Happy Gaming!

That thread doesn’t prove that Sony took multiplats and made them exclusive, in many cases they either started out as a Playstation exclusive (ala Metal Gear), went multiplat for a release and then went back for a game to being exclusive, anyway as it’s turned out Rise of the Tomb Raider is actually a timed exclusive.

Phil Spencer said about it earlier today, it’s actually got an article written about it here on Gamingbolt and sourced from Eurogamer.

Happy gaming GHz.

Seems like we weren’t the only ones debating this topic. people are discussing it on twitter and NeoGaF. I personally don’t go on NeoGaf so I didn’t see for myself. But anyways the verdict is that I was mostly right bout what I remembered I read. I wish I was able to find the article being that it was in print. But anyways, I still appreciate your efforts. In the mean time check it out for yourself.

This is actually an excellent post on NeoGaf. Too bad the commentators got upset http://t.co/hEdDq57tnj— K. Alex (@K_Alex1) August 13, 2014

And this link

http://docmo.hubpages.com/hub/THe-Return-of-Tomb-Raider

Anyways in the end this sort of thing don’t bother me because I’ve seen it before and I don’t consider that serious. And at the same time I understand how passionate my fellow gamers are. One thing for sure though, nothing in the gaming industry is constant.

Initially I had thought it only came to PS1, but I did a little research before replying, or rather as I replied.

I hadn’t even realized that it came to the Saturn, it’s so long ago now.
PC was always a big part of the franchise though (IMO).

Anyway, IMO if a franchise is a multiplat it should stay a multiplat.

The only exception being if a developer gets bought by a console manufacturer and they don’t release games on other platforms besides their own or PC.

Thanks for the correction. Should’ve researched the TR thing a little more before posting. I could’ve sworn I read in print that it appeared on the ps1 1st (I don’t count PC) a good year before the Saturn on account of sony coughing up the funds. The publication in question, also mentioned if I remember correctly, that it was originally supposed to have been a Saturn and PC game. It was old magazine I found laying around the house called Next Generation I think. No matter, I stand corrected.

To GHz:

Actually Tomb Raider was on the Sega Saturn, PC and PS1, Sony didn’t buy exclusivity there.
The PS1 version of Tomb Raider ran a lot better than the Saturn version of the game.
The sequels were multiplats so I don’t know how you can say Sony used cash to stamp out the saturn.

Metal Gear started on the MSX2 (a Sony platform), the sequel came to PS1, maybe Kojima had plans to launch on Sega platforms, but the game launched on PS1 first, it’s completely different from what I was talking about.

Your Video game history 101 is actually pretty fallacious.
Actual history doesn’t support your claims.

Both games neither started out as multiplats or went exclusive after being a success on multiple platforms.

What’s happened with Tomb Raider 2 (2015) wasn’t what happened with Metal Gear/Solid or Tomb Raider.

Exclusives are a major point of consoles though, they’re largely the reason why people buy consoles, plus the point of people not having to fiddle around with hardware.

The point I was making about Bloodborne is that it’s a new IP, created for PS4, it’s never been a multiplatform game & Sony are funding that new IP, the same was the case with Demon’s Souls.

Dark Souls is a completely different franchise, that started out life as a multiplat.

I think you got what I was getting at though, Tomb Raider shouldn’t go from being a multiplat, to then become an exclusive when it’s already been available on a wider range of devices.

Bloodborne isn’t an example of a similar case when compared to Tomb Raider.

If Tomb Raider was a brand new franchise and Microsoft funded it’s development then this would be understandable, but it’s a multiplat, so should stay a multiplat.

No need to get tangled up in history. Bloodborne would be better as multiplatform, Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 benefited from being multiplatform. Devs made more money and more gamers got to enjoy it.

The point is it cost EA nothing. They lost nothing. They gained money. If there was absolutely zero subtext in your post then it is the most pointless post anyone has ever made as it says absolutely nothing and is purely conjecture.

Except…you quoted my post about it being beneficial to EA and Microsoft so you are arguing the point that it wasn’t. Therefore it is what you said. Context defines subtext.

Anyone could the same about anything. Its pointless. I could have sold more beans today if I had actually tried to sell beans.

Bloodborne isn’t a multiplatform franchise though, that’s the difference here.
Taking an established Multiplat game and making it exclusive is a huge middle finger to the people on PC and Playstation that supported Tomb Raider.

Now if Dark Souls 3 only came to PS4 or PC then you’d be right.

If Demon’s Souls 2 only comes to PS4 that’s fine, because the original game was only on PS3, it’s not a multiplat game.