The Fury said:
I'm comparing the decision SquEnix/Crystal Dynamics made against this very new piece of information. Tomb Raider was pulled from PC not just Sony consoles after it was announced. This is what is different here, if Sony were going to do the same they would have asked for it to be PS4 only. It's not, why? Think outside the box a little. I'm not saying they didn't put up some money for it but due to Xbox One's poor start in Japan and other parts of Asia (Korea), the articles someone else posted about not being able to afford to make a new SF game, it stands to reason that Capcom or the SF department made the decision to cut costs. Sony forking over some money is also a valid reason but without the game being announced before hand, you don't know. |
You're asking me to think outside the solar system.
Come at this from another perspective. Over three million people (retail only) played the game on Xbox 360, plenty of them in the USA and UK, where the Xbox One is performing fantastically.
Lets be conservative and say 2 million of them would have picked it up on Xbox One. Lets be even more conservative and say Capcom would only have seen $15 per copy on average. Thats $35 million in revenue - conservatively. For a port that might, might have cost a few million.
People that have a problem with Tomb Raider will have a problem with this. People that had no problem with Tomb Raider wont have a problem with this.
People who think this has nothing to do any form of direct financial incentive need to go back and look at the maths again 
. You talk about cutting costs? Diluting your viable userbase doesn't cut costs, it costs potential revenue. Thats why when Microsoft gets an exclusive, people assume money changed hands. Doesn't mean we'll ever know how much. Doesn't mean the cost wasn't less because of userbase, strength in certain regions, or legacy popularity.
But it certainly means Sony offered something serious up for the game.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
