dude, it's your turn now to understand that some games would never have seen the light if consoles manufacturers haven't financed them like SFV, Deep Down and many others.
Manufacturers invest where it makes sense for them.
MS bought many 3rd party exclusives last gen from jap developers, but it was fair play and a technique of performing in japan.

Of course, there goes a period where 3rd party publishers prefer a console to another because the instal base is just way higher.

I can see where you're coming from Mega and if these were games that were being made anyway then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
However, from what I understand Street Fighter V and Bayo 2 were games that their developers weren't planning to make until Sony and Nintendo, respectively approached them and offered them the cash to make the games. I'm not sure about Tomb Raider, but I'm inclined to believe that it's a similar situation there.
If it were just a case of the the game already being in development for all systems, then one of the platform holders approaching the dev/publisher saying "here's some cash, make it exclusive to our system" then yes, that is absolutely a dick move but that's business I'm afraid.

@donwel

It was true for Bayo 2 but do you really believe that a Tomb Raider sequel and SFV weren't planned on being made until they were asked? I don't believe it for one second, considering how well both of the previous games sold, especially in the case of Street Fighter.

How does any of that take away from my point? Current gaming software is generalized, does not preform well on all systems, is prone to bugs and glitches, so the best thing would be to optimize for specific hardware.

Your point is that you can optimize for specific hardware. My point is its all the same hardware now. So nothing to optimize for. Unless your mentioning a pc that uses physx becuase it has an nvidia gpu or a mobile platform that is powered by an android processor.

Fact is everything today is pretty identical from a console to average pc front. Cpu, gpu , memory. No special architecture to consider or creative ways to get more memory like u had to do for the ps3.

So yyea... your point is proven wrong.

@Spotie

"On the Street Fighter front, Sony is funding the game, not just buying exclusivity."

then why would they care about it being on the pc?

"Furthermore, the game- and the genre- has a larger base on PlayStation than Xbox, and always has. Additionally, Xbox controllers have been notoriously bad for fighting games. AND Microsoft's closed policies mean that cross play between various platforms would not have existed."

if sony is funding the project then the amount of players that exist on the xbox platform is redundant because they wouldn't want it on microsoft consoles or nintendo consoles. there is also no policy that requires cross-platform play. it was never an issue with previous street fighter games so stop trying to validate one deal and frowning upon another. the deal was created to help sony, nothing more.

"It's not as simple as just buying the game so Xbox owners can't play it."

sure it is. it's an ip that was on multiple platforms and now is limited to the pc and playstation. it would be very easy to port it to the xbox one.

@texore

you have no idea what development took place for tomb raider on the ps4. you also have no idea what microsoft is paying for and/or helping fund the project. this is all rumoured based stuff and this flip-flopping about userbase size and all the rest reeks of bias. exclusive deals like both of them are meant to limit your audience to influence customers to buy the appropriate hardware. you cannot excuse one while being upset over the other. no mans sky, titanfall, dead rising 3 and the witness are all titles that could very easily come out on the ps4, xbox one and the pc but hardware makers are at play here to sign exclusive deals behind closed doors. often times they also help marketing which some studios don't do a very good job at. so we can validate any third party exclusive game if we really want to but that's not the point.

the point both of you are ignoring is the ability for more people to have easier access so stop acting like what they are doing is good business for the consumer.

@gangsta_red

"That doesn't mean it was in development for the PS4"

You're right.

"This argument makes no sense"

I'm not sure what argument you are referring to, I am NOT ok with excluding a fanbase no matter the size. I am giving an explanation as why the outrage is so significant with Tomb Raider in particular.

"There are just as many fans on Xbox One of Tomb Raider than there are on the PS side"

I don't want to make this a Playstation vs Xbox debate, the Tomb Raider fanbase of Playstation and PC combined dwarfs that of Xbox. That is why many people are complaining.

"And according to Square the last Tomb Raider didn't meet expectations in sales...maybe that is the reason Square partnered with MS to make the next installment"

According to Square Enix's report, they expected Tomb Raider to sell 5-6 million copies in FOUR weeks, in March. Those are the kinds of numbers. That is the kind of numbers Ubisoft expects for Assassin's Creed during the holiday shopping season. Tomb Raider ended up being profitable and considering Square Enix is doing well financially, that is most likely not the reason they partnered with Microsoft. They decided to partner with the platform that there most recent Tomb Raider game sold the least?

"Also there is just as big of a fan base on 360 for SFV than on PS4"

I don't like that it isn't coming out on Xbox, you think I don't want to be able to play on the platform the majority of my friends own? I would rather have a SF5 in the form they have announced and previewed as opposed to a F2P/Pay2Win or DLC gutted version. Considering Capcom's recent output and financial situation, that was definitely a possibility.

@moldybread

You are right, there is no way of knowing. I'm not sure I follow with the rest of your reply. I'm not using fanbase as a way to justify why something is exclusive or not. I bring it up because Tomb Raider had a significant outcry in particular. This is due to majority of fans are on PC and Playstation.

I am not in support of exclusives and as I mentioned to gangsta_red, majority of my friends own an Xbox and I would rather have an Xbox One version of Street Fighter V so I can play with them.

"sure it is. it's an ip that was on multiple platforms and now is limited to the pc and playstation. it would be very easy to port it to the xbox one."

I'm sure it is easy to port the game. Publishing, marketing, and distributing the game is another matter. Clearly Capcom was looking to partner with someone to help get the game off the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if they had talks with Microsoft as well, but most likely Sony's offer was more enticing. Being able to release on Playstation AND PC was likely important, something Microsoft probably wouldn't allow seeing as Tomb Raider isn't even releasing on PC this year. Cross-platform play could have been a minor factor as well, a feature Capcom as been touting since announcement. Square Enix themselves have stated a desire for an Xbox One version of FFXIV:ARR, but are waiting for Microsoft to soften their stance. It's also why War Thunder has yet to appear on Xbox One.

My point is the circumstances of why Tomb Raider and Street Fighter V are very different which is why the response between the two has been different.

After reading your initial post, I would say that SFV is more akin to Bayonetta needing help off the ground. Sony is even handling the PS4 port of USFIV themselves, so it is not a stretch to believe they are doing more than just writing a check.

@texore

i do agree with a lot of what you said, thanks for the reply. i guess the point to all of this is these practices will not disappear any time soon. most if not all are used to sell hardware without much care for the consumer. this could be why things like kickstarter programs have taken off. which also comes with its own drawbacks but at least there the consumer has some say (so they think) in its development and where the game ends up.

what i really don't like is what these practices have done and that is build groups of fans instead of encompassing all of us. it only creates division and segregation and you can see that animosity within the forums all the time. hardware i believe should be able to sell based on its own merits, not trying to force consumers by making exclusive software for it and using outside parties as a catalyst.

the consumer has decided the ps4 is the better piece of hardware. that should be based on performance, services, and price/value. if microsoft builds a weaker system as does nintendo then they should be trying to make their hardware more appealing by their OWN studio software, their own services and features, and pricing.