| LudicrousSpeed said: Hold on, gonna wait for your goal posts to stop moving before i respond. ... Ok, they look set. Thats a lot of text you slapped in there trying to explain away an exclusive deal you'd previously spent 2 or 3 posts trying your darndest to convince us all would never happen. I wasnt aware Sony was in the business of entering exclusive deals for products they according to you absolutely do not need because theyre like OMG so dominant. Furthermore, devs ALWAYS gush about the publishers they sign deals with. Remember, only Microsoft can provide the online infrastructure Titanfall needs, friend! Lastly, however you want to make excuses or stick your head in the sand as to why Sony struck a deal for Tomb Raider to be console exclusive to their platform, it doesnt change the fact that it exists. Thus, i dont need any other examples. Feel free to post on my wall if you need any more help with this. |
I didn't move the goal post at all. And I never said an exclusive deal would never happen. This issue you brought up was about buying 3rd party exclusivity (read: not exactly the same as striking up a deal). I gave a reasonable explanation as to why the TR situation wasn't "buying exclusivity" but very well was a voluntary agreement, based on the circumstances. You make fun of "OMG so dominant", yet the COO, himself, pretty much said "we partnered with them because OMG so dominant". You think Tekken was exclusive because Sony bought it out? How about MGS1? Or did it actually make more sense because the PS1 was "OMG so dominant", as you so put it; or because it had better hardware (that was explicitly the case for FF7, which I keep referring to) than the competitors?
And the fact that there exists a deal doesn't mean anything, by its lonesome. You took issue with the comment of buying exclusivity, and you have yet to prove that Sony did such a thing. Sony has a "deal" with FFXIV, but they didn't buy exclusivity for it, for example. You're sticking to Tomb Raider, not because "you don't need to find any other examples" but rather because you can't find any other examples, and TR was the closest thing you could find that closely resembles the point you're trying to refute. Too bad I actually read the article instead of just the headline.
So, again, the point still stands that SFV (and every iteration of it) being exclusive is nothing people can whine about, since "Microsoft started it", per se.
