What are you trying to say? The Xbox One version of Forza Horizon 2 doesn't seem like a current gen game?
No, I'm saying that MS is muddying their message by having a previous gen release period. Sony is pushing Driveclub as a next gen exclusive and trumpeting the visuals as a result. MS meanwhile is caught halfway between wanting to push FH2 as a noteworthy next gen title, but with a previous gen iteration coming out. To really push FH2 as a next gen title like Sony can and is with Driveclub MS would have to come one step shy of outright admitting that FH2 360 is a cash grab on gullible previous gen gamers.
Which is why FH2 is a bad choice for cross-gen. LBP3 works because it is a more family oriented game and very few people will buy a PS4 for LBP3. Going cross-gen lets them maximize sales without hurting the core marketing message. FH2 cross-gen shoots that angle right in the damn face because racing games rely heavily on visual fidelity to sell in high numbers.
::scratches head::
Who is comparing Destiny to Forza Horizon 2 in this fashion? Of course Destiny has more hype than Forza Horizon 2. The latter is part of a pretty niche genre -- especially in comparison to shooters.
The quote I posted, which explicitly tried to make the argument that Destiny wouldn't be a system seller for PS4 and especially less so than Microsoft exclusive FH2. Which is wrong on both counts.
Heh, no. The Xbox One and PS4 aren't that different when it comes to porting games. Third parties want their games on multiple platforms that have large userbases that buy games since that obviously means more sales.
No, 3rd parties want their games available to as many gamers as possible. If given the choice between two 70M selling platforms and one 120M platform they would all....
1. Assume that there is at least 20M of overlap and therefore the same sized user base.
2. Select the one that required the least possible work to reach the most possible customers.
3. Realize that that selection is clearly the single console selling 120M units. The only reason 3rd parties want competition is to avoid a Nintendo NES/SNES era of disenfranchisement by the first party. That can't exist today as the outlets to consumers have gotten far too numerous (Steam, Android, iOS, etc.) and the 3rd parties are too powerful for one first party to really stifle them.
Otherwise they're just wasting money servicing multiple hardware configurations while they watch all their media peers (music, movies, books, etc.) publish in effectively the exact same monoform and reap greater profits as a result. We'll end up with effectively a single format before too long as it is what's best for the content providers and content controls the market now.
It is all just a matter of time before consolidation sweeps through the industry and a handful of remaining power players will have to duke it out for supremacy. (which is why MS, Sony, and Nintendo need to grow the hell up and agree on a standardized one console format for next generation ASAP before Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. get big enough in gaming to do the same themselves and choke the others out).
How is it spin doctoring when it's pretty much obvious that sales were really low (under 100K) due to MS revealing the $400 SKU early that month?
On top of that, the system more than likely did better this past month in comparison to if it still was $500.
It's classic have your cake and eat it too PR. Last month the massive drop wasn't anything to be worried about, but now the multiples in which it increased over a massively down month is something of note? It's using a previously discounted negative to portrait a larger positive sans-disclaimer and is intentionally designed to feed lazy headline reporting (i.e. video game journalists).