what's hard to understand?

Game A was coming to systems X Y and Z
Deal gets made
Game A no longer coming to systems Y and Z

That is anti-consumer, "welcome to switch to the platform that has their games" doesn't excuse it, because, as i've said multiple times, in instances where the game was originally going to release on the other platforms too, for the gamers of the platforms that then, lose out because of the deal, are victims of anti-consumer practices.

It doesn't make any difference to the players on the platform that eventually gets the game, it's done specifically to force a user to move to the platform of the holder that limited the release of the previously multiplatform game to that system alone.

If the game was exclusive all along, then indeed it would be a case of nothing done wrong, and not anti-consumer, but for instances where the game had originally been revealed to release on a particular system then an exclusivity deal changed that, that's anti-consumer, pro-manufacturer.

Well, sorry, but I obviously missed the part where Crash was already announced to be coming to all platforms. Did they give a release date, and is it only a timed exclusive like Tomb Raider?

It hasn't been announced for any system yet, but it's an IP owned by a third party, so if they were to make a new one there would be little reason to limit it to a single platform unless a deal was involved.

How they go about it will decide how things pan out but if they were to announce it for wiiu/xbo/ps4, or even just xbo/ps4 then later sign a deal to make it exclusive, it'd be anti-consumer. Perhaps my own fault for not being thurough enough in my initial statement, but if sony or microsoft or nintendo approached Activision and contributed towards creating a new crash game, that'd be fine, if one approached Activision, and they were already working on a crash game for multiple systems, it'd be an anti-consumer deal.

But right now, it's barely even a rumor that a game will even be made let alone on what system.

So, your entire anti-consumer stance is bases solely on your imagination and speculation, if this then that or else...

I understand now, and am really sorry I tried to offer a perspective that is not based solely on some past grudges completely unrelated to either Crash or Activision.

What in the heck are you going on about, burek?

You guys were talking about Crash. You said: "As far as I know, Activision still owns the IP, so if it ever did make a return It would likely be multi-platform anyway unless a deal was struck with Sony. (A deal I would consider anti-consumer)"

I was just trying to say that the game is obviously not being made, because Activision would surely have made it by now if they wanted to. And that if someone were to make the game but it came to only one platform it would actually be pro-consumer because the game is being made.

There are many examples, maybe the best and lates being Bayonetta 2. I think it would be more anti-consumer if that game was never made at all, and if people enjoy that game then they should play it on a console that wanted to make it.

So all you did was start your own speculation and then tried to paint any possible deal as anti-consumer because reasons.

You say that any deal that would bring the game forward would be anti-consumer, I say that any deal that would bring the game forward would only be beneficial to consumers.

End of story.

Are you serious???

Wow, just wow.

Just posting to tag, and to say Crash Bandicoot or riot.

I would love to see the level5 game, but they aren't on the developer list, but on the other side it wouldn't be a surprise anymore if they would be on the list...

Dreams looks like an evoluton to the (for the most part) bad controls in LBP, making them even worse.