I have the game, i have the box art, i played, and NO MS studio there, thanks.

Next time do some research

And change? Mass effect studio listed as MS publish, change?huh?

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Mass-Effect/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d8024d5307e8

ORIGINAL RELEASE DATE: 11/20/2007

DEVELOPER: BioWare Corp.

PUBLISHER: Microsoft Game Studios

Learn the difference between 2 games boxart in right bottom right corner

No, there was some buyout defense plan that Capcom did not renew. They were not going to sell themselves. All those reports meant was that maybe potentially sometime in the future, maybe someone could accumulate enough stock to take over the company.

I don't know about Square, but we all saw their comments about TR still not making a profit after like 5 million sales. So it's obvious game development is pretty risky. Good thing for both of these companies you mentioned, that a console manufacturer is willing to foot the bill for development in exchange for exclusive aspects to their game.

And if Sony didn't use loads of money to buy their way into the industry (eating huge losses on hardware, cheaper licensing fees than anyone else, and 3rd party moneyhats) the Playstation brand wouldn't be anywhere either. Turns out you gotta spend money to make money.

You're right, we have seen it before. Hell, this isn't even the first time this very franchise has been bought to prevent other console versions. Sony did this same thing with this franchise during the PSone days. Just one of those moneyhat 3rd party scenarios I mentioned above ;)

Yeah, and before Capcom was in trouble Microsoft was still publishing Dead Rising. Also for Tomb Raider Squares complaints were focused on the last gen consoles and PC, not the profits from the content  after  the next gen consoles were put out. I'm sure Square sold enough to get a profit off of all five platforms instead of just three (When they were stating five million wasnt enough). Microsofts publishing wouldn't have stopped most of those companies games from coming out save for the platform. Some were PC exclusive (Left 4 Dead) and others were coming to console anyway (Dead Rising, Gears of War), but MS published them and made deals to keep the games away from Sony (Mass Effect). The reason why Ninja Gaiden is called Sigma for Sony is because MS tried to keep Ninja Gaiden as a franchise away from Sony. EA by default of purchasing broke Biowares exclusive publishing contract for consoles. 

Everyone knows as long as Capcom draws breath Sony cannot keep Street Fighter from Microsoft. There will be a Super Street FIghter after the first game. Sony knows there is no need to break a contract because Capcom has so many names for Street FIghter that it isnt even funny and every gen we get our daily dose of it. Capcom's proclivities preceed them. Outside of indies Sony has no real shield from Microsofts third party onslaught. Hopefully they have plan.

Either way, I'm buying Tomb Raider 2 on the one right next to my Uncharted 4 other PS4 and i'm playing both after Halo no matter what. Not because I like Halo more, but because I know my boys (who tend to be shooter fanatics) will have me on Halo with them. Hopefully you'll join me when those games come out on either platform. 

The only reason Square took the plunge on the massive development of Tomb Raiders new look is because they saw the profits Uncharted made and decided to follow Sony's huge budget for that game which could kill any ordinary company. Took them five platforms to sell what Uncharted sells on one. If you want my honest opinion, Final Fantasy saved Square...when it was just squaresoft. I believe XV will save them again and Tomb Raider will be second only to that game.

P.S. 

My criticisms of MS of Microsoft have nothing to do with my willingness to play the games on whichever platform has them. As long as they've got something I want they've got me. I'm just speaking  based on my knowledge of said companies. 

STAGE came back with fury...arrgh. Nice to see you again.
This thread is not for diabetics.
Maybe PS will get a Super Omega Edition 3 years later.

You guys really aren't getting what the word 'confirmed' means

If it was confirmed you'd be linking us to a press release saying "We're pleased to announce Rise of the Tomb Raider will be released on PS4 on..."

We mean indirectly confirmed, without a doubt, they can juste give us huge hints for thé PS4 released to not make ms mad

its really sad that this really is the case

Sony didnt buy their way into the industry dude.... Nintendo was using Ken Kutaragi  who was a contracted worker for Sony to develop a CD Rom drive for the next Nintendo console behind Sony's back. Sony caught Kutaragi in the act and his friend who was the head of Sony saved his ass. Sony claimed what was theirs since he was under contract with R&D to them and made a legitimate contract with Nintendo to do business with them. When the console was going to be shown off at CES Nintendo read the contract that Sony and their lawyers had made since the product was theirs and wanted a larger cut of the profits than Nintendo is willing to allow so they walked out on them. Kutaragi from there convinced Sony to join the industry to get back at Nintendo and they ended up dominating it.

 They got devs hooked on the new format (most notably Squaresoft..whom they bought shares of) and did favors by producing the discs for the companies and thats one of the reasons the majority of them left Nintendo. The discs had more space than the cartridges so they could do more with their games even though the N64 had better graphics. Nintendo refused to play ball with format si nce they jumped back to the cartridge and continued to feign ignorance for twenty years since Sony took the third party from them. Nintendo's relations with third party was never that great to begin with. All third party needed to leave Nintendo was a reason and Sony gave it to them. They just ran them because they dominated the industry. As for Sega....that was a tragedy that was caused by their own hands Sega practically handed third party exclusivity over to Sony because they pissed off so many third party devs by screwing up their launch date that many withdrew from them. Look it up...the reason they screwed up their launch date was because Sony had arrived in the industry. Sega spent so many years struggling to gain third party support only to lose it because of a launch.

Still the only major Moneyhat Sony did to keep a game away from MS was the GTA Trilogy (Outside of funding SFV and helping with crossplay). Since then they've pretty much beaten Microsoft very well themselves. You must remember by the time the PS3 era had started, Microsoft had taken a lot of third party games from Sony and had paid to keep a good enough portion of third party games from Sony so the perception would be that Sony had no games and they had exclusives. The same thing is happening now...just not a year ahead. In other words....we know better. Lets be real here if Sony is majorly moneyhatting at all this gen its mostly not even of the AAA variety. It is indie.

By your definition of buying ones way into the industry it was Microsoft. They bought Halo from under Apples nose because they had no other software of value to enter the industry that could amass a crowd like that game. What they saw at the Apple show wowed them so they took it and wowed people with it. Also, the only reason MS is responding right now about Tomb Raider is because Sony manages to explain themselves without pissing everyone off. MS basically just said yet again (this gen) "yeah...what they said...we did that".

Thanks for attempting the history lesson but we all know what happened with Sony and Nintendo. Doesn't change a word I said. Sony made headway into the industry by spending money. Just like Microsoft. The only difference is you will make excuses for Sony doing it.

See above: "oh well but its just probably mostly indies! those don't even count"