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. 

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.

Insiders on gaf  in the know with Sq uare say it was already being made and is being made for all platforms..MS didn;pt fund shit or it would nt be on PS4. Your posts here are embarassing. Sony even had it on their 2013 e3 show. TR didn;t need any money for budget, it ws allready fully funded by square, you are naive iof you think this was anything other then a desperate atrempt to get an uncharted like game as MS cannot make them theirself, Phil evensaid this.

Please don't muddy up this conversation with hate. 

WTF are you talking about? HAte? I stated facts as we know them. Where am I hating? Kagari on gaf already confirme over a year ago ms never funded a penny of development.