Support NeoGAF

[Izuna]

TR would have existed with or without MS money hatting it. SO would not have existed without MS, Bloodborne would not have existed without Sony, ect.

Bloodborne would have definitely existed without Sony. SO definitely would have. There are MANY publishers they could have gone to.

 

[orochi91]

Nope.

Quoting this once more.

Based Shinobi.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

I don't believe that for a second

Well, most independent studios need to receive funding for their games. TR's development was funded by se. The ms deal didn't need to happen. No arguing against reality. It has been confirmed several times already

 

[prwxv3]

No, they will argue that they are new "games".

Bloodborne:

Before: Does not exist.
Sony: Lets make a game, here is some money.
After: Coming to PS4.

Tomb Raider:

Before: Coming to Xbox One and PS4/PC
Microsoft: Here is some money
After: Coming to Xbox One, PS4/PC later.

Completely different scenarios and being a new IP does not come into it at all. You will notice in the first instance, the PS4 has had a net positive effect. In the second scenario, the PS4/PC has had a negative effect, the Xbox One has been completely unchanged.

That is, unless you believe the Xbox One version will be in some way different due to "development money", but I think we all know they will be more or less identical once they are all finally out (which will be another issue for another day no doubt).

Will this tactic from Microsoft be effective? This remains to be seen. It should certainly result in higher sales of Tomb Raider on the Xbox One. This might help cement that platform as the "home" of the series.... but it doesn't really seem worth that effort given it isn't going to sell xbox live subscriptions.

I would have saved the money and thrown it at something else if this is the way they want to play.

This is a much better explication then mine

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

No, they will argue that they are new "games".

Bloodborne:

Before: Doe not exist.
Sony: Lets make a game, here is some money.
After: Coming to PS4.

Tomb Raider:

Before: Coming to Xbox One and PS4/PC
Microsoft: Here is some money
After: Coming to Xbox One, PS4/PC later.

Completely different scenarios and being a new IP does not come into it at all. You will notice in the first instance, the PS4 has had a net positive effect. In the second scenario, the PS4/PC has had a negative effect, the Xbox One has been completely unchanged.

That is, unless you believe the Xbox One version will be in some way different due to "development money", but I think we all know they will be more or less identical once they are all finally out (which will be another issue for another day no doubt).

Will this tactic from Microsoft be effective? This remains to be seen. It should certainly result in higher sales of Tomb Raider on the Xbox One. This might help cement that platform as the "home" of the series.... but it doesn't really seem worth that effort given it isn't going to sell xbox live subscriptions.

I would have saved the money and thrown it at something else if this is the way they want to play.

Not even that. Bloodborne is being co-developed with SCE. It's completely different than money just being thrown at it.

Bloodborne would have definitely existed without Sony. SO definitely would have. There are MANY publishers they could have gone to.

I would watch out saying such confident statements without proof.

 

[Paracelsus]

Bloodborne would have definitely existed without Sony. SO definitely would have. There are MANY publishers they could have gone to.

Don't write checks your account can't cash, beware of such strong statements.

 

[dancmc]

Tell me why.

I think the next evolution in the souls genre would have existed with or without Sony.

 

[Amir0x]

Oh I am certainly not 100% objective? Who is? To be that way is to never hold an opinion of your own.

I own a gaming PC, PS4, Xbox One, and a Wii U because they all have exclusive games I want to play. I am more biased towards Nintendo given the sites I work for and my history and gaming preferences.

I just watch trends and spoke my mind there. It feels like Sony fans pipe up more than any other fan base. Why? I don't know. THis is coming from someone who spends most of his time in the Nintendo fan base. I also don't have any issues with companies buying up exclusive games so long as they aren't timed exclusives. I hate that stuff. I prefer you to just go all the way and make it platform exclusive. It increases the value of that console to me. Multiplatform games don't do much for me since the days of console exclusive DLC and the almost near inability for me to play all the content for a game without buying it more than once.

Then if you don't have a logical reason for saying it, you probably shouldn't waste everyone's time saying it. I don't mean to be overly harsh here, but this same argument is submitted about 50,000 times a week by the myriad fanboys who can't stand hearing their systems of choice be criticized. I don't know what your motivation is, but I'd attack the point the same exact way: return to neoGAF in 2006.

Back then, there wasn't a single topic on NeoGAF that wasn't filled with people criticizing Sony's bullshit. Riiiidge Racer and FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS were a constant meme, as were giant enemy crabs, get a second job, and a billion other things.

That's because we on NeoGAF, if we can say anything at all about us as a collective, criticize companies that fuck up. That's the one unifying factor. Doesn't matter what your company is. Doesn't matter how "loyal" gamers were to you in the past. If you fuck up, if you disrespect consumers and gamers, NeoGAF members will eviscerate you.

The -only- reason it seems relatively louder now about the Xbox One is, well, for one the scale and non-stop nature of the PR fuckups is nearly unprecedented. Every day Microsoft is fucking up again, and they haven't stopped since word first starting leaking about what XBO would be like back at the start of 2013. But this is minor, because as I said, Sony was getting the shit beat out of them just as hard in 2006. The real differences is that neoGAF is waaaay larger than it was back then, and that social media has exploded. With these two facts, the "echo chamber" seems louder than it was before. But the reality is that NeoGAF itself has always been extremely hostile to companies that don't show gamers respect enough. The loudness of the noise is just proportionate to the size of the forum at the time the event happens, and the amount of social media outlets out there.

 

[FuturusX]

Why do Microsoft have to justify their business dealing to a bunch of lameass gamers on a forum?

Actually they are called customers...or potential customers. Hope that clears up the confusion.

They gave an interview explaining their position on the matter. GAF gets upset and demand they speak to the forum personally. Like I said lame ass gamers.

Just because words fall out of your mouth doesn't mean they make sense or explain adequately what their customers want to know.

 

[dancmc]

Well, most independent studios need to receive funding for their games. TR's development was funded by se. The ms deal didn't need to happen. No arguing against reality. It has been confirmed several times already

I am not arguing that the MS deal needed to happen to make the new TR a reality..I just don't see it as any different than other deals

 

[jwtsonga]

If I have time, I would include Wii U too, but I don't. PS4 + PC is too much.

I agree, Wii U is another one to own, but I dont have time nor money lol....plus the games are a bit too childish for my personal tastes (thats how I justify it anyway)

 

[reynal1287]

Holy shit. I hadn't actually read it until now. There is literally nothing vague about this. At this point people just want to be mad at MS for securing a high profile exclusive.

People who supported the first game on pc/ps can't be mad that MS locked the game for 5+ months on xbox one? Ok.

 

[harSon]

So as usual, PS4 + PC is the best combo, since many xbone exclusives come to PC eventually LOL

Microsoft is kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. If Microsoft releases its marquee Xbox titles for PC, many consumers come away with the belief that there's little reason to commit to the console since they can eventually play the game on PC. If they don't release their titles for PC, then many consumers will flip out and deem it further proof that Microsoft treats the PC like a bastard child.

Kind of an interesting situation to be in.

 

[shandy706]

Did we ever find out if there ever was any actual evidence/proof the game was supposed to launch on other hardware?

 

[ClearData]

If Square made a mainline Tomb Raider console exclusive to an Xbox platform there is going to be blood in the streets. Tomb Raider was my third PSX game after Crash and Gex.

 

[Shin-Ra]

This is a really thoughtful post, just one thing. Spencer actually did say the deal had a duration, which means it's a timed exclusive. It was very plainly put a few days ago. The problem is getting news from GAF. They tend to leave out details, sometimes really important ones because they typically fail to read past the first few sentences, or they are selectively hunting for information to fit their narrative.

Here it is from Spencer himself:



It's unfortunate, but there are several problems with GAF in the types of members it has. We have the console warriors which will jump at any chance to fuel the fire even at the cost of the truth, the "simpletons," as I like to call them who read a headline and react, and then there are those who refuse to be reasonable and move the goal post to continue finding something to justify why they flew off the handle. Each of those types of members were out in full force on this and made a mess.

I don't think Square-Enix is in a position of strength to be testing the patience of their fans any more than they are already.

 

[Nightengale]

Since MS's official stance is that SE should be the one to talk about their game...

An update from Crystal Dynamics/Darrell Gallagher:

http://tombraider.tumblr.com/post/94529480860/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-update

UPDATE - August 15th, 2014


Thank you for all of the feedback and questions. There has been a lot of coverage about Rise of the Tomb Raider, and a new round of articles followed Phil Spencer’s Eurogamer interview in which he confirmed that the exclusivity is timed. In case you haven’t read that article yet, you can do so here.

Microsoft is kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. If Microsoft releases its marquee Xbox titles for PC, many consumers come away with the belief that there's little reason to commit to the console since they can eventually play the game on PC. If they don't release their titles for PC, then many consumers will flip out and deem it further proof that Microsoft treats the PC like a bastard child.

Kind of an interesting situation to be in.

I respect that MS ports their games to PC occasionally but that does make it an awkward situation to be in.

 

[viveks86]

Probably not now. But with how everyone was discussing it before when bringing up exclusivity and timed exclusivity. I don't really like timed exclusive deals, they're stupid, they're literally a fart in the wind and add nothing of value. I'd wait till it's available on my console of choice than decide to pick up the other system for that one game.

This isn't really competition, or content creation like Scalebound is. There's nothing stand out about it. It's content denial. If this was content creation it would be funding studios for a brand new IP or franchise revivals exclusive to their platform, that would turn my head but we see very little of that from MS. They have also not really built up their first party studios in ways that make a difference. Drek's post covers that.

My problems with them go pretty deep.

Thanks for the response. I agree. Though I don't have any problems with timed exclusives, just like I don't have problems with people farting in the wind

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Microsoft is kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. If Microsoft releases its marquee Xbox titles for PC, many consumers come away with the belief that there's little reason to commit to the console since they can eventually play the game on PC. If they don't release their titles for PC, then many consumers will flip out and deem it further proof that Microsoft treats the PC like a bastard child.

Kind of an interesting situation to be in.

They can also make pc exclusive like they did before with MS flight or Age of Empire.

 

[Izuna]

Don't write checks your account can't cash, beware of such strong statements.

Not saying that Bloodborne would be the same game it is, of course not, but it isn't a case of Sony approaching Hidetaka Miyazaki to make a game for them before he had any idea what he wanted to make next.

Of course having the game funded sort of decreases the risk of making something so different from Dark Souls, but I believe that if Sony had rejected developing Project Beasts, it would have become at least something.

-- < - separate point

Paying for timed-exclusives isn't the same as funding ideas that haven't been touched on yet, but MS aren't the only ones who pay for timed-exclusives, or even full on exclusives for games that didn't need any more dev money.

 

[Montresor]

I think one legitimate point is definitely that Microsoft should be more honest. The PR fuck-up is 100% the obfuscation, the vagueness of their original message.

I.E. they made the game sound like a full exclusive, then it was leaked as a timed exclusive, then Phil Spencer says the exclusivity has a duration, and now Phil Spencer is making vague comparisons with Dead Rising 3, further obfuscating the message, making people think (quite incorrectly, given Shinobi's message) that it could be possible this game won't come out on PS4.

But to me, the discussion about the morality or acceptability of the exclusive goes right over my head - I absolutely cannot bring myself to care.

If the game was lifetime exclusive to Xbox One and would never come out on any other platform, and Microsoft 100% explicitly stated that at Gamescomm and in all subsequent communications, that is fine.

If the game was lifetime console exclusive to Xbox One and was coming to PC, and Microsoft 100% explicitly stated that at Gamescomm and in all subsequent communications, that is fine.

If the game was timed exclusive to Xbox One and was going to come to PS4 six months later, and Microsoft 100% explicitly stated that at Gamescomm and in all subsequent communications, that is fine.

To me, being dishonest and having mixed messages is a huge negative, and is a very legitimate gripe, and I'm not surprised there are so many people upset at that specifically. Because dishonesty and mixed messages is absolute fucking bullshit. But, there is a second narrative in a lot of these threads, a narrative about the acceptability of a certain type of exclusive game, or about the acceptable method to acquire an exclusive, and that's not something that I really care about.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

I am not arguing that the MS deal needed to happen to make the new TR a reality..I just don't see it as any different than other deals

Tomb Raider: Developed and Published by SE. Money injected by Microsoft for timed exclusivity for the 2015 holiday season.

Sunset Overdrive: Developed by Insomniac Games and Published by Microsoft. Exclusive for XB1.

Bloodborne: Developed by FROM and SCE Japan Studio. Published by SCE. Exclusive for PS4.

Now tell me , which one of these is different from the others?

Not saying that Bloodborne would be the same game it is, of course not, but it isn't a case of Sony approaching Hidetaka Miyazaki to make a game for them before he had any idea what he wanted to make next.

There is literally a quote that completely contradicts this statement. Sony went to FROM. I will try to find it.

EDIT: Found it.

Bloodborne began all the way back in 2012, long before the PS4 was done. Sony approached From Software, asking them to create a title for their new platform. Hidetaka Miyazaki, the director of Dark Souls, began work right away.

http://www.destructoid.com/bloodborne-the-bloody-nightmare-of-your-dreams-276414.phtml

 

[Brad Grenz]

I am not arguing that the MS deal needed to happen to make the new TR a reality..I just don't see it as any different than other deals

Your wilful ignorance contributes nothing to the discussion.

 

[harSon]

Did we ever find out if there ever was any actual evidence/proof the game was supposed to launch on other hardware?

Insider information that we have to take as 100% fact, but honestly, it's kind of common sense that it was going to launch on every device possible.

 

[Rizzo]

People who supported the first game on pc/ps can't be mad that MS locked the game for 5+ months on xbox one? Ok.

MS just held out a wad of cash... S-E stepped on our heads to reach it.

 

[Chobel]

Bloodborne would have definitely existed without Sony. SO definitely would have. There are MANY publishers they could have gone to.

How about some proof?

 

[harSon]

They can also make pc exclusive like they did before with MS flight or Age of Empire.

But PC gaming has evolved past being restricted to X, Y and Z genres. I don't think that's enough anymore.

 

[Nightengale]

Did we ever find out if there ever was any actual evidence/proof the game was supposed to launch on other hardware?

Xbox's E3 PR statement practically confirmed that Rise of the Tomb Raider wasn't exclusive back then.

 

[Bunta]

Tomb Raider: Developed and Published by SE. Money injected by Microsoft for timed exclusivity for the 2015 holiday season.

Sunset Overdrive: Developed by Insomniac Games and Published by Microsoft. Exclusive for XB1.

Bloodborne: Developed by FROM and SCE Japan Studio. Published by SCE. Exclusive for PS4.

Now tell me , which one of these is different from the others?



There is literally a quote that completely contradicts this statement. Sony went to FROM. I will try to find it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=840059

4Gamer:
Thanks for your time today. I&#8217;d like to start by asking how Bloodborne became a completely new title instead of being simply Demon&#8217;s Souls 2? Since it&#8217;s another collaboration between SCE and From Software, and you are the director again, it just seems natural that the project would be a sequel to Demon&#8217;s Souls.

Miyazaki:
This project actually started out with the proposal to make something new on new hardware.

4Gamer:
It was SCE that came to you with that proposal?

Miyazaki:
Yes. I think it was around the time that development for Artorias of the Abyss Edition of Dark Souls settled down, and it was still before the initial PS4 announcement, but the idea of working on new hardware was very appealing to us, so we eagerly agreed.

 

[Lynn616]

Not even that. Bloodborne is being co-developed with SCE. It's completely different than money just being thrown at it.

MS is helping develop this one too according to Spencer.

 

[DoubleTake]

Bloodborne would have definitely existed without Sony. SO definitely would have. There are MANY publishers they could have gone to.

Youre wrong. Sony approached From and Miyazaki probably before they even finished Artorias of the Abyss DLC. They started work on BB right after the DLC was done. Why do you think Miyazaki was absent from DS2?

Same with Demon's Souls. It was a collab between From and Sony. The Halo comparison is incorrect. The game was already being made. It was coming out on PC/Mac MS bought Bungie and they ended making them for the Xbox.

 

[prwxv3]

The "well if they were not accepted by Sony the game could have gotten a new publisher" is one of the dumbest arguments I have seen on this forum.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

MS is helping develop this one too according to Spencer.

Co-developing with an in-house studio? Or just the money is going to help development? Was Tomb Raider already in development?

Spoiler

the answer is yes.

It's an extremely general statement.

The "well if they were not accepted by Sony the game could have gotten a new publisher" is one of the dumbest arguments I have seen on this forum.

"I have zero evidence for my claims, but I'm sure I'm right regardless."

 

[dancmc]

Your wilful ignorance contributes nothing to the discussion.

It's not ignorance just because I don't agree but thanks. I believe very simply that platform holder $ sent to a 3rd party in exchange for an exclusive arrangement is more similar than different in most cases.

 

[TheOddOne]

A better example would be timed exclusive DLC, which is withholding content from other platforms; such as Call Of Duty map pack deal or Destiny Exclusive content.

First party funded, published and/or co-developed are not even remotely like this deal.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

The "well if they were not accepted by Sony the game could have gotten a new publisher" is one of the dumbest arguments I have seen on this forum.

1. It is an incorrect explanation of the scenario

2. It is based on assumption

 

[Amir0x]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=840059

haha. i love the cold hard truth in stark relief

 

[DoubleTake]

The "well if they were not accepted by Sony the game could have gotten a new publisher" is one of the dumbest arguments I have seen on this forum.

Indeed *rolls eyes*

 

[Brad Grenz]

MS is helping develop this one too according to Spencer.

MS are "helping develop" all third party games. That's one of the roles of a platform holder. Spencer is just making a self serving statement to exaggerate their role in Tomb Raider's development in the face of this PR disaster.

 

[Izuna]

Youre wrong. Sony approached From and Miyazaki probably before they even finished Artorias of the Abyss DLC. They started work on BB right after the DLC was done. Why do you think Miyazaki was absent from DS2?

Same with Demon's Souls. It was a collab between From and Sony. The Halo comparison is incorrect. The game was already being made. It was coming out on PC/Mac MS bought Bungie and they ended making them for the Xbox.

I accept that my comparison doesn't work here and that I was wrong. I felt that with Demon's Souls, they approached Sony and they took "a risk" based on what they were showed.

I am overly generalising these comparisons and opening holes in my initial points I suppose.

That I feel that Bloodborne would exist without Sony is a bizarre statement, I made an example out of something I didn't know about.

I do that a lot, I originally have a point and I stretch it to try and explain it from a different perspective and in doing so I introduce such things that are bad examples.

--

Trying to recollect my original point. What MS is doing with Tomb Raider isn't unique to MS. Paying for exclusives or timed-exclusives of games that could easily be on both systems is done by both.

 

[harSon]

Co-developing with an in-house studio? Or just the money is going to help development?

Considering Phil Spencer is using Dead Rising 3 as an example, then it's safe to say that it means marketing dollars and a close relationship with Microsoft's internal teams/engineers to ensure that the game runs well on Microsoft hardware.

 

[licktheenvelope]

Bloodborne would have definitely existed without Sony. SO definitely would have. There are MANY publishers they could have gone to.

?????

Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida has reiterated that Bloodborne, the PlayStation 4-exclusive gothic horror from From Software, is not true successor to Demon’s Souls.

Speaking with Polygon at E3 this week, the executive said that while the game has been inspired by 2009’s notoriously brutal hack-’n-slash title, it’s an entirely new IP altogether.

The project also gave the company a chance to work with creator Hidetaka Miyazaki again.

“We had an opportunity to reopen the relationship," said Yoshida-san. "And going into the launch of PS4, our producers proposed that we should work together with the From team and Miyazaki-san to make something new on a new platform.

"That resonated really well with Miyazaki-san."

 

[wapplew]

Who is writing the final hour for this game?
I really want to know how MS saved the project.

 

[Brad Grenz]

It's not ignorance just because I don't agree but thanks. I believe very simply that platform holder $ sent to a 3rd party in exchange for an exclusive arrangement is more similar than different in most cases.

This isn't a disagreement. You are just wrong. These situations are about as similar as handing someone a lead weight is to shooting them in the face. It's just a transfer of lead, right?

 

[Quitsy]

Phil Spencer is The Riddler.

^This. You can't believe anything Phil says.

 

[Lynn616]

Co-developing with an in-house studio? Or just the money is going to help development?

No idea. They sent engineers to help with Destiny. I dont see why they wouldnt do the same with TR.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I know you don't believe th,at and neither do I.
I don't think they can buy whatever exclusive they want, the investors have a say in the matter and would oppose something ridiculous like GTA or Elder Scrolls. But even though TR is not a Behemoth, it's not exactly dirt cheap... And since I don't believe they have infinite money, I believe they should be more selective on how they wish to spend it. They could either spend 20 million on GTA DLC exclusivity or fund an Uncharted, for example. I might be mistaken but MS payed a shit ton of money for those DLCs. Sony probably saw that as a waste (and it was) and instead applied them somewhere else. Could have perfectly used it to fund an Uncharted, or Heavy Rain. That's why so many people dislike MS. They would rather see that you don't get something than invest and make something of their own. Sometimes it's a gamble, sometimes you hit (Heavy Rain) sometimes you miss (tearaway) but those were fresh experiences and only benefit us, the consumers.

If they hadn't splurged this money on pointless exclusivities (because I can't see a ps4 only owner buying an X1 just for that game, the franchise doesn't have that sort of pull anymore, but I might be wrong) they could have injected some of that cash into the creation of yet another cool exclusive, like Sunset Overdrive. Xbox owners would ALWAYS get access to TR. They've gained nothing from this deal, except fanboy wars ammo. If this was Sony's deal, I would be equally and royally pissed. It's a waste of money, money that could be spent elsewhere. I don't give a rat's ass who gets to play a certain game, the more the merrier. I only care about getting more and more new IPs, and to see the money we give the platform holders every month getting spent wisely to expand the portfolio.

I'm not trying to be an asshole about this, or trying to pick a fight with anyone. I just think this is a douchey move, no matter if it's MS's, Sony's or Nintendo's. No one gave them shit for bringing back Bayonetta when it was dead (at least anyone with half a functioning brain), no one should be givving Sony shit about Bloodbourne, that game is being co developed by them and pusblished as well. No one should give MS shit for Sunset Overdrive: sony wouldn't let them keep ownership of the IP, MS did, were smart. It's Sony's (and mine too, as a ps4 gamer) loss. But that was perfectly ok in my book.

This, on the other hand, just feels wrong. SE is really clueless.

I would argue that they are funding an "Uncharted" with Quantum Break as much as I hate that comparison, but you get what I mean based on the basic style of game we're dealing with. There's also time stutter based puzzles and apparent platform mechanics. The elements are there, only in this case you're dealing with a different general location and of course heavy time manipulation between 3 playable characters.

They're funding Scalebound from Platinum Games. You of course already mentioned Sunset Overdrive, They're pretty much doing exactly what they're being criticized for not doing enough of. And there's only so much you're going to find out there. You can't go greenlighting every ambitious idea a dev has. Sometimes you come back to a sure thing, and if the quality from the first Tomb Raider reboot is any indication, then it makes a bit of sense they would try to cut some kind of deal.

 

[Shyakugaun]

This is a really thoughtful post, just one thing. Spencer actually did say the deal had a duration, which means it's a timed exclusive. It was very plainly put a few days ago. The problem is getting news from GAF. They tend to leave out details, sometimes really important ones because they typically fail to read past the first few sentences, or they are selectively hunting for information to fit their narrative.

Here it is from Spencer himself:



It's unfortunate, but there are several problems with GAF in the types of members it has. We have the console warriors which will jump at any chance to fuel the fire even at the cost of the truth, the "simpletons," as I like to call them who read a headline and react, and then there are those who refuse to be reasonable and move the goal post to continue finding something to justify why they flew off the handle. Each of those types of members were out in full force on this and made a mess.



Spencer very plainly said the deal has a duration and it's up to SE what they do with after the fact. There's really no way he could have been more direct about answering that question.

Again Paco delivers

 

[DoubleTake]

MS are "helping develop" all third party games. That's one of the roles of a platform holder. Spencer is just making a self serving statement to exaggerate their role in Tomb Raider's development in the face of this PR disaster.

Papa Microsoft.

I accept that my comparison doesn't work here and that I was wrong. I felt that with Demon's Souls, they approached Sony and they took "a risk" based on what they were showed.

I am overly generalising these comparisons and opening holes in my initial points I suppose.

That I feel that Bloodborne would exist without Sony is a bizarre statement, I made an example out of something I didn't know about.

At least you owned up to it, unlike some others.

 

["D"]

This thread is like 25 pages long and I just was too lazy to read all of them so maybe the question i'm about to ask was already answered but here goes...

So Phil is saying they are spending money on development, right? If the game is slated for a holiday release next year then how much more can they do to it in such a "short" amount of time? Can anything major and worth MS "spending money" be put into the game that won't keep it from being delayed to "insure they put out a great experience?"

Basically is he just bullshitting everyone and giving a smokescreen excuse as to why they put there funds in besides exclusivity and trying to drive sales to their console or is it really true? Also it seemed like the game was moving right along when announced, especially with a projected release of next year....so I guess basically MS is helping SE/CD out on costs or something?