If you weren’t, you weren’t looking at the right things.

That’s some mighty fine downplaying, son.

*cough*

Seriously, did I just have a fucking stroke? Did that actually just happen?!

Read the question. What first party games have come out this year exactly?

Incorrect. The PS3 continues to outsell the 360 worldwide. And the handheld stats you’re quoting have nothing to do with anything.

The PS3 outsold the Xbox 360, with a year less in its lifecycle, and without the RRoD sales to pad its numbers. Not sure what you’re getting at.

What you’re talking about is a first party developer, which neither Capcom nor Crytek are. Ryse and Dead Rising 3 were partially funded by Microsoft, but that doesn’t mean they get a cut of the profits. That isn’t the way the agreement is structured. If Capcom / Crytek were to release their game on every platform…

Licensing fees are per unit, and are usually between $4 to $10 for every game sold. That’s a pretty substantial amount, particularly if you’re handing it to your competitor. Sony owns part of the Blu-Ray technology, like they owned part of the CD-ROM technology. That one time fee is passed on to the customer, and…

Because the money in owning a platform comes from licensing fees that publishers pay you to make games for your platform. If you have a first party title, so much the better because you don’t have to pay licensing fees and you have an exclusive draw make consumers choose your platform over others. The bigger your…

Just like Dead Rising 3, Street Fighter V probably wouldn’t exist without Capcom partnering with a company like Microsoft or Sony.

Not the same thing as paying a company to stop developing for their competitor.

That’s based on VGChartz “data”. Tell me that I don’t have to explain to you why that is unreliable.

That’s a bewildering argument, considering Microsoft is the only one limiting the audience. A game that wouldn’t exist without funding would have no audience at all.

And if you’re really arguing that developers should release every game wide, go get pissed off at Nintendo for not releasing Super Mario World on the…

Well, I’d comment on Titanfall sales if Electronic Arts were willing to release some official numbers. The last time they commented on it, they said that they sold 925k in March 2014 across Xbox One and PC. They’ve been pretty damn silent on it since. The financial results from EA’s earnings report in Titanfall’s…

Not remotely. I will parse this in the most simple terms possible to avoid ambiguity.

If Sony hadn’t funded From Software, Bloodborne wouldn’t exist.

If Microsoft hadn’t funded Respawn, players would be playing Titanfall on the PS4.

It’s absolutely that impressive. Sales on five platforms compared to sales on one platform, and Bloodborne still almost won. Put that in any market you want, and that’s fantastic. But hey, we don’t have to use the UK figures that you brought up to support your argument, let’s look at the whole world.

Not avoiding the topic at all. Bloodborne was never in development for any other platform, while Titanfall and Tomb Raider were in development for PS4 as well until Microsoft paid them to stop. That’s a pretty stark contrast.

Go figure that Hardline, released on four consoles and PC manages to outsell a game that’s only available on one console. The fact that it still came within 22,500 units of outselling a game released on four consoles and PC should be the takeaway there.

I know this because the exclusivity was a surprise to Vince Zampella, CEO of Respawn. The deal was made by EA during parallel development for both consoles and PC, and happened so suddenly that he hadn’t even heard the deal had been made before the press started asking him about it. Look it up.

As for Tomb Raider, do…

Bloodborne was always an exclusive. Titanfall and Tomb Raider were in development for both platforms until Microsoft opened their checkbook. Entirely not the same thing.