The thing I find funny still is people proclaiming SFV and TR exclusive 
. This gen has been a good laugh when watching the fanboys squabble about making a game exclusive that isn't.
IamAwsome said:
Because as I pointed out, Square Enix sought a partner for the game to make (extra) profits. Whether or not they really needed a partner is up for debate, but that's on them not MS. Whoever partnered would have gotten the game early. The bad PR thing I agree with. The one problem that I have with the "most TR fans are on PS" arguement is that most Japanese games and older games have fanbases on PlayStaton and/or Nintendo. Should MS just not bother and never take a chance with those games? How will they build a fanbase for those titles? Yes the PS4 is outselling the XB1 but still. Should they never touch those games? |
I would argue that anytime a publisher makes a timed deal they're looking for extra profits though. Now it's certainly possible that SE approached MS and not the other way around, but other than that I don't see what makes this deal different than any other.
As for your second paragraph, of course not. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have made the deal or that it was a bad idea, I'm simply explaining the biggest issues gamers had from what I've seen. We saw a lot of upset gamers because they suddenly found out that they weren't going to be able to play the new TR until months after it's initial release.
Bet with Adamblaziken:
I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.
Normchacho said:
As for your second paragraph, of course not. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have made the deal or that it was a bad idea, I'm simply explaining the biggest issues gamers had from what I've seen. We saw a lot of upset gamers because they suddenly found out that they weren't going to be able to play the new TR until months after it's initial release. |
Profit? I dont think MS could offset the loss which SE will incur by missing out on 25m install base. Sure it will be coming out on PS4 eventually, but it has gotten a bad taste and will be again competiting with Uncharted 4. So I dont see how MS could cover that loss. it is just pure marketing blunder, only comparable to x1 launch. shady messaging
| taus90 said: Profit? I dont think MS could offset the loss which SE will incur by missing out on 25m install base. Sure it will be coming out on PS4 eventually, but it has gotten a bad taste and will be again competiting with Uncharted 4. So I dont see how MS could cover that loss. it is just pure marketing blunder, only comparable to x1 launch. shady messaging |
Things got really messy when Geoff Keighley tweeted that ROTR will be a timed exclusive and Aaron Greenburg tried to discredit him.
IamAwsome said:
Because as I pointed out, Square Enix sought a partner for the game to make (extra) profits. Whether or not they really needed a partner is up for debate, but that's on them not MS. Whoever partnered would have gotten the game early. The bad PR thing I agree with. The one problem that I have with the "most TR fans are on PS" arguement is that most Japanese games and older games have fanbases on PlayStaton and/or Nintendo. Should MS just not bother and never take a chance with those games? How will they build a fanbase for those titles? Yes the PS4 is outselling the XB1 but still. Should they never touch those games? |
They could pay the porting and marketing cost for games that are truly japanese (TR isn't) for games that otherwise would be PS4 exclusive mainly out of interest of publishers... no need to buy exclusivity on a game as well know as this.
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."
| Teflon02 said: I wasn't goina say anything BUT.... I think I need to. The Situations. Bayonetta 2: - Was originally released released as a mature game on PS3 and 360, skipping Nintendo. - People were dying for a sequel and it was announced - Shockingly it was announced for the system that is mainly aimed at the opposing audience - On top of that neither of the consoles that had the original were getting the sequel - The backlash wasn't about Nintendo doing bad, it was about how stupid that was to the public - Most people playing it likely didn't care for Wii U That's ALL understandable, why they did it made sense when explained, though still not wise. The backlash made sense as well. If they started responding to backlash unprofessionally then they are in the wrong. They had to expect it with the choices made. The Rise of Tomb Raider: - Tomb Raider PS3 outsells 360 by more than half a mill that's fine - They announce Rise of the Tomb Raider, as a Multiplatform title - THEN announce a definitive edition of the 2013 Title for PS4 and Xbox One - The PS4 version sells more than double the Xbox version - Microsoft announces out of nowhere that it's a Xbox exclusive - Later Square or CD reps had to clarify that it's timed - NOTHING about that made sense - The game was already well on it's way o PS4 and Xbox One and now loses it's bigger fanbase plus PC for this crap because Microsoft admittingly just wanted something to go against uncharted which doesn't matter anymore seeing the delay - Microsoft saying they're help develop the game means nothing. If they threw mills at SE and CD that means they contributed to the games construction. Means nothing. Street Fighter V: - Street Fighter IV sold over a mill more on PS3 - Capcom from 2 years or so ago said they didn't have the resources to make a new Street Fighter - Street Fighter 4 came to PS4 ONLY as a promotion for Street Fighter V - They announced it as it was. An actual exclusive - Sony is making the game with Capcom and are the reason it currently exists - Sony despite making the game and having an exclusive iteration deal for V STILL giving PC it and letting it cross play Last time I checked Windows is MS not Sony. Yet Sony is doing it better with it's exclusive deals lol Big differences: Nintendo's Backlash was fan frustration understandable, but Nintendo's not in the wrong. Microsoft's Backlash was anti-gamer actions and taking away from PC and PS4 instead of gaining more for Xbox. Sony's No Backlash was, a way more acceptable form of Nintendo's situation. PC still gets as well so dropping the weakest of the current series supported consoles isn't much of an issue. Also 2 of the playing platform choices still exist. |
Thanks for this, Teflon. Apparently, a lot of people overlooked this post. The only correction I will make is SFV is console exclusive, not full on exclusive.
I'm surprised that some really believe that SE and Capcom actually needed extra funds for these projects. They're just playing dumb to get Sony and MS to open up their wallets and pay the bill...
And for that reason I think it's silly to hate on MS or Sony when it's Capcom and Squeenix that deserves the rage.
Double standards and bags full of hypocrisy. It was the same when Devil May Cry 4 went multi-platform. Not even exclusive or timed exclusive, just multi-platform so more people can enjoy the series. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Devil-May-Cry-4-Fans-Threaten-to-Boycott-Capcom-50159.shtml
It was 10 times worse when FF13 was also going to be on xbox 360. Hardcore forum gamers are the worst.
Edit: Barely any outrage when Bioshock came to PS3, Mass Effect and many others.
| MoHasanie said: Why not? MS is paying for Tomb Raider to be a timed exclusive so it will come to other platforms eventually. Sony paid for SF5 to be a console exclusive, so X1 owners will not get to play it at all. When I look at it like that, what Sony did is worse than what MS did, especially since SF is a bigger franchise than Tomb Raider. |
Not even sure where to start.
1. SF is in no way bigger than Tomb Raider. TR 2013 sold over 8.5m units, more than all of the versions of SF4 combined sold according to this site.
2. Square said that TR 2013 was profitable in 2013 and that they were very happy with the sales even when it was still only at ~ 6m. RotTR was announced at E3 2014, but its exclusivity wasn't announced until Gamescom. Based on these facts, it's pretty obvious that RotTR was being developed with or without MS, so their deal benefited nobody. Square wouldn't have given up on a franchise they were very satisfied with financially, and MS wouldn't have waited to announce exclusivity if it was an exclusive from the start.
3. Yoshinori Ono stated that it would be a long time before they could begin development of SF5 due to funding (I believe he gave a rough estimate of 2018). Sony stepped in and provided funding, meaning the game is now going to arrive much sooner. While it does mean less people get to play the game, people will still have the option to play it much sooner than they would have otherwise, so there is a tangible benefit for the consumer, unlike the MS Tomb Raider deal.
4. Tomb Raider is a franchise that is predominantly bought by Playstation fans, so the deal negatively impacts a lot of people. SF is also more popular on PS, so becoming console exclusive hurts far less people by comparison.
One of these deals is explicitly worse than the other. People like you and the OP attemting to conflate the two situations, or even suggest that the SF deal is worse, are either unaware of the reality of the situation, or being willfully ignorant to suit a narrative.
| Teflon02 said: I wasn't goina say anything BUT.... I think I need to. The Situations. Bayonetta 2: - Was originally released released as a mature game on PS3 and 360, skipping Nintendo. - People were dying for a sequel and it was announced - Shockingly it was announced for the system that is mainly aimed at the opposing audience - On top of that neither of the consoles that had the original were getting the sequel - The backlash wasn't about Nintendo doing bad, it was about how stupid that was to the public - Most people playing it likely didn't care for Wii U That's ALL understandable, why they did it made sense when explained, though still not wise. The backlash made sense as well. If they started responding to backlash unprofessionally then they are in the wrong. They had to expect it with the choices made. The Rise of Tomb Raider: - Tomb Raider PS3 outsells 360 by more than half a mill that's fine - They announce Rise of the Tomb Raider, as a Multiplatform title - THEN announce a definitive edition of the 2013 Title for PS4 and Xbox One - The PS4 version sells more than double the Xbox version - Microsoft announces out of nowhere that it's a Xbox exclusive - Later Square or CD reps had to clarify that it's timed - NOTHING about that made sense - The game was already well on it's way o PS4 and Xbox One and now loses it's bigger fanbase plus PC for this crap because Microsoft admittingly just wanted something to go against uncharted which doesn't matter anymore seeing the delay - Microsoft saying they're help develop the game means nothing. If they threw mills at SE and CD that means they contributed to the games construction. Means nothing. Street Fighter V: - Street Fighter IV sold over a mill more on PS3 - Capcom from 2 years or so ago said they didn't have the resources to make a new Street Fighter - Street Fighter 4 came to PS4 ONLY as a promotion for Street Fighter V - They announced it as it was. An actual exclusive - Sony is making the game with Capcom and are the reason it currently exists - Sony despite making the game and having an exclusive iteration deal for V STILL giving PC it and letting it cross play Last time I checked Windows is MS not Sony. Yet Sony is doing it better with it's exclusive deals lol Big differences: Nintendo's Backlash was fan frustration understandable, but Nintendo's not in the wrong. Microsoft's Backlash was anti-gamer actions and taking away from PC and PS4 instead of gaining more for Xbox. Sony's No Backlash was, a way more acceptable form of Nintendo's situation. PC still gets as well so dropping the weakest of the current series supported consoles isn't much of an issue. Also 2 of the playing platform choices still exist. |
Mods, you can lock the thread now
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
