This is all speculations. We dont know what MS did with Sqaure. All we know is that Sqaure said MS is helping fund the development. No different to what Sony did with SFV. Reason why TR is probably coming out on all platforms is based off how much money they spent on it. Sony obviously spent more on SFV and we are talking about MS, there not picky on where there games go. Theres rumours claiming Rare's Replay might be coming to a Nintendo Platform.
The more money spent on a game the more chance the game gains more quality. MS helped fund it which helps Square and Crystal produce RoTR. These inside deals Sony, MS and Nintendo make are complicated. They will never tell the world the truth behind it.
At the end of the day, both Sony and MS help fund the development of both games which leads to some exclusive rights except Sony keeps SFV and MS enjoyed a years exclusivness.
Why do i care? I dont, i game on PC, i get both anyway. My point is gamers are blinded by what they read and how it presents itself and not looking at the core of the subject. Sony might have said it in a nicer way then MS but its all the same thing. Just like Bayonetta 2 on WiiU.
Yet you dodge the question time, and time, and time.
If Microsoft funded tomb raider to the extent it only exist because of Microsoft -why it is on steam and coming to ps4?
If They didn't - then how is it similiar to street fighter?
Also Bayonetta isn't similiar to either. Bayonetta 2 is only on the wii U because Sony AND Microsoft turned them down. There was no money hatting at all, nintendo saved it.
To sum it up. 1) Bayonetta exist because nintendo supported it. 2) Street fighter exists (this early) because sony supported it. 3) Tomb raider would have already existed, and was delayed because of Microsoft.
edit: Also they are VERY picky of where their games go. Otherwise they would be on steam - not windows 10. Quantum? SSO? Dead rising? Ryse etc etc would be on playstation 4. They are exclusives - so of course Microsoft cares where they go.
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.