Chobel
Member
You're mistaken, that help is hardly different than any standard 3rd party support.
Rise of the Tomb Raider coming to PC Early 2016. PS4 Holiday 2016
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
- Status
You're mistaken, that help is hardly different than any standard 3rd party support.
And I'll take everyone getting to play the game eventually over only 2/3 of gamers getting to play. As a PS4 owner I know I will eventually get to play ROTR, if I only owned a XB1 I won't be able to play SFV.
Their was a article about how MS helped update their engine/tools to take adv of the X1 Hardware.
Post above suggests no-one was getting SFV period.
Doesn't sound too different from Titanfall or Bayonetta in that regard.
Both the Tomb Raider and SFV situation is pretty shitty, as is all the exclusive DLC/Beta/Mod stuff. I wish it was possible for Sony and Microsoft to come to a mutual agreement not do stuff like this. As in no prevention or delaying of game content on other platforms for third parties, but creation of games is fine. It's a never ending spiral of nonsense and wastefullness that is simply bad for the consumer. I get the impression that every game is tied to one or the other, not necessarily because either Sony or Microsoft wanted to do so, but they did so a as a precautionary measure because they couldn't let the other do it first
And agreement would never happen, but i wish it would. it's not as if either would get done for collusion right?
And agreement would never happen, but i wish it would. it's not as if either would get done for collusion right?
Chobel
Member
Sorry, but I'm fan "getting games out there" instead of "getting games in my specific device".
Like the standard 3rd party support then, no?
Riky
$MSFT
I don't know how many copies SFIV sold, but I would have thought enough to make SFV viable.
TheWaxyPaxy
Neo Member
The bolded is so ignorant. You can't understand the outcomes or discuss them without what leads to it, the outcome doesn't exist in a vacuum.
I still don't understand how people lack the ability to see even the simple variables involved. Instead we get rudimentary Console v. Console arguments. IIRC Tomb Raider was shown as PS4/One and then was taken away due to an exclusivity deal whereas SFV simply did not exist until Sony came in. How people fail to see these distinctions is beyond me.
One may wish to argue that if Sony did not step in as early as they did in 1 or 2 years Capcom may have developed SFV across consoles but its sort of pointless to debate that because the only information we have was that Capcom did not intend to release or develop the game until Sony.
I wasn't comparing. The was saying everyone gets the play the game was wrong. Well there is no signs it will yet and so what if a shitty port - X360 owners still have the option to decide if its worth their time and money.
There was? Also them saying they would help with the game's development as Chobel pointed be not much different than what they do with other games only came after the 3-4 update 3 or so days after clarification of their exclusivity deal.
Just learned apprently Capcom couldn't afford to make SFV, money issues. Seems reasonable since they have only been making remaster and exclusive games( dead rising and monster hunter)
Yeah, it's not like Ono has ever lied before or anything.
Sony's money is helping get this product out quicker (and as its financial situation goes - probably quite a bit earlier), not saving it from oblivion.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Agreed. One had no budget so naturally a Japanese centric developer is going to go with the Japanese console that is dominating.
The other was paid to keep it off the other platform, a platform the game's primary fanbase was on for almost 20 years. Which also does nothing positive or negative to the gamers on the "times exclusive" platform other than bragging rights for console wars.
MSFT's BS excuse, "We wanted our Uncharted". Uh huh, you rented your Uncharted, if you really wanted that narrative, the IP would have been bought outright.
If anything though, they just boosted Uncharted sales due to this.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
The SF5 exclusivity situation is more similar to Bayonetta 2 I thought. Capcom needed Sony's funding to develop the game possible while Tomb Raider actually did was planned and in development for PS4 and Xbox One to my knowledge.
Even more speculation there then. The 360 version was announced when the game was announced and confirmed again just yesterday. You may think it's lame to compare, which I'm not even doing really it's others trying to justify TR, but there will be PS3 owners who cannot play this game regardless. You may think the importance of that is "lame" but if you think the idea isn't to try and get the masses of PS3 owners who played Tomb raider to buy an XB1 you are very wrong.
What?
Street fighter 5 would have been made at some point. Sony's money is making it happen quicker, not "making it happen" period. This has been discussed a billion times over so it's not like I'm saying anything new or confusing
Edit: to the below post. I believe someone in the previous mega thread on this topic has some sort of compilation or post to that nature (of Ono lying/exaggerating/etc) so perhaps when I'm not on mobile I can try to find it
Nightengale
Member
I have no issue with your 2nd sentence in general, but I'm not a fan of calling out someone a liar without any real evidence to back it up.
But how is it MS' fault that there's no 360 version? Couldn't it have originally been PS4/XB1/PC but MS is offsetting the cost of development? and if their goal is to get people to buy a XB1, why have a 360 version at all?
This whole "SF had no budget" is bullshit and I'm surprised everybody is holding it to their chest like this. Capcom probably didn't want to make it right now, but that's a huge difference from it never being made. All Sony did was paid to get it out sooner at the cost of it only appearing on PS4/PC, that's shitty.
2013 interview:
Capcom producer Tomoaki Ayano said in a VG247 interview that it will take the company until the year 2018 for Street Fighter V. "Game development is a long and arduous process. If you look at the history of the series, it took six years to go from Street Fighter II to Street Fighter III, and nine years to go from Street Fighter III to Street Fighter IV," he said.
Ono implying that console install base isn't big enough yet:
“Realistically speaking, developing a title for next-gen consoles requires a huge amount of staff members, and a large sum of money. The issue of money also applies to everyone else, as it’ll be required to invest in a new console, game, and arcade stick.”
I find it incredibly hard to believe that without Sony's help, we would never have a new Street Fighter. It just wouldn't have came out any time soon.
Nightengale
Member
He's not entirely wrong. Maybe SFV would've been a completely different type of game without Sony's involvement (closer to the F2P model that fighting game devs are experimenting today) and maybe in 2018 instead of 2016, but it's not like it was assuredly a 'never happening' thing.
The reality is that Capcom still kept their fighting scene alive and well, just on shoe-string budgets. It's proof that even before Sony stepped in, it's not like they were abandoning SF... They were just stingy about it and would probably let SFV sit unmade for X amount of years.
Infernostew
Member
But who knows what Capcom's financial situation will be in 2-5 years? Maybe they had planned to wait on SFV and things got even worse. Saying that it would come eventually still would not have been a guarantee.
How you know that SFV would have been made without any help cuz game wasn't in development?
Doesn't change anything in meaning of the deal itself, though.
I would have thought so to, but just look at Capcom's demeanour around releasing games this gen so far and it makes sense they'd go looking for help.
Nightengale
Member
I won't deny it's all speculation.
Because its Street Fighter....
Um.. there is a 360 version. There is no PS3 version. The point of the 360 version is that SE wants to sell games. They would have sold even more of this crossgen game if a contract did not prevent the game coming to any other platform for a limited time. The signed for time makes that port pointless now.
Infernostew
Member
Ono likes to troll his fans but calling the man a lier is not cool.
Something something Megaman something something bitter.
But Capcom's financial problems doesn't count?
Infernostew
Member
The backpedaling is real. "Well, now that we know it's not a real exclusive, this deal is less scummy than Sony's X deal".
Zombie James
Banned
IIRC, SFV wouldn't exist without Sony's involvement so Xbone owners wouldn't be playing it in either case. It's a very different situation.
A decades old side scrolling 2D action game is a slight bit different than the premier fighting game franchise.
Count for what exactly? They werent gonna abandon SF. Please think long and hard about what you're suggesting lol.
gundamkyoukai
Member
That don't really matter . ( who knows what form it would have come as)
The question is what would capcom rather spend there money on to get a better ROI.
Capcom taking all there MH profit and opening up a mobile studio should tell you a lot .
Either way unless MS don't bundle the game TR should be find .
I obviously meant PS3 version. Or that MS paid them to port the title (since CD isn't developing it) and it probably wasn't coming to anything but this gen anyways. speculation of course, but if it was in their minds from the beginning then SE would have a PS3 port launching at the same time as the PS4 one.
quote those people so we can all shame them.
You also. LOL. Ask yourself when SFV will appear without any financial help. In next 5 years? Maybe.
Games cost money to make. Money they didn't have.
They went to sony, or sony went to them, i don't know, but either way, they got the cash they needed, and fast.
They'd probably have released SF5 down the line anyway, when, how and in what state? That's all speculation from here.
I think its pretty clear that the game wouldn't have come as quickly (thank you Sony!). Questioning whether the game would have been made at all is beyond crazy talk tho.
I have a lot of trouble even remotely believing that. I'll give you that SFV might not exist in it's current iteration and even at this moment of time. It may have had a differnt business model and released several years later. But not existed at all? Not buying that for a moment
Infernostew
Member
Resident Evil makes Capcom a lot more money than Street Fighter.
Megaman was Capcom's mascot for years, just like Street Fighter was for decades, I wouldn't take anything for granted when it comes to Capcom.
Exactly, more speculation. Before the exclusivity deal rise of the tomb raider was releasing on PS3. It went up for preorder on PS3 at least. Launching a PS3 game more than a year from now makes less sense than it does a few months from now.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
People seem to forget that Street Fighter always has annoying Super Duper editions that could have just been patched into the "Vanilla" version. So this just makes sure that said Super Duper edition will come out this gen, and to all platforms more than likely.
But again, speculation as much as it coming out at all in a timely manner this gen.
But again, speculation as much as it coming out at all in a timely manner this gen.
I think they already confirmed that they aren't doing 'Super' iterations
- Status