Rise of Tomb Raider 3X the sales on PC compared to Xbox One's debut.

[Azuren]

Azzanation said:

Azuren said:

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.

Regardless of what you're saying or arguing, if it was the same thing then RotTR would never appear on PS4.

 

But it is. 

 

So it isn't. 

 

Reference all the links you want, there's something fundamentally different at the very core of these exchanges, or RotTR would be an MS console exclusive.