Top
160°

Street Fighter V’s Exclusivity Is Far From A Bad Thing

Pixel Gate writes:

''The recent news that Street Fighter V will be a PS4/PC exclusive has left some feeling a bit..frustrated. The frustration seemingly coming from how the reveal came out of no where. It’s a surprising move given Capcom seemed to be in the Microsoft camp given the exclusive release of Dead Rising 3. Like It or not, Street Fighter V is a massive feather in Sony’s cap, but it’s not all doom and gloom for those invested into one system.''

Read Full Story >>
pixelgate.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
Bennibop1102d ago

Ono had stated last year that Capcom are not willing to make SF5 due to costs.

gangsta_red1102d ago

Ono never said that, he said he currently didn't have the budget or R&D for the next Capcom.

But if you think Capcom wouldn't make another SFV after milking SF4 for 5 or 6 years then I have the Golden Gate Bridge here for sale for the low price of 900 bucks.

gangsta_red1102d ago

"...he said he currently didn't have the budget or R&D for the next Capcom."

Meant to say:

"...for the next Street Fighter"

breakpad1102d ago (Edited 1102d ago )

by the way i would like to see other fighting exclusive other than SFV ...Sony should have exploited the chance and help for a Darkstalkers development or a Rival Schools ...ok SFVis famous and good but i like better (along wiht thousand other fans) the other two ..which may stay in obscurity and never see a new gen remake

Septic1102d ago

You lot really think Capcom couldn't afford to make another Street Fighter?? Really?

Nothing much to discuss really if you actually believe that...

Bennibop1101d ago

@Septic No one said Capcom cant afford to make it, Capcom were not willing to make it at that point. Lets not forgot as Ono stated Capcom approached Sony.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1101d ago
darthv721102d ago

the deal isnt a bad one but just interestingly timed in its announcement. And yes if there was no budget at the time then its likely it would have been made after whatever other projects they are working on were finished.

It wasnt like they were shopping around for investors but they got one. i just find it odd that its a street fighter game and not monster hunter or an exclusive resident evil. but it is what it is.

Maybe sony can capture some of that interest like nintendo did so many years ago with the original SF2 came out.

miyamoto1102d ago (Edited 1102d ago )

I am a huge Street Fighter fan but not so much of what Capcom has become in terms of their foul business practices. They have become a greedy and treacherous company from Capcom 5 to Monster Hunter to Street Fighter V.

Unless they repent I will continue to buy their games used or from PS Plus.

CorndogBurglar1102d ago (Edited 1102d ago )

I agree with most of what you said, except for one thing.

Capcom has been doing weird things for a long time. Going all the way back to Street Fighter 2, they have been re-releasing different versions of the same game. That isn't anything new to them. I've always hated that about them. With all the versions of Street Fighter 2 they released, they could have just made Street Fighter 3, and added the 8 extra characters that got added from SSF2 and SSF2T. Don't even get me started on the 3 or 4 extra versions of SF4.

Capcom did get better for a time, but the Street Fighter franchise has always been like this. It just sucks I love the game so much, lol

Then there's MvC3. They made a newer version of that with new characters too. Which was shady, because originally they claimed that they were going to be releasing those characters as DLC periodically. Then they never came out, then suddenly a new version was released. Weak.

Baka-akaB1102d ago

They didnt claim they'd get more dlc characters for the original MVC3 than the two announced . Mostly costumes

Speculation just got the better of people as usual .

It was mostly the backlash for stuff like the choice of characters , , the lack of modes and the online netcode that spurred a sequel ... along with greed of course .

DeadManMMX1102d ago

Capcom has a history of horrible decisions. Before this was Resident Evil exclusively on GameCube. That one made no sense to me then none to me now. As big an RE fan as I was I never got a GameCube till it's last year or so of life. It will be the same for some either way.

KionicWarlord2221102d ago (Edited 1102d ago )

Let the bidding war begin. Seems like a fitting game of poker between Microsoft and Sony.

In the end its all up to who has the most expenditures.

SaveFerris1102d ago

I can see this being a tit for tat contest and MS can afford to be more aggressive because they have the fatter wallet. Sony will have to be more selective as well as ensuring that their first party titles are top notch. Game on!

C_Ali881102d ago (Edited 1102d ago )

Sure MS has the coffers but how much are they willing to blow on a division that has never garnered them a profit? 10 years of money down the toilet you'd think MS might be a bit more inclined to be financially scrupulous in the future. Just saying!

@SaveFerris

Precisely Microsoft uses its partners to mitigate costs, get exclusive content and exclusive content and pay a fraction of what you would funding a whole studio to develop a game. Microsoft really needs to get Rare up and running, utilize 343 in other capacities or at least utilize 1st and 2nd party developers to build up more exclusive content of known and new ip.

SaveFerris1102d ago

@C_Ali88

Good point. MS will likely continue partnering with EA and with Activision with COD, but I guess they may try to grow more first party content as well.

JimmyDM901102d ago

It think if this generation becomes a bidding war of turning multi-plat games into third party exclusives/timed exclusives it would be very bad for the gamers. If Sony or msoft have to spend 15 million on SFV or Tomb Raider just so the other console doesn't get it or has to wait, that's wasted money for the gamers. That's 15 million that could be spent toward a new ip, on network infrastructure, towards securing new studios, for R&D.

I can't see exclusivity of multiplats making gamers experience playing those particular games that much better.

jb2271102d ago

I sure hope not. Gaming consoles should be about art & creativity above budget. It's about fostering good relationships w/ devs first & second party, helping them to take risks & create new experiences. These third party titles would exist no matter what & Microsoft & Sony would simply be buying bragging rights and name cache, not actual new creative content. A bidding war helps no one other than maybe third party devs. This bidding takes money away from console services & updates, as well as money for true first party exclusives. If we end up w/ the battle of timed exclusives or moneyhatting this gen, count on far fewer amazing console defining games, that much is a given.

Godmars2901102d ago

So long as its allowing the game to realize its full potential.

Something I don't think is possible in this online/day one patch day and age...

darthv721102d ago

considering it is being made for the PS4 and ported to PC should allow them the ample time to make it a finished product. Unlike other games that are having to juggle multiple versions at the same time.

But if sony is somehow in a hurry for this to be done...then its possible it will be a patch job after release depending on what is cut to meet the deadline (if any).

Godmars2901102d ago

Why would Sony be a hurry to have the game out? If anything Capcom, who like other companies, is more focused on the quarterly earnings a game's release generates.

Nevermind if it actually works or not.

C_Ali881102d ago (Edited 1102d ago )

SF being one of my all time favorite franchises I don't see how exclusivity is a bad thing? Maybe thats because I own a ps4 but come on people owning a particular video games console was about the EXCLUSIVE content, Nintendo's Marios, Sega's Sonic (until the "Cast'), Streets of rage etc

All this hoopla is purely because most current gamers have been accustomed to the same games releasing across a number of platforms. This takes away all appeal for a particular console and thats why we've been relegated to professing and lauding technical specs not GAMES..

I for one am glad we are getting back to this as multiplats are for pure profit we need more exclusively crafted games for consoles...

It pretty much boils down to if you'd rather have a tailored Brioni suit vs. a mass produced suit from Kohls? For the EXACT same cost to you!!

Bring on the Brioni!!

darthv721102d ago

When SF2 came out for the SNES... i didnt have the snes at the time but i did have a genesis. That game wasnt what spurred me to get a snes (axelay was actually). I had played the snes version quite a bit and it was a decent port (looking back on it) but it was the ONLY way to play the game at home.

until Capcom opted to start making versions for the PCEngine, genesis, 3do, cd32.... then you could pretty much play a version on anything at the time. It was deemed a system seller because there was no other way to play it.

that might be the angle sony is hoping for with this game.

Show all comments (26)