• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK: Rise of the Tomb Raider sells <60k units at launch

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steroyd

Member
Let's release a game when all other major releases are out....!!! :(

The beautiful thing about this is that their 1 year old port of the PS4 that no-one is going to give a shit about is going to go against next year's "Holiday 2016" you don't need a crystal ball to see that Lara is going to fall again.
 
Ummm Sony paid for SFV to happen. Tomb Raider was already happening. Big difference.



Seriously? What claim? Capcom was too broke to make the game themselves. Had not Sony stepped in, there would be no SFV. Definitely not one by next year for sure. It's pretty much like like Bayo2 all over again except it'll get a PC release.

"pushing narratives" lol. Pitiful.

I guess my point is that I don't see why so many people inherently believe Sony's messaging on SFV, but assume everything about Microsoft & Tomb Raider is bullshit. Frankly, I think it's easy to see a world where both games came about from similar deals that simply had different PR departments handle the story.

For the record, I simply doubt that Capcom would've been 'unable' to make SFV without Sony. It's a profitable franchise, and they are a legacy company that hasn't exactly struggled to get games made in the past. Hell, Square Enix seemed in a fairly bad place recently as well.

But as I've stated earlier in the thread, it's a pointless discussion. All these deals are so heavily NDA'd that nobody talking about them in the open has the slightest clue what is going on. All we can really do is look at how we talk about them, and consider if double standards are at play.
 
D

Deleted member 471617

Unconfirmed Member
One thing that I have realized is that there seems to be more hate towards Microsoft than Square Enix and that makes no sense to me. SE could have just as easily said, no thanks to the offer from MS. The bigger mistake by MS was not pushing up the date to October 6th as that would have been a smarter move. Oh well. An excellent game overshadowed by all the bullshit around it. UGH.
 

kinoki

Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Forgot AC Syndicate. For me, only ROTTR was a release day purchase. Fallout 4 will be a January game for me and the rest don't interest me whatsoever. The truly sad part is that ROTTR is arguably the best game on that list.

Every game on that list is arguably the best game on that list, by definition of the word. Rise of the Tomb Raider has not enough of a fan following on the platform it released on. I'd argue that if they wanted to sell more they'd focus on where their market is: PlayStation and PC.
 
Tomb Raider was released at a horrific time and I think most people knew it. Same day as FO4, near Halo 4, Battlefront, Need For Speed, Assassin's Creed and COD: BO3. What were they expecting, especially without much marketing at least from what I've seen. Sales prove that the Tomb Raider fanbase was mostly on the Playstation and unfortunately it seems like it does not appeal to the majority of the XBox contingent, so snagging it exclusive was definitely a huge gamble. I am just concerned if a year release to PS4 will do the game any favors since it seems like older ports to other systems typically do not sell as well as expected.

I plan on buying the ROTR really soon and it definitely one of my most anticipated games of the generation since I really enjoyed TR2013 so much that i finished it on 3 platforms. I just know before I even play it that probably deserves a lot more sales then it garnered.
 

Ray Down

Banned
Bull full exclusivity like Street Fighter is a ok?

But sonytoo guys.

Why is this always brought up in TR threads?

-It ain't exclusive its coming to PC same day and not being prevented from launching same day, it just won't have a Xbox sku
-Ono has talked about the difficulty getting a budget even for something small like USF4
-The game probably wouldn't have come out till 2018 and would have been radically different
-Phanti rei being a mess.
-Not in the best finical position, wasted most of the money from MH4 on so far failed mobile ventures.

-Since late 2013 we knew there was a multiplatform sequel for tomb raider around the time we learned of the definitive edition.
-Unlike Capcom, SE has money hell this year might be there most profitable year in the history of the company they have no trouble funding this game.
-Exclusivity was bought by Microsoft to counteract Uncharted and were very coy about it being released on other platforms, according to Kagari SE didn't like how things went and announced the other platforms ahead of schedule.
 

Steroyd

Member
For the record, I simply doubt that Capcom would've been 'unable' to make SFV without Sony. It's a profitable franchise, and they are a legacy company that hasn't exactly struggled to get games made in the past.

Don't know why you'd doubt it when the person in charge of SF said he had no funds and we'd probably see no SFV until 2018, and Capcom hasn't made a single game this generation so far that didn't have a collaboration with a hardware manufacturer.
 
But sonytoo guys.

Why is this always brought up in TR threads?

-It ain't exclusive its coming to PC, it just won't have a Xbox sku
-Ono has talked about the difficulty getting a budget even for something small like USF4
-The game probably wouldn't have come out till 2018 and would have been radically different
-Phanti rei being a mess.

-Since late 2013 we knew there was a multiplatform sequel for tomb raider around the time we learned of the definitive edition.
-Unlike Capcom, SE has money hell this year might be there most profitable year in the history of the company they have no trouble funding this game.
-Exclusivity was bought by Microsoft to counteract Uncharted and were very coy about it being released on other platforms, according to Kagari SE didn't like how things went and announced the other platforms ahead of schedule.
This needs to be added to the OP of every Tomb Raider and Street Fighter thread.
 
I guess my point is that I don't see why so many people inherently believe Sony's messaging on SFV, but assume everything about Microsoft & Tomb Raider is bullshit. Frankly, I think it's easy to see a world where both games came about from similar deals that simply had different PR departments handle the story.

For the record, I simply doubt that Capcom would've been 'unable' to make SFV without Sony. It's a profitable franchise, and they are a legacy company that hasn't exactly struggled to get games made in the past. Hell, Square Enix seemed in a fairly bad place recently as well.

But as I've stated earlier in the thread, it's a pointless discussion. All these deals are so heavily NDA'd that nobody talking about them in the open has the slightest clue what is going on. All we can really do is look at how we talk about them, and consider if double standards are at play.

It has already been considered and discussed ad naseum. SFV deal is OK and ROTR deal is bad. Case closed.
 
But sonytoo guys.

Why is this always brought up in TR threads?

-It ain't exclusive its coming to PC same day and not being prevented from launching same day, it just won't have a Xbox sku
-Ono has talked about the difficulty getting a budget even for something small like USF4
-The game probably wouldn't have come out till 2018 and would have been radically different
-Phanti rei being a mess.
-Not in the best finical position, wasted most of the money from MH4 on so far failed mobile ventures.

-Since late 2013 we knew there was a multiplatform sequel for tomb raider around the time we learned of the definitive edition.
-Unlike Capcom, SE has money hell this year might be there most profitable year in the history of the company they have no trouble funding this game.
-Exclusivity was bought by Microsoft to counteract Uncharted and were very coy about it being released on other platforms, according to Kagari SE didn't like how things went and announced the other platforms ahead of schedule.

Oh, is that what happened? I knew something was suspicious when they announced the inevitable PS4 version so early before the X1 version even surfaced in the stores.
 

T.O.P

Banned
But sonytoo guys.

just tbf

In September 1997, Sony Computer Entertainment signed a deal with Eidos to make console releases for the Tomb Raider franchise exclusive to the PlayStation, preventing the Sega Saturn or the Nintendo 64 from having any Tomb Raider game released for it until 2000

it's not like this is anything new from the franchise

/ot
 

eerik9000

Member
-Since late 2013 we knew there was a multiplatform sequel for tomb raider around the time we learned of the definitive edition..

That was actually August 1st, 2013. Less than five months after the release of the reboot!

I am also excited to reveal that we are well into development on a next-generation Tomb Raider sequel – something you may have heard about recently!
In the future, we’ll offer gamers more choice, support more platforms and try new things – but we will make sure that whatever the platform, we’ll always keep our focus on raising the quality bar. We feel that is what gamers should expect from a Square Enix game.
LOL

http://eu.square-enix.com/en/blog/note-phil-rogers-ceo
 

Huggers

Member
Perhaps they over estimated the strength of the IP and thought it okay to go up against Fallout. Huge error either way. I've seen a lot of adverts on TV for this game as well. The ad was pretty drab though
 

I-hate-u

Member
Next year on PS4 it's probably competing with Horizon, titanfall, GT and whatever Ea(mass effect) or rockstar surprise us with.
 

Conduit

Banned
Oh, is that what happened? I knew something was suspicious when they announced the inevitable PS4 version so early before the X1 version even surfaced in the stores.

Here is the Kagari's post if you want to be more informed :

Not specifically. I know part of the deal with MS was for them to buy so many copies for bundles - which we've seen. The other part I know is the marketing relationship soured a bit after the reveal debacle and is the main reason SE announced the release of the PC/PS4 versions so early.
 

Kathian

Banned
Perhaps they over estimated the strength of the IP and thought it okay to go up against Fallout. Huge error either way. I've seen a lot of adverts on TV for this game as well. The ad was pretty drab though

A problem I think was standing out from the first game. Its basically the same error Into Darkness made, you can't bait the audience at the end with in Star Trek's case, proper exploration or in Lara Croft's - Tomb based and multiple locations.

Even calling it 'Rise of the Tomb Raider' was stupid - that was the first one!

I still think we'll all look more positive after PS4 release as its clearly a quality enough game but theres still some issues there and the exclusivity deal just looks like a waste of time.
 

desosav

Banned
the game was released in UK and Europe on 13/11/15. So, we are talking about 1 day sales in UK only. What about US where X1 has greater market share? and what about digital sales?
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
just tbf

it's not like this is anything new from the franchise

/ot

Maybe i would have been pissed, if i had cared 20 years ago, and previous games had actually released for those other platforms beforehand.

The fact of the matter is, MS doing that in the modern gen is unacceptable.
 
the game was released in UK and Europe on 13/11/15. So, we are talking about 1 day sales in UK only. What about US where X1 has greater market share? and what about digital sales?

We will see how the game does in USA once we get November NPD's.
Considering UK and USA XB1 tastes are greatly aligned (eg Halo 's major decline in both markets) I expect the numbers to be grim for Lara, potentially not even making top 10 on the charts.

And digital is naturally a factor but not a massive one. At best it will account for 10-25% going by industry reports from the likes of CD Projekt and EA (though I doubt it will even be that high as that number is generous for a singe player only game imo)
 

pezley

Banned
Maybe i would have been pissed, if i had cared 20 years ago, and previous games had actually released for those other platforms beforehand.

The fact of the matter is, MS doing that in the modern gen is unacceptable.

Microsoft doing what exactly ? All the blame should be on Square Enix for accepting what ever publishing and exclusive deal they did. If you are unhappy with anyone it should be the company that accepted the deal, if it was a shady backhanded snotty thing to do, that blame falls on the people accepting the cheque.
 
but assume everything about Microsoft & Tomb Raider is bullshit.

I’ve always been one of the more vocal critic around this deal. But not the exclusivity deal itself. Timed exclusives has been a thing since multiple console generations ago, and while I think it’s a poor decision on Square’s part to do this for TR, it’s ultimately their decision to accept MS’s money.

But there is one thing about this deal that I found personally very revolting, and that was the concentrated attempt to pretend like this was more than a timed-exclusive, with the usage of mixed messaging, clever PR spins and very carefully selected language.

Let’s look at the overall chronology of how this exclusivity story came about :

1. Multiple indie games were announced at Gamescom as “First on Xbox.” There was very clear implication that the exclusivity of said games were timed.
2. ROTR was announced as “Exclusive on Xbox, launching Holiday 2015.” There was massive confusion from the get-go, because Point (1)’s language was used to announced timed-exclusives, but ROTR had a different language that implied bonafide exclusivity.

So, from the get-go, through the manipulation of the different exclusivity language used, MS tried to pretend ROTR wasn’t a timed-exclusive, however :

3. Games media didn’t immediately buy into the announcement. When MS PR was pressed for a statement on the matter, folks like Geoff, etc clarify that MS refused to budge from the very “fixed statement” of “Exclusive on Xbox, launching holiday 2015.”

At this point, people were already guessing it’s likely timed, however :

4. Crystal Dynamics posted an article explaining the exclusivity, except they called it an exclusive, ( without the holiday 2015 line and no PR-safe terminology), which immediately prompted fans to suddenly get confused over the state of the game’s exclusivity.
5. What’s worse was that in the same post, CD effectively threw shade at Playstation/PC fans by saying “Don’t worry, Temple of Osiris for y’all to play!”, pissing off a larger majority of the TR audience.
6. Aaron Greenberg also referred to the post by CD to imply that ROTR is an actual exclusive, to further add fuel to fire.

At this points, the outrage was at a fever high. Mixed-messaging on both sides, one side acting like it’s timed, the other acting like it’s actually exclusive, and fans demanded to know the actual truth of the story :

7. Come Phil Spencer interview where he had to respond to the queries.

This was an interview that was referenced by both sides of the camp, those who believe it’s a timed exclusive, and those who believe it’s a bonafide Xbox-exclusive that will only come to PC later, never PS4. Why was this interview so polarising to that extent?

8. In said interview, Phil defended his purchase of ROTR’s exclusivity, making references to Uncharted, etc. He also used terms like “I didn’t buy the franchise, I don’t own the IP in perpetuity” and compared the deal, calling it “similar” to Ryse/Dead Rising 3, both games that are never coming to PS4, because it was fully funded by MS. He ultimately ended it by saying “the deal has a duration”

So basically, Phil basically admitted it was a timed-exclusive, but used very clever PR-language, referring the Tomb Raider IP (instead of referring to just the game) when talking about the exclusivity deal and saying the deal is ‘similar’ (similar =/= same) to Dead Rising and Ryse, knowing full well those 2 games are never coming to PS4.

9. In respect to the interview above, Crystal amended its original post, but they said “Phil Spencer confirmed that ROTR is a timed-exclusive.”
10. Not too long later, the same post above is amended from “timed-exclusive” to “the deal has a duration.”

Everything from point (1) to point (10) was an extremely concerted effort to pretend like ROTR wasn’t a timed-exclusive. And I think it’s a pretty pathetic display from MS/Square.

12-months exclusivity for a AAA-game like TR is a huge win on MS’s side. Sure, you’ll piss off PS-fans by doing it, but admitting it from the get-go will absolve you of all the drama that occurred, and have fans being more trustworthy of you.

Personally, this whole deal has left me with a higher degree of scrutiny when it comes to anything that’s spoken out of Phil Spencer/MS’s mouth. And I hate having to swim through a sea of PR bullshit to reach the truth in messaging.

And I didn’t even go into the hilarity like “Microsoft’s Passion for Tomb Raider”, etc etc, which, while foolish, isn’t part of the exclusivity subterfuge, but just hilarious justification of why this deal happened in the first place.
 

Lord_Santa

Neo Member
This is quite sad. I enjoyed the 2013 reboot, but I'm not prepared to buy an Xbox One just to play this game early. The release window was also a huge mistake, I cannot believe what SE and Microsoft have done, they should have pushed the release date back.
 
This has thoroughly been delved into, probably way too much, in this thread alone. Multiple have been banned for denying the FACT that Capcom said they did not have the resources to make SFV anytime soon. Ono said it himself. Links are in the thread. It's not a real argument. They are completely different situations. Stop with the "what if's". No imagination is necessary. We have enough details to to understand wassup.
 
I’ve always been one of the more vocal critic around this deal. But not the exclusivity deal itself. Timed exclusives has been a thing since multiple console generations ago, and while I think it’s a poor decision on Square’s part to do this for TR, it’s ultimately their decision to accept MS’s money.

But there is one thing about this deal that I found personally very revolting, and that was the concentrated attempt to pretend like this was more than a timed-exclusive, with the usage of mixed messaging, clever PR spins and very carefully selected language.

Let’s look at the overall chronology of how this exclusivity story came about :

1. Multiple indie games were announced at Gamescom as “First on Xbox.” There was very clear implication that the exclusivity of said games were timed.
2. ROTR was announced as “Exclusive on Xbox, launching Holiday 2015.” There was massive confusion from the get-go, because Point (1)’s language was used to announced timed-exclusives, but ROTR had a different language that implied bonafide exclusivity.

So, from the get-go, through the manipulation of the different exclusivity language used, MS tried to pretend ROTR wasn’t a timed-exclusive, however :

3. Games media didn’t immediately buy into the announcement. When MS PR was pressed for a statement on the matter, folks like Geoff, etc clarify that MS refused to budge from the very “fixed statement” of “Exclusive on Xbox, launching holiday 2015.”

At this point, people were already guessing it’s likely timed, however :

4. Crystal Dynamics posted an article explaining the exclusivity, except they called it an exclusive, ( without the holiday 2015 line and no PR-safe terminology), which immediately prompted fans to suddenly get confused over the state of the game’s exclusivity.
5. What’s worse was that in the same post, CD effectively threw shade at Playstation/PC fans by saying “Don’t worry, Temple of Osiris for y’all to play!”, pissing off a larger majority of the TR audience.
6. Aaron Greenberg also referred to the post by CD to imply that ROTR is an actual exclusive, to further add fuel to fire.

At this points, the outrage was at a fever high. Mixed-messaging on both sides, one side acting like it’s timed, the other acting like it’s actually exclusive, and fans demanded to know the actual truth of the story :

7. Come Phil Spencer interview where he had to respond to the queries.

This was an interview that was referenced by both sides of the camp, those who believe it’s a timed exclusive, and those who believe it’s a bonafide Xbox-exclusive that will only come to PC later, never PS4. Why was this interview so polarising to that extent?

8. In said interview, Phil defended his purchase of ROTR’s exclusivity, making references to Uncharted, etc. He also used terms like “I didn’t buy the franchise, I don’t own the IP in perpetuity” and compared the deal, calling it “similar” to Ryse/Dead Rising 3, both games that are never coming to PS4, because it was fully funded by MS. He ultimately ended it by saying “the deal has a duration”

So basically, Phil basically admitted it was a timed-exclusive, but used very clever PR-language, referring the Tomb Raider IP (instead of referring to just the game) when talking about the exclusivity deal and saying the deal is ‘similar’ (similar =/= same) to Dead Rising and Ryse, knowing full well those 2 games are never coming to PS4.

9. In respect to the interview above, Crystal amended its original post, but they said “Phil Spencer confirmed that ROTR is a timed-exclusive.”
10. Not too long later, the same post above is amended from “timed-exclusive” to “the deal has a duration.”

Everything from point (1) to point (10) was an extremely concerted effort to pretend like ROTR wasn’t a timed-exclusive. And I think it’s a pretty pathetic display from MS/Square.

12-months exclusivity for a AAA-game like TR is a huge win on MS’s side. Sure, you’ll piss off PS-fans by doing it, but admitting it from the get-go will absolve you of all the drama that occurred, and have fans being more trustworthy of you.

Personally, this whole deal has left me with a higher degree of scrutiny when it comes to anything that’s spoken out of Phil Spencer/MS’s mouth. And I hate having to swim through a sea of PR bullshit to reach the truth in messaging.

And I didn’t even go into the hilarity like “Microsoft’s Passion for Tomb Raider”, etc etc, which, while foolish, isn’t part of the exclusivity subterfuge, but just hilarious justification of why this deal happened in the first place.

Thanks for writing this. It was shady as fuck indeed.
 

Mr Git

Member
For the record, I simply doubt that Capcom would've been 'unable' to make SFV without Sony. It's a profitable franchise, and they are a legacy company that hasn't exactly struggled to get games made in the past. Hell, Square Enix seemed in a fairly bad place recently as well.

It's been thoroughly discussed and dissected even in this very thread. Capcom haven't solely funded a AAA game this generation. It's been remasters, GAAS or partnerships like Dead Rising 3.

the game was released in UK and Europe on 13/11/15. So, we are talking about 1 day sales in UK only. What about US where X1 has greater market share? and what about digital sales?


It's like Groundhog day.
 

Rymuth

Member
Digital Sales, black friday sales and long legs...

This and the Halo thread's making me feel like I've traveled back to 2013 when the diehards clung to Albert Penello's nonsense, trying desperately to find some way to prove Xbox was as powerful (if not moreso) than PS4.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Excellent summary as usual, Nightengale.
 

ULTROS!

People seem to like me because I am polite and I am rarely late. I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks.
Do you guys think the ROTR exclusivity deal was all worth it despite the debacle? It didn't seem to pull in people like how they wanted...

On the other hand, what known timed deals actually paid of? Does Mass Effect 2 count (although I don't recall them saying that the game was a timed exclusive).
 
Lol. I still remember how hilariously bad that "temple of osiris" statement. That surely pissed off a lot of Tomb Raider fans on Playstation.
 

KingBroly

Banned
Do you guys think the ROTR exclusivity deal was all worth it despite the debacle? It didn't seem to pull in people like how they wanted...

On the other hand, what known timed deals actually paid of? Does Mass Effect 2 count (although I don't recall them saying that the game was a timed exclusive).

No. It's not only going to hurt sales of this game but the next game of well, unless Microsoft fully funds the next one. This is something they probably should've done with the reboot and not the (presumably) middle game. It's just awkward as hell, despite there being an increasing relationship between Crystal Dynamics and Microsoft.
 

teiresias

Member
I’ve always been one of the more vocal critic around this deal. But not the exclusivity deal itself. Timed exclusives has been a thing since multiple console generations ago, and while I think it’s a poor decision on Square’s part to do this for TR, it’s ultimately their decision to accept MS’s money.

But there is one thing about this deal that I found personally very revolting, and that was the concentrated attempt to pretend like this was more than a timed-exclusive, with the usage of mixed messaging, clever PR spins and very carefully selected language.

Let’s look at the overall chronology of how this exclusivity story came about :

1. Multiple indie games were announced at Gamescom as “First on Xbox.” There was very clear implication that the exclusivity of said games were timed.
2. ROTR was announced as “Exclusive on Xbox, launching Holiday 2015.” There was massive confusion from the get-go, because Point (1)’s language was used to announced timed-exclusives, but ROTR had a different language that implied bonafide exclusivity.

So, from the get-go, through the manipulation of the different exclusivity language used, MS tried to pretend ROTR wasn’t a timed-exclusive, however :

3. Games media didn’t immediately buy into the announcement. When MS PR was pressed for a statement on the matter, folks like Geoff, etc clarify that MS refused to budge from the very “fixed statement” of “Exclusive on Xbox, launching holiday 2015.”

At this point, people were already guessing it’s likely timed, however :

4. Crystal Dynamics posted an article explaining the exclusivity, except they called it an exclusive, ( without the holiday 2015 line and no PR-safe terminology), which immediately prompted fans to suddenly get confused over the state of the game’s exclusivity.
5. What’s worse was that in the same post, CD effectively threw shade at Playstation/PC fans by saying “Don’t worry, Temple of Osiris for y’all to play!”, pissing off a larger majority of the TR audience.
6. Aaron Greenberg also referred to the post by CD to imply that ROTR is an actual exclusive, to further add fuel to fire.

At this points, the outrage was at a fever high. Mixed-messaging on both sides, one side acting like it’s timed, the other acting like it’s actually exclusive, and fans demanded to know the actual truth of the story :

7. Come Phil Spencer interview where he had to respond to the queries.

This was an interview that was referenced by both sides of the camp, those who believe it’s a timed exclusive, and those who believe it’s a bonafide Xbox-exclusive that will only come to PC later, never PS4. Why was this interview so polarising to that extent?

8. In said interview, Phil defended his purchase of ROTR’s exclusivity, making references to Uncharted, etc. He also used terms like “I didn’t buy the franchise, I don’t own the IP in perpetuity” and compared the deal, calling it “similar” to Ryse/Dead Rising 3, both games that are never coming to PS4, because it was fully funded by MS. He ultimately ended it by saying “the deal has a duration”

So basically, Phil basically admitted it was a timed-exclusive, but used very clever PR-language, referring the Tomb Raider IP (instead of referring to just the game) when talking about the exclusivity deal and saying the deal is ‘similar’ (similar =/= same) to Dead Rising and Ryse, knowing full well those 2 games are never coming to PS4.

9. In respect to the interview above, Crystal amended its original post, but they said “Phil Spencer confirmed that ROTR is a timed-exclusive.”
10. Not too long later, the same post above is amended from “timed-exclusive” to “the deal has a duration.”

Everything from point (1) to point (10) was an extremely concerted effort to pretend like ROTR wasn’t a timed-exclusive. And I think it’s a pretty pathetic display from MS/Square.

12-months exclusivity for a AAA-game like TR is a huge win on MS’s side. Sure, you’ll piss off PS-fans by doing it, but admitting it from the get-go will absolve you of all the drama that occurred, and have fans being more trustworthy of you.

Personally, this whole deal has left me with a higher degree of scrutiny when it comes to anything that’s spoken out of Phil Spencer/MS’s mouth. And I hate having to swim through a sea of PR bullshit to reach the truth in messaging.

And I didn’t even go into the hilarity like “Microsoft’s Passion for Tomb Raider”, etc etc, which, while foolish, isn’t part of the exclusivity subterfuge, but just hilarious justification of why this deal happened in the first place.

This is why I have no sympathy for SE from the whole Kagari post claiming "relationship soured after the reveal debacle." I know Kagari probably didn't intend to imply sympathy for SE in that post (that's just how it came across to me at the time), but it made it sound like SE blamed MS completely for it, but SE/CD added just as much fuel to that fire and agreed to the original deal in the first place that everyone knew was stupid, but here we are.
 

redcrayon

Member
We will see how the game does in USA once we get November NPD's.
Considering UK and USA XB1 tastes are greatly aligned (eg Halo 's major decline in both markets) I expect the numbers to be grim for Lara, potentially not even making top 10 on the charts.

And digital is naturally a factor but not a massive one. At best it will account for 10-25% going by industry reports from the likes of CD Projekt and EA (though I doubt it will even be that high as that number is generous for a singe player only game imo)

It's been covered several times in this thread already but digital is not even that kind of factor in UK sales due to the vastly inflated prices compared to retail. Even if the industry average clocks in at somewhere between 10 and 25%, the UK average and maximum are going to sit below that again (more like 10-15). At this point we should put it in the OP of every UK sales thread as it seems to crop back up every few pages.
 
Tomb Raider 2 confirmed as early as August 2013, no mention of exclusivity of any sort. There was no mention of any exclusivity whatsoever the first time the game was officially revealed, right after TRDE was released for both platforms
TR 2013 sold twice as much what all SF4 versions sold combined over several years. Capcom had stated before the game was announced that Ono was not allowed the budget to actually make SF5, so it would take some time. Capcom is barely holding on to current gen, with most of it's projects being recycled free to play titles and remasters, SF5 being the only big budget title they have announced.

But please, retain your head shoved up your rectum.

Funding games = good
Cockblocking = bad

It's not hard to understand, is it?


You've been making a fool of yourself for a while but okay, I'll play your game.

Show me one game that's triple A by Capcom in development?

Umbrella Chronicles - Game as a service
Deep Down - Game as a service
Dragon's Dogma online - Game as a service

Everything else is remasters or on handheld. If you've done your homework rather than stand around having a meltdown, you'd see how Capcom has lost money from their mobile ventures and their outsourcing last gen.

Capcom has yet to show a single AAA console game they're funding on their own

So yes, unless a publisher foots the bill (Dead Rising 3, SFV), they're shying away from console development.

Solid posts, all of them. Capcom clearly aren't in a good place right now.

When are we due for NA numbers?

I assume we'll know at the end of the month if it charts in the NPD, or if it does quite well and MS publish a press release.

yes, Ono himself said they couldn't fund it, until at least 2018, much like they didnt have the funds to do Dead Rising 3 which MS paid for, or is it only OK when MS funds a capcom game?

Lol.

Worst of all is that it will be competing directly with Uncharted and that it doesn't have a multiplayer mode (or does it?).

Tomb Raider reviewing well sets up Uncharted 4 to great reviews if it is able to handily beat it as is expected. Selling well on PS4 will require SE to be very smart.

It's going to be far enough after Uncharted to not be a problem IMO - if it's six months later there might be an appetite for more adventuring from the Uncharted audience. No, RotTR does not have a multiplayer mode, but I don't think anyone minds as they're rarely popular in games like this.

So who's to blame more for killing Tomb Raider: Mismanaging Squenix or Moneyhatting MS?

Square Enix are 100% to blame for accepting a bad deal. They weren't happy with the sales of TR2013, so they accept a deal to release it to 1/3 of its potential audience. TR:DE sold best on the PS4, so they accept an exclusivity deal on the competing console. They talk about wanting to grow the series and its audience, so limit its reach as much as possible. Probably the one benefit MS would bring was marketing and publishing it themselves, but then they fucked that up by releasing it in the same week as Fallout 4; another game which they were co-marketing, and much more heavily if TV adverts I've seen are anything to go by. It's even more comical if Pachter's estimation of MS paying $10 million is accurate, because if so then SE will have lost far more than that from lost sales from having no PS4/PC versions.
 
Why do people think the exclusivity deal is relevant to it selling poorly on the console it's exclusive on. When is that ever a reason for poor sales?

MS and SE have made a mess of the timing and the marketing, that's about all that's certain. Throwing exclusivity into the mix seems a little like people who were upset about that being happy about poor sales.
 
Do you guys think the ROTR exclusivity deal was all worth it despite the debacle? It didn't seem to pull in people like how they wanted...

On the other hand, what known timed deals actually paid of? Does Mass Effect 2 count (although I don't recall them saying that the game was a timed exclusive).

Not in the slightest.

Bottom of the barrel sales, few will have bought an XBone to play it so not a big system seller and the potential to really hurt the franchise. I can't think of any positives here. It was a big failure to do this deal and SE got what was coming to them for making it.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
on the plus side with these low sales, MS can now claim that the third game would never have happened without their support, make it exclusive, and GAF will be completely happy with it. celebrate it, even.
 
It's been covered several times in this thread already but digital is not even that kind of factor in UK sales due to the vastly inflated prices compared to retail. Even if the industry average clocks in at somewhere between 10 and 25%, the UK average is going to be a range that sits below that again. At this point we should put it in the OP of every UK sales thread as it seems to crop back up every few pages.

I'm in agreement friend. UK digital prices are hot garbage and physical just makes a million times more sense.

But you know, 9/10 of my friends are buying digital for everything nowadays :p

OT: I'd be so happy to see digital prices go down in the future as I like the extra convenience of not swapping discs, pre load etc. Shame the prices are largely absurd.
 

EGM1966

Member
Why do people think the exclusivity deal is relevant to it selling poorly on the console it's exclusive on. When is that ever a reason for poor sales?

MS and SE have made a mess of the timing and the marketing, that's about all that's certain. Throwing exclusivity into the mix seems a little like people who were upset about that being happy about poor sales.
The release next to Fallout certainly helped kill Xbox sales but the exclusivity is seen as making things worse as it cut down sales from 5 to 2 platforms. So even if TR launched weak on them all the combined total would have been much better.

The deal is also seen (correctly) as limiting the game to smaller install base of previous title further hurting its total sales potential.

Lastly the assumption is (based on previous history of similar situations) that PC owners will wait for price to drop hurting revenue and profits and the game will sell even less when it finally hits PS4 and many might wait for price to drop too.

In short there's plenty of reasons to presume the exclusivity will further hurt title long term on top of the apparently weak start due to timing of Xbox release.
 

Windforce

Member
Why do people think the exclusivity deal is relevant to it selling poorly on the console it's exclusive on. When is that ever a reason for poor sales?

MS and SE have made a mess of the timing and the marketing, that's about all that's certain. Throwing exclusivity into the mix seems a little like people who were upset about that being happy about poor sales.

It is relevant when the audience is on the opposing console who isn't getting the game. Every or nearly every TR has been on PlayStation.

Deals like this show that most people are just not willing to buy a second console to play a game. I for sure am not paying 300+ to play TR knowing full well it will come to PS4/PC.

Also, yes there is some satisfaction in seeing the deal fail from the people they pissed off, as it might prevent bullshit like this from happening in the future. It's sad for the franchise, though.
 
Seriously? What claim? Capcom was too broke to make the game themselves. Had not Sony stepped in, there would be no SFV. Definitely not one by next year for sure. It's pretty much like like Bayo2 all over again except it'll get a PC release.

"pushing narratives" lol. Pitiful.

This is absolutely not true. Capcom themselves said SF5 would have happened, but a couple of years into the gen. That would ultimately have been better because then:
- The console user base would have been much bigger
- More time between USF4 and SF5

In general, more sales potential and not annihilating a part of your fanbase.
 

LifEndz

Member
I guess my point is that I don't see why so many people inherently believe Sony's messaging on SFV, but assume everything about Microsoft & Tomb Raider is bullshit. Frankly, I think it's easy to see a world where both games came about from similar deals that simply had different PR departments handle the story.

For the record, I simply doubt that Capcom would've been 'unable' to make SFV without Sony. It's a profitable franchise, and they are a legacy company that hasn't exactly struggled to get games made in the past. Hell, Square Enix seemed in a fairly bad place recently as well.

The game's producer stated, years before there was any talk of exclusivity, that Capcom had no budget for SFV. I don't know why you wouldn't believe this when it's coming from Capcom directly. It was quite the contrary, however, with Tomb Raider. It was in production and was a planned multiplatform release from the start, just like the previous entry in the series. All that changed when MS swooped in and paid for timed exclusivity because it wanted something to go up against Uncharted.

Two different scenarios. Sony paid to make SFV happen, MS paid to keep Tomb Raider away from the competition.
 

redcrayon

Member
I'm in agreement friend. UK digital prices are hot garbage and physical just makes a million times more sense.

But you know, 9/10 of my friends are buying digital for everything nowadays :p

OT: I'd be so happy to see digital prices go down in the future as I like the extra convenience of not swapping discs, pre load etc. Shame the prices are largely absurd.
Fair enough :)

I tend to buy digital stuff when it's on sale, but physical for everything else. The prices are absurd, but for as long as the digital stores are trying not to undercut Game and co on the high street so that they have an outlet for hardware sales, while online retailers have the freedom to actually set decent prices, it's going to stay that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom