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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Tomb Raider vs Street Fighter Double Standards

Azzanation said:

Seems as if people are avoiding the quote from Phil Spencer

Quote >>>>>>*And we will definitely be spending money on developing the game* <<<<<<

Sony are helping to make SF5 but so is MS with Tomb Raider. I feel as if people are ignoring the quote on purpose. I even placed the link on my OP stating what Phil said..

People aren't ignoring the quote, they are just not misinterpreting it like you are.

Just because MS is spending money on developing the game does not mean that SE needs them to do that.



Around the Network
ROBOTECHHEAVEN said:
their is no difference between this deal with sf5 and tr, and if anyone actually believes that to be then u are a fanboy of that system , pure and simple. square-enix was not happy with the sales of tomb raider reboot which is a stated fact, cant argue that even if u wanted too. so they released a definitive edition and that helped it finally be a success in square-enix's eyes , which ( cd ) themselves even said a stated fact. both sony and ms are helping develope the games, ms paying around 50% i wager and sony paying probably all of it that is the only difference between the deals. ms also stated many many many damn times, phil himself said as well that the deal with tomb raider is like the ones they made with ryse son of rome and dead rising 3, u can look that up if u dont believe me.

so in another words, if the game does come out on another system it will be on pc, just like ryse and dr3. the only possible way i can see tomb raider hitting a ps system is if square-enix pulls a ea and pays ms for the publishing rights, ( like ea did to get mass effect 1 on a ps system , which is a stated fact )....


Good luck with that. With what you're saying, Tomb Raider would lose their mindshare on PS fanbase and Uncharted/Horizon would be the go-to action-adventure games in a gen dominated by PS4.



Azzanation said:

Seems as if people are avoiding the quote from Phil Spencer

Quote >>>>>>*And we will definitely be spending money on developing the game* <<<<<<

Sony are helping to make SF5 but so is MS with Tomb Raider. I feel as if people are ignoring the quote on purpose. I even placed the link on my OP stating what Phil said..

Well duh, they paid for timed exclusivity. Where do you think money goes when you pay a video game publisher? Timeshares?

The huge difference here, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, is the nature of the deal, as well as how it was handled.

To reiterate what I said in an earlier post.

Microsoft is paying for the Xbox version of TR to come out first.

Sony is paying for the PS4 version of SFV to exist.



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.

ROBOTECHHEAVEN said:
their is no difference between this deal with sf5 and tr, and if anyone actually believes that to be then u are a fanboy of that system , pure and simple. square-enix was not happy with the sales of tomb raider reboot which is a stated fact, cant argue that even if u wanted too. so they released a definitive edition and that helped it finally be a success in square-enix's eyes , which ( cd ) themselves even said a stated fact. both sony and ms are helping develope the games, ms paying around 50% i wager and sony paying probably all of it that is the only difference between the deals. ms also stated many many many damn times, phil himself said as well that the deal with tomb raider is like the ones they made with ryse son of rome and dead rising 3, u can look that up if u dont believe me.

so in another words, if the game does come out on another system it will be on pc, just like ryse and dr3. the only possible way i can see tomb raider hitting a ps system is if square-enix pulls a ea and pays ms for the publishing rights, ( like ea did to get mass effect 1 on a ps system , which is a stated fact )....


Good god, get off the square was not happy with the sales of tomb raider, Square had unrealistic expectations the game would sell 6 million in a month. Very few games do that, they set them self's up for their own disappointment, on top of that they miss manged game development which cost them way too much money to make like all their games. When this deal was made TR was north of 7 million sold across all platforms. Please explain to me how they needed the deal again? 

 

Lets also ignore the fact it was announced as what seemed to be a Multi plat game and then later it was exclusive for the holidays. Sounds like Square really need the money to make this game... 



ROBOTECHHEAVEN said:
their is no difference between this deal with sf5 and tr, and if anyone actually believes that to be then u are a fanboy of that system , pure and simple. square-enix was not happy with the sales of tomb raider reboot which is a stated fact, cant argue that even if u wanted too. so they released a definitive edition and that helped it finally be a success in square-enix's eyes , which ( cd ) themselves even said a stated fact. both sony and ms are helping develope the games, ms paying around 50% i wager and sony paying probably all of it that is the only difference between the deals. ms also stated many many many damn times, phil himself said as well that the deal with tomb raider is like the ones they made with ryse son of rome and dead rising 3, u can look that up if u dont believe me.

so in another words, if the game does come out on another system it will be on pc, just like ryse and dr3. the only possible way i can see tomb raider hitting a ps system is if square-enix pulls a ea and pays ms for the publishing rights, ( like ea did to get mass effect 1 on a ps system , which is a stated fact )....

Lol, not another one of those...you do realize thar MS isn't stopping Ryse and presumably Dead Rising 3 from appearing on PS4 right?

Seriously some people are making things impossible for these companies, Phil Spencer has been as clear as he can be without flatout saying "this game will come to PS4" about the status of the game but some people just categorically refuse to understand it.



Around the Network
Normchacho said:

Well duh, they paid for timed exclusivity. Where do you think money goes when you pay a video game publisher? Timeshares?

The huge difference here, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, is the nature of the deal, as well as how it was handled.

To reiterate what I said in an earlier post.

Microsoft is paying for the Xbox version of TR to come out first.

Sony is paying for the PS4 version of SFV to exist.

The more correct statement is Sony is paying for the PS4 version of SFV to exist earlier. SFV was going to happen either way, but definitely not by 2016.



IamAwsome said:
Normchacho said:


You care to explain how "We didn't make as much money on the last one as we would have liked" and "We don't have the resources to make a next-gen fighter" are the same?

I don't agree with Azzanation's arguement that TR wouldn't have happened without MS, but that article raises a point. No the situations regarding SFV and ROTTR are not the same, but it doesn't change the fact that MS helped to fund the game which led to timed exclusivity.  Square Enix wanted to maximize profits, and how do you do that? You find someone who will chip in a few bucks, and AFAIK they appear to be doing the same thing with the FFVII remake and all signs point to it being a timed exclusive. That shouldn't surprise anyone given it's the same publisher. 


FF VII Remake was also clear... coming first to Playstation... not "Coming exclusive this holiday for X1"



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."

Azerth said:
Easy sony can do no wrong while ms can only do wrong.

And anyone who thinks street fighter (one of if not the most popular fighting game) wouldnt have been made is crazy


yeah.... its not like the devs them selfs said they dont have the resources. 



Aura7541 said:
Normchacho said:

Well duh, they paid for timed exclusivity. Where do you think money goes when you pay a video game publisher? Timeshares?

The huge difference here, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, is the nature of the deal, as well as how it was handled.

To reiterate what I said in an earlier post.

Microsoft is paying for the Xbox version of TR to come out first.

Sony is paying for the PS4 version of SFV to exist.

The more correct statement is Sony is paying for the PS4 version of SFV to exist earlier. SFV was going to happen either way, but definitely not by 2016.


Yeah...it's really more like they are paying for SFV to exist earlier. It's not like without Sony the PC version would still be coming out in 2016.



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.

DonFerrari said:
IamAwsome said:

I don't agree with Azzanation's arguement that TR wouldn't have happened without MS, but that article raises a point. No the situations regarding SFV and ROTTR are not the same, but it doesn't change the fact that MS helped to fund the game which led to timed exclusivity.  Square Enix wanted to maximize profits, and how do you do that? You find someone who will chip in a few bucks, and AFAIK they appear to be doing the same thing with the FFVII remake and all signs point to it being a timed exclusive. That shouldn't surprise anyone given it's the same publisher. 


FF VII Remake was also clear... coming first to Playstation... not "Coming exclusive this holiday for X1"

 

Sony might still block the xb1 version,  and honestly it still wouldn't be the same as TR or SF5. FF7 has NEVER been on a Xbox or Nintendo system. Also, the final fantasy games that did land in xbox all sold worse than ps.