At this point who cares about SFV, it’s not like there aren’t endless amounts of other examples of Sony moneyhatting games
They’ve literally been doing this since the ps1
5 Likes
Yes, it’s amazing to read all this conspiracy theories regarding the Street Fighter 5 deal and how some people are trying to push a certain false narrative.
3 Likes
Agreed, but it not right to push a false narrative like Xbox refused an offer from Capcom without presenting any proof. The main reason twitter is a cesspool regarding gaming is because fanboys from both sides spread all kind of lies and bullshit and we don’t need that in this forum. Anyone is welcome here to post whatever they want, but if anyone make a claim they need to present proof of that claim.
7 Likes
MAG wasn’t given a fair go, ironically if it were multiplat it could have usurped battlefield imo
Bringing MAG back in the age of BR games is a no brainer
1 Like
This theory doesn’t make any sense…who in their right mind would deny having freakin’ Street Fighter as a console exclusive? even 2013-2014 era Xbox back then with the severe budget limitations wouldn’t pass on that. 
1 Like
Exactly, but according to this crazy conspiracy theory, Xbox decide to refuse it and go with Killer Instinct instead. 
1 Like
I guess it’s ironically reversed. Microsoft tried with 3rd person cinematic action adventure games and it didn’t go anywhere. Sony tried with fps and shooter multiplayer games and it didn’t go anywhere…
No, what I’m talking about doesn’t say that Sony didn’t pay for exclusivity. They did, however, Xbox also had the opportunity to take the deal, which is why I replied to that poster that the SF deal perhaps isn’t the best example to use. FF VII definitely is.
Again, you are making a claim without any proof, if you are so sure about this present the proof.
1 Like
You do you. If I come across it, I’ll post it.
Until then stop spreading misinformation, this is how false narratives begin.
5 Likes
Report me then.
1 Like
2 Likes
Don’t worry, I will and I hope everyone does the same. 
2 Likes
Basically, moral of the story is
Game development be hard as hell.
Thanks!
I don’t really care about fighting games, but isn’t SFV supposed to be the start of the death of that genre on Xbox? It’s a pretty big name and if it helped kill the market there, it is extra yucky. Especially since (grain of salt) I think Xbox is typically better in terms of hardware for them? Less lag or fewer dropped frames or something like that?
This is an oversimplification of course, since it’s hard to say if less prominent games have skipped the platform directly because of the depressive effect that alleged moneyhat may have had. Maybe the Guilty Gear team or whatever just really hates Xbox and would have skipped it regardless!
2 Likes
It skipping Xbox certainly killed a fighting genre on Xbox. But his point I guess was why care about SF5 right now? Granted the topic was the moneyhat and thus SF5 was a notable example.
Not sure, but they might be referring to this statement from Phil during an old interview:
“Business deals happen. We won’t do all of them. When we have a first party franchise in a genre I’d rather invest in ours.”
In either case, you are being super aggressive and presumptuous in your replies to that other person. Surely there is room for daylight between one end of the spectrum where you happen to be presented with info you had not heard before and the other end where you can rationally conclude something is a conspiracy theory driven by bad faith saboteurs and then insult the person who was surfacing that info to you.
It’s certainly possible that person is right (ex. MS turned down exclusivity on GTA3, so they have made huge mistakes in turning deals down in the past), and it also is possible they are misremembering something or that they misinterpreted something along the way or otherwise misunderstood whatever they read/heard, all in good faith.
We should not just assume something we don’t like is being stated in bad faith purely based on not liking the implications of the statement.
2 Likes
Sorry, but that tweet is not proof that Microsoft received an offer and refuse it, to me that tweet from Phil says, deals happen all the time and we have a franchise that we are going to invest on, that’s all. The problem with what that person post is, he’s claiming that Microsoft refused an offer without presenting any proof and when I ask for the receipts he respond with “If I come across it, I’ll post it.” and sure, maybe he’s right, but until the truth comes out, nobody knows and the only thing we can do is speculate, which that user is not doing, he’s claiming as a fact.
2 Likes
That tweet is suggestive that MS had an opportunity to do a deal but opted not to. It was not just about generic deals broadly, as evidenced by the fact he directly places it in the context of spending $$ on exclusive fighting games in the next sentence when he noted investment in 1P fighting games for the genre.
And YOU made various claims about that person’s motives and asserted it was a ‘conspiracy theory’ based on no evidence at all on your end. Should you not also be held to the standard you are demanding of that other poster? Where is your ‘proof’ that they are pushing a conspiracy theory? It doesn’t look anything like a conspiracy theory to me…I outlined various ways one might believe that info as presented without it being bad faith. How do YOU know they are just here to troll or spread misinformation or pushing conspiracy theories? You don’t know that, so…
Even if you want to disagree with the tweet’s interpretation, it doesn’t matter. My point is that you are still ascribing sinister motives to ppl just because you don’t like the implication of info they share. That kinda stuff is toxic for discussion threads and I bet you can do better to reflect your disagreement than leaning into ad hominems. You are free to disagree without trying to steer that disagreement into something personal or sinister.
1 Like