| VanceIX said: *sigh* 1.Where did I say all games should be moneyhatted? A select few will always be moneyhatted every generation. It sucks to be on the losing side of the moneyhat, but I'm sure plenty of Xbox owners were disappointed when they found out that GTA SA was going to be over a year late to their system. 2.You talk like Tomb Raider was a Playstation-only franchise, when it wasn't. The franchise has spanned these platforms- Dreamcast, Game Boy Advance, iOS, Macintosh, Mac OS X, MS-DOS, Microsoft Windows, Mobile phone, N-Gage 2.0, GameCube, Nintendo DS, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, PlayStation Portable, Sega Saturn, Wii, Windows Mobile, Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One. 3.The game was originally released for Saturn and DOS along with Playstation. The franchise has spanned over a dozen platforms. Thinking that Playstation users should be entitled to one is rediculous. The only people entitled to the game are the ones developing and publishing it, and they did what was best for them. |
1. Where did I say that you said it? What you said is that if it's so important to them, they should moneyhat it. I listed games that are all important to Sony. They have good reason to moneyhat every single one of them, but obviously they can't and it's a terrible practise (the way I see it).So I disagree with the notion that if they really want a third party game on their console, they should moneyhatt.
2. Nope, I was very specific. I said it found its success on ps consoles. Tomb Raider, just like Tekken was huge on ps consoles. The sales dicrepancy between ps and the rest of the consoles on which it was released is too massive to ignore. If you ask the average gamer "which console was Tomb Raider/Tekken" released on? They'll say playstation. Same with Spyro and Crash despite them having been released on many other consoles. Hence Spyro and Crash being the most requested characters for PS All Stars Battle Royal out of all the third and first party characters that appeared on ps consoles.
3. Never said they were entitled to it. I said they would have every reason to expect it to be released on their platform. It always has (that's 17 years you can't possibly ignore) and the ps4 is selling well enough to justify the game's release on it. Had it been doing as badly as the vita is, they'd have every reason to doubt that it will.
Underlined: Debatable. Companies make bad decsions all the time. It remains to be seen if it was what's best for them.
If fable was owned by Molyneux and he was moneyhatted by Sony to release it as a timed exclusive on ps4, I'd hate it even though I'm a huge fan of Fable (and not an xb1 owner any time soon). I would find it disrespectul to the MS fans who want to play it and who made it the franchise that it is today. This is not an "MS is bad no matter what, Sony is God cuz Sony" case. I wouldn't have liked it if the roles were reversed.
