By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Street Fighter V teaser (PS4 and PC only)

Hiku said:
Dark_Feanor said:
Why aren´t people raging of that offence to half the players?

It only works one way?

As has been explained a few times if you go back to read some of the previous posts, by Tamron for example, it would be a comparable situation if the previous itteration of SF sold vastly more on the Xbox platform, and SFV was initially advertised as Multiplatform.
But that's not the case. SF4 sold more on PS3, and it was advertised as PS4 and PC exclusive right off the bat.

MS bought Dead Rising. Sony seem to have funded this development in some way or another. (Though the fact that it's advertised for PC right away suggests it's different from how MS acquired TR.)

WoW!!!

So much logic spin guys.

One thing that I´m proud is my memory. I remember how Tomb Raider situation was delt here and other foruns. It also tells me that TR was never advertised to any platform before the XOne exclusive deal. Also, "...sold vastly more..." is a pointless argument, one have to assume Capcom lost money porting SF4 to Xbox 360 and they would also lose money porting to the XOne.

PC version sugest clearly that Sony moneyhated SFV in some way similar to Dead Rising, both belong to Capcon, and they can do whatever they want that is not bound by  exclusivity agrements.

This is how things works, just don´t be hypocritical saying this case is different from Tomb Raider or others third party exclusives deals.



Around the Network
VXIII said:
I didn't know that Street Fighter is a big deal until I entered this thread.
I care about exclusivity when the purpose behind it is to push the hardware to its limits and gives the developer quality time to refine the game as much as possible through focused development process. Games like SF don't need exclusivity. So I couldn't care less to be honest.

Anything Capcom needs to be exclusive right now

SF, Deep Down, Dead Rising, MonHun (main series). They just dont seem to have the money to develop a bunch of 8th gen titles.



Wright said:
iTechHeads said:

Dead Rising 3.

Titanfall.

Tomb Raider.

The war started a long time ago dude.


Can't say the same about Tomb Raider, but I was under the impression that DR3 and Titanfall wouldn't have been possible if not for MS input and money.

 

Using the same logic, maybe SFV wouldn't have been possible anyway without Sony.


no, both Titanfall and TR would have been made with or without MS's involvment. you are telling me EA wouldnt want to publish a FPS made by the guys who made the CoD franchise? EA just wanted to eliminate a risk. TR reboot sold 7 million units, you are thinking that Square would have spent all that money to reboot the franchise, then after shipping 7 million units, they wouldnt make another? its all PR crap that was said. i dont know about SF5, but i would bet it would have been made with or without this exclusivity deal. 



Wright said:
iTechHeads said:

Dead Rising 3.

Titanfall.

Tomb Raider.

The war started a long time ago dude.


Can't say the same about Tomb Raider, but I was under the impression that DR3 and Titanfall wouldn't have been possible if not for MS input and money.

 

Using the same logic, maybe SFV wouldn't have been possible anyway without Sony.

Yeah, I think Titanfall and maybe DR3 would have been never a thing if MS wouldn't have helped to develop these games (at least financially). Tomb Raider would be also a thing without MS, otherwise it wouldn't release on PS but later. I doubt that Ms pays for something which would never release without them and then they let it also release on PS. 



LurkerJ said:
JayWood2010 said:

Considering Street Fighter sold 3.22m on X360 im going to assume this i a timed exclusive.  For how long, idk.  However def big news, and im just glad SFV is coming out before 2019.  Though im not a big SF fan i know there is a lot of them.  I may try getting into it again though

I am going to assume Tomb Raider is timed exclusive using that logic.




Around the Network

Not beating around the bush about exclusivity.

Good news for PS4 owners. Bad news for XB1 owners that just bought one because it's cheap.



My 8th gen collection

The Fury said:
starcraft said:

Dude, come on. It sold over 3 million on Xbox 360. Of course Sony paid.

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

bananaking21 said:


no, both Titanfall and TR would have been made with or without MS's involvment. you are telling me EA wouldnt want to publish a FPS made by the guys who made the CoD franchise? EA just wanted to eliminate a risk. TR reboot sold 7 million units, you are thinking that Square would have spent all that money to reboot the franchise, then after shipping 7 million units, they wouldnt make another? its all PR crap that was said. i dont know about SF5, but i would bet it would have been made with or without this exclusivity deal. 


I didn't include Tomb Raider example because that one was obviously moneyhatt I was talking mostly of Titanfall and Dead Rising 3.

 

SF developer said they didn't have the manpower to do the fifth entry. Hence why I'm saying that, just like with DR3, they may have needed a contract to make it possible. DR3, after all, ended up in PC too. This one is getting a console/PC release as well.



BMaker11 said:
jlmurph2 said:

I feel like the next big one is RE. But no idea who gets 7. Either way, hope Capcom didn't sell cheap because that's millions of copies they're losing.

I had a theory last gen, and I think it holds water. I said this in the wake of PS3 losing exclusive after exclusive. The theory is:

Going multiplatform doesn't "expand the userbase". It "divides the userbase".

GTA: San Andreas (PS2 only): 27M; GTAIV (PS3 and 360): 25M

Tekken 5 (PS2 only): 3.87M; Tekken 6 (PS3 and 360): 3.93M

Final Fantasy X (PS2 only): 8.05M; FFXIII (PS3 and 360): 7.31M

Devil May Cry (PS2 only): 2.99M; DMC4 (PS3 and 360): 2.86M

Virtua Fighter 4 (PS2 only): 1.81M; Virtua Fighter 5 (PS3 and 360): 1.33M

 

...and you dont think being in different generations (so different variables, markets and times) or the games being on the PS2 had anything to do with it?



Burek said:
Dark_Feanor said:
Why aren´t people raging of that offence to half the players?

It only works one way?

Feel free to rage all you want, nothing's stopping you. You may even create a thread about it... At least you'll be able to ventcall the rage you didn't show during Tomb Raider or Titanfall announcements.

But there is no reason to rage on a wider scale, as about 80% of gamers are still getting the game on their platform. 


How could I show a rage that I don´t feel?

This is business my friend. 

I just think it´s funny how the table turns so fast and some have to spin the logic to keep a narative: Sony good for the players, Microsoft the evil corporation blocking games from the people.

Yeah, for almost two years we´ve heard how MS strategy was wrong and doomed. How buying exclusives is a waste of money and how the heroic Sony was investing in new and interesting games and IP´s.

Now we have the... 14th? instalmente of a franchise to brag about.

Plus: I realy suck at fighting games.