Bandorr 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.
|
Azzanation said:
No one is dodging questions, you seem, to avoid what Square said. MS helped fund the development of RoTR. Exclusive deals happen all the time and it all goes under how much they spend for it. Clearly MS spent less then Sony to make it a pure exclusive. Sony got in early and made sure SFV was never coming to other consoles while MS got in a little later and made it a 1 year deal. Sony just said it better on the internet and gamers think they did no wrong.
Both games were coming out regardless, there is no difference to what they have done. They both gave money to 3rd party devs and both made exclusive deals.
Let’s look at it like this, 1 franchise with a history of being a big multiplat game, gets a permanent exclusive tag for one platform which is ok but the other game with a similar history gets a 1 year deal and its wrong?
The logic on these threads amaze me.
|
So first you are saying the game exists because of Microsoft. Then you are saying it was was coming out regardless of. Add that to the long list of odd things you've said. Like Microsoft not being picky where games are going.
This conversation clearly isn't going anywhere. You are just flip flopping and saying whatever you want no matter any facts already in evidence. This will be my last response to you on point. To believe Microsoft was instrumental in the game actually coming out, but also assuming that Microsoft would be ok with it coming to both steam AND playstation 4 is just beyond belief.
Have a good day.
|
IKR?
LMAO @ insisting that a sequel to a game that sold 8.5M copies "wouldn't exist without MS".
Meanwhile, Capcom literally saying they don't have the money for SFV and MS giving them the finger with their no cross-play policy which Sony gladly accepted="moneyhat".
