By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 06 December 2014
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
Skidmore said:
IamAwsome said:
Skidmore said:
Are we going the Bayonetta 2 road again?

No, not enough backlash, and "Super Duper Mega Street Fighter V: Turbo Edition" will launch on XBO as a technically different game. 

Thats is the hope, but actually if there is some funding from Sony, won't this game be part their property? Unless capcom did an agreement, after that many copies sold we can release it for others plataforms under other name. Just adding more characters and stages and changing the name, won't make it a different game, from a patent stand point.

No, just because Sony might fund development, hell even if they co develop some parts, Sony still does not own the IP.  This specific game will be exclusive to Sony but the terms of the contract signed by both parties will determine what other iteration happens on other consoles.  Hell, there is nothing stopping MS from funding Capcom to make an exclusive version for their system if they wanted to.

Can anyone tell me why this would be any different from MS deal for Tomb Raider.  Doesn't seem like we are seeing the same level of outcry we saw with the Tomb Raider deal.  Pretty much the same parameters exist since Street Fighter is a multiplat game now made exclusive.  

There is no patent standpoint here.  Capcom owns the franchise and would never give up that ownership to Sony or any other cosole maker it would be stupid.  Instead they could add custom features and characters from Sony but that is just dressing for this game.

Saying SF is a multiplat game now made exclusive is like saying Titanfall is a multiplat game now made exclusive. SFIV was multiplat, and EA multiplats all their games, so SFV and TF should have been multiplat, right? Wrong. MS made Titanfall exist, and Sony made SFV exist (they apparently said they helped fund the game in their conference). And since the "precedent" of the prior game being multiplat is what people are falling to, now, I just say, look at Dynasty Warriors. They were all on 360 last gen, but it's PS4 exclusive now. "Bu....bu...but DW is a Japanese heavy game, that's why it's on PS4. Bad example" as if the 360 sold great in Japan?? 

Tomb Raider, on the other hand, was announced multiplatform (then turned exclusive) and if anyone disagrees, just answer me this: when TR was announced, why wasn't it said that it was exclusive, which is something MS does with every exclusive game? Why was there a completely separate exclusivity announcement two months later (announcements are only made when there is a change or there's some new info)? Why, on the Xbox One E3 Games page is it under "featured games" (multiplatform games featured at the conference) and not "blockbuster exclusives" --> http://www.xbox.com/en-US/e3/xbox-one-games. It's because it was a multiplatform game.

So, we have a game that is exclusive from the jump due to helping with funding, not to mention there's cross platform play (something MS doesn't like) vs. a game that was multiplatform, then turned into a timed exclusive. Do you really not see what's different?