Support NeoGAF

[krang]

It was a bunch of interesting ideas, but it was quite clear they had no idea how to implement the infrastructure. Were they going to supply and insert an Xbone booth in every Gamestop, Best Buy and Game in the world where you could swipe your game and have it removed from your account before trading it in? Did they have plans to compensate users for widespread internet issues caused by a major storm, for example? Did they honestly think the "We have a product for that; it's called the Xbox 360" messaging was a good idea?!

The 24-hour check-in was my only real concern with their plan. I feel like they could have implemented an online game activation/deactivation, by which you have to go online to start playing the game, but you can't sell it back to a retailer until you had deactivated it from your console whilst online. The bit in the middle you could be online/offline, whatever.

A bit like the old Adobe method.

 

[rawd]

RIP Laura Craft

 

[Elios83]

RIP Laura Craft

They even wrote her name wrong on the grave!!

 

[Rival]

I fully intend on buying it but I wasn't going to before fallout 4. I'll pick it up in a month or so when I'm done with fallout, halo 5, black ops 3, assassins creed, and metal gear solid 5

 

[Chris1]

It was a bunch of interesting ideas, but it was quite clear they had no idea how to implement the infrastructure. Were they going to supply and insert an Xbone booth in every Gamestop, Best Buy and Game in the world where you could swipe your game and have it removed from your account before trading it in? Did they have plans to compensate users for widespread internet issues caused by a major storm, for example? Did they honestly think the "We have a product for that; it's called the Xbox 360" messaging was a good idea?!

Family sharing was a neat idea which clearly hadn't been thought through. If it was really as possible as they let us believe, they would have rolled it out by now as a trump card, given how the Xbone is limping along and could do with the kind of positive sentiment this would create.

*Only to MS "preferred" retailers, which was never explained.
**Which was never explained in depth because there was no plan, only feels.
***Which is complete conjecture on your part because all we ever heard about was a 24 hour check in until the mega backlash hit.
****Which is also complete conjecture on your part, unlikely at best given the lack of reasonable digital prices previously and currently offered by MS.

Good post, man. You managed to not tell a single truthful thing about their original plan. Master the comma and you have a shot at PR lead at MS.

Both of you are kind of proving my point though, their communication was terrible. Everything both of you just said was down to their terrible communication and once the reveal happened there was no stopping the hate train (and deservedly so) which made it kind of hard to explain it better because they had already set the direction of future convos and interviews.

Even after the reveal which was focused on what you couldn't do rather than what you could do, they still stuck to that way of communication with comments like "Fortunately we've got a product called the xbox 360", "You need to check in every 24 hrs".

It's not the plans that were bad (it had its downsides for sure, but they weren't as bad as people made out). It was their absolutely terrible communication that made it just 10x worse. It's not like their plans were impossible to do, because they can do it, they just didn't explain how it'd work and instead explained how it wouldn't work. Again it all comes down to how they badly they communicated it, not the plans themselves.

 

[jayu26]

The 24-hour check-in was my only real concern with their plan. I feel like they could have implemented an online game activation/deactivation, by which you have to go online to start playing the game, but you can't sell it back to a retailer until you had deactivated it from your console whilst online. The bit in the middle you could be online/offline, whatever.

A bit like the old Adobe method.

So same system as it is now with an added step of activating and deactivating. What was the point again?

It's not the plans that were bad (it had its downsides for sure, but they weren't as bad as people made out). It was their absolutely terrible communication that made it just 10x worse. It's not like their plans were impossible to do, because they can do it, they just didn't explain how it'd work and instead explained how it wouldn't work. Again it all comes down to how they badly they communicated it, not the plans themselves.

If you are struggling so much at communication, may be the plan ain't as good mate.


This is also hella OT, but this thread has everything so...

 

[krang]

So same system as it is now with an added step of activating and deactivating. What was the point again?

You can use the disc to install, but you don't need the disc to play.

 

[jayu26]

You don't need the disc to play.

So what are you selling to the retailers?

I see the edit: so what did that accomplish? It takes less than 20 seconds for me to go from my cabinet to sticking the game into the console.

Maybe this pointless discussion will eventually circle back to how if people had reaaaally understood their true intentions with the Tomb Raider deal it would have sold better?

lol

 

[krang]

So what are you selling to the retailers?

The licence. With a physical box that they can put on a shelf and a disc that can be used instead of downloading it.

I see the edit: so what did that accomplish? It takes less than 20 seconds for me to go from my cabinet to sticking the game into the console.

Not everyone wants to do that - you make that sound like it's an unusual desire. Plus you have the option to just throw the disc and box away if you wanted, or just keep it stored somewhere so you could return it if you wanted, but you didn't have to have it easily accessible and taking up space in your living room.

 

[hawk2025]

Maybe this pointless discussion will eventually circle back to how if people had reaaaally understood their true intentions with the Tomb Raider deal it would have sold better?

There was no indication that the ridiculous "family sharing" or the nebulous "trade in games with some partners" would work and how, and what the actual impact would be on prices. Move the hell on and drop this ridiculous fantasy.

 

[bishoptl]

*Only to MS "preferred" retailers, which was never explained.
**Which was never explained in depth because there was no plan, only feels.
***Which is complete conjecture on your part because all we ever heard about was a 24 hour check in until the mega backlash hit.
****Which is also complete conjecture on your part, unlikely at best given the lack of reasonable digital prices previously and currently offered by MS.

Good post, man. You managed to not tell a single truthful or concrete thing about their original plan. Master the comma and you have a shot at PR lead at MS.

Best post today and it's not even 9 am yet.

 

[panda-zebra]

Best post today and it's not even 9 am yet.

2 years ago, in another thread and it might have been post of the week material.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Both of you are kind of proving my point though, their communication was terrible. Everything both of you just said was down to their terrible communication and once the reveal happened there was no stopping the hate train (and deservedly so) which made it kind of hard to explain it better because they had already set the direction of future convos and interviews.

Even after the reveal which was focused on what you couldn't do rather than what you could do, they still stuck to that way of communication with comments like "Fortunately we've got a product called the xbox 360", "You need to check in every 24 hrs".

It's not the plans that were bad (it had its downsides for sure, but they weren't as bad as people made out). It was their absolutely terrible communication that made it just 10x worse. It's not like their plans were impossible to do, because they can do it, they just didn't explain how it'd work and instead explained how it wouldn't work. Again it all comes down to how they badly they communicated it, not the plans themselves.

This is my last post on the subject because we're really veering off topic, but I think their communication on the matter was awful because they didn't have any solid plans. They had concepts with no practical ideas of how to implement this stuff. They were throwing out things like Family Sharing because they wanted to create positivity around the console, without any real plans on how to implement it, or any intention of it being ready for launch.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

Best post today and it's not even 9 am yet.

You joking? Its nearly home time and its been a long looooonnnggg day.

This thread has been an eye opener.

 

[score01]

So what are you selling to the retailers?

I see the edit: so what did that accomplish? It takes less than 20 seconds for me to go from my cabinet to sticking the game into the console.

Essentially MS tried to push the same setup that they have with Office. Once upon a time you used to get a CD with an activation key. Now you get a CD case with a key but no CD.

MS tried to do the same with gaming and essentially make your physical purchase have the same rights as a digital purchase (ie not very many). This has been discussed to death previously, apart from not having to get up off your ass to change discs what were the benefits? Games will be cheaper (trust us)?

Why didnt they just keep physical products working as they work now and have all these super duper rights for all their digital purchases?

 

[jayu26]

Not everyone wants to do that - you make that sound like it's an unusual desire. Plus you have the option to just throw the disc and box away if you wanted, or just keep it stored somewhere so you could return it if you wanted, but you didn't have to have it easily accessible and taking up space in your living room.

If these boxes are taking up so much space, then why are you not buying digital? They pretty much cost the same on consoles anyway. Oh, but you have the option to trade....so you are keeping these boxes any way. Look man, I just don't see it, may be it's limitation of my imagination.

 

[Stone Ocean]

This is my last post on the subject because we're really veering off topic, but I think their communication on the matter was awful because they didn't have any solid plans. They had concepts with no practical ideas of how to implement this stuff. They were throwing out things like Family Sharing because they wanted to create positivity around the console, without any real plans on how to implement it, or any intention of it being ready for launch.

Yup. Communication was awful because they weren't expecting to actually have to talk about it. The whole thing was a crapshoot, Microsoft expected that people would just accept their bullshit while they ironed out the actual details.

 

[post-S]

The problem with the original xbox one plan is that they manage to turn off almost everyone with some of their policies.
Personally I'm fine with most of their policies, but 24 hours check-in is simply unacceptable, it remove all the values the console has as a collectible.

 

[Curufinwe]

So same system as it is now with an added step of activating and deactivating. What was the point again?


If you are struggling so much at communication, may be the plan ain't as good mate.


This is also hella OT, but this thread has everything so...

It's hard to communicate the details of a plan well when you don't really want people knowing the details.

 

[Garlador]

It's hard to communicate the details of a plan well when you don't really want people knowing the details.

Sort of like the Tomb Raider exclusivity deal.

I've never seen so much PR spin, rhetoric, and misdirection to not answer the simple question of "is it really an exclusive?". It was really embarrassing.

Even now, as great as the game is, I struggle to separate the nonsense surrounding the game and it's business deals from the actual product.

The game deserved better.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

Both of you are kind of proving my point though, their communication was terrible. Everything both of you just said was down to their terrible communication and once the reveal happened there was no stopping the hate train (and deservedly so) which made it kind of hard to explain it better because they had already set the direction of future convos and interviews.

Even after the reveal which was focused on what you couldn't do rather than what you could do, they still stuck to that way of communication with comments like "Fortunately we've got a product called the xbox 360", "You need to check in every 24 hrs".

It's not the plans that were bad (it had its downsides for sure, but they weren't as bad as people made out). It was their absolutely terrible communication that made it just 10x worse. It's not like their plans were impossible to do, because they can do it, they just didn't explain how it'd work and instead explained how it wouldn't work. Again it all comes down to how they badly they communicated it, not the plans themselves.

I've lost count of the number of times I've read this rubbish posted by you. If their plans were so amazing why haven't the implemented them now? Or mentioned them again, ever?

They need all the goodwill they can get, and still they hide ' family sharing ', ' digital trades' and all the other incredible stuff they planned, now why is that?

 

[Warm Machine]

This game should have come out in December. A week after Halo and during the drop of 2-3 more heavy hitters was a terrible idea. I assume it was because they didn't want to compete with themselves (Just Cause 3)

 

[Warm Machine]

I've lost count of the number of times I've read this rubbish posted by you. If their plans were so amazing why haven't the implemented them now? Or mentioned them again, ever?

They need all the goodwill they can get, and still they hide ' family sharing ', ' digital trades' and all the other incredible stuff they planned, now why is that?

They didn't implement them because when they changed the whole direction those elements became redundant.

They should never have planned what they did in the first place. If they wanted to push people toward a non retail digital future all they had to do was undership physical games and keep the Xbox 360 digital status quo like what we have now. The 360 had a massive digital customer base already.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Not everyone wants to do that - you make that sound like it's an unusual desire. Plus you have the option to just throw the disc and box away if you wanted, or just keep it stored somewhere so you could return it if you wanted, but you didn't have to have it easily accessible and taking up space in your living room.

Newsflash! You can do these same exact things now, but even better because Microsoft isn't dictating whom you're allowed to revoke your license to, and how much credit you're allowed to receive.

 

[SpotAnime]

I've lost count of the number of times I've read this rubbish posted by you. If their plans were so amazing why haven't the implemented them now? Or mentioned them again, ever?

They need all the goodwill they can get, and still they hide ' family sharing ', ' digital trades' and all the other incredible stuff they planned, now why is that?

Didn't their plans hinge on the "always on" requirement? They ripped that out wholesale and that's likely the culprit of why they haven't yet (or ever will) be able to implement the features you mentioned.

And likely why they haven't taken advantage of cloud computing aside from "always on" modes (multiplayer), but not for the main game proper.

 

[John Wick]

I think only we are to blame then for assuming what platforms it would land on. If it's announced with no mention of any platform then that immediately send off alarm bells. Normally you would hear 'coming to Playstation and Xbox this christmas' but for Tom raider there wasn't that at all. It was just a trailer on the original announcement and lots of assumptions as to where it will end up. The way it was never announced for a platform leads me to believe the deal with MS was already in the pipeline that early but not finalized.

Whilst the mixed messaging has been convoluted the end result has never changed. We are still assuming it's coming to other platforms and it's as is an exclusive to Xbox.

I think as a community we are to blame for the disappointment. Companies will say and do what ever they can to protect their IP/Investment. Why do people keep falling for it and needing someone to blame

Yeah blame the gamers. What have you been smoking? It's clearly the fault of SE and Microsoft. A previous multi-platform title is being exclusively developed for Xbox. Also with the previous installment selling better on PS platforms

 

[Chris1]

I've lost count of the number of times I've read this rubbish posted by you. If their plans were so amazing why haven't the implemented them now? Or mentioned them again, ever?

They need all the goodwill they can get, and still they hide ' family sharing ', ' digital trades' and all the other incredible stuff they planned, now why is that?

Maybe because the entire console has took a completely different direction? There was no "digital" trades before either, it was your physical copy that you could trade in which you can now. Semantics but still a big difference there.

They won't release "digital" games on a disc because that will only add to confusion, which according to gamestop/phil spencer, people still think you can't trade in used games on xbox one so they aren't even going to go near treading down that road again. At least I'd hope not considering the original reveal almost killed the console.

As for family sharing.. http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/26/5845016/xbox-one-family-sharing-included-in-monthly-update-roadmap

They haven't ignored it.. they've commented on those features they just don't have a solution with discs or have had their priorities in other places like BC or Win10 so they don't have much to say.

Steam has family sharing so it's not like it's impossible to do or that there's something blocking MS from doing it. Or even Sony, or Nintendo for that matter. If it does happen it probably won't be for physical games unlike before, but digital only is a good start I suppose.

 

[Gnasher]

The game deserved better.

Yeah, they should really release it on other platforms in like a year or something.

Also people still talking about those drm plans. Groundhog day without the comedy.

 

[Elios83]

Sort of like the Tomb Raider exclusivity deal.

I've never seen so much PR spin, rhetoric, and misdirection to not answer the simple question of "is it really an exclusive?". It was really embarrassing.

Even now, as great as the game is, I struggle to separate the nonsense surrounding the game and it's business deals from the actual product.

The game deserved better.

Not to defend them but they probably didn't expect a backlash so strong that they would be forced to show their hand.
In the past many deals of this kind were announced (Bioshock, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid 4, GTAIV DLCs) and while of course fans were asking if those games would be released elsewhere it was more a polite thing during interviews and speculation threads on message boards.
This generated a riot and they weren't prepared for that.
I guess the reasons are that in this case the game was going exclusive to the console that didn't match with the traditional fanbase, but also times have changed and people are now used to a higher level of openness compared to the past.
The weird use of commas by Microsoft gave away they were hiding something though so it was also their own fault.

 

[KurtSloane]

Yeah, they should really release it on other platforms in like a year or something.

Also people still talking about those drm plans. Groundhog day without the comedy.

Releasing it on PS4 in a years time will not be the same as if it released now, sales will suffer.

 

[Maintenance]

Also people still talking about those drm plans. Groundhog day without the comedy.

No matter how hard people try to explain, they always come back.

 

[Neuromancer]

They're not wrong though. You could still trade in games

Only when the publisher specifically allowed it.

it had family sharing

The details of which were never actually given.

it wasn't a 24 hour check in that was just an example and it could have been longer

Not true.

you had digital benefits with physical games etc

Yes including the 'benefit' of not being able to play when your internet connection/MS servers are down, or when its all taken offline eventually.

digital versions of the game would have been "cheaper" indirectly as you could buy physical and get the same thing, etc

With all the negatives that went with the system this hardly seems like a benefit to me.

The only real downside compared to now was the check in and even that wouldn't have been as bad as they said but came with a LOT of benefits. Their communication was what fucked them, not the original plans themselves. Their focus was on what you couldn't do rather than what you could do, and nobody likes being told what not to do.

I agree their communication was terrible but the entire thing was fucked from the beginning, not unlike DIVX 10+ years ago. There is a good reason why they changed their mind and it was not because their messaging was bad. It's because people don't like the idea of being locked out of the things they pay lots of money for, with no good reason.

 

[wanderjahr]

This is horrible and the game doesn't deserve this low sales. No matter what console the game was on. But 60k only ? Something is not right

Maybe releasing it on a single platform alongside arguably the year's most anticipated release wasn't a great recipe for success.

 

[Bastables]

Yup. Communication was awful because they weren't expecting to actually have to talk about it. The whole thing was a crapshoot, Microsoft expected that people would just accept their bullshit while they ironed out the actual details.

Or by the very nature of having a hidden agenda of: fuck consumers ssas is the best for Platform holder and publishers. They could not afford to explain their malign plan to screw over consumers, because surprise consumers would react unfavourably.

 

[King_Moc]

It's not the plans that were bad (it had its downsides for sure, but they weren't as bad as people made out). It was their absolutely terrible communication that made it just 10x worse. It's not like their plans were impossible to do, because they can do it, they just didn't explain how it'd work and instead explained how it wouldn't work. Again it all comes down to how they badly they communicated it, not the plans themselves.

Are you so gullible as to think that a $100 billion plus company is unable to communicate concepts to customers. They didn't even try to explain.

Why do you think that might be?

 

[SpotAnime]

I agree their communication was terrible but the entire thing was fucked from the beginning, not unlike DIVX 10+ years ago. There is a good reason why they changed their mind and it was not because their messaging was bad. It's because people don't like the idea of being locked out of the things they pay lots of money for, with no good reason.

Oh man, DIVX... that's a name I've not heard in a long time...

Not the video codec, mind you, Neuromancer is talking about the failed DVD competitor with the discs that needed to be unlocked, and you could buy the physical disc but pay to keep or pay to watch.

What an f'ed up idea.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

They didn't implement them because when they changed the whole direction those elements became redundant.

They should never have planned what they did in the first place. If they wanted to push people toward a non retail digital future all they had to do was undership physical games and keep the Xbox 360 digital status quo like what we have now. The 360 had a massive digital customer base already.

Didn't their plans hinge on the "always on" requirement? They ripped that out wholesale and that's likely the culprit of why they haven't yet (or ever will) be able to implement the features you mentioned.

And likely why they haven't taken advantage of cloud computing aside from "always on" modes (multiplayer), but not for the main game proper.

Maybe because the entire console has took a completely different direction? There was no "digital" trades before either, it was your physical copy that you could trade in which you can now. Semantics but still a big difference there.

They won't release "digital" games on a disc because that will only add to confusion, which according to gamestop/phil spencer, people still think you can't trade in used games on xbox one so they aren't even going to go near treading down that road again. At least I'd hope not considering the original reveal almost killed the console.

As for family sharing.. http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/26/5845016/xbox-one-family-sharing-included-in-monthly-update-roadmap

They haven't ignored it.. they've commented on those features they just don't have a solution with discs or have had their priorities in other places like BC or Win10 so they don't have much to say.

Steam has family sharing so it's not like it's impossible to do or that there's something blocking MS from doing it. Or even Sony, or Nintendo for that matter. If it does happen it probably won't be for physical games unlike before, but digital only is a good start I suppose.

You know, if these concepts were so forward-thinking and would have been so good for the industry, there's nothing to stop them from re-implementing them and making them all an optional opt-in. I'm sure there are plenty of gamers who would gladly lock themselves to MS's servers and check-in system if it meant they could have things like Family Sharing and no need for discs, etc. If MS had just made the whole thing optional they would have avoided the entire backlash, and then plenty of fans and particular journalists could bask in these functions while trying to sell them via word of mouth.

Are you so gullible as to think that a $100 billion plus company is unable to communicate concepts to customers. They didn't even try to explain.

Why do you think that might be?

'Cause we wouldn't understand. The technical side of things was far too complex for execs to explain to us.

Spoiler

/s

 

[Chris1]

Are you so gullible as to think that a $100 billion plus company is unable to communicate concepts to customers. They didn't even try to explain.

Why do you think that might be?

They did try to explain, they just didn't do a good job of it.

I don't think we'll ever really find out what truly went down but like someone else said, it's possible that the features weren't fully planned out yet so they didn't know how it'd work exactly themselves, I already suspected the console wasn't ready for release and was rushed up to meet PS4 anyways. Regardless of that the features they had planned aren't impossible to do so I don't think they were just talking shit to big up their console. Whether it would have been ready for launch or not who knows.

Only when the publisher specifically allowed it.

The details of which were never actually given.

Not true.

Yes including the 'benefit' of not being able to play when your internet connection/MS servers are down, or when its all taken offline eventually.

With all the negatives that went with the system this hardly seems like a benefit to me.

I agree their communication was terrible but the entire thing was fucked from the beginning, not unlike DIVX 10+ years ago. There is a good reason why they changed their mind and it was not because their messaging was bad. It's because people don't like the idea of being locked out of the things they pay lots of money for, with no good reason.

You're right about publishers I actually just had to google that, but even still there's nothing stopping them from doing it today... see online passes. I doubt they'd want to cut off the revenue stream from Gamestop either if the blocking of digital code bundles is anything to go by. Good point though.

Communication issue.

IIRC they said 24 hour as an example then said later after the internet ran with it that "it could be longer or earlier, we're not sure" or something like that. Either way this was a downside no matter how long it was which I agree with even if it doesn't effect me.

You could still play offline within the 24 hour or however long period. This was the reason for the check in. If you couldn't check in within 24 hours you couldn't play your console to begin with let alone games, so the issue here is the 24 hour check in still.

But it's still a benefit, why pretend a positive doesn't exist just because it's outweighed by the negatives? Lol, to me the positives outweighed the negatives but I don't act like there wasn't any downsides to it at all. There were both positives and negatives for everyone, to some the negatives might have outweighed the positives which is fair and I can see why, but that's no reason to dismiss the positives it came with as if they never existed.


In the end it doesn't really matter anymore because they backtracked their plans which was for the better of the console even if I did prefer them and I don't think they will ever try to touch that path again. I'm just saying while it came with it's negatives, there were definitely some positives to it as well and their idea wasn't bad, it just needed a better way of dealing with it and communicating.

 

[Garlador]

Yeah, they should really release it on other platforms in like a year or something.

A late port of a year-old game going up next year against megatons like The Last Guardian, Horizon, Mass Effect: Andromeda, and Square Enix's own Final Fantasy XV (among the titles we don't even know about yet) is going to severely impact sales.

That doesn't even factor in whether PS4 owners will view it favorably or not in light of Uncharted 4, which will be spinning in their systems long before they get RoTR.

The delay is rough enough, but next year's roster of games is incredible. I won't be surprised if and old Tomb Raider game gets crushed AGAIN under all those big new releases.

So, yeah... The game deserves better than this.

Snip

You've gotten WILDLY off-topic. Stop talking about the terrible Xbox One reveal and their backtracked policies. They have nothing to do with Tomb Raider's performance.

You're deflecting from the topic at hand harder than Microsoft did with the Tomb Raider deal.

 

[Y2Kev]

What year is it?????

 

[Katana_Strikes]

Wonder how it'll fair 2nd week. Normal drop or dropping like a rock, if the core buyers have already bought it week 1.

 

[Chris1]

You've gotten WILDLY off-topic. Stop talking about the terrible Xbox One reveal and their backtracked policies. They have nothing to do with Tomb Raider's performance.

You're deflecting from the topic at hand harder than Microsoft did with the Tomb Raider deal.

Yeah didn't mean for it to get this far.. I'll stop posting about it and we can get back on topic

 

[Raide]

Wonder how it'll fair 2nd week. Normal drop or dropping like a rock, if the core buyers have already bought it week 1.

Will probably be half price come Black Friday and will sell a load more then.

 

[igordennis]

They're not wrong though. You could still trade in games, it had family sharing, it wasn't a 24 hour check in that was just an example and it could have been longer, you had digital benefits with physical games etc, digital versions of the game would have been "cheaper" indirectly as you could buy physical and get the same thing, etc.

The only real downside compared to now was the check in and even that wouldn't have been as bad as they said but came with a LOT of benefits. Their communication was what fucked them, not the original plans themselves. Their focus was on what you couldn't do rather than what you could do, and nobody likes being told what not to do.

Its been a looooooong time since i've seen posts like this. Brings back some memories :')

2013 was a crazy time om gaf.

 

[wachie]

Still my GOTY.

Not sure how that is relevant here?

 

[Kikujiro]

Salty about what? I'm still getting the game. Yes, Ono said there was no money to do it, and I never disagreed. There was no money to do SF5 within the timeframe current SF5 is being developed. However, this does not mean that SF5 would never have happened because Capcom didn't say it. Capcom said it would take at least till 2018, and by that time the console install base will be much bigger. Aside from that, they're screwing with their fanbase, SF games did very well on 360 and professional play was on 360. Sony simply did a smart, but very scummy moneyhat. Almost every third party exclusive on the 360 found its way to the PS3 one way or another, even the 50 million dollar GTAIV DLC. They were exclusive for a long enough period of time to give 360 a boost, but still allow PS3 owners to play them at some point. Look at why Sunset Overdrive is Xbone exclusive. Sony wants IP control.

This is so far from reality.

2018 would be too late for SFV, the player base doesn't mean shit as Fallout 4 showed, biggest launch for a Bethesda game despite a smaller console base than when Skyrim launched. SFV is going to be an esport platform for the entire generation, it needs to come out as soon as possible to become as big as they want. Not only Sony founded the game to make it reality, but it's actively supporting the SF fighting scene by putting money for the Capcom Cup (500k last year, maybe even more next year for SFV), this is exactly what Capcom wanted to do with SF (make it a big esport game), but they didn't have the resources to do it and the company weren't ready to take the risk, especially after their failed investements on mobile gaming..

 

[ronco2000]

Competing against Halo, COD, FO4 and Battlefront. I'm not surprise!

 

[cameron]

Sort of like the Tomb Raider exclusivity deal.

I've never seen so much PR spin, rhetoric, and misdirection to not answer the simple question of "is it really an exclusive?". It was really embarrassing.

Even now, as great as the game is, I struggle to separate the nonsense surrounding the game and it's business deals from the actual product.

The game deserved better.

It was weird. No one wanted to use the commonly understood term "timed" and they tried to squirm around it. Even after all the nonsense, when they came clean, they felt the need to use the term "duration".

 

[cilonen]

It was weird. No one wanted to use the commonly understood term "timed" and they tried to squirm around it. Even after all the nonsense, when they came clean, they felt the need to use the term "duration".

It's almost as if there was a specific clause barring people from referring to 'timed' in the context of 'exclusivity'.

 

[Storm Chamber]

Bomb Raider