Support NeoGAF

[GnawtyDog]

Does no one actually have cognitive dissonance when they argue the key to success for ROTR was to go head to head with UC4? When the entire deal is predicated on the fear that in a match up UC4 would crush ROTR.

Not necessarily head-to-head in a platform war situation. It's outside the realm of sales at that point in a way. It's more about critical acceptance, fanboy fuel, brand awareness and push (marketing) and the media lapping it up. Cause they love those stories...the perfect click bait of this gen if it had happened. That fuels sales in turn. 6 months later, those not satisfied or tired of Uncharted, or feeling some sort of remorse, could grab Tomb Raider in March on PS4/PC. All Square needed was a solid 1 million sales first 3 weeks-month, MS money, and PS4/PC in Spring.

They'll get what? 500k at best first month on Xbox platforms, PC in 6 months, PS4 in a year.

It was planned for a storm that never came. Spring still coming tho...

 

[Aceofspades]

Its staggering to me that MS went all out with Halo, Gears, Forza, TR and got beat by Sony with NDC.

MS IPs are weaker than ever these days.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Its staggering to me that MS went all out with Halo, Gears, Forza, TR and got beat by Sony with NDC.

MS IPs are weaker than ever these days.

I think someone made the point before that it's not necessarily those brands as much as the Xbox brand itself taking a massive hit this gen.

 

[Bastables]

Not necessarily head-to-head in a platform war situation. It's outside the realm of sales at that point in a way. It's more about critical acceptance, fanboy fuel, brand awareness and push (marketing) and the media lapping it up. Cause they love those stories...the perfect click bait of this gen if it had happened. That fuels sales in turn.

Which goes to my earlier post, when has fanboy marketing and polygon/Ars/Kotaku clickbait ever sold copies. We have Ben Kuchera click bait Phantasy on exclusivity =more sales and more profit. How many places in the sales ranking was that worth? How many copies was that worth? Nothing? Negative? Because we're looking at circa 201K right now, that is literally a worse opening month than The order.

 

[stryke]

Uncharted is in the same genre as modern TR. FO4 is not.

There's something to be said about how platforms have fostered certain audiences that are more receptive to respective titles.

 

[unapersson]

There has been no precedence of fanboy marketing wars ever being effective, a thing even, but this is the seam that SE/CD and MS wanted to tap. This plan is baldrick levels of incompetence combined with wishful thinking. This is even before you get into all parties ignoring all the other AAA games being dropped during the end of year buying season.

It's a bit like the Blur vs. Oasis thing that was done in the 90s to create a battle for number one in the charts.

I can't help thinking you don't want to get into a deal with MS and then ask for a contract rewrite. This is the same company who made a percentage of profits deal to acquire their web browser then gave it away free. I'm assuming there was a loophole that let them do the one bundle/one retailer release for the game.

 

[Bear Force One]

No, people are laughing because they're entitled Sony fanboys who feel slighted because someone didn't kowtow to them for a change and they're petty about it. If the shoe were on the other foot surely people's faux integrity nonsense would cease to exist.

Bold stance.

 

[jackdoe]

Which goes to my earlier post, when has fanboy marketing and polygon/Ars/Kotaku clickbait ever sold copies. We have Ben Kuchera click bait Phantasy on exclusivity =more sales and more profit. How many places in the sales ranking was that worth? How many copies was that worth? Nothing? Negative? Because we're looking at circa 201K right now, that is a literally a worse opening month than The order.

Fanboy marketing also has the glaring flaw of not working when a region is entirely dominated by one console and everyone is a fan of the console that the title isn't going to be on. That cannot be what S-E was going for when they signed the deal. And if it is, S-E needs to fire some people.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Hmm I don't really see any winners this time with this deal.

Depends on how much MS paid for the exclusivity deal. Depending on such I think they could of made out good. Considering the fact that the Xbox One is pretty much on price parity with the PS4 atm and MS had a great holiday - that's a win.

I still think that will only last for this period. I expect Spring to be harsh on Xbox if pricing stays at parity. I assume they have a slim for this E3 to re-energize interest but we'll have NX too at E3. VR will come knocking also and you never know if Sony has a PS4 slim in the cards too.

 

[Bastables]

It's a bit like the Blur vs. Oasis thing that was done in the 90s to create a battle for number one in the charts.

I can't help thinking you don't want to get into a deal with MS and then ask for a contract rewrite. This is the same company who made a percentage of profits deal to acquire their web browser then gave it away free. I'm assuming there was a loophole that let them do the one bundle/one retailer release for the game.

That's the thing though, I don't remember buying extra blur cd singles based on a ranavchinst impulse after watching a Top of the Pops with a Oasis song at number one. This dark seam of marketing fuckwittery has yet to prove effective, why was it a key part of SE/MS plan?

In saying that it seems BBC seems to think it was effective http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/events/indie/blur-vs-oasis/

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

because it is counter intuitive. It's easier to believe that gamers have X number of dollars to spend, and that those dollars are divided by Y number of games. So as Y goes up, average rev goes down: simple, believable, and apparently wrong.

Probably because most gamers aren't buying nearly enough games to actually feel that it's getting too expensive for them to buy one more. People on Gaf buy two dozen games a year or more, but most people are buying significantly fewer. They buy whatever games interest them as they come out, not the most interesting X games per year. So more games coming out means more chances that something will interest someone.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

No, people are laughing because they're entitled Sony fanboys who feel slighted because someone didn't kowtow to them for a change and they're petty about it. If the shoe were on the other foot surely people's faux integrity nonsense would cease to exist.

It's too early for a meltdown, give it a few more hours thought then really go for it.

 

[hawk2025]

I don't think the deal was bad. There are a few reasons it went bad and there are some things we will never know to gauge the worth of the deal.

It turned out bad but on paper it wasn't bad.

The scenario as it was pictured back then: Uncharted 4, a Naughty Dog game, coming off hot from TLOU, with the biggest marketing budget Sony will throw at a title, + a potential holiday price drop to go along with it.....vs a multi-plat low-key, holiday release for Tomb Raider.

That's enough to send MS into panic, and that's enough to make SE consider alternative deals. On paper teaming up with MS would of allowed them free marketing dollars, brand exposure and some guaranteed money to offset development cost. Piggy back off the "exclusive" rivalry between Xbox vs. PS, Tomb Raider vs. Uncharted 4 and that elevates the IP even more. So, not only do they make out with MS money, free-marketing, brand exposure at MS events etc, the MS exclusive treatment by the media and IP elevation and awareness by going head-to-head in this fashion vs. Uncharted but they also had a PC and PS4 release in the cards too.

It was good on paper for Square. MS on the other hand, at the time, couldn't do a thing to energize sales going into Destiny month and was planning for a potential contentious holiday the year after. It made sense to snatch something or get bodied by Sony with a potential U4 + price drop combo. Also the prospects of Uncharted bodying Halo in sales around the same month would of been enough to cause waves.

Or the exceedingly simple solution:

Take Dying Light's january spot as a resounding January success all by itself.

It was not good on paper. It was never good on paper, from the second it was announced.

 

[Inuhanyou]

No, people are laughing because they're entitled Sony fanboys who feel slighted because someone didn't kowtow to them for a change and they're petty about it. If the shoe were on the other foot surely people's faux integrity nonsense would cease to exist.

Oh, please.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Or the exceedingly simple solution:

Take Dying Light's january spot as a resounding January success all by itself.

It was not good on paper. It was never good on paper, from the second it was announced.

Depends on the money MS handed over, the circumstances at launch (the storm if you will) and heavy bundling ala Assassins Creed Unity by MS.

I could of seen that as a success for Square. The Dying Light situation could of worked too but there is no guarantee. We also have Evolve that didn't do as good necessarily.

Once the deal was inked, there was a lot riding on certain circumstances that never materialized. There was no storm, and there is no heavy bundling.

 

[unapersson]

That's the thing though, I don't remember buying extra blur cd singles based on a ranavchinst impulse after watching a Top of the Pops with a Oasis song at number one. This dark seam of marketing fuckwittery has yet to prove effective, why was it a key part of SE/MS plan?

In saying that it seems BBC seems to think it was effective http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/events/indie/blur-vs-oasis/

I think the Blur vs. Oasis thing probably did give a sales boost across the board, the Blur single was moved to the same date and the media really blew the whole thing up. I think the latter is the key thing in stirring up the fervour and sales, it was a big marketing event. Without that it was just a couple of singles coming out.

I can certainly image certain elements of the gaming press doing the same thing had the releases wound up being on the same day (though I'm not really sure if there was any evidence that would have been the case, just the same quarter). I don't think it would have worked in terms of unseating Uncharted 4, but may well have given both of them a boost and helped out day one sales.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

I don't think the deal was bad. There are a few reasons it went bad and there are some things we will never know to gauge the worth of the deal.

It turned out bad but on paper it wasn't bad.

The scenario as it was pictured back then: Uncharted 4, a Naughty Dog game, coming off hot from TLOU, with the biggest marketing budget Sony will throw at a title, + a potential holiday price drop to go along with it.....vs a multi-plat low-key, holiday release for Tomb Raider.

That's enough to send MS into panic, and that's enough to make SE consider alternative deals. On paper teaming up with MS would of allowed Square free marketing dollars, brand exposure and some guaranteed money to offset development cost. Piggy back off the "exclusive" rivalry between Xbox vs. PS, Tomb Raider vs. Uncharted 4 and that elevates the IP even more. So, not only do they make out with MS money, free-marketing, brand exposure at MS events etc, the MS exclusive treatment by the media and IP elevation and awareness by going head-to-head in this fashion vs. Uncharted but they also had a PC and PS4 release in the cards too.

It was good on paper for Square. MS on the other hand, at the time, couldn't do a thing to energize sales going into Destiny month and was planning for a potential contentious holiday the year after. It made sense to snatch something or get bodied by Sony with a potential U4 + price drop combo. Also the prospects of Uncharted bodying Halo in sales around the same month would of been enough to cause waves.

It was never good on paper to compete against Uncharted 4 by abandoning the PS4 and PC, taking money upfront by giving up sales on the most popular platform is shortsighted and hurts the franchise in the long-run. Badly conceived deal and SE ended up paying for it.

 

[GnawtyDog]

It was never good on paper to compete against Uncharted 4 by abandoning the PS4 and PC, taking money upfront by giving up sales on the most popular platform is shortsighted and hurts the franchise in the long-run. Badly conceived deal and SE ended up paying for it.

It was coming to PS4/PC 6 months later (March). How much did MS lap up? None of us know. How much could Square had saved in marketing the game (to levels they themselves could not attain)? None of us know. Add to that some potential heavy bundling by MS ala Unity last year and that's more money on top of money. The "growth of the franchise" is such a vague term without context.

They took a gamble, it didn't pay off. I personally prefer the gamble of going against Uncharted 4 in this fashion rather than going vs. Uncharted 4 alone. And I am sure Square entertained delaying release dates as a alternative to get away from Uncharted but wasn't too happy with that prospect (a Dying Light, Just Cause, or Evolve situation).

It was a gamble that had merits that blew up by changing circumstances. Adaptation was poor.

 

[Bastables]

I think the Blur vs. Oasis thing probably did give a sales boost across the board, the Blur single was moved to the same date and the media really blew the whole thing up. I think the latter is the key thing in stirring up the fervour and sales, it was a big marketing event. Without that it was just a couple of singles coming out.

I can certainly image certain elements of the gaming press doing the same thing had the releases wound up being on the same day (though I'm not really sure if there was any evidence that would have been the case, just the same quarter). I don't think it would have worked in terms of unseating Uncharted 4, but may well have given both of them a boost and helped out day one sales.

I also think Blur and Oasis match up did not suffer with say Blur deciding to only release on 8 track or cassette tape while going against Oasis releasing on CD and Cassette.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

It was coming to PS4/PC 6 months later (March). How much did MS lap up? None of us know. How much could Square had saved in marketing the game (to levels they themselves could not attain)? None of us know. Add to that some potential heavy bundling by MS ala Unity last year and that's more money on top of money. The "growth of the franchise" is such a vague term without context.

They took a gamble, it didn't pay off. I personally prefer the gamble of going against Uncharted 4 in this fashion rather than going vs. Uncharted 4 alone. And I am sure Square entertained delaying release dates as a alternative to get away from Uncharted but wasn't too happy with that prospect (a Dying Light, Just Cause, or Evolve situation).

It was a gamble that had merits that blew up by changing circumstances. Adaptation was poor.

The bundle was awful, poorly priced and doomed to fail, the advertising was ineffective, at the end of the day TR got beaten, not by U4, but by UDC, something I doubt SE had ever imagined. With the PS4 version pushed until the end of 2016, I'm not sure whether there's any point in releasing it that late, with no bundle support, amongst another round of holiday bestsellers.

 

[hawk2025]

Depends on the money MS handed over, the circumstances at launch (the storm if you will) and heavy bundling ala Assassins Creed Unity by MS.

I could of seen that as a success for Square. The Dying Light situation could of worked too but there is no guarantee. We also have Evolve that didn't do as good necessarily.

Once the deal was inked, there was a lot riding on certain circumstances that never materialized. There was no storm, and there is no heavy bundling.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Any of it.

If the bet was on heavy bundling, it should have been on the contract. Don't sign deals that are supposed to diversify risk by instead leveraging other circumstances that are even more beyond one's control.

It was coming to PS4/PC 6 months later (March). How much did MS lap up? None of us know. How much could Square had saved in marketing the game (to levels they themselves could not attain)? None of us know. Add to that some potential heavy bundling by MS ala Unity last year and that's more money on top of money. The "growth of the franchise" is such a vague term without context.

They took a gamble, it didn't pay off. I personally prefer the gamble of going against Uncharted 4 in this fashion rather than going vs. Uncharted 4 alone. And I am sure Square entertained delaying release dates as a alternative to get away from Uncharted but wasn't too happy with that prospect (a Dying Light, Just Cause, or Evolve situation).

It was a gamble that had merits that blew up by changing circumstances. Adaptation was poor.

What the hell is the point of saving in marketing if it doesn't translate to sales?

Ok, so they saved on marketing and got 200K in the US. How did that help, again?

...Now they have to market the game *TWICE* instead of once, by themselves, with an old product. It's not true that none of us know. Simple common sense and analysis takes us quite far, and far enough to see the writing on the wall.

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that there was a lot of uncertainty in the first place. But once again, the purpose of signing a contract like this is to mitigate risk. If you are not mitigating risk, but actually taking an even larger gamble, the deal is not a good one.

It was not a gamble that had merits. The potential merits were limited to specific circumstances, even before the uncertainty was resolved, and these circumstances were not properly hedged on the contract, as has been made abundantly clear by how the bundling actually turned out. I take issue with calling this a gamble that had merits or this narrative that "none of us know", because people did know, and given the information we have, we also do know that it was a bad idea. Before, during, and after seeing how everything turned out this holiday season.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Sorry, I don't buy it. Any of it.

If the bet was on heavy bundling, it should have been on the contract. Don't sign deals that are supposed to diversify risk by instead leveraging other circumstances that are even more beyond one's control.



What the hell is the point of saving in marketing if it doesn't translate to sales?

Ok, so they saved on marketing and got 200K in the US. How did that help, again?

...Now they have to market the game *TWICE* instead of once, by themselves, with an old product. It's not true that none of us know. Simple common sense and analysis takes us quite far, and far enough to see the writing on the wall.

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that there was a lot of uncertainty in the first place. But once again, the purpose of signing a contract like this is to mitigate risk. If you are not mitigating risk, but actually taking an even larger gamble, the deal is not a good one.

Well, if the posture is to take everyone at Square in charge of business decision making as stupid then sure you could take that position in hind sight.

As for the other tibit. First, NO, we do not know how much MS paid for the deal, (it has to be substantially big to draw interest in the first place - and Square ran the numbers to a point where they felt good about the risk). Second, we don't know the numbers calculated with regards to marketing costs for the game, and the potential savings from piggy backing from MS own coffers (that's more money saved), free media coverage (thanks click bait), and brand elevation by your number #1 substitute threat in the market. The alternative was a lone wolf, low key release with no backing. The expectation of such alternative? That a combination of love and passion for Tomb Raider by the PS crowd would be enough to make it viable in a scenario where Uncharted sits as the perfect substitute. I am pretty sure the PS crowd cares twice on Sunday more about Uncharted than Tomb Raider. More so when Sony's backing it and pushing it 100% and when the studio behind it is synonymous with best-in class.

Clearly the deal had a bundle in the cards. I am sure the deal between Ubisoft and MS last year DID NOT have a set amount of units that MS had to sell, and if it had, it was more a minimum, with MS having the freedom to increase it and/or do as they please in terms of bundle pricing. As I understand it, the owner of the game gets paid once a bundle is bought, and not before? I am pretty sure MS had the leeway to decide how to bundle Tomb Raider and that's perhaps where Square slipped. I am pretty sure the deal with Ubisoft had no mention nor requirement that MS had to make the bundle their flagship holiday bundle $349.99 and make a gazillion units out of it. Perhaps at best a minimum, but no max. Square perhaps thought it could of played out like last year. After all, MS did not bundle the MCC last year. This year, Halo 5 wasn't either, barring that ridiculously expensive limited bundle. MS flagship bundle this year was the $299.99 Gears bundle and Gears cost MS $0. It could of being Tomb Raider instead. Why it wasn't like Unity last year? That's in the inked deal. And that's perhaps one of the many slips Square had - as in, "MS must bundle Tomb Raider with the lowest priced bundle promotion MS does during the exclusivity period". I mean if you read it you understand how MS would never tie itself to such a proposition. It would be more of a gentleman's agreement of sorts where both parties agree on bundling, a minimum # of units at best and "I'll treat you good, trust me" being the risk.

 

[Felessan]

Yes Microsoft would want something in return hence the extra 6 months. But they'd be better off without it if it meant people couldn't effectively start buying/planning for PC and Playstation versions well before the Xbox version is released.

I think initiative was from SE on this accord, and MS (knowing fully the direness of situation) couln't turn down the proposal without tarnishing the relationships, so they agree, but got something as compensation.

My god, SE actually did everything in thier power to make this game flop.

It's a prejudice that they do it intentionally. I think it's due to treatment of a third rate franchise (it probably was moved to second rate franchise the moment Eidos was bought and to third rate franchise when 1st game didn't perform "up to expectations").
Anf a lot of things will go bad if the management is poor.

The last move by itself is not bad. If you see that game gonna flop hard (and they knew it before release), its better sacrifice something but keep awareness of game, than let game flop, be forgotten for half an year and then try to build awareness for already old game from the scratch.
This will not save this particular game, but franchise will take less damage in this case.

...Now they have to market the game *TWICE* instead of once, by themselves, with an old product.

I doubt PC version will have an extensive marketing.

 

[Rymuth]

 

[piccio_ssl]

LMAO

 

[unapersson]

I also think Blur and Oasis match up did not suffer with say Blur deciding to only release on 8 track or cassette tape while going against Oasis releasing on CD and Cassette.

Well I'm not saying it would have made CD owners buy a cassette player, but might have encouraged more of the CD owners to buy a copy. Stretching the analogy, lots of them don't seem to have bothered.

I'm sure the deal cost a few XBox One sales once the non-exclusivity was revealed. There were a few who were convinced it was full exclusive and annoyed by suggestions otherwise.

 

[Schrade]

Holy shit... ROFL!

 

[kadotsu]

So this is why people believe in Phil Spencer because else he would find their lack of faith disturbing.

 

[foxbeldin]

 

[anothertech]

I can't stop...
Lololol

Everyone knows the truth. This game will do just fine in a year or so when the Definitive Version is released.

Spoiler

On ps4

 

[Donos]

Which goes to my earlier post, when has fanboy marketing and polygon/Ars/Kotaku clickbait ever sold copies. We have Ben Kuchera click bait Phantasy on exclusivity =more sales and more profit. How many places in the sales ranking was that worth? How many copies was that worth? Nothing? Negative? Because we're looking at circa 201K right now, that is literally a worse opening month than The order.

I think the idea is not really far off. RotTR is a high quality title and a face off with UC4 would have generated a lot of (free) buzz. Not only with fanboys and list warriorz. TR would have benefited from it, at least on XB1. "Hey look TR offers a similar fidelity/quality as sony's blockbuster UC4"...

How it turned out was" hey we know you are playing F4 and CoD and BF atm but look at this new awesome TR. guys. hey guys, guys...."

It's probably really a sum of a lot of things/decisions which came together but we will probably never know (or in 5 years or so)

 

[truth411]

Brutal!!! LOL!!!

 

[Stilton Disco]

You know what I don't get though?

Why, exactly, would TR sell significantly worse than UC if they released close to one another?

I know that's the thinking SE must have been going with, and if they released day and date, then maybe, yeah, people probably would pick one over the other, but surely if you're a fan of one, odds are you'll also want to play the other, once you finished the one you bought first?

I mean I've been a TR fan since it first came out on the PS1. Played every single game since across a variety of platforms, and I love Uncharted because it's a hell of a lot like Tomb Raider, even in spite of it's numerous differences. I'd have 100% bought both day one if they'd released on the PS4 this year.

Isn't part of the reason Uncharted was such a success, because the audience from TR was already on Playstation, and why TR continues to do better on Playstation systems, despite Crystal Dynamics best efforts to associate it with Xbox, because it's the place you can get both TR and UC?

I'd put money on the sales of those two games actually only strengthening one another, not hurting TR.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

Oh, MS let Bungie work on something else while they continued to produce Halo? How benevolent of them.

Yeah, it was so shame Sony let ND to work on UC and Last of Us, look what got out of it.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

Hmm I don't really see any winners this time with this deal.

Yes there isn't none. MS should have had TR in their main bundle instead of Gears. That way it would have sold better and I could have gotten digital code cheaply after Christmas.

 

[demigod]

SE accepted a deal that im sure paid them a good amount of money upfront and while they never ever should have accepted that deal, it was Microsoft that sent it out to die. They definitely should have moved up the release date. If the game was done and was able to go Gold in September, they should have released it on October 6th. If not, I would have delayed it until January.

Horrible deal that screwed over the developer and the franchise.

Its MS, they like to channel stuff during the holidays.

 

[Neifirst]

Couldn't ROTR lack of sales also be due to the fact that the Definitive Edition got discounted to $20 within a couple months of release last year?

I bet that the 'Complete Edition' coming to PS4/XB1 next year will not move units at $60 either. Given the size of the software libraries at that point, most people will wait for a huge discount.

 

[Steroyd]

As for the other tibit. First, NO, we do not know how much MS paid for the deal, (it has to be substantially big to draw interest in the first place - and Square ran the numbers to a point where they felt good about the risk).

SE may have felt good about the risk... In 2014, but they sure as hell regretted it in 2015 when they announced how long we'd be waiting for the PS4/PC versions of the game months before the game was supposed to release exclusive to Xbox

Two, we don't know the numbers calculated with regards to marketing costs for the game, and the potential savings from piggy backing from MS own coffers (that's more money saved), free media coverage (thanks click bait), and brand elevation by your number #1 substitute threat in the market. The alternative was a lone wolf, low key release with no backing.

ROTR will be lucky to hit 1/4th of what the the Reboot managed in the same 1 month period, no amount of savings through advertising can make up for that and MS have been trying a to associate themselves with Tomb Raider for years, you think they'd decided that instead of just having the marketing rights to a multiplatform game chopping the franchise userbase at the knees to would be better?

The expectation of such alternative? That a combination of love and passion for Tomb Raider by the PS crowd would be enough to make it viable in a scenario where Uncharted sits as the perfect substitute. I am pretty sure the PS crowd cares twice on Sunday more about Uncharted than Tomb Raider. More so when Sony's backing it and pushing it 100% and when the studio behind it is synonymous with best-in class.

The irony being Tomb Raider releasing last month on PS4 would have been the perfect substitue to the Uncharted delay, and they could have rode that wave for the next 6 months, it doesn't have to be an either or situation with games in the same style and genre especially given that it's a genre that's pretty much empty compared to say the FPS genre.

 

[DieH@rd]

Guys.

SE can still salvage this.

FF7:R Demo packed in with the PS4 version of RoTR.

Instant mega-seller

Actually, I think that is the only sure way to make public excited about PS4 port RotTR. Currently everyone is in the "meh" mode because they have to wait and marketing for Xbone version was far from good.

Have you not played Uncharted? Nathan Drake is a ruthless killer. The fear was justified.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/wjxdxik9g8wpe1fsbye1.gif
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/161/038/stealth-kill-2.gif

The Star Wars PS4 bundle has surpassed the GoW Xbox One bundle on Amazon 2015 rankings. 37 vs 39.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2015/videogames/ref=zg_bs_tab_t_bsar#2

Man, Sony is fucking it up with console stock. Uncharted Collection [dropped to #64 on hourly list] is out of stock on Amazon for days now, and it will get replenished on Dec 23, eight days from now! ~_~ Battlefront bundle at $299 is the only big PS4 seller right now [#2 in hourly list].

 

[creamsugar]

Surprise: V LTD < 1M

 

[Ghost Slayer]

Surprise: V LTD < 1M

Such a lust for million seller

 

[Mooreberg]

Surprise: V LTD < 1M

Konami lied about shipment numbers three months ago, or this is referring to something else? Halo 5?

 

[Raylan]

I think someone made the point before that it's not necessarily those brands as much as the Xbox brand itself taking a massive hit this gen.

 

[Jigorath]

Konami lied about shipment numbers three months ago, or this is referring to something else? Halo 5?

There's no way Halo 5 isn't over a million. He's talking about MGSV.

 

[GnawtyDog]

In the case of Halo it's definitely both.

 

[Mooreberg]

There's no way Halo 5 isn't over a million. He's talking about MGSV.

I figured as much from the roman numeral. To quote a popular phrase these days: Fuck Konami.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Surprise: V LTD < 1M

That's below expectations and surprising too...

The game had:
-Open world appeal
-Reviewed very well across the board
-Generally big hype
-Release around no competition.

So what gives? Were people turned away once it came out it was unfinished? Perhaps it wasn't accessible enough for non MGS fans? Or maybe Japanese games are always going to struggle to appeal to the masses?

 

[Stilton Disco]

That's below expectations and surprising too...

The game had:
-Open world appeal
-Reviewed very well across the board
-Generally big hype
-Release around no competition.

So what gives? Were people turned away once it came out it was unfinished? Perhaps it wasn't accessible enough for non MGS fans? Or maybe Japanese games are always going to struggle to appeal to the masses?

I think just everyone suddenly realising Konami are bunch of utter cunts myself.

You can only treat everyone, including your customers, with open contempt for so long before sales will be effected.

 

[jaina]

That's below expectations and surprising too...

The game had:
-Open world appeal
-Reviewed very well across the board
-Generally big hype
-Release around no competition.

So what gives? Were people turned away once it came out it was unfinished? Perhaps it wasn't accessible enough for non MGS fans? Or maybe Japanese games are always going to struggle to appeal to the masses?

I'd say people are hesitant to go in on the "5th" entry in a series. But Witcher 3 does not support this argument.

 

[LifEndz]

I could actually hear him saying "this deal keeps getting worse all the time" in my head every time you wrote it. Very funny stuff.