iceland said:
Why are we talking about Smash bros? I'm joking lol |
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh snap!
Sigs are dumb. And so are you!
BMaker11 said:
So, given that Adrian Smith of Core Design says that technical limitations prevented a Saturn version of TR, you link to an article in which another employee (the COO, no less) says that it went exclusive partly because the PS1 had better hardware? "Given the worldwide domination of the PlayStation system, it's a natural for Eidos to partner with Sony Computer Entertainment America and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe" and "We want our best-selling franchise to reach the greatest number of consumers and the PlayStation and its powerful CD-ROM software format satisfies this demand. The fact that the PlayStation will be the only game console on which you can enjoy the Tomb Raider franchise is a great statement for the platform." Sounds a lot like "we want this franchise to reach the widest audience and it's not possible to do that on other platforms, both in terms of hardware and marketshare". Doesn't sound at all like Sony tossed them a bunch of money. Like I said in a prior post: it's the same reason FF7 went PS1 exclusive. Or, for example, why Arkham Knight isn't on WiiU. Maybe I'm wrong in how I'm analyzing that article, but let's just say the situation is dubious, at best, for this particular game (they didn't just say "Sony struck up a deal" and left it at that i.e. just giving money. A deal arose because of other factors, it seems like). So, again I ask, do you have another example? If buying up 3rd parties was as rampant as some say, surely you could find something other than Tomb Raider. If not, it's not looking good for the original point you addressed about the "who started it" for buying 3rd party exclusivity. And like I said, I'll happily admit being incorrect on this, but I really can't think of any scenarios from gens prior to gen 7 where 3rd party games were exclusive simply because one company shelled out dough to prevent the compeitition from having it, instead of being exclusive for hardware reasons, marketshare reasons, or dispute reasons (like EA and Dreamcast).
|
Hold on, gonna wait for your goal posts to stop moving before i respond.
...
Ok, they look set. Thats a lot of text you slapped in there trying to explain away an exclusive deal you'd previously spent 2 or 3 posts trying your darndest to convince us all would never happen. I wasnt aware Sony was in the business of entering exclusive deals for products they according to you absolutely do not need because theyre like OMG so dominant.
Furthermore, devs ALWAYS gush about the publishers they sign deals with. Remember, only Microsoft can provide the online infrastructure Titanfall needs, friend!
Lastly, however you want to make excuses or stick your head in the sand as to why Sony struck a deal for Tomb Raider to be console exclusive to their platform, it doesnt change the fact that it exists. Thus, i dont need any other examples. Feel free to post on my wall if you need any more help with this.
Unfortunate, but it aint like XBox One is lacking in the genre. Killer Instinct may not have the start power of SF, but has been a solid entry since 2013 and becoming a better game every year. End of the day, XB One users can live without this.
Also, guess its fair given Dead Rising 3 isn't on PS4. One for one.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
| sales2099 said: Unfortunate, but it aint like XBox One is lacking in the genre. Killer Instinct may not have the start power of SF, but has been a solid entry since 2013 and becoming a better game every year. End of the day, XB One users can live without this. |
I know a lot of Xbox owners that disagree with you right now. They will be getting a PS4 for Street Fighter. I'm sure they will experience other superior fighters like Guilty Gear when the time comes.
"And everyone's Kickstarter has merit." - Malory Archer
Protendo said:
|
I like your comment because it flies in the face of many-a PS fans critiques that a "PC/Console x" game can never be considered a real system seller for said console because it can be played on the almighty PC.
That said, this kind of news is flame fuel for the other guys. God forbid I take some wind out of their sails by citing a competitive fighter XBox One gamers have been playing since Nov. 2013.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
LudicrousSpeed said:
Yeah, that's why I took the number out. Seems like such an obvious play on words. |
I don't think it will happen... but yes that would avoid the restriction.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
oniyide said:
|
No problem... too much silly comments in the thread makes our sarcasm detector go crazy.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
| LudicrousSpeed said: Hold on, gonna wait for your goal posts to stop moving before i respond. ... Ok, they look set. Thats a lot of text you slapped in there trying to explain away an exclusive deal you'd previously spent 2 or 3 posts trying your darndest to convince us all would never happen. I wasnt aware Sony was in the business of entering exclusive deals for products they according to you absolutely do not need because theyre like OMG so dominant. Furthermore, devs ALWAYS gush about the publishers they sign deals with. Remember, only Microsoft can provide the online infrastructure Titanfall needs, friend! Lastly, however you want to make excuses or stick your head in the sand as to why Sony struck a deal for Tomb Raider to be console exclusive to their platform, it doesnt change the fact that it exists. Thus, i dont need any other examples. Feel free to post on my wall if you need any more help with this. |
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.
| Azerth said: So sony moneyhat confirmed |
The director of the game pretty much stated the game would never happen without Sonys help and founding because Capcom wasnt so kin on churning the money itself. He said that back when the game was revealed for the first time btw, Im not sure why ppl were still thinking it wouldnt be 100% Sony exlcusive.
DonFerrari said:
I don't think it will happen... but yes that would avoid the restriction. |
If Crapcom werent publishing it i would agree.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
