compete with uncharted 4.

One is a game that wouldn't actually exist (at least in 2016) without all of Sony's help.

So one is delayed because of the money spent, and one is actually coming out much earlier because of the money spent.

Vastly different.

You need to do some reading. If you think theres a big difference between the two games on how they got developed your kidding yourself.

http://www.windowscentral.com/square-enix-praises-microsoft-rise-tomb-raider

*Square-Enix stated previously that Microsoft are helping fund Rise of the Tomb Raider's development*

What difference does it make, both TR and SF were in bad postitions. You saying if it wasnt for Sony SFV wouldnt exist.. is the exact same thing in saying if it wasnt for MS, TR wouldnt exist. They both funded the projects and in TR's case, Sony didnt want a bar just like when MS didnt want a bar of SF. Both Square and Capcon wanted a company to help publish there game. First in first serve is exactly what happen.

There was always going to be another SF and TR game. Except you think Sony did no wrong with SF but MS did with TR. Thats the problem there. Infact Sony did worse becasue they completely moneyhatted the game to avoid other consoles where as MS didnt and still allow its competitors the game.

You give company money, they will give you exclusives.

 

 

LOL You really didn't read the article you posted. Nothing is said about Square getting financial help from MS and is about the PR BS claiming that MS believes in them and witht he partnership they can take the game to the next level. Whatever thatc rap means. The writer of the article suggests that MS is the reason the game exists, which is complete BS and he is making factless accuations of MS paying for the development.You made yourself look foolish with that article.



Azzanation on 08 March 2016
RexSad said:
Azzanation said:

You need to do some reading. If you think theres a big difference between the two games on how they got developed your kidding yourself.

http://www.windowscentral.com/square-enix-praises-microsoft-rise-tomb-raider

*Square-Enix stated previously that Microsoft are helping fund Rise of the Tomb Raider's development*

What difference does it make, both TR and SF were in bad postitions. You saying if it wasnt for Sony SFV wouldnt exist.. is the exact same thing in saying if it wasnt for MS, TR wouldnt exist. They both funded the projects and in TR's case, Sony didnt want a bar just like when MS didnt want a bar of SF. Both Square and Capcon wanted a company to help publish there game. First in first serve is exactly what happen.

There was always going to be another SF and TR game. Except you think Sony did no wrong with SF but MS did with TR. Thats the problem there. Infact Sony did worse becasue they completely moneyhatted the game to avoid other consoles where as MS didnt and still allow its competitors the game.

You give company money, they will give you exclusives.

 

 

LOL You really didn't read the article you posted. Nothing is said about Square getting financial help from MS and is about the PR BS claiming that MS believes in them and witht he partnership they can take the game to the next level. Whatever thatc rap means. The writer of the article suggests that MS is the reason the game exists, which is complete BS and he is making factless accuations of MS paying for the development.You made yourself look foolish with that article.

http://www.windowscentral.com/square-enix-praises-microsoft-rise-tomb-raider

Square-Enix stated previously that Microsoft are helping fund Rise of the Tomb Raider's development

 

http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/249214/Microsoft+helps+fund+Rise+of+the+Tomb+Raider/

Now he has told Kotaku more about how Microsoft will be involved in Rise of the Tomb Raider, and it turns out they are working with it in many ways, amongst them by funding the development.

Then Phil stated..

And we will definitely be spending money on developing the game - I want to make sure that it's as great as it can be

Still in denial?

These are not my words

 

I am questioning the arguments in this thread. First off. RoTR was going to have a sequel just like Street Fighter 5 was always going to exist. MS helped Fund RoTR to help it in development which Sony did the same for Capcom. They both helped to get there games completed to release on their platforms. Yes both came to PC afterwards however PC is not a console so for Console gamers RoTR released 1 year early for Xbox because MS spent money on it and SFV released on PS4 because Sony spent money on it. Those thinking SFV wasn’t going to happen without Sony are blind. Why should Sony benefit on RoTR sales when they didn’t spend a dime but MS did? That’s why it’s a year exclusive.



Dr.Vita on 08 March 2016

Xbox never was the main console for the Tomb Raider series, it is the first time with Rise of the Tomb Raider.
Maybe this explains the low sales.




Dr.Vita talks about Playstation Vita in 2016!
Playstation Vita Media Create Sales (2014 vs 2015 vs 2016)
Playstation Vita Japan Retail Software Sales (2013 vs 2014 vs 2015 + 2015 LTD Edition)
Prediction: Nothing will outsell PSP anymore (except Playstation home consoles)

foodfather on 08 March 2016

Such stupid handling of the XO launch. It was painful to watch such a good and otherwise mainstream dead on arrival when it launched last year.

Hopefully the sales pick up when it released on PS4 too.