By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Tomb Raider vs Street Fighter Double Standards

IamAwsome on 21 June 2015
DonFerrari said:
IamAwsome said:

I don't agree with Azzanation's arguement that TR wouldn't have happened without MS, but that article raises a point. No the situations regarding SFV and ROTTR are not the same, but it doesn't change the fact that MS helped to fund the game which led to timed exclusivity.  Square Enix wanted to maximize profits, and how do you do that? You find someone who will chip in a few bucks, and AFAIK they appear to be doing the same thing with the FFVII remake and all signs point to it being a timed exclusive. That shouldn't surprise anyone given it's the same publisher. 


FF VII Remake was also clear... coming first to Playstation... not "Coming exclusive this holiday for X1"

OK I will admit that. It was a PR disaster. 



Around the Network
Dusk on 21 June 2015
Azzanation said:

I am sure i am not the only one here thinking this, but is it wried that every article i read about Tomb Raider's Sequal, all i read in the comments are salty posts towards MS. Yet everytime i read up on Street Fighter 5 articles every one is happy and no one cares about it being a permanent PS4/PC game. These deals are very much the same yet when MS claimed TR as a timed exclusive gamers sank to a new low to even threaten the Devs, but while Sony announced SF5 will never come to Xbox seems to be ok and gamers move on, much like backwards compatibility.

I know Sony are behind SF5 but thats no difference to MS and TR. Lets not assume that all there doing is publishing and paying there way, theres more to it then that and i am sure SF5 is the same with Sony.

Lets get the facts straight here with MS and CD.

http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/249214/Microsoft+helps+fund+Rise+of+the+Tomb+Raider/

Quote ***And we will definitely be spending money on developing the game*** straight from Phil Spencers tweet.

I am a PC gamer and i will be getting both these great games however i am disgusted at the gamers who like to throw threats around but turn a blind eye on the SF5 deal. If your not happy with 3rd party games moving platforms then i recommand going PC gaming or buying all platforms because since the beginning of gaming, this has always been happening, its the way the industry is. MGS and FF were Nintendo exclusives and RE had exclusives only on Nintendo etc. Things will change and if your buying your console primary for 3rd party games i wish you the best of luck because with next gen they can all move around again. Money talks in this industry, not whingers.

Accept it and move on, if you really want to play the games you like then no one is holding your hands back from making a purchase.

I agree. Not that different from when Nintendo funded Bayo 2 and all that as well. That didn't stop people from blasting the hell out of Nintendo or creating petitions or begging Platinum to port it. The only difference here is that it benefits the Sony fanbase for SF5. Since they are the largest fan base it's all good.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

IamAwsome on 21 June 2015
Normchacho said:
IamAwsome said:

I don't agree with Azzanation's arguement that TR wouldn't have happened without MS, but that article raises a point. No the situations regarding SFV and ROTTR are not the same, but it doesn't change the fact that MS helped to fund the game which led to timed exclusivity.  Square Enix wanted to maximize profits, and how do you do that? You find someone who will chip in a few bucks, and AFAIK they appear to be doing the same thing with the FFVII remake and all signs point to it being a timed exclusive. That shouldn't surprise anyone given it's the same publisher. 


Both Sony and Microsoft are paying for parts of these games in one way or another by buying exclusivity (timed or otherwise). But the nature of the deals is very different.

Microsoft is paying for the Xbox version of TR to come out first.

Sony is paying for the PS4 version of SFV to exsist.

Um ok? Like I said, Square Enix sought a partner to get (even more) profits. It doesn't matter what kind of financial situation they were in. They wanted money. Whoever chipped in would have gotten the game earlier. I know the SFV story, but I'm tired of the jabs at MS (not necessarily from you) claiming this was just another "moneyhat". Evidently it wasn't. 



HomokHarcos on 21 June 2015

Do Capcom now need help from Sony to make Resident Evil games?



Dusk on 21 June 2015
Mmmfishtacos said:

Sony helped fund SF5 to get the game out much sooner.

MS is giving money to keep TR off Ps4 at least for the holidays.

See the differences between the two?

 

Exclusive to PS4, it still would have come out eventually, probably after the next Monster Hunter game, and it would have been multiplat.

Yeah, extra money for timed exclusivity, like FFVII or Battlefront.

Not really. I think it's your perception as to what benefits you. I don't own either console so neither benefit me at this point.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Around the Network
Ashadian on 21 June 2015
Azzanation said:
daredevil.shark said:
Sony is actually developing the game with capcom. Its coming to PC also. Whereas tomb raider is in different position.


Tomb Raider is also coming to PC and MS are also helping with the developement.

Microsoft aren't developing the game at all. They will be helping the marketing of it only. 

There is no confirmation of what platforms TR will be releasing on because MS are being very shady with the details



Normchacho on 21 June 2015
Dusk said:
Mmmfishtacos said:

Sony helped fund SF5 to get the game out much sooner.

MS is giving money to keep TR off Ps4 at least for the holidays.

See the differences between the two?

 

Exclusive to PS4, it still would have come out eventually, probably after the next Monster Hunter game, and it would have been multiplat.

Yeah, extra money for timed exclusivity, like FFVII or Battlefront.

Not really. I think it's your perception as to what benefits you. I don't own either console so neither benefit me at this point.

What? Battlefront isn't a timed exclusive for anybody...



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Mmmfishtacos on 21 June 2015
Dusk said:
Mmmfishtacos said:

Sony helped fund SF5 to get the game out much sooner.

MS is giving money to keep TR off Ps4 at least for the holidays.

See the differences between the two?

 

Exclusive to PS4, it still would have come out eventually, probably after the next Monster Hunter game, and it would have been multiplat.

Yeah, extra money for timed exclusivity, like FFVII or Battlefront.

Not really. I think it's your perception as to what benefits you. I don't own either console so neither benefit me at this point.


I own every console plus pc. My perception isn't what you think it is. 



Dusk on 21 June 2015
Normchacho said:
Dusk said:
Mmmfishtacos said:

Sony helped fund SF5 to get the game out much sooner.

MS is giving money to keep TR off Ps4 at least for the holidays.

See the differences between the two?

 

Exclusive to PS4, it still would have come out eventually, probably after the next Monster Hunter game, and it would have been multiplat.

Yeah, extra money for timed exclusivity, like FFVII or Battlefront.

Not really. I think it's your perception as to what benefits you. I don't own either console so neither benefit me at this point.

What? Battlefront isn't a timed exclusive for anybody...


My bad, Bobafett then. It's not timed, but it is exclusive.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Normchacho on 21 June 2015
IamAwsome said:
Normchacho said:


Both Sony and Microsoft are paying for parts of these games in one way or another by buying exclusivity (timed or otherwise). But the nature of the deals is very different.

Microsoft is paying for the Xbox version of TR to come out first.

Sony is paying for the PS4 version of SFV to exsist.

Um ok? Like I said, Square Enix sought a partner to get (even more) profits. It doesn't matter what kind of financial situation they were in. They wanted money. Whoever chipped in would have gotten the game earlier. I know the SFV story, but I'm tired of the jabs at MS (not necessarily from you) claiming this was just another "moneyhat". Evidently it wasn't. 

Wait? How was it not? It's just a regular timed exclusivity deal isn't it? Which let me be clear isn't the issue people had with the TR deal. Timed deals really aren't new or uncommon. The two main issues people had with it were that a significant majority of TR fans don't own an Xbox (60% of people who bought the last TR on console bought it on a PS) and just how badly they handled the announcement.

But back on topic. As I said earlier, the SFV deal and the TR deal are very different. So the OPs assertion that anyone who was upset about TR but not SFV is a hypocrite is just plain silly.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.