@sa18: Nintendo DOESN'T make a 2d/3d Mario game EVERY year. They will have Mario IN other games but not platformers. And when did Nintendo last release a home Zelda not a remaster? Not this gen, so far. The 3ds gets Zeldas a lot quicker but NOT annually.
Of course it is, this gen besides BOTH consoles being underpowered, the next blight is this remastering plague. Seriously how many MORE games will get up rezed for release. At least Gears got it right. And Hell, if you're going to do a remaster how about games gamers want? I wouldn't mind a Batman remaster. At LEAST give us the gems from last gen, not the lesser games like RE6.
Besides Take Two, Nintendo has done the same thing. It's funny because I used to like Sonic better than Mario Bros but then Sega whored him out and the quality went WAY down. There wasn't as many SNES Mario's as Genesis Sonics, so during that period Sonic was a bit better, not even close now, not by a long shot.
@xenomorphalien: It sounds very Don Matrick-y. Maybe he doesn't mean it like that but without hearing a voice, it hard to discern his intent. Was he being a major dick or was he saying this in jest. Him laughing doesn't tell me either way. To me, it sounds quite dickish. I can understand why Capcom would want to make a SF game Sony exclusive, the Asian markets. Xbox is NOT a factor there hence the sales decepancy on SF4.
@Articuno76: Holy Hell, it's not like Sony allows cross-play with Xbox, neither does MS. Good God, Call of Duty doesn't have it, why would SF? That's NOT the reason SFV is exclusive to PS4, it has to do with Sony giving up money. As far as no one expecting SFV on X1, as a REASONABLE gamer, Yes I thought it'd go multi-platform. Just because there had been no prior release doesn't negate it being multi-platform. Capcom DID release 4 SF4s on 360. So, by you're logic, Fallout 4 then could have, nay SHOULD have been an X1 exclusive. Since there was NO prior Fallout, it would have been unreasonable for a PS fan to expect it on their box. Thankfully, I own both so, no biggie. Your logic can't be coming from a place of neutrality, you have a plastic box preference, that's great but when an allegiance clouds your judgment, it's hard to take what you say with any accuracy.
@Mando44646: That's been my take for a long time, why is this deal okay but that other one wasn't? Not to over generalize a fan base but this is the same thing I noticed when Sony announced their TV and entertainment part of the PS4, no criticism there. Oh but MS does it, they're the devil. It's such selective hypocrisy on gamers based on one's preferences.
@Articuno76: You know Street Fighter 4, all FOUR versions were on Xbox 360 right? MS's policies? What in the Blue Hell are you talking about? By your statement on #2, you are clearly NOT an Xbox customer. This series HAS been a mainstay, on consoles, since launching back in 1992 on the Super Nintendo. As for your first point, neither had Tomb Raider as the game was a remastered version of part 1 that launched on 360/PS3.
Why is it that Street Fighter V goes 100% exclusive but Tomb Raider goes one year exclusive and there's no where near the level of blowback on SFV vs RotTR? To me, that's being selective on the battles one takes. PS fans were ready to riot over TR but I didn't see Nintendo or MS fans taking up arms against Capcom. Remember SF 2 launched on the SNES. Kind of funny that Sony says they don't buy exclusives, I'm guessing that only applies selectively; MS, too. Good thing I have a PS4 right, Don Matrick, errr. Capcom.
@Mirimon78: Yeah I screwed the pooch on that one, I meant 1080 and resolution between the consoles isn't the same due to different effects. 720 on 360 isn't the exact same on X1.
e3man01's comments