Why would Square Enix have it bundled with the Xbox One when it could be bundled in PS4's?
That would be a very attractive bundle. Makes more sense than including Tomb Raider Definitive Edition which everyone has played already by now. What do you think they would price it at? 349?
Not sure I quite get your meaning here. Are you implying that third party bundles on Xbox One can't happen unless the game is also an exclusive?
Completely false, so that can't actually be what you're talking about.
Not sure I quite get your meaning here. Are you implying that third party bundles on Xbox One can't happen unless the game is also an exclusive?
Completely false, so that can't actually be what you're talking about.
I think people should also keep in mind that a psychical bundle has more value than a one with a DD code .
So that could also be a factor .
Is this purely a guess or is there anything that makes you think that this will happen?
If the game were to come out on both the Xbox One and the PS4 at the same time, meaning that Square did not take the exclusive deal, why would they go with Microsoft on bundling or even marketing the game when Sony could just as likely get marketing rights?
Again, assuming this is an alternate world where Square turned down Microsoft's big bag of cash.
Huh? It's like MS can't marketing deal for multipats. I mean they they can and they already have marketing deal for 3rd party games (Fallout 4, R6, The Division...)
EDIT: OK, I get it. Your scenario: SE didn't accept exclusivity deals, why would they accept marketing deal? The answer is simple: because SE will sell more copies than when it's exclusive plus they'll get money and free marketing from MS.
Yeah, but I guess I'm just thinking that at that point, they'd try to get with Sony.
Can someone please point me to the hardware and software estimates?
Thank you.
Does Sony has marketing deal with MGSV? It's out in less than a month and I haven't seen a thing.
Does Sony has marketing deal with MGSV? It's out in less than a month and I haven't seen a thing.
Or they'd rather not risk killing the franchise and grow it instead? Just because you don't agree to give exclusivity to one platform holder doesn't mean you refuse to work with them at all.
Also you should look at it from MS perspective: If your plan is to heavy bundle the game why not just acquire the marketing rights? It should be cheaper.
I understand this.
Don't think that's a big factor with your average customer (GAF is not your average customer).
E3 stage time and exclusive/ times content usually means marketing deal. MS has rainbow six, and fallout. Not sure about just cause. It's not really big enough to put too much weight behindWhy is everyone assuming Microsoft has some marketing rights for Fallout 4 ?
When Sony or Microsoft has marketing rights, the first thing you see is the PlayStation or Xbox logo combined with every video of the game, that's the case for SW Battlefront or even Assassin's Creed Syndicate. EDIT : oddly I don't find Xbox logos on Evolve or The Division video, I assumed it was the case so maybe MS is less intrusive with those things.
I'm aware we saw Todd Howard at the Xbox conference but it wasn't for some early beta or DLC, it was just for the modding functionality wich will eventually come to PS4 too. The Fallout 3 Xbox 360 gift does not mean they got marketing rights either (see Just Cause 2 with Just Cause 3).
I don't see any sign of a real marketing partnership between MS et Bethesda for Fallout 4. Also, according to Square Enix, isn't Microsoft supposed to pull all it's passion and advertising power behind Rise of the Tomb Raider the same day ? An Xbox One bundle with Fallout 4 would be the silliest thing to do if you want to promote Lara in november.
With all the big third party marketing deals Sony has struck this year, I wonder if this will be the first December where they beat MS?
With all the big third party marketing deals Sony has struck this year, I wonder if this will be the first December where they beat MS?
I'm going to have to check but whichever console sells the most in November usually sells the most in December. 2013 was different as the PS4 was supply constrained.
EDIT: 2009, PS3 outsold the 360 by 50k in December.
Why and how did this happen?
If there's no price parity, I don't see it happening. Parents and Black Friday shoppers are looking for deals, making them more price-sensitive than normal.
So the PS4 is close to outselling the XB1 2:1 worldwide yet Sony is sweating it because they will do a price drop? LOL, ok.If they do a price drop this year, I think it's fair to say they're sweating it a bit.
If they do a price drop this year, I think it's fair to say they're sweating it a bit.
Does Sony has marketing deal with MGSV? It's out in less than a month and I haven't seen a thing.
So the PS4 is close to outselling the XB1 2:1 worldwide yet Sony is sweating it because they will do a price drop? LOL, ok.
They're winning in essentially every single market it's sold. They're close to 2:1 worldwide.
They couldn't care less.
Oh? The US is a major region, you know. You can't honestly say they couldn't care less about winning US.
That's ridiculous.
Oh? The US is a major region, you know. You can't honestly say they couldn't care less about winning US.
That's ridiculous.
Oh? The US is a major region, you know. You can't honestly say they couldn't care less about winning US.
That's ridiculous.
I just realized The Witcher III isn't even in the top ten.
Gaming is dead to me.
This discussion of who's "sweating", "desperate" or not is seriously the least productive thing that can't be talked about in this thread. It's a bunch of semantics based on different perspectives. Makes no sense to split hairs over whether or not a company is "sweating".
Don't know. I think the meaning is that they are getting the money from MS much like Ubisoft did for AC.
MS is trying to increase TR sales on their platform, an IP that usually favours PS when it comes to sales much like AC. They also get a timed exclusive IP that is favoured in Europe.
If the game were to come out on both the Xbox One and the PS4 at the same time, meaning that Square did not take the exclusive deal, why would they go with Microsoft on bundling or even marketing the game when Sony could just as likely get marketing rights?
Again, assuming this is an alternate world where Square turned down Microsoft's big bag of cash.
US only makes up for about 34% of their overall sales. EU and ROTW make up the 66%. Now I wouldn't go as far as saying US doesn't matter to them because of course it does. But the US market is much more important to Microsoft since it's over 50% of their sales.
@Pathfinder: The price drop have been planned for at least year now (judging by Verendus posts), and it was planned to happen this year.
The US makes up, like only a third of the PS4's global sales. It's significant, but I'm pretty sure Sony won't be kicking themselves because the XB1 is quite close in the US. Some people seem to still have the US=WW mentality.Oh? The US is a major region, you know. You can't honestly say they couldn't care less about winning US.
That's ridiculous.
ESO still pulling a bigger audience on the XB1, that FFXIV effect still?
If we focus solely on my friend Justin's house, the XB1 has 100% of the market cornered. Sony and Nintendo better step it up.
How will a price drop affect that market?This made me lol. It's crazy how well Microsoft has segmented the market.
We need pics 😊If we focus solely on my friend Justin's house, the XB1 has 100% of the market cornered. Sony and Nintendo better step it up.
E3 stage time and exclusive/ times content usually means marketing deal. MS has rainbow six, and fallout. Not sure about just cause. It's not really big enough to put too much weight behind