Where does anyone say that "The Rise of Tomb Raider" is a Timed exclusive?
You guys are so funny and trying to be deceptive by taking one thing and twisting it around.
MS investing their own money into development and Publishing of the game, and you expect it to come to Sony platform-that's just being delirious. Every deal has a duration obviously.
So instead of calling microsoft names and how they are liars and what not first get some common sense and learn to read.
Why would I pay money to have something made for my competitors?
And please prove it to me that word "duration" has to do with time length instead of "for as long as criteria is kept".
Obviously since MS is funding it's more likelly to mean "for a duration that MS provides funding" vs "only for holyday season 205"
It is exclusive, is it to hard for you to comprehend? Is Bloodborne exclusive forever? Has Sony said anything about it? Did you interogate them about it? Ask them and see if their deal has a duration as nothing is forever. So untill you guys go give crap to Sony about Bloodborne stop giving MS crap about doing same thing. You are clearly showing double standards and most of this is directed at Valliance.
Everything has a duration unless you buy the IP. Duration doesn't mean "timed" it means "for as long as something is happening"
Which could mean 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years etc. Word duration by itself is not enough to label it as timed especially considering MS is investing money into it.
ME only came to PS because Microsoft sold it or gave it up for a favour, and as I said are you guys questioning Bloodborne or anything else by Sony as this double standard is pissing me off.
Why does it matter to them? Sales numbers don't matter as much as profit. So look at it this way: spend money developing on 5 platforms and sell 7mil at ~$50=$350mil-$100mil development cost-$150 to $250mil marketing and distributing left them with less than $50million profit. (They broke even after selling more than 5 million copies)
Now take MS funding development and marketing that means you would need to sell only 2 million copies on x1 and x360 to have same profit as on 5 platforms on previous game. Considering that it'll be exclusive also gives it extra focus on making a game better as you only need to worry about 3 platforms vs 5 which makes it a bigger hit, I expect it to sell at least 5 million first year which puts it in higher profit margin than previous TR.
Yeah as they are not on the same level, we have Ryse to compete with UC4 :-). Game that is short and only has had time spent on making it look good is no good investment at all. That's why I would never buy either of those two. Halo is just massive scale and looks decent.
Then we should all take everything Sony says as lies and looking to stick it to people with spyware, security breaches etc? Don't do double standards.
You are such a fricking troll and childish. It has to be step down visualy to hit 1080p60fps? Ever heard of optimisations and graphics getting better throughout generation? So UC and UC3 looked exactly the same or was UC3 running at lower resolution and fps?
God how stupid some people choose to sound.
Why is it that the 40% power difference still has not showed? Why doesn't single exclusive on Ps4 look better than Ryse? Why is it that after Witcher (i think) was sopposed to be released at 900p and MS helped them with actually using eSRAM properly they will be hitting 1080p? PS4 is still to prove that it's more powerful, it only showed that it's simpler so far and that it doesn't have anything exclusive that looks better than xbox exclusives.