Funny how people say SF has no impact. Sure thing, Biggest fighting game series there is.

SFIV has been the definitive choice of the fighting games tournaments since release.
Also it was more competitive and popular on 360. Saying Xbox don´t need it is just arrogant speaking of your console choice.

Also KI got nothing on it.

I read the Tomb Raider article and it's difficult to decide what kind of interpretation should be taken since... well, it's PR. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony did moneyhat TR for the PS1 considering the company's dominant position at that time. I also would not be surprised the other way because of the CD-ROM format as McGarvey mentioned. The cartridges on the N64 were really expensive and weren't the best media format to work with. At this point, it's quite silly to argue whether Sony moneyhatted TR or not as that article didn't really show anything conclusive. However, that is not to say Sony is clean. All companies have done this because it's business at the end of the day.

FFXIV is only on the PS4 and PC because of Microsoft's "no cross-platform play" clause. This clause also played a role in SFV's console exclusivity on the PS4 as part of the deal included cross-platform play between PC and PS4 gamers. Hopefully, part of Phil Spencer's rectification plan is to get rid of that clause altogether.

What I'm curious to know is what was Microsoft doing while Sony and Capcom agreed to a deal on SFV. Was the deal done with MS unaware? Perhaps Ono wanted to make SFV for all systems and implement cross-platform play across all versions, but MS said no. Whatever it is, we may not know the whole story until years later...

I know VGchartz Software sales aren´t 100% accurate but hell it almost sold double on PS3 compared to XBox360. Microsoft had a deal with capcom, so the 360 version would be used in official tournaments iirc.

Yes i get that but i mean with online play. I had it on my ps3 and my brother on 360. It was always twice as much players for 360.

That isn't true. The PS3 version has more input lag, and it randomly drops frames. For casuals that's no big deal, but it's a problem for tournament players. There is a reason all the top Japanese players play the game on 360 and it's not because of the popularity of the Xbox brand. Sony's an official sponsor the Capcom Pro Tour. They put a $500,000 pot bonus into CPT tournaments. After the botched launch of USFIV on PS4, the 360 version was made tournament standard. If all things were equal the PS3 version would have been made the standard.

@bolded: this is why I said the situation was dubious, at best (although, market dominance would negate the need of moneyhatting, since it was the de facto console of choice), and requested another example. But "the deal exists, therefore I don't need other examples". Even though "deal" doesn't necessarily mean "paid for it", the latter of which is the reason this whole discussion even came up. Not to mention, the Saturn was discontinued in 1998, so it was obviously on the decline in 1997, so no way it would have been put on that console, anyway. And, as you pointed out, N64 had cartridges, so, again, PS1 had better hardware for this game. 2 more points that lend more credibility to the POV I take on the exclusivity of the game. 

I won't say Sony hasn't moneyhatted before. I just can't think of any games before Gen 7, and I just want a legitimate example, otherwise, there shouldn't be any contention to the comment "Microsoft started this 3rd party exclusivity crap". The Capcom 5 was a "deal" between Nintendo and Capcom, but Capcom did it voluntarily to boost GC sales and show the world that the GC had 3rd party support. That just goes to show that the reasoning behind signing exclusivity deals (although Capcom backed out of it because of shareholders) isn't always "they gave us a bunch of money". There can be other motives, as the COO in TRs case even said. 

With regard to what MS was doing: didn't Ono say they didn't have money to make SFV? If that's the case, I see the situation being very similar to what MS did with Titanfall - the developer didn't have the resources necessary to complete the game so Sony/MS stepped in. If cross-platform play is a dealbreaker, then obviously Sony would be the ones to jump on it since MS doesn't like that feature. 

Crossplatform PS4-XB1 would be awesome.

SFV was going to happen regardless, but it was going to take a ridiculously long time. This is where Sony's support comes into play as Ono now has enough resources to make a 2016 release happen as opposed to, let's say, a 2018 release. Another big question is if Sony didn't make a deal with Capcom, would Ono be able to achieve the same vision for SFV? I remember at one point, he even considered implementing a F2P model on SF (yeah, imagine that...). 

Depends of what that vision is. To get a 2016 release? Probably not. An F2P SFV would probably blow chunks.

To get a supposed 2018 release, sure he'd achieve his vision. But that's 3 years from now, and with the intervention of Sony, we get the game much, much sooner.

Untill gen 9 appears we can never rule it out... even TF, DR3, Ryse and other games that showed on PC and X1 could appear on PS4 at some obscure point... But it really is a hard deal for Capcom if X1 gets better sales and they only release SF V this gen (and completely misses X1 market)... but we will see.