By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Azzanation on 25 February 2016
Edit Thread
Azuren said:
Azzanation said:

You need to do some reading. If you think theres a big difference between the two games on how they got developed your kidding yourself.

http://www.windowscentral.com/square-enix-praises-microsoft-rise-tomb-raider

*Square-Enix stated previously that Microsoft are helping fund Rise of the Tomb Raider's development*

What difference does it make, both TR and SF were in bad postitions. You saying if it wasnt for Sony SFV wouldnt exist.. is the exact same thing in saying if it wasnt for MS, TR wouldnt exist. They both funded the projects and in TR's case, Sony didnt want a bar just like when MS didnt want a bar of SF. Both Square and Capcon wanted a company to help publish there game. First in first serve is exactly what happen.

There was always going to be another SF and TR game. Except you think Sony did no wrong with SF but MS did with TR. Thats the problem there. Infact Sony did worse becasue they completely moneyhatted the game to avoid other consoles where as MS didnt and still allow its competitors the game.

You give company money, they will give you exclusives.

 

 

Eeeeeeexcept both games would exist, regardless. SF is too big of a series to end, and Tomb Raider was a really good reboot that couldn't not have a sequel.

 

The difference is Capcom is becoming a fairly reserved company and avoiding risks, so a SFV wouldnt have happened for a long time unless Sony ponied up for development and development cost. Square, on the other hand, is one of the largest publishers in the world and doesn't shy away from the ridiculous. They didn't need help with Tomb Raider, nor did Microsoft's influence speed it up. If Microsoft really did play a legitimate role in RotTR, then it would never appear on a PlayStation console. Instead, they simply paid for timed exclusivity. 

 

SFV: Owned in part by Sony as a game but IP owned by Capcom, will never be on Xbox

RotTR: Owned entirely by Square, will appear on PlayStation as soon as the contract to not release it ends.

 

They're totally different based simply on the fact that RotTR will be on PS4 by the end of the year. 

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/05/square-enix-disappointed-by-sales-of-tomb-raider-wants-to-maximise-profits-during-development/

Sqaure were expecting 6m sales on the Reboot, and Square were not happy with the game sales. MS kept TR to be a major AAA title, while Sqaure were looking at other ways to produce TR and probably cutting the costs. If it wasnt for MS's funding TR might not be as good as it is today. The funding made sqaure make it a big AAA game and not cheapening out on us gamers.

As for SFV Sony did the exact same thing, they gave Capcon money to not only realease the game sooner but to also keep it off other platforms. Why is it ok for Sony to boycott competitors and MS arent? MS helped fund the development of RoTR which is why Sqaure allowed MS to have some of the benefits. Sounds fair to me doesnt it. If you paid with your own money to help develope a game wouldnt you want benefits? Both games are the same, they both took money to keep it off competitors platforms. Theres no right or wrong here. There both as low as each other.

If you think Sony did great with the SFV deal then you should be thankful to MS for allowing TR to maintain its AAA budget and giving us one of the best games last year.