Like Sony with SFV, would it be okay for MS to fund a sequel and make it exclusive?

If the sequel had no chance of being made? Yeah, definitely. As consumers, we can never know unless told so we'll just bitch and whine.

If M$ funds it, yes, why not? Nintendo did it with Bayonetta.

I voted "only Sony gets to do that"

Sony gets SF5 hardly a whisper.

MS gets 1yr exclusivity to Tomb Raider and the internet (cows) loses its shit.

@i_p_daily: Wasn't it done to give Lems something to play similar to Uncharted, since MS can't manage to make their own game?

If it justify getting a proper sequel from the first game, then I have no issues whoever founds the game. Just as long as you release it for both console & PC that is and Sony did good by not making SFV console exclusive only and also share it to PC.

If it is just like SF5, meaning funding the entire thing, sure.

I don't believe Sony funded the entire project. I think they partially did but I'm not 100% sure

I guess however unless it’s to make a game that wouldn’t have been made otherwise then I think that a move like that tends to harm the franchise.

They locked SF "5" for life. That has to be a huge funding.

Because Xbox was selling so poorly, that taking a traditionally multiplat series that started on Playstation and securing it for Xbox for an undisclosed matter of time came off like a move made from spite. Particularly since it was done to combat Uncharted 4. Which is hilarious in hindsight since Sony just delayed it anyway. MS spent all that money trying to make people envious and Sony just shrugged it off, really. It did nothing to move consoles since MS figured it wasn't worth marketing heavily for the holiday anymore.

SFV didn't meet as much resistance with Sony considering Xbox sells worse than used band-aids in Capcom's home nation, and they were likely in no hurry to make an SFV. Maybe they were in too much of a hurry to release it after it got funded though, but that's another story.

I personally think everyone should get to play the game though.

despite how I feel, the double standard is a resounding "no"

They did it with Tomb Raider. Albeit neither SFV or TR were truly exclusive, both had PC ports.

Personally I think it’s shitty. The best example to use is Bayonetta 2, shame it’s relegated like it is.

As long as it's on PC and active, do as you please.

Only sony can do that. They can make any game exclusive and everyone will be fine with it.

Ofcause it is ok. MS fund it MS has all the right to make it exclusive as much as other people dislike it.. is MS games because they fund them, just like SFV and Bayonetta .

They did with the second Tomb Raider and it nearly ruined the game.

Lol.. i remember when rise of the tomb raider was like the great game ever. And then it went to PS4 and lems just went .........

Like how Sony can't produce a great racing game? not one company can make great games in all genres, but you being a cow wouldn't understand that.

And yet the original Tomb Raider game was released on the Sega Saturn 6 weeks before the PS/PC version, and then Sony signed a deal to keep the franchise off of any other console, so if you're going to talk on the subject get some info before you look like a fool.

Its like I said its only ok for Sony to do it.

They were released at the same time in North America and developed simultaneously, dick nugget. I don't know why the Saturn version was released first in the EU by a month, and I don't care as it's not relevant because it's not like it's a port. The Saturn limped the whole way, making the agreement unnecessary anyway, because it was unlikely to see any more entries developed for it. Which once again stresses the point, if you don't have the units sold, you're gonna get the short end of the stick.

@i_p_daily: Yeah, GT Sport reviewed decent but not great. MS makes Forza, that's it that's great. So one company makes a great game in one genre and one company fails to make a great game in one genre but excels in many other genres.

So what other genres has Sony exceled in this gen?

Sorry but NA doesn't equate to the world, and by releasing it earlier means the first version of the game was on a Sega console.

Sony sure seemed to think the "agreement" lol call it what it was and that's a contract signed by both parties to deny access to 2 different console making companies and its customers.

It seems the only dick nugget here is you, but you're a Sony apologist so its the norm for you.

I'm sorry, I thought that was the Xbot motto. But that's only convenient out your habit of defending the losers (takes one to know one). Your narrative is it was born on Saturn now because Sega wasted their money and had it delayed in Europe for a month on Playstation. Never mind that Sega is as dead as disco in the console space now being gone for two and a half generations on top of Saturn having the worst version of the game. You have some true superpowers to stretch straw thin as atoms.

Saturn and Nintendo 64 were losers which made the deal pretty natural. I know I wouldn't have wasted time and effort for a low profile console. Should Sony have done it? No. Because it wasn't even necessary. There was likely more money in taking Sony's deal for Eidos than any hope of making a return on a further Saturn ports.

That had shit all to do with Xbox. But, while we're here, what MS did was the equivalent of what Sega did back in the day in Europe I guess. A useless effort for a brief timed exclusive that did nothing for their failing console.

So you agree the game was first released on the Saturn and that Sony paid money to keep the series it off of other consoles. Those are facts, and i'm not interested in your quack like essay of excuses :)

I agree you're as big a loser as the consoles you get behind. I'm just telling you why MS got pissed on for it.

What kind of bullshit is that?

**** you mean what is that? Playstation's always had 'em from the jump and made the series. Bum ass MS thought they could yank the rug out from under PS owners and got owned. This ain't the 360 days anymore. They had to learn their place.

@BenjaminBanklin: It didn’t start on the Playstation lol.

Sure it did. Who had the first trilogy on console?

@BenjaminBanklin: That’s not what starting means. Cut the bullshit. It started on the Saturn.

Cut the bullshit and stop switching accounts. You can't win this argument. It was released first for Saturn, for less than a month, in Europe. The game was completed for both Saturn and PS1 at the same time. Where are Sega's consoles now?

@BenjaminBanklin said:

Cut the bullshit and stop switching accounts. You can't win this argument. It was released first for Saturn, for less than a month, in Europe. The game was completed for both Saturn and PS1 at the same time. Where are Sega's consoles now?

Glad we came to an agreement.

@joshrmeyer: I'd say Sony has failed to develop a great shooter too .... Killzone is about the only true shooter I can think of, and that was pretty poor.

Yeah, I'm okay with that. It has happened before, and in some situations games did not have funding for development so it turned out to be a good thing. Of course the frustrating part is that a game or series of games that was once readily available regardless of the console is restricted to one console. That's understandably annoying, especially for players who don't own that console but enjoy the series.

As long as they make it multi-plat like Street Fighter V.

You sure it's for life? Serious question cause from what I understand the funding was partial. Not that it matters to me personally cause I don't play fighting games. I'm just curious

Yes, why not.

Maybe just for this gen, like a 10 year deal.

Thanks

Dead Rising 3

They can do whatever they want... but will it be profitable for them? Probably not. Multiplats do not sell well on the Xbox.

Street Fighter is a special case, because it's an unknown fighting game from a small developer. Thanks to God Sony made it possible.

you can't be serious about that... im sure even if sony didn't fund the game, it would have come out as a multiplat., just not as soon.. it seemed like Sony was trying to get its own competitor for Killer Instinct.

Yeah... but if they funded it 100% I doubt it would ever release on PC.

@ahmedkhan1994: I was being ironic.

Well I'm sure if MS did it, Sony fannies and some in the media would go apesh*t over it.

But yeah, of course it's OK.

@phbz: ah sorry.