| BMaker11 said: 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. |
I read the Tomb Raider article and it's difficult to decide what kind of interpretation should be taken since... well, it's PR. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony did moneyhat TR for the PS1 considering the company's dominant position at that time. I also would not be surprised the other way because of the CD-ROM format as McGarvey mentioned. The cartridges on the N64 were really expensive and weren't the best media format to work with. At this point, it's quite silly to argue whether Sony moneyhatted TR or not as that article didn't really show anything conclusive. However, that is not to say Sony is clean. All companies have done this because it's business at the end of the day.
FFXIV is only on the PS4 and PC because of Microsoft's "no cross-platform play" clause. This clause also played a role in SFV's console exclusivity on the PS4 as part of the deal included cross-platform play between PC and PS4 gamers. Hopefully, part of Phil Spencer's rectification plan is to get rid of that clause altogether.
What I'm curious to know is what was Microsoft doing while Sony and Capcom agreed to a deal on SFV. Was the deal done with MS unaware? Perhaps Ono wanted to make SFV for all systems and implement cross-platform play across all versions, but MS said no. Whatever it is, we may not know the whole story until years later...
