If you pay attention to context then its obvious why one move is vilified and the other is not.

For what it's worth, Revelations 2 and all those remasters cost significantly less to make than Street Fighter V.

But yeah, the whole "This game wouldn't exist without Sony" thing is a load of crap. Capcom would have found a way.

@gaff: Thanks!

@thepanzini: I think you misinterpreted the quote. They gave Square Enix a huge sum of money for exclusive first round distribution. I think what he meant was that MS was funding the XB1 version and Square Enix was on there own for other platforms. I don't have sources handy but based on the way the bomb crew broke this thing down when it was originally announced and the fact that Square considered the first game to be a financial failure.;I'll stick to the notion that Microsoft marketing money is the (or at least a big) reason why the game exists.

@humanity: one thing about fighting games is they are both very expensive to develop and even more expensive in the long run. They need constant support and upkeep, not to mention new characters, stages, etc. They're like a competitive FPS shooter but without the wide audience. So I dunno, I guess that's probably a factor in Capcom's ability to "afford" development.

@geraltitude: It's either a case of Capcom not being able to afford to develop a single game - which doesn't bode well for the company. Or it's a matter of Capcom thinking it's too risky to invest money into developing a sequel to the most popular fighting game franchise in the world, that they have successfully milked with Super and Ultra revisions in the past. I mean if you're telling me that Capcom, a game publisher and developer, was unable to pool enough capital to develop and maintain their most successful franchise to date, then they are in a perilous financial situation.

EDIT: I'm not one to go into conspiracy theories but I honestly believe the whole "we wouldn't be able to do this without Sony" is simply Capcom doing Sony, their new business partner, a solid by playing this situation up in a positive light. It's just as shitty as Microsoft buying out the exclusivity for Tomb Raider, except at least I'll be able to play that game eventually while XB1 owners will never get to play SFV. Ironic since as far as I know most people that wanted to seriously play SF IV online did so on the 360 because the PS3 always had worse network issues.

Delayed to summer 2016 leading up to "coming late 2016". And it will be broken as hell.

on Steam in "Early 2016". For a second there I thought I had read "on Steam in "Early Access". [lowering the big red flag]

I'll admit I was wrong. I thought based on Phil Spencer's language in that Eurogamer interview that he had locked down Rise of the Tomb Raider on Xbox One with a possible PC version down the road but no PS4 version. I was convinced that the duration he was talking about was the duration until Square Enix would be able to release a sequel to this game on PS4 not that this game actually had a PS4 version on its roadmap. I thought this was another Splinter Cell: Conviction, Dead Rising 3 or Ryse: Son of Rome.

A year is still pretty long time to lock down a title this big, it is way more significant than a Destiny DLC exclusive. Obviously Sony has Street Fighter V and by the sound of it they have that locked down tighter than this but it seems like Street Fighter V is only happening because of Sony while I bet we would have seen Rise of the Tomb Raider in some fashion regardless of whatever skyhigh company loss mitigation plan Square Enix thought that the last game would be able to achieve.

this is why i have every system and a gaming pc, stuff like this effects me zero.

@humanity: I actually do think Capcom is in some financial trouble... Where the heck are there games? Seriously, take a look. The heck have they been working on these last years? I think this is very much the case. You're looking at financials kinda simply too... If I'm Capcom I know I can afford RE7 but that doesn't mean I can afford anything else. So it's not about being able to develop any single game, the game matters a lot. But still, some questions about all this for ssure.

I think all in all people equate Street Fighter's popularity with it's financial success, which I think is why there is this perception of SFV being low risk. To put things in to perspective, the grand total of Xbox 360 and PS3 copies for the original SFIV equaled a paltry 3 million. The most famous fighting game of all time sold less than the reboot of Tomb Raider in a flash. That said, there is apparently 8 million copies all in all, for all versions of the game (8.4 mil for Tomb Raider also). Which is nothing to sneeze at!

Now, business wise ... why on earth would you limit your game to 2/3s of the market forever and ever and ever. It just doesn't connect for me. There's so little to be gained from this for Capcom if they could afford it. And we now they actually have a great relationship with MS already, based on the two exclusive series they've built there (Lost Planet, Dead Rising). If it's just a cash grab and Capcom can make the game without Sony's help, why make it permanently exclusive? That's where that whole idea just falls flat to me and I think is the biggest difference in this exclusivity deal. Why do it forever? Why not just a year?

I don't know I think they should push it back a few months. Only on one console for the time being and coming out same day as Fallout 4 seems like a very bad idea. Also I wonder if Horizon Zero Dawn is coming out around the same time as Tomb Raider on ps4.

No for two reasons:

1. I have not played a Street Fighter since the second one in arcades.

2. SFV may not have happened without Sony's involvement.

Now if it was Sony paying money just to keep it out of the hands of Xbox owners, then sure. Too often we have seen this with games, and it hurts the gamers. I would rather they spend money on new IPs or their own internal development houses then try to squeeze a few more sales out of people who cannot wait.

I wont sit here and pretend I have not purchased timed exclusives in the past, for both companies, because I have. It has just gotten old is all I am saying.

@geraltitude: It's just bad decision making. I don't know their in-depth financials so I'm not going to dig my heels in on one side or the other here. Personally I think they could have done it themselves, retained all rights, ported it everywhere and made a lot more money in the long run - but I have no real numbers to back that up. Making it exclusive to PS4 is a bad move all around. It's bad for Capcom, it's bad for the fans and it's bad for long-tail profits. The only person coming out marginally on top is Sony as it helps them push a few more console units but at what cost? They're not doing all that hot either despite the great PS4 sales. If SF V flops like SF x Tekken and everyone just goes back to SF IV then this will be a huge loss for them. Seeing their Killer Instinct-esque business strategy I wouldn't be surprised if it did indeed flop.

Gonna stick with my original plan and buy this 2nd hand, get to play the game and not support this stupid business model.

Wikipedia

On August 1, 2013, Phil Rogers, Square Enix' Western CEO, confirmed in a blog post on the company's official website that a "next-generation Tomb Raider sequel" is "well into development".

On June 9, 2014, Rise of the Tomb Raider was formally announced with a press release, after a first trailer premiered on Microsoft's E3 press conference earlier the same day.

Tomb Raider relased 5 March 2013 AAA dev works on a 3-4 dev cycle, when Rise of the Tomb Raider was announced the trailer didn't show any platforms if MS was dev the game they would have made a big song and dance about and wouldn't have been so vague after the fact. TR 2013 didn't make money but sold really well SE likely overestimating how big the audience for TR was going to be, the remasters helped the game turn a profit. Sequels cost much less money to make SE would have been crazy not to make another which they confimed five months after TR release.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-26-tomb-raider-has-sold-3-4-million-copies-failed-to-hit-expectations

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/poor-tomb-raider-has-finally-turned-a-profit/1100-6417200/

http://eu.square-enix.com/en/blog/note-phil-rogers-ceo

"I am also excited to reveal that we are well into development on a next-generation Tomb Raider sequel" 1 August 2013

It's not really a big deal for me to wait a year for this game. Fallout and Battlefront will probably take me a huge amount of time to get through, then there will be other games early 2016 that I'll want. By the time Tomb Raider comes out on PS4, it'll most likely be bundled with most of the dlc, and probably it'll be all patched up and working right, so it's probably going to be slightly better value to wait.

Yea but everything about they way they've gone about Destiny has been disgusting lol

I thought Rev 2 was okay, but that game couldn't possibly have been too expensive to develop.

On-topic, that's one hell of a wait for the PS4, so I'll definitely be grabbing an Xbone copy day one. I really liked that first game.

I only realised that wasn't the case after reading your comment >_>

Also, this is fine for me, it will give me time to play the older Tomb Raider games.

@geraltitude: Full exclusivity for SFV is less of a big deal, TR sells better on Sony platforms and in Europe the latter being an MS weak spot. Street Fighter fans are very dedicated buying multiple iterations of the same game they'll buy the console finacially for Capcom exclusivity won't make a difference. Sony also might be overspending big making the Street Fighter audience move to bring other fighting game fans.

Wikipedia Street Fighter IV has sold 3.3 million units. Super Street Fighter IV has sold 1.9 million units, in addition to 1.1 million of the Arcade Edition (full game only). Super Street Fighter IV: 3D Edition sold an additional 1.2 million copies.Ultra Street Fighter IV has sold 500,000 copies (full game only, without counting PS4 version) by September 30, 2014. This adds up to sales of 8 million copies in total.

I know Destiny has been a clusterfuck. But which part of that is due to Sony?

From what I've gathered, MS wanted an Uncharted competitor (Phil Spencer said as much) and bought one. SE wanted to avoid the uncharted 4 juggernaught that was slated for holiday 2015 and got cute withe the exclusivity deal. However, they just missed out on a ridiculous amount of potential sales with U4's delay. It looks like MS got a bargain and Sqaure Enix sold low.

Is there any chance Microsoft paid enough money to SE to justify keeping Tomb Raider off Playstation when there is a gaping action adventure hole in Sony's lineup? Is it safe to speculate that it was a miscalculation on Wquare's part? Does ANYONE have an idea of what the dollar amount for this deal would be?

@thepanzini: Maybe says something about how unclear MY post is, but dunno why you're telling me this. Exactly the same points I'm *trying* to say! (i think)

@geraltitude: Your right replied to wrong person sorry bro.

@thepanzini: I see the evidence you are presenting but none of what you are citing points to anything concrete regarding regarding nature of the Microsoft exclusive deal, or to what extent the deal affected the development of the game.You cite sources and offer conjecture that is not explicitly backed by the quotes. (To be fair, you have more than I do. None of my evidence is even quotable). Also, you are making a lot of assumptions regarding dev cycles, Square Enix Financials and what the things you are quoting actually mean. Yes, the game was obviously in development before Microsoft came into the equation but the rumbling that I recall hearing was that the game's development was somewhat in question. Once again I don't have sources. Conversely, you do have them which is great; but they are by no means empirical because they are PR blurbs. PR statements don't hold much credence because things get muddled and a PR statement should never be taken as a fact. It could be a flat out lie, especially in the videogame industry (Just look at the hole Warner and WB have dug themselves into over the Arkham Knight PC release because they presented false marketing materials). I'm not saying your wrong, nor did I profess to be an authority on the subject. Perhaps I was a bit brazen in the way that I worded the original post. My opinion on the deal was largely shaped by things former GB staff member Patrick "Scoops" Klepek said on podcasts during and following E3 2013. I can't cite sources on this and I could be totally wrong but Patrick tends to be reliable. Let's agree to disagree on this one, eh?

Indeedly. Graphically, while not terrible, it's pretty subpar compared to Capcom's usual output and looks like a game from the PS3/360 gen. A significant number of animations and sound effects were taken from RE6 as well, if not other RE games. Basically all weapon firing effects originate in RE6, as do all movement animations, and the 'Rotten' enemies have the exact same animations as the zombies from RE6. Raid mode's maps also consists of like 90% RE6, 5% Revelations and 5% Revelations 2, as are many of the characters in fact beyond the Rev 2 cast. Many of the Gestures are from the Lost Planet games as well.

...Suffice to say, corners were most certainly cut.

@lkpower: This game would have definitely been made without MS's "help". It was (and probably still is) being developed for multiple platforms at the time of it's announcement. The only thing MS did was to buy console exclusivity for a one year period.

Cool, I'll have beaten about a year ago at that point.

@gvalo: I think lots of PS4 user would skip because ROTR is likely coming out after Uncharted 4, and and seeing the fancy as f*** stuff Naughty Dog cooking up, ROTR woud feel less than impressive.

meh, I'll be too busy with other games more than likely.

@joshthestampede 90% of the time it doesn't boil to "one or two games". The WiiU has a pretty solid exclusive library at this point that rivals both the xbone and ps4 combined.

The question I have is why announce this now? Are their internal metrics for this game looking terrible? I'm just not sure why MS would allow them to release this information so far out from release.

Meh. PC gamers can be patient. We've been accustomed to it.

So what they're really saying is Holiday 2015 for Microsoft consoles, Q1 2016 for PC,and Holiday 2016 for Sony consoles. Right? Why didn't they just say that from the beginning rather than all of this corporate bullshit?

Well I'm not going to pay full price for a one year old game. So I'm either going to wait until it has dropped considerable in price or not play it at all.

May not have gotten SFV without a deal from Sony? How so, as SF4 is still the biggest game on the fighting scene headlining EVO for at least the last five years.

@ptys: it's been explained many times. Capcom was (is) in financial trouble and would not have made SF5 until 2018 at the earliest. Tomb raider was already in development when exclusivity was bought.

I'll skip it to be honest.

I'm curious what a year of console exclusivity cost Microsoft in "co-marketing money," or whatever euphemism the gaming industry's calling the pay off now.

Frankly, if you aren't the kind of person who needs it day one (my backlog of great games is so thick I wouldn't have time to play it day one, let alone month one through month six and beyond), and can avoid spoilers, the PC and PS4 versions may just be the better versions, given the increased time Crystal Dynamics will have to tweak, patch, and fix it. Everything, including AAA titles, ships broken on day one anyway, I'll just wait till 2016 to play the "fixed" version.

@yummylee: Oh Revelations 2 was not a triple A production for sure. It was also a game that didn't really need to exist. I'm not sure what was served at the business meeting where it was decided that the company should pour a sizable amount of capital into developing an episodic followup to a game that didn't review spectacularly well, hailing from a series that is for all intents and purposes on it's deathbed. I guess they still have a soft spot for Resident Evil despite the precipitously declining sales. Also I assume they didn't exactly make a lot of money by taking risks with new IP like Dragons Dogma and Remember Me that were wonderfully refreshing and unique but didn't exactly sell all that great. Honestly more than Resident Evil 7, Street Fighter 5 or anything else Capcom is willing to drag out of it's cobwebbed coffers I wish they would help publish a sequel to Remember Me. What a spectacularly invigorating game that was. So many interesting and completely unique systems. Dontnod just needs more time to refine the formula.

Regarding exclusivity windows: I'd say if you go for it, then really go for it. A one year exclusivity window actually means something, and with a package deal this could be a system seller for those on the fence of buying a One. TR could also be enough of a household name to sell systems to more casual gamers and parents during the holidays.

Probably wasn't a cheap deal, though.

I can deal with early 2016. Look forward to playing it. I just hope its not a disaster like Arkham Knight was on PC.

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/microsoft-helped-rise-tomb-raider-big-way/

Gallagher then admitted that Microsoft helped Crystal Dynamics “achieve what we want with Rise of the Tomb Raider“. Although he did say the game could have existed without Microsoft’s help, mainly because the Tomb Raider franchise has existed for over 20 years and is still a popular brand.

http://gamerant.com/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-microsoft-exclusive-publish/

Crystal Dynamics GM Darrell Gallagher reveals that Microsoft’s main role is to help bring Rise of the Tomb Raider to market. They are there to help the developers achieve their goals, and to assist in development if needed.

This is still such a bizarre title to get such exclusivity out of nowhere. I wonder what the motivation was (probably money).

I don't know. Atlus keeps on insisting that an English release this year is happening, but I really don't know whether or not to believe them.

Probably impacts sales a bit but obviously they got a sum of money they calculated was worth it. It's a pretty long exclusivity period but at least it'll be on all platforms eventually.

Titanfall is in my mind the worst example. No matter how much money they got it feels like they killed that beginning franchise completely with the exclusivity deal. Half a year later the player base was somewhere in the hundreds of people from what I understood. Especially early on in the new cycle, I think they would have sold up to 500% more copies had they released it on PS4 as well.

God they've handled the nature of this game's exclusivity so idiotically. What a clusterfuck.

Glad to hear it's coming to PS4, I can deal with the wait. Wouldn't have been a top 5 for me this Holiday anyways with Battlefront, Fallout 4, MGS V, Black Ops 3 [I really liked Advance Warfare's MP so I'm definitely in for wall running], Just Cause 3 just to name a few.

Oh no, now this is going to "fail" by not meeting their sales expactations once again.

Anyway an entire year is quite long, but oh well, I'm okay with just getting the inevitable GOTY edition then.

I was just gonna get the XB1 version anyway, but damn, that's a long wait.

I can wait a few months. I'm also not worried about the PC port quality, I'm assuming Nixxes is on the case for this one as well and their past PC work has been excellent.