All purpose sales and sales rumors/anecdotes thread next gen+

[Deleted member 86764]

It’s an interesting point actually; what did Microsoft do so right last gen that they didn’t this time?

A few things come to mind for me. The first is that the Xbox 360 was released way ahead of the PS3 and those of us that like new hardware probably jump on board pretty quickly. I suppose if they’d released the Xbox One a year ahead of the PS4, I’d probably have one of those too. I think that’ll always give them a physical head start and it’s something they’d need to repeat in the future.

Once they’d got past their initial release, they’d already sold several 100,000 (1,000,000s?) before the competition had even started.

Despite the early start they had still more powerful hardware – that’s quite an accomplishment if you ask me. Even when the PS3 did eventually hit the stores, the face-offs on third-party games showed that the Xbox 360 was the more accomplished machine. That cemented the early adopters’ choice and word of mouth spread.

They had strong game line-ups, the release games were good and they had the (fairly new at the time) Halo franchise to show what the then next-gen could do. We had several new/fairly new titles; Gear of War, Call of Duty, Perfect Dark (only the N64 game before it), Forza, etc. They were all newish franchises. Now the same games are being sold year-after-year and we’re told that it’s the best line-up.

A strong Xbox Live, which was quite new at the time and it included all of the achievements, party chats that were new to a lot of console gamers. You could even download demos rather than waiting for discs on magazines(!) We take this for granted now, but it was quite something for the time.

Sony also got a bit arrogant and fudged up their specs and also focused on multimedia; something that people don’t care about when buying a new console (even if it becomes helpful later).

· Early Release
· Machine’s power
· Strong line-up (new franchises)
· Xbox Live
· Sony’s focus on multimedia

In my opinion, Microsoft haven’t got any of this right for the Xbox One. I know there are people that think the releases are good but we essentially get the same games every year (2014, Forza, COD; last year, Halo, Forza, COD; this year, Halo, Forza, COD, etc.)

Regarding the box’s power; Microsoft might actually find themselves in third position in face-offs for half the generation (second for the first three years), as Nintendo may well have a better APU.

Microsoft got most things right with the Xbox 360 and it has been their most accomplished machine yet. I really hope that they’re able to continue in the console business, because I genuinely want to see another Xbox – just with everything done right. I also hope their sales don’t completely drop off a cliff.

 

[chris1515]

No, Microsofts best interest was to attract people to their platform and in light of their deal with CD, it was to convey the message to all the Tomb Raider fans out there that the next game was to be on Xbox and that that's the platform they will want/need to get if they want to play it. It's effectively what Sony has been building up since the PSone days - attracting lots of games to your platform, if possibly exclusive, and make people associate those games with your platform. Ultimately, that's what Sony did so well and why they have been effectively the top dog in this market since their entry, even during the generation of PS3 that showed them launch an overpriced, year late and severely underperforming console. Because people still associated the games they want to play with the Sony platform - either because they were still exclusive on that platform (the 1st and 2nd party franchises) or thanks to them still getting the support from publishers/developers.

As a playstation owner, even if the Xbox was twice as powerful as the PS4, I would not care for a second because the games don't attract me in the slightest and those that do aren't exclusive. In fact, the games exclusive on Sonys platform appeal to me way more than to be bothered about graphical differences. It's why I ultimately got the PS3 over a 360 and why my mind was made up of getting a PS4 way before the specs were even revealed. In short, for Microsoft to attract someone like me, they'd have to tempt me with games first - games foremost exclusive to their console. They either do that with significantly better hardware, with games that are leaps and bounds better than what I can get on the PlayStation or by exclusivity contracts. In other words; if suddenly most Sony associated franchises somehow ended up on the Xbox - I'd have to seriously consider which platform I get. But this of course won't happen by mere fact that most games I like to play are Sony first party studios. The other games are multi platform and the rare games I do envy Xbox gamers over... well, I can live with not being able to play them.

Given my nostalgic memory of playing Tomb Raiders 15 years ago and the fact that I liked the new reboot quite a bit, the exclusivity deal on the next Tomb Raider game IMO was a well played move. If the game had turned out to be better or more in line with my nostalgic memory and who knows, Microsoft had secured more of those exclusives and the hardware wasn't that bit behind, perhaps the prospect of owning a Xbox console wouldn't be all that off for me. But in light of Microsofts dilemma, they certainly were on the right move. Doesn't change though that I expected better from SquareEnix when they signed that exclusivity deal.

This post probably belongs in another thread, but ultimately, Microsoft has to work hard on getting better exclusive games on their platform. It's the only distinguishing feature and feature that ultimately matters to us gamers. They either achieve that by signing exclusivity deals like the one they did with ROTR (which might result in gamers hating them even more) or they should get to work by making more and better games gamers want to play. Franchises like Uncharted that people buy consoles for. Or Gran Turismo. Having Forza and Halo are steps in the right direction, but they need more than that to sway a market in their favor. The more I think about it, the more I think the success of the 360 was simply exaggerated thanks to Sonys overpriced, and year late mess of a console. If they had launched side by side, even at the higher price, I think the PS3 and X360 probably would have been rather similar to the sales we see now in PS4 vs Xbox One. Close in the US, absolute annihilation everywhere else.

Now MS is behind in sales, it was very difficult to obtain temporary exclusives last year and the Tomb Raider failure to attract Playstaton customer will detract other 3rd party studio to do temporary exclusive games for Xbox One in the future... It is a lose lose opportunity...

Most of the Tomb Raider reboot player will wait the release of Uncharted and play ROTR on PS4 in one year or earlier with PC version... I think Tomb Raider gamer seems to think PS4 or PC is the best place to play it later...

Another thing MS view Tomb Raider has a competition for Uncharted but Uncharted is a bigger franchise than Tomb Raider reboot... Sales wise at least and following critic on metacritic too...

 

[dobwal]

You're having a logistics fail. Iroboto's saying at the moment, highly optimised, the XB1 version of RotTR is using say 98% of XB1's potential. Had it been developed cross platform for release now, it'd be running at say 80% of XB1's potential because it wouldn't have had the same focus. So the XB1 version wouldn't have looked so good as it does now. PS4 version would also be about 80% of PS4 tapped, so looking better than XB1 but not as good as if the title were developed as a PS4 timed exclusive.

That's his theory anyhow. I'm unconvinced it'd be that much more refined. If the intention is to release multiplat, you still design and develop for multiplat. The only way it'd really target XB1 is if it were completely platform exclusive. Where RotTR may be improved is specialist support from MS and development of specific XB1 techniques that perhaps it wouldn't have gotten if it were multiplat all the way. IMO.

Or you could consider the possibility that SE wouldn't have poured the level of development/marketing dollars or whatever other resources MS provided that TR currently received, without MS involvement. TR 2013 didn't initially meet expectation and the TR 2015 doesn't have the luxury of two mature platforms with large userbases sporting healthy appetites, and two new platforms with users hungry (I haven't ate breakfast yet) for anything with the slightest bit of improvement over last gen.

TR 2015's success even with being multiplat was never guaranteed. You could make the argument that TR 2015 would have sold better on the PS4 but its hard to make an argument that it would have sold better than it did on the XB1, where it did rather poorly. Its not like a large proportion of XB1 owners refused to support it because it wasn't multiplat. And TR 2015 on the PS4 would have had to contend with a natural competitor in UC which offered 3 games and was highly marketed by Sony.

Going multiplat, SE would have been task with providing resources to the PS4, XB1, 360, PS3 and PC while marketing those titles in the face of plenty of competition for holiday sales. They could have avoided MS's involvement and mitigated some of the risk faced by a multiplat TR by simply skimping on development dollars.

We might have ended up with a multiplat TR that was limited in scope (than what TR is now), looked rather "meh" with crappy performance and had a bunch of bugs.

 

[iroboto]

on the topic of ROTR. I think there are a lot of 'obvious' comments being thrown out, justly so. But if any one of us could have come to these simple conclusions as a past time on a forum, it should be clear that MS and SE as well as CD knew this well ahead of time.

Without insight into the actual agreements between the three we really are just left in the dark. It's _never_ as simple as just a cash transaction for a something in return, anyone whose ever been part of writing an RFP knows that. There are so many legality issues, especially at their levels, lawyers are everywhere and used everywhere to ensure that each party comes out of the deal ahead.

That being said there are 3 parties involved. CD being contracted to develop the game, SE owner of the TR franchise as well as MS as publisher. I'm thinking the deal between CD and MS worked out perfectly for both. CD delivered on time, and the game was reviewed very well. CD probably came out well, it's unlikely they would have signed for royalties, it's just not something companies do anymore, and SE is the one who owns TR.

So with CD out of the picture, the agreement between MS and SE is a worthy topic. For some reason, and i think everyone knows it, ROTR was sent to die. Is it possible that there were additional clauses in which MS would end up paying less for exclusivity if certain targets were not met? Would poor sales incite the chance that MS could one day make a purchase of CD? What did SE bargain for? Was part of the agreement was for X number of advertisements? A console bundle?

Who knows? all I know for a fact is that all these things, marketing, advertising, bundles, budgets, clauses, they'll all discussed and written up front. That means it was all signed at least a ago, and likely in negotiation for some time well before it was signed.

 

[Phil]

They could have concentrated on just XB1, PS4 and PC. Actually, given the similarity in hardware between the PS4 and the XB1, they could have focused on the XB1 and simply scale the PS4 (or focus on the PS4 one and scale the Xb1 version down) and PC versions up as many developers seem to be doing. Given the similarity, I'm not sure what extra resources the team needed that wouldn't benefit either platform in the end.

From all the scenarios that were on the table, IMO they chose the worst one of the lot. They decided to focus on the platform with the smallest userbase and neglect the platform(s) where most of its fans were and have been for the entire history of the franchise. The 2013 sales of the Tomb Raider reboot should have been an indication already.

I'm willing to bet that the launching a multiplat version would have netted them more sales and more profits than what they will achieve now with the 3 different launch dates on the 3 different platforms.

BTW:

You could make the argument that TR 2015 would have sold better on the PS4 but its hard to make an argument that it would have sold better than it did on the XB1, where it did rather poorly

Really? Has any game sold better on Xbox1? I don't think one has, which isn't too far fetched given that it has a smaller install base. Even if there are games, I think it's safe to say that a PlayStation associated franchise and game would have sold at least as good as on a console with a smaller install base. It's kind of logical.

 

[London Geezer]

I'm not convinced about this whole 'running better cause it was exclusive' argument. We keep hearing that the two platforms are pretty much the same in terms of architecture, with obvious differences we don't need to mention again, but really, they could have developed the game with the XB1 as lead platform and then scale it up - or even leave exactly the same - on PS4 without spending millions on it.

Maybe it could have run a little better, maybe a bit worse or even the same and it wouldn't have been a problem like it's not really a huge problem for all other multiplatforms that run on both consoles. Except, of course, on pixel and frame counting forums.

I'm just not convinced. They took a big cheque, they enjoyed it and that's the end of it. Let's not try to squeeze technicalities in a deal which was solely about money.

 

[iroboto]

I'm not convinced about this whole 'running better cause it was exclusive' argument. We keep hearing that the two platforms are pretty much the same in terms of architecture, with obvious differences we don't need to mention again, but really, they could have developed the game with the XB1 as lead platform and then scale it up - or even leave exactly the same - on PS4 without spending millions on it.

Maybe it could have run a little better, maybe a bit worse or even the same and it wouldn't have been a problem like it's not really a huge problem for all other multiplatforms that run on both consoles. Except, of course, on pixel and frame counting forums.

I'm just not convinced. They took a big cheque, they enjoyed it and that's the end of it. Let's not try to squeeze technicalities in a deal which was solely about money.

We have some insight that they started hiring additional graphics people around June of 2015 judging by the posts they left here at B3D; meaning that's likely when they started hiring for multi-plat I think. Exclusives are given the benefit of many things, mainly that a single platform is targeted, in which this case 2 companies with the same game worked with 2 individual platforms. The game can optimize out sections of the game that would run poorly on the console, perhaps certain engagements were re-engineered to keep the frame rate up while maintaining high fidelity graphics.

When you've got Multiplatform happening, especially where one console is more powerful than the other, in situations where 1 console can handle the engagement and the other can't, one is either going to be held back, or one falls behind. With exclusives the game will always be optimized around that single platform.

The exclusivity argument isn't just money, it's also intense dedication of support from the hardware vendors. I don't believe at all that a multiplatform tomb raider would look as good as it does on XBO as it does today. There is _nothing_ on XBO that looks this good, Ryse would be close, but it's no where near the scale that ROTR is. Bugs are practically non existent. Polish is noticeable.

For how weak the hardware is, I'm really shocked at what they accomplished. It's easy to discount the performance part of exclusivity if you've never seen the game yourself. I'm pretty sure you're a PS4 guy, you've never had 2+ years of seeing XBO graphics. It certainly takes the crown for XBO.

 

[dobwal]

Really? Has any game sold better on Xbox1? I don't think one has, which isn't too far fetched given that it has a smaller install base. Even if there are games, I think it's safe to say that a PlayStation associated franchise and game would have sold at least as good as on a console with a smaller install base. It's kind of logical.

You are misintrepreting my quote. I am not saying TR would have sold better on the xb1 vs the ps4, but that it is unlikely that TR the multiplat would have sold better on the Xb1 than Tr the exclusive has sold on the Xb1.

 

[dobwal]

I'm not convinced about this whole 'running better cause it was exclusive' argument. We keep hearing that the two platforms are pretty much the same in terms of architecture, with obvious differences we don't need to mention again, but really, they could have developed the game with the XB1 as lead platform and then scale it up - or even leave exactly the same - on PS4 without spending millions on it.

Maybe it could have run a little better, maybe a bit worse or even the same and it wouldn't have been a problem like it's not really a huge problem for all other multiplatforms that run on both consoles. Except, of course, on pixel and frame counting forums.

I'm just not convinced. They took a big cheque, they enjoyed it and that's the end of it. Let's not try to squeeze technicalities in a deal which was solely about money.

My point is that the level of development dollars TR got as an Xbox exclusive might not be the same as what XB port would have gotten as TR the multiplat title.

You are right that the Xb1 could have been the lead platform and then scaled up to the PS4, but its not a given that the level of investment that MS and SE has (MS to XB1, PC and 360) and will (SE to the PS platforms) provide TR 2015 would have been the same if SE had simply went straight multiplat and funded the overall project by itself.

Involving MS helped SE mitigate risk with the title. SE could have done that in other ways like limiting the budget of the development and marketing of TR 2015.

 

[Billy Idol]

I'm not hearing lots of rave excitement for RotTR. Will other platform owners still be interested when it launches? That's one disadvantage with launching later - other markets have the opportunity to learn if its worth having or not, whereas they'd have bought on faith as a sequel to a great game they enjoyed. If interest isn't growing by word of mouth, I expect is fizzling out and TR may miss the boat, as it were.

Actually, for me, it is one of the best games this gen! It has great graphics, it has a very good rpg light leveling system, it has a bow, it has side missions that are meaningful, it has a lot of hidden secrets, and so far the story are very good as well.

The game is great and deserves much more praise imo!

 

[London Geezer]

I can't wait to play it. Next year. Heavily discounted.

 

[Clukos]

Holy crap Sony is going in hard http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/12/01/two-ps4-bundles-just-299-99-each-starting-december-6th/

Both SW and Uncharted bundles $299 from "December 6th, through December 19th"

 

[zed]

I would say given that infoscout's methodology is probably not super accurate anyway, this cant tell us a lot except maybe that it might be close.

as close as their 2013 prediction?

remember this was a month when the ps4 according to NPD outsold the xb1, yet they have the xb1 > 2:1

 

[upnorthsox]

I can't wait to play it. Next year. Heavily discounted.

This.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

as close as their 2013 prediction?

remember this was a month when the ps4 according to NPD outsold the xb1, yet they have the xb1 > 2:1

Black Friday sales (Infoscout) versus month of November sales (NPD).

8 days of Xbox One sales versus 15 days of PS4 sales.

2013 doesn't say much.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't we think we should assume it's "highly optimised" either. Removing a couple of platforms from the initial launch not does equate to the saved time going into optimisation.

 

[Rangers]

as close as their 2013 prediction?

You misunderstood, I'm not saying infoscout is close, but that rather than try to divine a winner from 41%-40%, if we are to lend any credence to infoscout (that's up to the individual), we should just perhaps look at it as evidence of a close race rather than "PS4 wins".

 

[Rangers]

Holy crap Sony is going in hard http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/12/01/two-ps4-bundles-just-299-99-each-starting-december-6th/

Both SW and Uncharted bundles $299 from "December 6th, through December 19th"

A cynic could say, Sony already has sales data indicating they lost November so pulling out all the stops to try to save face in December?

Seriously though, I assume MS must counter with a similar offer?

Sony announced 299 PS4 from Nov 26-30, just like MS, but I saw some gaffers saying the console silently went back up to $349 days (?) before the 30th, including for the important date of Cyber Monday. Weird if true.

 

[djskribbles]

You misunderstood, I'm not saying infoscout is close, but that rather than try to divine a winner from 41%-40%, if we are to lend any credence to infoscout (that's up to the individual), we should just perhaps look at it as evidence of a close race rather than "PS4 wins".

That IS how I'm looking at it, and I'm sure others are as well. 250k is a very good sample size so it at least tells us that it was close on Black Friday.

But like I said above, outside of Black Friday, Sony definitely outsold the XB1 IMO, thanks to the Battlefront and Black Ops bundles that were available for pre-order months before November. That should give Sony a comfortable win in November IMO. And unless MS also drops the price back down to 299 (I'm sure they will) it will be another easy win for Sony in December.

 

[goonergaz]

A cynic could say, Sony already has sales data indicating they lost November so pulling out all the stops to try to save face in December?

Seriously though, I assume MS must counter with a similar offer?

Sony announced 299 PS4 from Nov 26-30, just like MS, but I saw some gaffers saying the console silently went back up to $349 days (?) before the 30th, including for the important date of Cyber Monday. Weird if true.

Well last year they lost by quite a bit so there'd be no 'surprise' of MS won again, I suspect it was close and Sony want to drive the point home in December and put the final nail in the coffin...