Street Fighter 5 exclusivity- Witness the Hypocrisy

"Money-hatting is okay if Sony does it"

"Third Party Exclusivity- an ugly new trend rears its head"

Gaz from GameOnDaily offers his thoughts on the recent leak regarding the exclusivity announcement for Street Fighter 5 on PS4 and PC.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Abash1297d ago

If anything, Microsoft provoked Sony into doing something like this. They have done this several times with the Xbox One in it's first year alone, it was a matter of time before Sony responded with a similar move.

Septic1297d ago

Two wrongs make a right do they?

Like the article says, money-hatting is okay if Sony does it.

Xsilver1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

At the end of the Day Sony Fans Don't get to Play Tomb Raider for God Knows How long So don't give me that two wrongs don't make a Right BS when One Wrong was Never made Right So GTFO.
"MS fans don't get to play SF5 for "God knows how long"."
and whose fault is that........... exactly.

Abash1297d ago

How is it wrong for Sony when their competitor (Microsoft) has done this repeatedly to them? It's simply them striking back, remember this is the business world

Ezz20131297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

it's not right of course
i hate buying 3rd party exclusives
timed or not

but the problem here
Microsoft started this with TR being timed exclusive
so Sony can't just sit there and let them do this
they had to counter them

again i'm not saying this is right's wrong
but if you are Sony ...what would you do if your rival did this ?!
this is business after all

also we don't know if this rumor true or not

Septic1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

"It's simply them striking back, remember this is the business world"

Unbelievable spin.

Answer me this. Was MS wrong is doing it before? Was it not business back then?


"At the end of the Day Sony Fans Don't get to Play Tomb Raider for God Knows How long"

Er its one year exclusive. That's how long. We don't know if this is a lifetime exclusive. MS fans don't get to play SF5 for "God knows how long".

Abash1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )


If you want to be mad at anyone, blame Microsoft for starting this. I was only pissed at Microsoft resorting to buying third party exclusives rather than investing that money and time into creating new Xbox exclusives and resurrecting more of their IPs

Sony has done a fantastic job of that through and through, we can't say that PlayStation should invest this money into more PlayStation series and studios when they already have more than enough of them.

There is the difference, Sony is just using a tactic that their competitor used on them to strike back

PoSTedUP1297d ago

MS has KI exclusive, Sony wants their exclusive fighter.

im going to skip the politics here and say: pay back's a *****, PS4 ftw.

ger23961297d ago

But it's technically not an exclusive. It's coming out on pc as well.

Ron_Danger1297d ago Show
ZeroX98761297d ago

xbox one got dead rising 3, now it's PS4 turns to get an exclusive.

Findingcrybabies1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

its not "right" to do, but If MS refuses to stop their BS then SONY NEEDS to step up, and they have. Good for SONY. It sucks for gamers as a whole, but its better for SONY to do it ALSO as opposed to let MS just run free range and do as they please. Come on now. Be real.

Its a thing MS has been doing it since 360 and they weren't going to stop. Sony let it slide all last gen.

mydyingparadiselost1297d ago

Imagine the ridiculous fury that would be brought about if Nintendo did this... *insert Bayo 2 rage comments here*

Death1297d ago

Both companies have been securing timed exclusives for a very long time. This is not a response to Microsoft, it's a business tactic Sony has been doing since the original Playstation debuted in the 90's. It's also a very good sign for Sony since this means they are starting to move forward again. They have not been able to secure content like this for quite some time due to their financial problems.

zeuanimals1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

This is more like a Titanfall/Bayonetta 2 situation. The game likely was never going to be made without Sony's help due to low sales for fighters and the cost of development for a new SF game on more powerful hardware. When people found out that Titanfall needed MS's help, it was no longer a big deal that it's a 3rd party exclusive. When people were told that Bayonetta 2 needed Nintendo, nobody made a big deal of it either.

The problem with Tomb Raider is that the previous game sold very well and the new one was already being developed for the PS4, you could even pre-order it for the system, but MS paid for timed exclusivity. I'd hardly consider the two anything similar and this is actually to people's benefits if true, since we could either not have the game or we can have the game. Tomb Raider was going to be made regardless of MS's involvement.


They never had to pay for games to not be made for other systems, it was normally because of Nintendo's uncaring attitude towards 3rd parties and because of the huge installbases that PS consoles tend to have that gets it a bunch of 3rd party exclusives. Devs were guaranteed a huge audience with early PS consoles. Also, the PS1 was extremely easy to program for and games were printed on discs, much cheaper than cartridges meaning much less overhead costs.

The PS2 coming out before the other consoles and also being the fastest selling console of all time for its time (and most sold of all time) was obviously going to get a ton of games before the other consoles came out. And a ton of devs didn't see the point in releasing games for the other consoles because of the small install bases. The Xbox was also not big in Japan like the PS2 was meaning making Japanese centric games for the Xbox was not a good idea. This could be another reason why this is being made for the PS4 and no the Xbox One, Japan loves its fighters and the Xbox One is doing worse than any other Xbox console has ever done in the territory.

pompombrum1297d ago

Microsoft dug this grave with kinect, now it's time they lay in it. Ever since the Kinect unveiling, Microsoft have been far more concerned at bringing in the ever elusive casual/family market at the expense of core gamers. Meanwhile, Sony continued delivering the experiences for core gamers, there is an image somwhere on the web showing all the exclusives released in the last 3-4 years on Xbox 360 and PS3, it pretty much paints a pretty accurate picture imho.

You then have the Xbox One and PS4 reveals. Sony went in loud and proud to be a gaming console, Microsoft went in with a glorified TV accessory that also plays games approach. It really shouldn't come as a surprise that the more dedicated (and vocal) gamers would be flocking to the PS.

I do agree that the hypocrisy is funny/sad but Microsoft only have themselves to blame, give the gamers the middle finger, well they'll give you the middle finger back.

breakpad1297d ago

IMO third party exclusivity is good was,is and will always be here, it is a free market and there is competition so get on with it ...

xHeavYx1297d ago

MS does it and PS fans talk about how unfair it is, MS fans tell PS fans to deal with it.
Sony does it and MS fans talk about how unfair it is, PS fans tell MS fans to deal with it.
Let's not pretend that the hypocrisy is exclusive.

marlinfan101297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

Before we heard "sony would never sink so low as to secure well known franchises and take them out of gamers hands" now this gets announced and we here "YEAH SONY!!! THATS PAYBACK MS!!" Lol what a joke

Edit- dont forget the whole "ms is ruining gaming by doing these exclusive deals, they could care less about gamers". Its weird, im not seeing these same comments about sony when theyve taken it up a notch and secured full console exclusivity rights

yewles11297d ago

"MS fans don't get to play SF5 for "God knows how long"."

I'm certainly enjoying that Dead Rising 3 and Titanfall on PS4 at the momen--oh...

Death1297d ago


According to Phil Spencer, Microsoft made a financial investment in the new Tomb Raider which is why the game has an exclusive agreement at launch. How is Microsoft investing in a games development different from one title to the next?

If you want to over analyze this, which game do you think will have a bigger budget, Rise of the Tomb Raider or Street Fighter?

zeuanimals1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

I can't edit this into my comment so I'll just comment again:

Remember folks, Street Fighter games have about 5 Ultra Super Deluxe versions per numbered entry. This doesn't rule out a Super Street Fighter V being on the XBO. Capcom's not doing so well, if they make their money back on this they'll be able to fund that new one for both consoles next time.

Right now, it's a smart idea to target the console with the bigger installbase, and it's also the one with the bigger installbase in the country it'll likely sell very well in (Japan).


I haven't seen that. They should've come out with that earlier instead of being sneaky about it, but good on them for that but it is their fault for not communicating it well since after all of this time, this is still news to me. Thanks for showing me though, puts the Xbox division in a better light.

Of course, the same can be said of Sony not communicating this very well, but we have to wait for the official announcement since this was an "accidental" leak. If they're not helping out with development or anything, then that's a problem, but I'm pretty sure they are since this game was likely never going to be made without some help.

Ezz20131297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )


But What will sell more ?!
Tomb Raider or Street Fighter ?!

styferion1297d ago

what are you expecting on the internet anyway?
fanboys will be fanboys, both sides are hypocrites, the situation will be exactly the same if they switch sides.
It sounded one-sided hypocrisy to you because currently PS4 is dominating, thus you see the majority are okay with it, try early last gen where Sony and MS position is switched.

Volkama1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

There is a very fine line between "funding the development of a game" and "being a moneyhatting ass-company". But you can at least argue that there may be some beneficial side to exclusive game deals, which is never the case with COD/Destiny style timed content deals.

But in terms of "who started it"? Sony. Never saw Sega or Nintendo buying up hot properties. Sony marched onto the scene buying up whole studios to lock down an exclusive catalogue. Those prized first parties that people covet weren't cultivated from some Sony youth academy... they were established 3rd party developers making great games for other platforms.

So yes, there is always a lot of hypocracy when people accuse one platform holder of being worse than the other. Sony and Microsoft are playing the same game by the same rules, with only minor differences in their approaches, but it's very much cutt-throat all round.

The real w****** are the likes of Activision. Can't find any justification for their arms dealing being money money money.

Septic1297d ago

Truly mind boggling- even I did not anticipate THIS level of hypocrisy.

"There is the difference, Sony is just using a tactic that their competitor used on them to strike back"

SMH. REALLY?? This is ridiculous. How on earth is this justified? Sony is using this to strike back? So two wrongs DO make a right??

"im going to skip the politics here and say: pay back's a *****, PS4 ftw."

Says it all really.


"again i'm not saying this is right's wrong
but if you are Sony ...what would you do if your rival did this ?!
this is business after all again i'm not saying this is right's wrong
but if you are Sony ...what would you do if your rival did this ?! "

I agree with you wholeheartedly. You're right. Sony can't sit back on their laurels but it doesn't make it right. At least you get it. The others on here blindly defending this as if this is some sort of equitable justice is crazy!


"Must be itching to get dem clicks eh septic, aka MS c**ksucker?"

Yeah because those clicks make sooo much money lol. Don't mistake me for other hit-hungry people on here. If I wanted to, I could be the top contributor all day with flamebait titles. I just say it how it is.


"Both companies have been securing timed exclusives for a very long time."

Agreed and whilst MS popularised the trend, people will bury their heads in the sand regarding your comment.

"But it's technically not an exclusive. It's coming out on pc as well."

Wow. So this sentiment used to downplay the Titanfall exclusivity works both ways.


"The game likely was never going to be made without Sony's help due to low sales for fighters and the cost of development for a new SF game on more powerful hardware."

If anyone actually believes this nonsense, then they need to get their heads checked. Street Fighter would never have been made without Sony's help??! You've got to be joking!


"Let's not pretend that the hypocrisy is exclusive.

You're right. Its not. But one side made A LOT more noise than the other.

Crystallis1297d ago

Two wrongs don't make it right?. Get out of here with that Septic. So Sony is just going to sit back and let MS Moneyhat the big third party exclusives?

The shoes on the other foot now and its "two wrongs don't make it right". Remember MS started this garbage and like I said in the beginning of last gen, these kind of deals will not sit well with gamers in the future and it turns out I was right.

miyamoto1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

My goodness gracious!

Weren't you people saying Sony is so piss poor its going bankrupt and all yet you say Sony has the capability to money hat like Microsoft or Nintendo????

What hypocrisy!

The writing is on the wall, Septic.
3rd Party instinctively and financially will make games on the more popular platform.

Do you know what you are babbling about?
Were you born yesterday?

The future has been decided already for this generation.

Sony does not gives a rat's ass about any of its past successes as its a company that moves forward very fast

but do you know how many times PlayStation's competitors Nintendo and Microsoft has money hatted numerous third party like Capcom to buy exclusivity over game titles and franchises that were made popular first on PlayStation platforms?

Remember Capcom 5 controversy on Gamecube where Capcom and Nintendo joined forces to bring PlayStation's down to the ground?
Resident Evil, Viewtiful Joe, PN 03, Dead Phoenix and Killer 7

How about Monster Hunter's multi million selling run on PSP where did it go?
How about Devil May Cry?

Remember Final Fantasy XIII a supposed to be PS3 exclusive that Microsoft paid $100 million to get it to Xbox 360?
GTA IV? Dino Crisis?

....and many more cases like this!!!! Damn It!

But did we hear any complaint from Sony?

PlayStation has been a badly beaten victim of this money hatting and swiping for many years.

Is SF5 console exclusivity Capcom's way of apologizing to Sony?

Or is it the PS4's massive lead that prompted them to save on development money?

Dude, Titanfall Xbox One, Xbox 360 and Windows PC.... go figure? Don't play ignorant.

And when did Sony had the millions to money hat 3rd party

yewles11297d ago

"Never saw Sega or 'Nintendo' buying up hot properties."


Oh that's too funny... Nintendo did worse.

Volkama1297d ago

@Yewles OK good shout, Nintendo started it. I didn't know half of the detail from your link. I just played Sonic/Street Fighter 2/Mario Kart/Super Smash TV, without a care for how they came to be.

But the rest of my post was more important than a "who started it". What I was trying to convey was that they all do it, and pointing accusing fingers at one or the other is silly.

nX1297d ago

Septic in full damage control these days ;D
Aside from the fact that Microsoft started it, we don't even know whether this is an exclusive deal or just Capcoms decision to save development costs. All we know is that timed exclusivity is hurting this industry in any case, no matter who's doing it... but I'm pretty sure that Microsoft can't win this war with money alone, it seems like there's quite a few developers making PS4 exclusives out of their own will.

Ron_Danger1297d ago

I can't wait till this author writes an article about the hypocrisy of MS fanboys praising indies on XBox 360 and then bashing them on PS4...

Oh wait... That article will never be written...

yewles11297d ago

"But the rest of my post was more important than a "who started it". What I was trying to convey was that they all do it, and pointing accusing fingers at one or the other is silly."

Fair enough, but take it from me, bro: gaming history is SORDID in controversy, just like EVER OTHER INDUSTRY, few of us know this from first-hand experience.

PoSTedUP1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

@Septic- MS throws their money around. me: they have little first party, they have to/ theyre desperate. is what i say. its cool if what i said supports your argument, but dont get me confused with everyone else and what they say. i dont think MS buying third party exclusives is wrong at all. its all fair in love and war. its a counter strike (if even that) if anything by this deal (if any). not all sony fans share the same exact opinion, so of course its gonna look hypocritical when youre comparing different opinions of the same party. maybe ive been gone for a little too long but i guess i just dont remember sony fans claiming this is wrong; OR you are indeed taking the opinion of some, and then the response to this exclusive deal from other sony fans with a different outlook, and making/thinking it looks hypocritical in your own mind by not understanding that not every sony fan shares the same opinion of MS (besides hating them). some could be here right now looking like a hypocrite, idk, do you? i jus wouldnt generalize different opinions just to support your argument of hypocrisy because it can be easily done by what i said above, and that may be just the case here.

edit: my comment is for you too Marlinfan.

DragonKnight1297d ago

Look, people trying to justify this as "Sony is striking back", you're wrong. This tactic, no matter who does it, is wrong. 3rd party titles have literally no reason to be exclusive to any console. They may end up being exclusive because the studio can't make it otherwise and then that's just a protected investment on the first party's part, but it's a B.S. move to keep games away from gamers.

So no, it's not ok that Sony has done this for so many reasons, not the least of which are instances in which people endlessly b**** that it's ok for one side to money hat but not the other.

dredgewalker1297d ago

All I can say is all is fair in love and the console war...if this is true I am very surprised by this kind of move by Sony. I may not be complaining since we have a ps4 but if I had an Xbox One I'd be really pissed since both ps and xbox owners all love Street Fighter. It's still a huge franchise and having exclusivity to this game will definitely help sell more PS4's.

NatureOfLogic_1297d ago

Two different situations imo. TR exclusively on Xbox didn't make sense to me because both of the previously released TR's sold less on Xbox consoles. That's not the case with SF. It actually sold more on PS consoles so it makes a little more sense than MS TR moneyhat that just shutout majority of the fanbase.

PoSTedUP1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

@ dragonknight: ever heard of an incentive? third parties and companys do whats best to benfit themselves, they both are obviously ok with this and have done it for a reason: the more they benifit the more they stay afloat. its business. also crapcom isnt doing too well, but would hate to see them or any company disappear completely and if this is what they feel is best to stay in the game: its completely Right. gamers have full access to every game on every console. and if you have to buy a second console to play certain games, hey, youve just unlocked a whole other world of possibilitys, congrats :). if you choose not to buy a console for a certain game that you want, your loss, you then do not get to play it. companys create the perfect recipe for us to buy their console, a third party exclusive is just a secret ingredient ;)
anyone of these third party devs can become first party in a heart beat, and then what? a company just took a whole slew of games an made them exclusive. thats ok though? first party is justa word, yet the same concept as buying just one game from a third party that they rightfully paid for, on a smaller scale. its business and a means of survival. and if a company dishes out millions of dollars for it, they deserve it, andyour 400 bucks.

LeCreuset1297d ago


No, it's not right. I'd rather see the money spent elsewhere.

Still, it takes me out how some of you jump at any chance to hurl false charges of hypocrisy. If you're playing a game of street hoops and you keep fouling the other team when they go for a basket, and your response when called out on it is "That's the game. Just play," don't be surprised when the other team plays and fouls you on your way to the basket.

Did you really just think Sony was going to allow MS to use a tactic against them without evening the playing field? Get real. If anything, there should be an article on why competition isn't automatically a good thing. Here's exhibit A. I don't like it, but I'm not about to shed a tear for MS or any of the fans whose response to outrage at the TR deal was along the lines of "Ha, ha. Xbox FTW. U fanboys just butthurt." So please spare us from another demonstration of the overuse and misapplication of "hypocrisy."

Godmars2901297d ago

Of course its not alright if Sony does it. Especially when its a title that's just not going to be on the XB1 when that title has been nothing but multiplatform from the beginning of time.

darthv721297d ago

people going crazy over this need to think about 2 things. 1st its Capcom. 2nd its street fighter.

If it isnt clear yet then let me give you a hint... "Super"

It seems there is a good chance that the xb1 will get a "Super" edition while the PS4/PC has the regular edition.

It isnt like Capcom and MS are on bad terms and Sony is already getting an exclusive in the game Deep Down.

4Sh0w1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

Wow the hypocrisy is astounding on n4g, a bunch of agrees for ridiculous comments, fact the only way a xbox fan could be a hypocrite in this case is if they supported micros 3rd party deals like Tomb Raider and NOW say sony should NOT have done this deal...simply pointing out that ps fans bashed micro and said it was bad for the industry so now just stating that ps fans are saying this is "pay back" is not hypocrisy its only reminding them of their previous position, what is hypocrisy is damming micro for it and now cheerleading sony for it, lol dome of you have no shame its actually textbook hypocrisy. Again which is why I personally don't choose to hate on either companies business moves unless it's something highly unusual= I don't like having to contradict myself when the console I prefer does's the internet but I still like to mean what I type.

"Microsoft started it", the internet is funny when folks who should know the most about gaming history know so little. Sony was buying exclusives from sega before xbox ever existed. I suppose nintendo has done the same. As a X1 only owner Im not complaining. IT'S BUSINESS and this news and the large amount of ps fans reactions just confirms what everybody always knew which was that the soap box rants from ps fans about Tomb Raider and other 3rd party exclusives was NOT about "all gamers being able to play a established franchise but really just transparent hatred because microsoft has the deep pockets to do it.

Lol, now disagree if sony had the same 3rd party exclusive deals to start this gen instead of micro would any of the same folks bashing micro for it have said anything besides "thanks sony"???

That said good for sony, I like the competition, the more these two consoles library varies the more incentive for consumers to make a hard choice OR buy both.

Kryptix1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )


Here's some truth...

I understand what you're trying to point at, Septic. About the Tomb Raider timed exclusivity and all the people going against it. Here's the thing though, we have no knowledge if Sony funded the project at this point or if Capcom are only able to release this game on one console because if I remember correctly, Capcom aren't financially stable due to their mistakes last gen.

Here's a real shocker though...YOU sir, are a hypocrite yourself.

"Well if its timed then it'll be a quick cash injection that will benefit them the following year. I would have made that deal if I were struggling financially." -This is you trying to cover for Microsoft and their Tomb Raider deal

So by your own words, you should be ok with this because if you paid attention to Capcom, they aren't in good standing with finance.

Look, this is from 2013:

Title is, "Capcom Doesn’t Have Enough Resources For A Next-Gen Fighter"

I just gave you the evidence, are you going to deal with it or are you going to be around N4G spreading the same bs...

Edit: Corrected the second link

URNightmare1297d ago

So what's Sony supposed to do, just sit there while Microsoft keeps doing this every time? This is the kind of crap Microsoft has brought to the industry. Microsoft will always ruin something wherever they put their hands into.

LeCreuset1297d ago

Let me say this too, for the "hypocrisy" trolls that insist on viewing things in a vacuum. Did it ever occur to you that Microsoft's eagerness to snatch up 3rd party titles played a hand in this? If Sony says "no" to Capcom, do they have to worry that MS will say "yes?"

There have been a few titles now where the defense of MS has been that some developer/publisher came to Sony with the deal, but Sony didn't play ball. So, IF it's a matter of losing a title to MS or playing their game, I'd rather Sony play their game, though I'd rather the game had never been started.

Kayant1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

First of all no one knows how this deal came to be. It can be that it's a case like TF/DR3 where extra funding was needed for the game to come out. There is also the thing were this could be a timed exclusive. There is no details to go on with!!!

TF was clearly brought.

1. When the game was announced no platforms were mentioned.
2. On MS's website it was referred to a third party title.
3. Pre-orders were being taken by multiple retailers for 5 versions(PC/XB1/PS4/PS3/X360)
4. Even when it was confirmed as a timed exclusivity it took several days before Phil Spencer was like we are helping "development" - Translation we are helping out the Xbox versions of the games like we always do when there is a need.

If this game was not going to exist without Sony's cash then it's a better situation still shitty because of platforms affected but at the very least it was not taken from said platforms even though the game would have existed on them like in the TR situation.

At least wait until we get a clearer picture before crying about "Hypocrisy" when there is no clear reason as why the exclusivity exists.


Hahaha that K.O

Forn1297d ago Show
LordMaim1297d ago

@Septic: The problem is that the horse is already been let out of the barn. Microsoft wrote out big fat checks for Titanfall, the Gears of War franchise, and now Rise of the Tomb Raider. Multiple instances that were defended by Xbox Fans and decried by Sony fans.

Now if Sony follows suit, if there is no internet outrage that somehow makes people hypocrites? The precedent has been set, and many people have taken the stance of "business is business". Either they're both acceptable or both unacceptable.

Septic1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )


"Here's a real shocker though...YOU sir, are a hypocrite yourself. "

AND then you quote me here:

"Well if its timed then it'll be a quick cash injection that will benefit them the following year. I would have made that deal if I were struggling financially."

Sorry, where is your reading comprehension? And where is my hypocrisy? Do you even get what the article is about? I said that if I were struggling financially I would have made that deal. THIS is an article about the HYPOCRISY of fanboys deriding the deal made.

Don't you get it? You're proving the hypocrisy of the Sony contingent for me.

However, why didn't you link this comment of mine?

"Its business. Pure and simple. I'm NOT saying its a GOOD PRACTICE but some people need to wake up."

"I just gave you the evidence, are you going to deal with it or are you going to be around N4G spreading the same bs... "

You gave me evidence of the fact that you actually don't understand what you are talking about or what this article is about. Try harder next time.

I'm not spreading B.S. This is about a bad practice (that I have stated was a BAD PRACTICE when the TR deal was made) and IN THE ARTICLE itself but I'm alluding to the HYPOCRISY in the reaction of the fanboys to this.

So are the same people boycotting Tomb Raider going to boycott this?

@Lord Maim

"The precedent has been set, and many people have taken the stance of "business is business"."

Ah so its business when Sony now do it. Right. They're justfied because they made this deal to react to MS. Right. How convenient. So it basically boils down to 'Money-hatting is okay is Sony do it'.

Seriously, the people boycotting TR, if you have any backbone, you'll be doing the same here. I won't obviously...I'll be buying this, if its good, just like I will Tomb Raider.

Keep digging though. I'm genuinely in awe at the hypocrisy and absolute blind loyalty/justifications given here. It really is something.

Big_Game_Hunters1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

Lol i saved a bunch of pictures of N4G comments attacking microsoft over the Tomb raider exclusivety, now i see the same names on this comment section with the opposite. Giving me really good laughs.

As for me.. i don't care, business is business, when MS did it i didn't care, Sony is doing it now, i still don't care. But the people here Seemed to think it was so bad when MS did it,but now its okay because........? because it's business?!? lol hypocrites.

Christopher1297d ago


***You're right. Its not. But one side made A LOT more noise than the other.***

As someone who moderates a lot of comments, I disagree with that sentiment. On a general basis, there are more Sony fans than Xbox fans. But, on major topics like this, they come out of the woodworks and are pretty even on comments.

Gamer19821297d ago

MS has done them to themselves really by showing Sony how far they are willing to go. It was bad last gen with games like Star Ocean but this gen they took Tomb Raider and I reckon that stung a little and now with Sony saying they are finally putting there time and resources into the gaming division instead of mobile and TV which is losing them money it was only a matter of time before they took all MS's own money making ideas and did it for themselves. The main difference here is compared to last gen is the scope of the games.

Saying that lately it just seems Capcom is whoring its games out to the highest bidder with DR3 going to MS and SFV to Sony. We all knew they would be getting a premium game from Capcom when MS got DR3 we didn't know it would be this.. Makes me wonder whos gonna get Resident Evil.. I wouldn't put money on it being Nintendo.

solid_snake36561297d ago

MS has done this repeatedly with bioshock mass effect tomb raider and with dlc's. You can't expect Sony to sit their and let MS do this to them.

4Sh0w1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

Kayant none of that really matters. Fact is even before or after micro is known to be helping with the development of the game a large majority of ps fans bash them for any kind of 3rd party deal. The main point here about the "hypocrisy" label is that going back to even last gen it's a consistent pattern that the ONLY reason 3rd party deals are frowned upon is when the shoe is on microsofts foot for the simple and most obvious reason= its not on ps console whether that's timed or permanent given the complete reversal we see in this comment section that's the truth. I haven't played a Street Fighter game in ages but I'm sure this one will be great, I don’t really care how micro or sony secure these deals the end result is the same and THATS BUSINESS, its both of their jobs to make their platform more desirable than the competition and just because a deal pisses off a bunch of entitled fanboys of the competitions fanbase should NOT be a reason for hesitating to make such deals, as a X1 owner sony owes me nothing and micro damm sure better offer X1 owners plenty of their own deals. I like both being aggressive....can you imagine 2 consoles with a even more varied lineup of 1st and 3rd party exclusives.

Death1297d ago

To those that seem to think Sony never paid for third party exclusives, care to explain how Metal Gear on the PS3 became exclusive? The game had a digital footprint of 9 gigs, so it has nothing to do with Blu-ray. The Metal Gear PS3 bundle was part of the agreement Konami had with Sony. Metal Gear was a paid exclusive. This isn't a new practice and it's not always unethical. Take a look at Tomb Raider for example. It's closest competition is Uncharted which is a Sony first party exclusive. If both release late next year they are in direct competition with each other. In this case Sony is competition to them. Microsoft has no first party offering like it and isn't a threat to sales. It makes perfect sense to launch first on the Xbox since they can fill a void on the platform. If they launch on PS4 6-12 months later Uncharted will have less of an impact on sales. The money Microsoft is investing should cover losses for the quarter from the absence of sales on PS4.

DragonKnight1297d ago

@PoSTedUP: There is no incentive in this that isn't eclipsed by multiplatform sales. Unless this situation is like Bloodborne (where the dev partnered with Sony for the sake of FUTURE multiplatform games), or Bayonetta 2 (where the game would not exist without a first party studio stepping in to fund production), there's no reason for any 3rd party company to make any game exclusive to a platform, especially an old series like Street Fighter. Exclusives are best used to showcase the potential of a console, and 3rd party games NEVER do that because they don't have the intimate knowledge of the console necessary to do it.

As for what my opinion is, since you seem to be confused as to why I made the statement I did, Sony fan or not this is wrong. It was wrong for MS to take TR away from what could pretty much be considered it's founding fanbase, and it's wrong for Sony to take a fighting game away from more competitive players. Buying a PS4 for Street Fighter V would be a stupid thing to do and shows complete lack of respect for the value of a dollar. Especially when considering that the "whole other world of possibilities" you're talking about has at least a 50% chance of not existing at all after you've spent your $400.

The tactic is wrong. It benefits fewer people than it would if the game were multiplatform, and Capcom needs all the money they can get. For a console agnostic franchise like Street Fighter, being exclusive means making less money. So really, the only "winners" here are Sony because PS4 gamers would get the game anyway if it were multiplatform, they don't get rewarded for it being exclusive, Capcom makes less money, and Sony gets all the reward from it.

Chevalier1297d ago

Start of this gen. Dead Rising 3 and Tomb Raider.

Last Gen Dead Rising, Bioshock, Ninja Gaiden,Mass Effect, Tales of Vesparia, Star Ocean, Resident Evil 5, Grand Theft Auto, Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Skyrim 1st to Xbox DLC etc.

Clearly Sony started the trend?! MS started the whole thing and where were you guys then?! Those same smug people were oh yeah look at our great 'exclusives' and now you guys want to cry wolf?! Really?! Your a generation too late to make that argument

yewles11297d ago


"Unless this situation is like Bloodborne (where the dev partnered with Sony for the sake of FUTURE multiplatform games),"

I hope you don't mean multiplats under the Bloodborne banner...

Thomaticus1297d ago

two negative do equal a positive.

Gamers make decisions based on exclusives for the what choice does any company have. You have to compete. If Capcom can be bought, then someone has to make a purchase. If Sony didn't do it.... Microsoft will, and unfortunately that's the state of gaming industry now.

Thomaticus1297d ago

Gamers make decisions based on exclusives for the what choice does any company have. You have to compete. If Capcom can be bought, then someone has to make a purchase. If Sony didn't do it.... Microsoft will, and unfortunately that's the state of gaming industry now.

Kratos0Ace1297d ago

Microsoft started it way back with X360, with games like ninja gaiden 2, mass effect 2, etc...and this generation with peggle 2, plants vs zombies garden warfare, and apparently Ryse.
I cannot blame Sony for this because Microsoft should have expected this to happen if they play like that.

So to answer your question: it doesn't make it right but it's definitely Microsoft's fault because they started it. There.

Mornzie1297d ago Show
DigitalRaptor1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

This article is so s**t, Septic.

Witness the victim complex right here. Sony/Capcom being honest is what you're going to see, not hiding it like Microsoft were trying to on stage deceiving people and bending the truth of the word "Exclusive".

Septic… this is what happens when people go on about "competition being good". Without competition, this would not have happened. In other words… without Microsoft, this would never have happened. This article is just so reactionary, it's funny.

I expect the same article, if Shenmue gets announced as a PS4 exclusive or something along those lines, regardless of the details about how the game would never be made without direct financial contribution…. JUST LIKE you don't know all the details about if a new Street Fighter would have been made without Sony's contribution and support. Here's a bit of perspective for you:

People whooped and wailed about Bayonetta 2 exclusivity but soon got over it because they realised the game was not going to be made without Nintendo's support. Rise of the Tomb Raider…. It was going to be made anyway for all platforms and we all know it.

I personally don't see much "rejoicing" going on. I just think it's shocking and unexpected. The game looks good, and Street Fighter is a much bigger franchise than Tomb Raider.

LeCreuset1297d ago


How can you get mad at someone and challenge their reading comprehension, because they called you the hypocrite, when you started the hypocrisy accusations in reply to the first comment posted, which had nothing to do with "two wrongs make a right." Abash never made a moral judgement on the practice at all. He just said it was predictable, given what's happened this gen.

LordMaim1297d ago

@Septic: You misunderstand my meaning. The "business is business" justification was given by people attempting to defend the Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusive. Well now the shoe's on the other foot. After Titanfall, the Gears of War franchise and now Rise of the Tomb Raider, this is what we can expect from these companies vying for our business. We have to accept this as fact, because we're not given the choice as customers. So either they're both acceptable or both unacceptable.

Personally, I've decided to just sigh and get on with it.

geddesmond1297d ago

OK then get MS to give back tomb raider and we'll get sony to give back SF5. All these articles appeared so quickly and Capcom hasn't even confirmed it yet. It could be Asia only exclusive. But while your at it get MS to give us Dead Rising 3 and Titanfall as well.

I've said it before and if this is true then X1 owners should get ready for a lot more of this because the bigger sales the PS4 gets the more Devs will look to it for exclusive games. It makes a lot of business sense to develop for 1 consol as dev teams and resources don't use up as much money. So cash tight developers will go for the bigger install base.
And if you haven't noticed but DR3 didn't exactly leave Capcom rolling in bank after going exclusive with that.

LeCreuset1297d ago


"It benefits fewer people than it would if the game were multiplatform"

Are we making the mistake of assuming the game would be multiplatform? When MS has demonstrated, and admitted to, a willingness to bolster deficiencies in their 1st party lineup by buying 3rd parties, can we just sit here and assume that SFV would be multiplat if not a PS4 console exclusive, that MS wouldn't buy it? We've already been told that Sony turned down deals for games that MS later snatched up as exclusives.

TheFanboySlayer1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

Since I got bubbled down as off topic :(.....Here are my thoughts and how I look at it...

Sony and Microsoft are in a boxing match....lets say that the buying of 3rd party exclusives is like kicking

Sony when they were younger were the masters at kicking....(Getting 3rd party exclusives because they were popular).
Last fight (360 vs PS4)...Microsoft were set in making sure they learned to they are pros...While sony had quit back in the day and started using alot more hard punches (got 1st party dev support)
This gen (PS4 vs XboxOne) Microsoft has thrown in a few kicks...Sony not soo much....People are pissed but what can you do...the ref isnt against kicking. Now Sony throws a HUGELY powerful kick(since they're good at it) and everyone is outraged.
Its a question of morality..should kicking be banned in the boxing match? Is it fair that Sony kicks hard when Microsoft have been doing it for a while?....again all a question of what you think is right.

My opinion: neither group should be kicking in a boxing match but if one does to another, they should be allowed to retaliate by kicking back.

So Septic...2 wrongs dont make a right but both parties shouldnt be doing the wrongs in the first place...Therefore you can't say that Sony are being hypocrites when clearly both are at fault in my opinion.

jb2271297d ago

Regarding your other comment about Tomb Raider's exclusivity being one year, has that been confirmed anywhere? I thought that was pure speculation? There hasn't been any official timeline released as to when Rise will hit the PS4…I personally could care less about Street Fighter, it'd be a fun game to play for a bit, but I actually dug the Tomb Raider franchise a lot…if companies have to resort to these kinds of things, why can't they stick to what their market dictates? MS has always been a bigger online platform, therefore a heavily online game like the fighting genre should've been grabbed by MS, I play on the Playstation platform because they have always had the best single player story driven games, which is what Tomb Raider is. I think it's nothing but a bad deal for gamers when these kinds of things happen. I agree that Sony is simply fighting back in the battle that Microsoft started so I see where they are coming from, doesn't mean I have to like it. To the people saying that gaming is a business, unless you are a part of that business you are a gamer & that aspect shouldn't even enter your mind.

Although, in the justice system, there is the idea of self-defense & if this case was being tried in court as Sony v. Microsoft, Sony would most definitely be found not guilty in this situation.

DragonKnight1297d ago

@Yewles: No, what I mean is that FromSoftware will use the lessons they've learned, and the engine they developed, by partnering with Sony and use them on other multiplatform games. For example, a spiritual successor to Bloodborne called BludBorn could be made that uses the same engine as the original but is multiplatform and there's nothing Sony could do about it because it's not Bloodborne.

@LeCreuset: Whether or not MS would have snatched it up is irrelevant to the point. 3rd party titles have no reason to exist. They don't help the developer as much as multiplatform sales would, with few exceptions being where there is a clear fanbase on one particular console such as was the case with TR, or games like Final Fantasy where we saw the huge disparity in sales between PS3 and Xbox 360 FF13 games (even though they all suck) because FF is more synonymous with Playstation.

OCEANGROWNKUSH1297d ago (Edited 1297d ago )

The funniest thing about Tomb Raider is that it will be rushed to market for the Xbox, and they will be charged for the DLC/season pass... With a year extra dev time on a superior platform, and likely including the DLC in some sort of "definitive edition" for the PS4 who really wins?? There will be NO SHORTAGE of exclusives to play on the PS4 this upcoming year, nobody is going to miss it, and nobody is a hardcore enough TR fan to buy an XB1 for it. Street Fighter fans on the other hand? i can definitely see buying a console for SFV, i know many people who bought a PS1 simply for Alpha 2.