Support NeoGAF

[shinnn]

Again, they didn't need help, the game was gonna get made one way or another. With or without MS' help. If MS "helped" to the extent you are suggesting I think this game would be MORE than Timed Exclusive. If MS put that much money and time helping develop the game than it would be considered (at least partly) THEIR project, and it wouldn't even be on the PS4 in the future.



Pretty much.

MS is helping the development, isn't this a fact?

edit: from the same article posted earlier:

The deal also means Crystal Dynamics can tap into Microsoft's hardware-specific expertise to help with the development of Rise of the Tomb Raider, Gallagher said. From the start, Microsoft employees have shown initiative to help Crystal Dynamics with the project, asking things like "How can we help?" and "What do you need?," Gallagher said.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-dev-talks-xbox-exclusivity/1100-6425471/

 

[gaming_noob]

Who is making the official TR thread?

 

[Makoto Yuki]

MS is helping the development, isn't this a fact?

No, from Siliconera:

As far as Microsoft’s role in the game’s development is concerned, Gallagher says the company is providing support and publishing the game. Having a first-party console maker back your game has benefits, he says. Microsoft are providing talent that doesn’t necessarily exist within Crystal Dynamics, as well as providing hardware-specific expertise for Xbox One and Xbox 360 development.
Read more at http://www.siliconera.com/2015/02/2...clusivity-sales-and-more/#gdgHBXIevt6Fu272.99

Basically, they are helping optimize the game for the Xbox One. At least that's how I interpret that paragraph.

If they were helping code and had a more active role in the game's development, the game would have been exclusive to the Xbox One.

 

[Kayant]

MS is helping the development, isn't this a fact?

edit: from the same article posted earlier:

The deal also means Crystal Dynamics can tap into Microsoft's hardware-specific expertise to help with the development of Rise of the Tomb Raider, Gallagher said. From the start, Microsoft employees have shown initiative to help Crystal Dynamics with the project, asking things like "How can we help?" and "What do you need?," Gallagher said.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-dev-talks-xbox-exclusivity/1100-6425471/

Which is the same as how they helped with Destiny, recently PES 2016, etc.

 

[Melchiah]

Basically, they are helping optimize the game for the Xbox One. At least that's how I interpret that paragraph.

If they were helping code and had a more active role in the game's development, the game would have been exclusive to the Xbox One.

Not to mention, that we would have most likely heard about the exclusivity far earlier than we did, if they had such a crucial role in its making.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It's amazing that people keep saying these exclusive deals don't matter, but then you see how it apparently affects people when these threads pop up. If it didn't matter, no industry would continually be spending hundreds of millions of dollars a generation to make them happen.

 

[Synth]

I just checked as of may Capcoms assets was 65 million. You and others are seriously underestimating Capcoms financial problems. There's simple no way SfV was being made without backing.

I would be far more convinced if this meant they required help to produce a new Resident Evil. Not so much for Street Fighter. Unlike Street Fighter, Resident Evil's can't really be made on the cheap, in a modular fashion, or made to fit numerous purchasing models. I couldn't see Arc System Works for example offering a product competitive with Resident Evil, however they've consistently been able to offer games of comparable scope to a Street Fighter game, despite the huge gulf in popularity.

If Capcom were short on money, a new Street Fighter would seem to be one of the most obvious and safest choices they could make on what to develop next. Of course, if someone else is willing to fund it for you... bonus! There really doesn't seem to be anything to truly suggest they wouldn't have made the game otherwise, so I'm surprised to see this constantly stated as a hard fact.

 

[shinnn]

No, from Siliconera:



Basically, they are helping optimize the game for the Xbox One. At least that's how I interpret that paragraph.

If they were helping code and had a more active role in the game's development, the game would have been exclusive to the Xbox One.

So you have no idea of what I am suggesting. Its the same help that MS did with Titanfall, Dead Rising (Sunset Overdrive I supose). Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden last generation.

Its not just a support for third parties, its part of the deal like the gamespot article says. Maybe they have more participation in the development than Sony does with SFV, for example. I don't know how Sony work on this.

 

[Kaffeemann]

Why does this thread have 50 pages?

 

[Memorabilia]

Meh. Not a fan of this kind of BS. Will most likely buy on Black Friday 2016 when its <$20.00

 

[Synth]

Why does this thread have 50 pages?

Because you're set to 50 post per page instead of 100. You should fix that.

 

[VICI0US]

Why does this thread have 50 pages?

console warriors.

 

[Makoto Yuki]

So you have no idea of what I am suggesting. Its the same help that MS did with Titanfall, Dead Rising (Sunset Overdrive I supose). Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden last generation.

Its not just a support for third parties, its part of the deal like the gamespot article says. Maybe they have more participation in the development than Sony does with SFV, for example. I don't know how Sony work on this.

What are you suggesting? That MS is developing the game?

Because they aren't developing anything, they are just "helping development." The difference between actively developing the game would mean they are involved in all creative aspects of the game.

You are making it sound like MS is in the Crystal Dynamics office saying what the game should be like, contributing to the story, helping flesh out details of the game. NO, that's not what MS is doing. Again you are making it sound like MS is actively making the game. All that has been said about how MS is "helping develop" is they are supporting the team by giving them knowledge about the Xbox One and 360 architecture.

 

[JayhawkerStL]

OK that would be one.

But that was about the game, and concerns turned out to be justified.

This drama over RotTR is pure salt.

 

[shinnn]

What are you suggesting? That MS is developing the game?

Because they aren't developing anything, they are just "helping development." The difference between actively developing the game would mean they are involved in all creative aspects of the game.

You are making it sound like MS is in the Crystal Dynamics office saying what the game should be like, contributing to the story, helping flesh out details of the game. NO, that's not what MS is doing. Again you are making it sound like MS is actively making the game. All that has been said about how MS is "helping develop" is they are supporting the team by giving them knowledge about the Xbox One and 360 architecture.

When did I said they are developing? Jesus christ.

I'm saying they are helping development, and that being only two platforms (instead of 4) could benefit the development too.

But people are arguing that its like impossible. Nothing will benefit the development of the game, this exclusivity means nothing for the development of the game.

That is it. I'm saying something absolutely plausible, and people are going nuts.

- this is business and others companies do the same
- two platforms instead of four can benefit the development of the game
- MS is helping the development (more than a common third party game, but of course less than Halo lol)

 

[Makoto Yuki]

When did I said they are developing? Jesus christ.

I'm saying they are helping development, and that being only two platforms (instead of 4) could benefit the development too.

But people are arguing that its like impossible. Nothing will benefit the development of the game, this exclusivity means nothing for the development of the game.

That is it. I'm saying something absolutely plausible, and people are going nuts.

- this is business and others companies do the same
- two platforms instead of four can benefit the development of the game
- MS is helping the development (more than a common third party game, but of course less than Halo lol)

This has been established already. We all know they are helping, you just make it sound like there involvement is more than it really is.

 

[Lemondish]

Maybe because Square Enix doesn't want to be seen as a company that needs outside help (like Crytek / Capcom) to make games? And maybe because Microsoft values that relationship enough that they can refrain from publicly shaming them on the world stage?

Any why wait? Because Microsoft wanted more people to buy on Xbox One, but people became so feral about the possibility of it not being timed that Square Enix / Microsoft were left with no choice but to pacify 'fans'. Seriously, not seen anything like this cut-throat approach from gamers towards Hello Games / Sony, despite their being plenty of thread to pull at regarding No Man's Sky's exclusivity.

This is a topic that has annoyed me a fair bit. The sense of entitlement of people is absolutely ridiculous. This is a game that may not have been made had it not been for Microsoft, yet they're the villains.

Comparing NMS and TR is some serious mental gymnastics. Firstly, CD is a lot bigger, has a lot more experience, and is owned by a publisher. They're nothing like Hello Games.

Not to mention No Man's Sky isn't a popular multi-entry franchise that had previously been multiplatform. Your position is full of terrible spin and logical fallacies.

This has been established already. We all know they are helping, you just make it sound like there involvement is more than it really is.

Dismissing the complaints because "well, they are helping" is essentially putting your stamp of approval on this type of behaviour. I don't think we should accept deals like this except in cases where the games being supported by platform holders would not have happened. Ori, SF5, etc.

Nobody has effectively managed to explain how a successful franchise like TR wasn't going to see a sequel after selling 7 million copies. At least not in a way that wasn't fanbiy bullshit.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

When did I said they are developing? Jesus christ.

I'm saying they are helping development, and that being only two platforms (instead of 4) could benefit the development too.

But people are arguing that its like impossible. Nothing will benefit the development of the game, this exclusivity means nothing for the development of the game.

That is it. I'm saying something absolutely plausible, and people are going nuts.

- this is business and others companies do the same
- two platforms instead of four can benefit the development of the game
- MS is helping the development (more than a common third party game, but of course less than Halo lol)

Isn't it just one platform and one port job instead of one platform and three port jobs?

It doesn't change the fact that it's still a cross-gen game, they can't design it in a way that it absolutely can't run on the 360 and given the technology gap, the game is still getting held back regardless. What would have been great would be if the game does not come to the 360 and go current gen only, that would have resulted in a more ambitious game, the fact that they have to release it on the 360 just to hedge their bet because they might be unsure of the xbone, one might perceive that as being detrimental to the ambition of the game.

The exclusivity deal is simply a game of keepaway, it's a reality of the console business but ultimately the game will probably sell fewer copies, there will be gamers on the other platforms that might decide to move on instead of wait, and that weakens the Tomb Raider brand.

 

[Heigic]

What does helping with development even mean?

Option 1: MS gives them $1million for TombRaider
Option 2: MS gives them $500k and 'help with development'

Exactly the same transaction happened.

 

[shinnn]

This has been established already. We all know they are helping, you just make it sound like there involvement is more than it really is.

Just look at our conversation. Its plain stupid:

MS is helping the development, isn't this a fact?

No, from Siliconera:

Because they aren't developing anything, they are just "helping development."

That's it. Everyone post that is not shitposting about MS here is threated like a blasphemy or something. People are not even trying to put MS on a pedestal, they are just saying its business. Then this circle of distorting what the other said begins.

I'm done here.

 

[Trup1aya]

The extra attention the XBO version of Destiny received certainly didn't benefit the PS4 version, considering they run and look the same.

This is my point... Bungie spent extra time polishing the xb1 version. That attention could have gone towards making the Ps4 version better... but it was held back my having parallel development with the Xb1 version.

RotTR will reach its potential on Xb1... Destiny couldn't reach its potential on PS4, because it was held back by the process of parallel multiplatform development...

No one is claiming that the TR deal will make this a better Ps4 game. The claim is that it will make it a better xb1 game because it will get more focus...

 

[BasilZero]

Fantastic news.

I'm gonna be getting it on Steam !

 

[Synth]

Dismissing the complaints because "well, they are helping" is essentially putting your stamp of approval on this type of behaviour. I don't think we should accept deals like this except in cases where the games being supported by platform holders would not have happened. Ori, SF5, etc.

Nobody has effectively managed to explain how a successful franchise like TR wasn't going to see a sequel after selling 7 million copies. At least not in a way that wasn't fanbiy bullshit.

Can one person actually qualify the claim that SFV wasn't happening without assistance? I've asked numerous times in this thread, but each time the person I quoted has simply ignored my request.

Street Fighter IV did over 8 million copies... I'm not seeing why it's treated like it's Shenmue or something.

 

[HardRojo]

Reading this thread hurts. Just gonna say something. No one (or basically almost no one) is arguing that SFV wasn't going to be developed at all. It would have just come out at a much later date had Sony not stepped in. So yeah, people who claim SFV would have only happened, ever, with Sony's help, are also wrong.

 

[etta]

Reading this thread hurts. Just gonna say something. No one (or basically almost no one) is arguing that SFV wasn't going to be developed at all. It would have just come out at a much later date had Sony not stepped in. So yeah, people who claim SFV would have only happened, ever, with Sony's help, are also wrong.

Couldn't that be said for ROTR too? How do we know that the game was originally slated to hit all platforms in 2015? Maybe Microsoft asked them to hurry up the process for Xbox One specifically so they could have something that competes with Uncharted 4 for the holiday.

 

[Makoto Yuki]

Just look at our conversation. Its plain stupid:

That's it. Everyone post that is not shitposting about MS here is threated like a blasphemy or something. People are not even trying to put MS on a pedestal, they are just saying its business. Then this circle of distorting what the other said begins.

I'm done here.

Once again, there is a difference between "Developing" and "Helping Develop." Why should anyone put MS on a pedestal? You are just too invested in defending MS. You are describing RotR as if MS' "helping develop" is more than it really is.

Again, it's not shittposting when it's the truth, CD didn't need help to make the game, it was going to be made regardless. Sure MS helped, but it's not like they saved the project from never happening.

 

[benny_a]

Couldn't that be said for ROTR too? How do we know that the game was originally slated to hit all platforms in 2015? Maybe Microsoft asked them to hurry up the process for Xbox One specifically so they could have something that competes with Uncharted 4 for the holiday.

When someone says Street Fighter V happens earlier than planned because of Sony funding then they are saying that because Capcom representatives have said 2 years ago to not expected Street Fighter V before 2018.

There is enough evidence in this thread that Tomb Raider was in development before any deal was made with Microsoft for the timed exclusivity.

You can't speed up software projects by just throwing more money at it (= read more people.)

Edit: To make the alleged difference more clear to show that they are not equivalent despite both having to do with timing:
One is saying that Sony funding caused the game to start development earlier than the self-funded projected scheduling.
Your scenario would mean a game that was already in development is earlier done because of Microsoft funding.

 

[Conduit]

In 2013 they just said the sequel was in development, that was not an official game announcement. .

What the hell you trying to spin!?

It is not they just said, they CONFIRMED THAT NEXT TOMB RAIDER SEQUEL IS WELL INTO DEVELOPMENT and that was 2 years ago. That is not official confirmation? Just stop, dude. How to be called, THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

 

[Purest 78]

I would be far more convinced if this meant they required help to produce a new Resident Evil. Not so much for Street Fighter. Unlike Street Fighter, Resident Evil's can't really be made on the cheap, in a modular fashion, or made to fit numerous purchasing models. I couldn't see Arc System Works for example offering a product competitive with Resident Evil, however they've consistently been able to offer games of comparable scope to a Street Fighter game, despite the huge gulf in popularity.

If Capcom were short on money, a new Street Fighter would seem to be one of the most obvious and safest choices they could make on what to develop next. Of course, if someone else is willing to fund it for you... bonus! There really doesn't seem to be anything to truly suggest they wouldn't have made the game otherwise, so I'm surprised to see this constantly stated as a hard fact.

65 million was just assets not cash in hand. So we're talking far less without selling something. Is it really that hard to accept they didn't have the money to make the game?

 

[Melchiah]

This is my point... Bungie spent extra time polishing the xb1 version. That attention could have gone towards making the Ps4 version better... but it was held back my having parallel development with the Xb1 version.

RotTR will reach its potential on Xb1... Destiny couldn't reach its potential on PS4, because it was held back by the process of parallel multiplatform development...

No one is claiming that the TR deal will make this a better Ps4 game. The claim is that it will make it a better xb1 game because it will get more focus...

Or Destiny was held back for parity, like AC Unity. After all, "Phil Spencer ... has been putting great effort into making sure that the Xbox One edition of Destiny hits 1080p...", was stated in the quote I posted previously. There's no mention of extra work being done for the PS4 version.

You did mention, that the quality of the PC and PS4 versions would benefit from being delayed.

 

[etta]

When someone says Street Fighter V happens earlier than planned because of Sony funding then they are saying that because Capcom representatives have said 2 years ago to not expected Street Fighter V before 2018.

There is enough evidence in this thread that Tomb Raider was in development before any deal was made with Microsoft for the timed exclusivity.

You can't speed up software projects by just throwing more money at it (= read more people.)

What if ROTR was originally planned to release in fall 2016? And you most certainly can have an effect on speeding up certain tasks with money. I am not saying this is what happened, or that it was even likely that it happened, but what if Microsoft went to them, told them "Here's some cash, hire some more people, focus only on the Xbox One version of the game, we'll send some engineers, give us the game in fall 2015 so we have something to go up against Uncharted. We will take care of publishing and marketing too, so use that money that you would have used there in development."
Is this even a tiny bit plausible?

 

[Synth]

65 million was just assets not cash in hand. So we're talking far less without selling something. Is it really that hard to accept they didn't have the money to make the game?

Well, yea. I can accept the possibility of that.. but then I could accept such a possibility for numerous other studio/publisher combos that make games along the lines of Street Fighter without issue. You're stating it as a fact however, which is completely different. Hedging your bets with an offer that cushions development costs isn't the same as not being able or willing to develop the game otherwise. Sega will happily take up an offer from Nintendo for Sonic games... but in the absence of that offer, they'd likely make... Sonic games.

So if you're going to state that SFV would not have happened without being turned into an exclusive, I want you to provide evidence of that. If there isn't any, then simply stop stating it like a fact.

 

[benny_a]

What if ROTR was originally planned to release in fall 2016? And you most certainly can have an effect on speeding up certain tasks with money. I am not saying this is what happened, or that it was even likely that it happened, but what if Microsoft went to them, told them "Here's some cash, hire some more people, focus only on the Xbox One version of the game, we'll send some engineers, give us the game in fall 2015 so we have something to go up against Uncharted. We will take care of publishing and marketing too, so use that money that you would have used it there to put it in development."

Is this even a tiny bit plausible?

I can only give you my personal take on that. Disclaimer: I haven't worked in the video game industry.

I have however worked in large scale software development where I did multi year planning for software projects our several hundred employee big site was going to handle and also worked as an enterprise software developer myself.

In my opinion no. This is usually also the commonly accepted position in software development. See: The Mythical Man-Month.

 

[Freshmaker]

Eh, not a fan of these kind of business decisions.

I'd be more upset if this wasn't a series I sit on until a flash sale. Or PS+ or something.

 

[Steroyd]

Its shitposting saying that CD didn't need HELP of MS when they said that MS HELPED.

People act like MS did nothing for the franchise. Just throwed money and that's it, like a DLC.

Bolded the key word here, "need", SE aren't strapped for cash, in general their games in development doesn't suggest that they need help to get games out the door unlike Capcom, and if I'm reading this right CD have always solely focused on developing on one platform the Xbox while they have another team port the game to other systems (like how the Xbox 360 version is currently handled), at its most simplified MS is paying to not have that seperate dev team port the PS4/PC version alongside the Xbox One version, which... Impresses me to say the least.

 

[SonyToo!™]

Lol you only have to look at my username to see where I stand on the issue, Both MS and Sony are just as bad as each other and I find it funny how so many ppl tend to excuse one while hating on the other.

Well, yea. I can accept the possibility of that.. but then I could accept such a possibility for numerous other studio/publisher combos that make games along the lines of Street Fighter without issue. You're stating it as a fact however, which is completely different. Hedging your bets with an offer that cushions development costs isn't the same as not being able or willing to develop the game otherwise. Sega will happily take up an offer from Nintendo for Sonic games... but in the absence of that offer, they'd likely make... Sonic games.

So if you're going to state that SFV would not have happened without being turned into an exclusive, I want you to provide evidence of that. If there isn't any, then simply stop stating it like a fact.

Didn't Capcom make a ton of money from Monster Hunter or one of the Japanese staples shortly after Ono statement about the lack of funds for SF in 2013 anyway?

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Just look at our conversation. Its plain stupid:

That's it. Everyone post that is not shitposting about MS here is threated like a blasphemy or something. People are not even trying to put MS on a pedestal, they are just saying its business. Then this circle of distorting what the other said begins.

I'm done here.

The one that is shitposting is actually you when you refuse to take the time and think about what other people have said.

Square Enix was not in a dire need for money at the time ROTR development began. You can help developers when they don't necessarily need help. Based on MS's PR speak, it sounded like they were merely covering development costs for the XBO version. Did it help CD? Yes. Was it necessary? No because SE wouldn't be short on cash either way.

 

[Synth]

Didn't Capcom make a ton of money from Monster Hunter or one of the Japanese staples shortly after Ono statement about the lack of funds for SF in 2013 anyway.

I dunno. I don't pay any mind to Monster Hunter really.

However, that's besides the point. The tweet everyone's referring to in regards to lacking funds for Street Fighter V, didn't even really say that. He simply stated that there was no R&D budget or staff for Street Fighter V... only for Ultra Street Fighter IV. Which makes perfect sense with USFIV being their current project at the time. You could ask him about Street Fighter VI today, and get a similar response about how there's no R&D budget or staff for that, only Street Fighter V. I mean, how often do you get an acknowledgement of a game's sequel when the studio is trying to market the current product?

 

[JayhawkerStL]

Lol you only have to look at my username to see where I stand on the issue, Both MS and Sony are just as bad as each other and I find it funny how so many ppl tend to excuse one while hating on the other.

You may have some good examples, but I think this is mostly a case of users only commenting when it affects them. I don't think the exact people here bashing Microsoft ever defended Sony's practices.

I think the most logical way to look at this is that it's just business. We all have plenty of games to play on our consoles of choice. Enjoy what you have, and don't waste a lot of time worrying about what you are being "denied."

 

[SonyToo!™]

You may have some good examples, but I think this is mostly a case of users only commenting when it affects them. I don't think the exact people here bashing Microsoft ever defended Sony's practices.

I'm sure there is a ring of truth about what you say but I've seen plenty of ppl use weird rationalisations to convince themselves and other about why X title is way worse than the others and more than "grrr I really want this game but not the hardware it's on"

I think the most logical way to look at this is that it's just business. We all have plenty of games to play on our consoles of choice. Enjoy what you have, and don't waste a lot of time worrying about what you are being "denied."

Wise words

You could ask him about Street Fighter VI today, and get a similar response about how there's no R&D budget or staff for that, only Street Fighter V. I mean, how often do you get an acknowledgement of a game's sequel when the studio is trying to market the current product?

Ha good point

 

[Rymuth]

Didn't Capcom make a ton of money from Monster Hunter or one of the Japanese staples shortly after Ono statement about the lack of funds for SF in 2013 anyway?

Yes and then they pissed it all away at a massively failed mobile venture.

Sooooo...context matters?

 

[SonyToo!™]

Yes and then they pissed it all away at a massively failed mobile venture.

Depending on the dates involved there might be case that Capcom would have used that money on SF without Sony's intervention rather than risking it on mobile

Edit but I digress about speculating the what if's since we could play this all day without getting anywhere

 

[David___]

You could ask him about Street Fighter VI today, and get a similar response about how there's no R&D budget or staff for that, only Street Fighter V. I mean, how often do you get an acknowledgement of a game's sequel when the studio is trying to market the current product?

SFVI not having a budget right now would make sense at this point since that they aren't done with 5 and still have content planned for it.

SF 5 not having a budget at the time didn't make sense since at that point they probably knew Ultra was going to be the last add on for it and it was almost 5 years since vanilla launched.

 

[The Flop]

Why is this thread still going on?

 

[linkboy]

Sweet, I can wait a year for the ps4 version.

 

[twobear]

Ono said himself that it was easy to convince Capcom to make SFV after the success of SFIV. Anyone who thinks it would never have been made is delusional. But there's no point arguing with Sony stans over this, it's an article of faith that Sony only funds games that wouldn't exist otherwise.

 

[Nightengale]

Depending on the dates involved there might be case that Capcom would have used that money on SF without Sony's intervention rather than risking it on mobile

Edit but I digress about speculating the what if's since we could play this all day without getting anywhere

But they did not. They chose to invest into mobile instead.

Sony could've invested what they spent on The Order on another game, but they did not.

SEGA could've funded Shenmue 3 14 years ago with a fraction of the money they spent on Sonic in the next decade, but they did not.

 

[Synth]

SFVI not having a budget right now would make sense at this point since that they aren't done with 5 and still have content planned for it.

SF 5 not having a budget at the time didn't make sense since at that point they probably knew Ultra was going to be the last add on for it and it was almost 5 years since vanilla launched.

At a later date, Ono specified that he couldn't rule out another expansion after Ultra. It makes perfect sense that Street Fighter V could have had it's budget and staff assigned once they were done with Ultra. That'd simply mirror how many sequels to many IPs occur. As an example Season 2 of Killer Instinct wasn't certain before Season 1's development was over, and we don't know for certain (but it's very likely) that a Season 3 will follow Season 2, now that it's over. Not being in active development for SFV at the time (if that was even true at the time) doesn't mean that it wasn't going to follow Ultra SFIV anyway.

SEGA could've funded Shenmue 3 14 years ago with a fraction of the money they spent on Sonic in the next decade, but they did not.

Yea, but when talking about Street Fighter for Capcom, this would be far more like dumping the money into Shenmue instead of Sonic.

I'd say it's pretty pointless to make assumptions, either way. However, some are taking the word of Capcom, others the word of Ono. Nothing "delusional" about taking the words from the horse's mouth. It's just funny that the need to bring up Street Fighter V is present anytime Tomb Raider is is the subject (and vice versa).

People aren't actually taking the words of Ono though.. Ono never said that Street Fighter V wouldn't happen. That's all being extrapolated from a tweet that basically just said that Street Fighter V wasn't already happening.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Ono said himself that it was easy to convince Capcom to make SFV after the success of SFIV. Anyone who thinks it would never have been made is delusional. But there's no point arguing with Sony stans over this, it's an article of faith that Sony only funds games that wouldn't exist otherwise.

I'd say it's pretty pointless to make assumptions, either way. However, some are taking the word of Capcom, others the word of Ono. Nothing "delusional" about taking the words from the horse's mouth. It's just funny that the need to bring up Street Fighter V is present anytime Tomb Raider is the subject (and vice versa).

 

[HeWhoWalks]

People aren't actually taking the words of Ono though.. Ono never said that Street Fighter V wouldn't happen. That's all being extrapolated from a tweet that basically just said that Street Fighter V wasn't already happening.

Which then makes this debate even more ridiculous.