@Onion

Thanks for being the voice of reason. Being all "told you, crossplay is good for everyone" is definitely as far as my trolling goes, and it's more like playful teasing than anything else.

As for "snatching exclusives", it's the one side of exclusivity I'm not really a fan of, but this needs some elaboration for the sake of clarity. There are three kinds of exclusivity I respect:

1) exclusivity by IP possession: the one that's sacred to me. Nintendo has Mario and company, Xbox has Halo and company, Sony has God Of War and company. It's the way things are just supposed to be and that's perfectly fine.

2) exclusivity by IP purchase: which leads to point 1.

3) timed exclusivity: "play it first on" is a great compromise between striking an exclusivity deal, and stripping other players of a game. Eager gamers can buy the console if they feel the need to do so, while the patience for waiting is rewarded with ports elsewhere.

Then there are two kinds of exclusivity, one on the line between acceptable and annoying and the other far beyond it.

4) funded exclusivity: sad, but understandable, sometimes one of the three giants steps in, in order to make a game a reality. This is what happened with Bayonetta from the second game onwards, as its development has been funded by Nintendo; likewise, indie sensation Cuphead got some extra funding from Microsoft that granted the game Xbox exclusivity, and that appears to be the case with this Castlevania remaster. However...

5) third-party exclusivity by deal: the worst case of all, when a third-party IP is given exclusivity by a mere deal; especially aggravating - in my opinion - when a franchise has been seen on other consoles before (for example, what Rayman Legends almost became on Wii U, Rise Of The Tomb Raider on Xbox One, Street Fighter V on PlayStation, etc.). It's the one kind of exclusivity I can't stand, honestly.

I've always been of the opinion that the big three have to work on their own exclusives. That said, however, at least the "untouchable" PS1-era Final Fantasy games are finally starting to become available on other consoles. As long as everyone gets to play the games that are supposed to trascend systems, I'll be fine with deserved exclusivity. That's my stance on it, as controversial as it might be. Again, what happened with Crash Bandicoot is totally fine, as it is now a third-party IP. I'm not going to ask for Jak and Daxter to be playable with Joy-cons anytime soon if that's what's pissing people off in this thread.

Sorry - I mean it - for the long digression. Back to the reply, it's still a sign of goodwill on Konami's part. Konami and Capcom do seem to seek some kind of redemption after their public image having fallen so far in recent years, and Mega Man 11 is already making the rounds for its unexpectedly excellent quality; I'm more than confident that Castlevania Requiem will prove to be just as good, if a bit of an example of playing it safe given it's still a (couple of) port(s).

Which reminds me of another talking point, with added emphasis in order to make further replies focus on this rather than my previous rant: don't you all think the Kickstarter-funded spiritual successors (Mighty No. 9 and Bloodstained in this case) have served as a bit of a wake-up call for, respectively, Mega Man and Castlevania's original IP owners?

Chime in whenever you want to, I'm open to rebuttals.