| WC4Life said: I believe it was Yoshinori Ono (SF producer) who said he had trouble getting SFV funded and then Sony stepped in and that essentially led to greenlitting SFV. If a game does not have budget, you can't consider it greenlit just because it has high chance of being made in the future. The game might not happen at all. And if it did, there is no proof it would be multi-platform. SFV did not exist as a game while RoTTR did and that is the difference. Sony was willing to take the risk from the very start. Microsoft just lessened the risk for SE mid-development. You could say SFV is Sony's game like Scalebound is for Microsoft. Sony is making a game while Microsoft bought a game for limited time. There is a huge difference. |
There is no difference. Square shopped around TR and MS was more than happy to help pay for development and advertisement of the product. No one knows how the deal got done or if Sony was given a chance the end result is that MS was willing to make a deal. Sega shopped around for someone to fund SFV and Sony was more than happy to help pay for development and advertisement. No one knows if MS was given a chance to make an offer but it does not matter because in the end Sony made the deal. The thing that gets these stories out of wack is when gamers add their own opinion to the mix to justify what they say. If you can show any evidence that TR or SFV were in or not in a state to be released for the other system then provide that evidence but right now, I see no difference in both situations.
