Napalm_Frank
Member
Switch hardware can't handle dat real time 3D or lush organic environments.
How does that make you feel, buddy?
How does that make you feel, buddy?
Not if Crash was meant to be PlayStation or console exclusive. Tomb Raider was meant to be multiplatform. It was well known and Microsoft payed to delay the game on PlayStation for one year.
The hypocrisy of this is laughable.Not to be pedantic, but Tomb Raider was never actually announced for the PS4 before we knew of the shitty Xbox deal.
Of course this is different though, of course it is.....
As JaseC mentioned earlier TR was a multi-plat title when first revealed at E3 - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125066039&postcount=5124Not to be pedantic, but Tomb Raider was never actually announced for the PS4 before we knew of the shitty Xbox deal.
Of course this is different though, of course it is.....
Blockbusters != Multi-platform.As JaseC mentioned earlier TR was a multi-plat title when first revealed at E3 - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125066039&postcount=5124
Either way the situation here will end up being similar because of mixed messaging from PR and seemingly like in the case of TR deals not being finalised at the point of reveal leading to vague announcements.
Sure if you want to remove the context. There is a reason it's listed as "Xbox exclusives shared the stage with blockbusters" then a list of third party blockbusters . Also the fact again announcement was vague + lack of PR discussing platforms and iirc the removal of that part from the website when found.Blockbusters != Multi-platform.
I love how you take that as an announcement of multi-platform, it doesn't mention anything of the sort. It was timed anyway...
When it stops being about a game and more about justifying your system.
You must understand...he called 12 gamestops and they all said it was exclusive (!)It's just pretty stupid that Activision is not commenting on this. Would help a lot.
Holy shit at this guys Twitter and YouTube... Just pure sadness...
Not to be pedantic, but Tomb Raider was never actually announced for the PS4 before we knew of the shitty Xbox deal.
Of course this is different though, of course it is.....
No, because it wasn't an exclusive was it. It was timed. So wrapping it in the exclusive clause would of been wrong. Something like the money hatted exclusive, previously multi platform SFV could of been wrapped within exclusive, not RoTR.Sure if you want to remove the context. There is a reason it's listed as "Xbox exclusives shared the stage with blockbusters" then a list of third party blockbusters . Also the fact again announcement was vague + lack of PR discussing platforms and iirc the removal of that part from the website when found.
But this is the same shit we saw with Tom Braider (that jerk!) and to a similar level the exclusive Destiny content that is for one year (but quietly extended).
Why does this get a pass if it is a one year exclusive?
Wait is that really the boxart? If so, that looks like shit.
As JaseC mentioned earlier TR was a multi-plat title when first revealed at E3 - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125066039&postcount=5124
Either way the situation here will end up being similar because of mixed messaging from PR and seemingly like in the case of TR deals not being finalised at the point of reveal leading to vague announcements.
Your recall of timelines is wrong TR was revealed at E3 2014 then the timed exclusive was revealed at Gamescom 2014. So to say -It was announced, with no platforms iirc, at E3 2014. Then they announced the exclusivity at E3 2015. As shitty as that was, SqEnix said Microsoft helped funding the game, which means probably we would've never gotten ROTR (or atleast not a good, polished game) without them. Didn't Microsoft even publish the game?
Meanwhile, in Sony's case: the game debuted with a trailer stating nothing but the PS4 logo at the end. Then, Playstation Ireland states it's completely exclusive. Then they delete the tweet and say it's "first on PS4 and PS4 Pro". Then, an image from EB Games shows a "PS4 exclusive" seal on the pack shot. The same happened then in an email newsletter. Then a Sony spokeperson talks about a PC version at PAX. Now this rumor... well, that's worse than what Microsoft did IMHO, but people seem to care less because either Crash is considered a Sony brand (even if we had 3 PS exclusives and 4 multiplat) and PS4 is the best selling console.
If I were to choose a game to have on my X1, I'd rather get Wipeout than Crash though
Seems far fetched given Square were initially not happy with the sales of the original but still approved it's sequel not long after. There is very little evidence that points to SQ ever needing help with funding the project.SqEnix said Microsoft helped funding the game, which means probably we would've never gotten ROTR (or atleast not a good, polished game) without them.
Errr you're missing the fact that PR from Xbox/SQ/CD framed this as being an exclusive until only after several interviews/updates from CD/MS and co did we know it was timed. It was never labelled as such by Xbox PR.No, because it wasn't an exclusive was it. It was timed. So wrapping it in the exclusive clause would of been wrong. Something like the money hatted exclusive, previously multi platform SFV could of been wrapped within exclusive, not RoTR.
The same people in here who're ok with this are the same people who were screaming the loudest at RoTR. What a surprise ey?
You wonder why this place has a reputation? Hypocrisy at its finest in here.
You're remembering correctly. My point was just because it wasn't announced on stage doesn't mean it was not a multiplat at E3 when first revealed.I just remember the announcement on stage with no mention of platforms or exclusivity, it was pretty vague I can remember correctly?
If Crash comes to other platforms at a later date - Switch, PC or Xbox then this is a money hat, theres no other way to look at it.
What the fuck? Its got crash on it, what more u want? A picturesque landscape? That is immediately noticeable to anyone who played it, and easily recognisable as well. Dunno what you been smokin....
What is even the logic behind this post
All nostalgia aside Crash wasn't that great of a game. Who cares if its an exclusive or not it wont be a breakout success and will be forgotton about by the media less than a year after its out.
All nostalgia aside Crash wasn't that great of a game. Who cares if its an exclusive or not it wont be a breakout success and will be forgotton about by the media less than a year after its out.
No, because it wasn't an exclusive was it. It was timed. So wrapping it in the exclusive clause would of been wrong. Something like the money hatted exclusive, previously multi platform SFV could of been wrapped within exclusive, not RoTR.
The same people in here who're ok with this are the same people who were screaming the loudest at RoTR. What a surprise ey?
You wonder why this place has a reputation? Hypocrisy at its finest in here.
It would be pretty weird IMO for Sony to share the source code and assets for these games with another publisher - without which this could never have been made - and not ask for any kind of favourable treatment in return.
Oh right, so your only argument against why it's different is because they both made it out to be exclusive when it wasn't? Wut?.
Errr you're missing the fact that PR from Xbox/SQ/CD framed this as being an exclusive until only after several interviews/updates from CD/MS and co did we know it was timed. It was never labelled as such by Xbox PR.
Also please stop with this "same people" if you're not going to show who these people are because it's a meaningless statement to scream Hypocrisy if your're not going to show it.
Edit -
In case you have forgotten:
http://tombraider.tumblr.com/post/94529480860/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVNT0bNKQZQ&user=xbox
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...r-makes-case-for-tomb-raider-exclusivity-deal
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...b-raider-xbox-exclusivity-deal-has-a-duration
Yes, it's all just Nostalgia, it even affects people who haven't even played the game before!: https://youtu.be/2dnUKjglf-YAll nostalgia aside Crash wasn't that great of a game. Who cares if its an exclusive or not it wont be a breakout success and will be forgotton about by the media less than a year after its out.
It can't handle the Fur-K graphics either. I just don't understand the furore around it. Buy it on PlayStation or just hold out for the possible port on another system - which isn't guaranteed but could happen. And going by the refusal to overtly say it's exclusive, I suspect it'll happen. In the meantime, for anyone that hasn't played the Crash Bandicoot GBA games, (XS and N-Tranced I think), I highly recommend them.Switch hardware can't handle dat real time 3D or lush organic environments.
How does that make you feel, buddy?
I don't doubt that this game could end up on many platforms...I don't know why Best Buy would have that or why Sony would talk about the length of the timed exclusive.
I said situations will end up being "similar". Misleading/inconsistent PR about what "exclusivity" means is the point being made (My initial post was addressing the fact TR was a multiplat when formally announced at E3)Oh right, so your only argument against why it's different is because they both made it out to be exclusive when it wasn't? Wut?
Oh right, so your only argument against why it's different is because they both made it out to be exclusive when it wasn't? Wut?
I know they don't use assets (or code) directly, and that's not what I wanted to imply. What I said is that they have access to it - to copy the sizes of everything, to see the algorithms that make the characters move, physics of the jumps etc. and be able to rewrite that so that everything behaves exactly the same way as in old games. They got access to all this, and I thought it would be weird that Sony would give them this without asking for any favors in return.The remakes aren't using any original assets. That wouldn't be feasible as the original games were made with a now-two-decade-old platform in mind. The original level geometry data is being used as "blueprints" by Vicarious' level designers, but that's it; the games have been remade from the ground up.
*crosses fingers*
I know they don't use assets (or code) directly, and that's not what I wanted to imply. What I said is that they have access to it - to copy the sizes of everything, to see the algorithms that makes the characters move, physics of the jumps etc. and be able to rewrite that so that everything behaves exactly the same way as in old games. They got access to all this, and I thought it would be weird that Sony would give them this without asking for any flavors in return.
I wonder if CTR will be added as a bonus for folks that have to wait.
Call it whatever you want, but the hypocrisy is real. I couldn't care less about the actual deals, it's the change in attitude based on the company who's doing the deals which angers me, or should I say disappoints me about the people on here.Your tantrums are making for a truly embarassing spectacle to behold.
Little details aside, the situations are similar, but the attitude is different. That's my only point about this.I said situations will end up being "similar". Misleading/inconsistent PR about what "exclusivity" means is the point being made (My initial post was addressing the fact TR was a multiplat when formally announced at E3)
TR announced vaguely with no platform info but as shown was consider a multi plat title when it was formally announced at E3.
Crash as far as "official" PR has shown is just a PS4 title with no mention of any exclusivity until we got marketing accounts being the first ones to mention that there is some exclusivity.
Not happening. They would have to really optimize the shit out of it to get it running on switch with how it looks and at the frame rate it's at.
It would not look great on switch. Lot's of downscaled textures.
Switch hardware can't handle dat real time 3D or lush organic environments.
How does that make you feel, buddy?
Isn't the game running at 30fps? Also, I think it is looking great, but not something that could not be ported to Switch, even if needed a bit of a downgrade.
It's a fairly obvious statement that the PS4 (and PS4 Pro moreso) is magnitudes more powerful than the Nintendo Switch, but it a developer wants to make a game run on the hardware, they'll make it happen.
Heck, Sonic Forces is getting a Switch release, no reason the Bandicoot couldn't run on the hardware as well.
all footage so far has been 30fps. (except the trilogy trailer which was 60fps)
Actually, IIRC weirdly enough parts of the trilogy trailer were in 30fps and other bits in 60fps. It's kinda confusing at this point.
Keep saying that to yourself buddy