sure. if u want to sell or generate profit, u have to invest money

and building up new studios and/or ips, take years of development and huge rsiks.
that would not benefit ms right now


neither did this practice benefit ALL gamers.
it just benefits the games who are on the right side... (or on both)

so good as a business practice

but bad, if u want to judge it by moral aspects

It doesn't benefit anyone. Xbox One gamers were getting the game rgeardless, but MS paid so that PS and PC gamers wont get it (whether it's timed or not, I really don't know anymore).

it's not better for anyone, it's just bad for someone.

I feel like becoming so old when reading articles with information that is not totally correct and should be known by veterans..

Anyway:

In September 1997, Sony Computer Entertainment America signed a deal with Eidos to make console releases for the Tomb Raider franchise exclusive to the PlayStation, preventing the Sega Saturn or the Nintendo 64 from having any Tomb Raider game released for it until 2000, a deal that would prove very beneficial to Sony both in terms of revenue dollars and also in further cementing the PlayStation's growing reputation as the go-to system for must-have exclusive titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_Raider_II

so it doenst benefit ms, that some tr fans would buy an xbox so they can play that game?

i doesnt benefit ms if they sell more units of software because of that times exclusive deal and get more roayalties?

and i doenst benefit if ms adds value to theire console compared to its competitors?

if both have the game, it would be a tie. in this case u get "more"

as example. u have 100 buck. every one else has 100, too.

every one exept u has to give away 50.

u dont have more money after that, but ur the ritchest guy now. does it benift u or not, regardless u would have that 100 bucks anyway?

ofc it does. just not in a "good" way.

we'll never know for sure but i'll bet the actual cash exchange isn't too big since this is only timed-exclusive.

more likely MS agreed to handel the games advertisements and promoptions.   that alone can be 20-50M depending on how hard the ad push is.  that seems like a reasonable fee for timed-exclusivity.   had it been fully 100% exclusive MS would probably have to pay in the ballpark of 100M to make up for all the lost ps4 sales (3M assumption) so timed-exlusivity is certainly below that.

I was talking MS's timed exclusives in general, not TR in particular. and the effect will only keep shrinking over time, as more of these games keep getting released on other platforms

Btw marketing for the first game was 100 million dollars

Your mistaking people like us who are in the know, with the majority of people who are not. If a game is advertised for one console most people will assume its only for one console.

But that number keeps diminishing, and will keep doing so. Age of free and fast information, etc.

well if MS takes liablity for the full $100M marketing budget than i'll just say i can absolutly see why SE took the deal.  MS is good at advertising and i don't think timed-exclusivity will hurt it's sales on ps4 by enough to not overcome 100M dollars.

i'm so much calmer about things now but in the end the worst part of this whole thing is MS trying to lie (by conspicuous absence) about the deal.  at least when sony moneyhats a game as timed exclusive they are upfront and honest about it.  it's the lying that pisses me off the most.

The best selling games on xbox consoles have always been shooters and sports. They tend not to care for anything else.