Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums > Final Fantasy: The Smell of Fear > Final Fantasy XIII > Turns out the 360 really did compromise the PS3 version

[Croyles]

Originally Posted by Loony BoB ^

To be fair, I don't think it was me who said that it won't make a difference.

I know My post is to all!! So...... it doesnt make much sense lol

[Bolivar]

At the very least, you can't deny that arbitrary cuts and divisions are made in the content when you put your product to run on multiple units of a format. The id guys working on Rage absolutely loathed the prospect, and begged Microsoft to abandon their "no mandatory hard drive installs" for the 360 rule this one time. As a result, limits are placed around what they wish to create originally. Of course, games like the Metal Gear series have been forged out of hardware limitations - however that's entirely different from having an idea, then drastically changing it in the middle of development because one platform simply will not allow it.

Square has made a lot of comparisons of this game to FFVII, and that's sad. FFVII's platform choice (Playstation) was made due to creative decisions, wanting to produce a CG-based game that cartridges simply could not facilitate. Now, however, they're compromising game design in the name of platform choice (multiplatform release in US on 360).

Originally Posted by Loony Bob

Do you want them to have the money to continue to develop games after this or do you want them to go bankrupt?

This is a fallacious choice, one of the big ones I've been seeing lately around the web that has led gaming discussion into some pretty unnecessary areas. In the words of Tim Schafer himself, no one ever got their game idea canned because of market constraints. It's like the anti-environmentalists who say we need to choose between the earth or a (semi) functioning global economy.

^ This is completely regardless of the fact that Square's decision to make it multi-platform comes from a faulty forecast on the prospects of the PS3. In the months following 2007, when even mobile phone divisions were performing better than the ps3 for some companies, Square decided it would be best to not throw all their eggs in that one basket, at least not in North America. If they waited a couple months, they would have seen how Metal Gear Solid 4 proved you can have a PS3 exclusive and still sell millions of copies, even with a limited install base. In 2008, software sales skyrocketed nearly 800% for the platform, yielding more money for Ubisoft, EA, Namco, and (no surprise) Konami than the 360, and in some cases, the Wii as well (and in EA's case, the 360 and Wii combined). Consoles sales, even at $400, continued to out-pace the 360 on a month for month basis since launch time series. With the price drop to $299, the choice to go multiplatform seems more futile than ever.

[Elpizo]

What bothers me is not that the game was changed, but that SE flat-out lied in our faces again. No changes? SE, what can we believe of what you say these days? Me thinks lying is doing them more harm than going multi and invoking fanboy wrath, but whatever. That they have to make money, I can accept, that's theway it works. That they have to lie to do it, now that's less aceptable from my point of view, but who cares? I'll probably end up buying it anyway. Jeez...

I'm personally looking more forward to Golden Sun 3 than to FF XIII, because of all the lies, fanboyism, fanwars, moneywars, companywars and mudslinging that accompanied XIII's development. And in the end, it's probably just going to be a average FF game anyway that'll make millions like all the others did, and SE will gleefully rub their hands and drool over their money pile. And we're left with our dissapointment. Yay!

[Loony BoB]

Originally Posted by Bolivar ^

^ This is completely regardless of the fact that Square's decision to make it multi-platform comes from a faulty forecast on the prospects of the PS3. In the months following 2007, when even mobile phone divisions were performing better than the ps3 for some companies, Square decided it would be best to not throw all their eggs in that one basket, at least not in North America. If they waited a couple months, they would have seen how Metal Gear Solid 4 proved you can have a PS3 exclusive and still sell millions of copies, even with a limited install base. In 2008, software sales skyrocketed nearly 800% for the platform, yielding more money for Ubisoft, EA, Namco, and (no surprise) Konami than the 360, and in some cases, the Wii as well (and in EA's case, the 360 and Wii combined). Consoles sales, even at $400, continued to out-pace the 360 on a month for month basis since launch time series. With the price drop to $299, the choice to go multiplatform seems more futile than ever.

You're right, Square-Enix should totally have predicted the future.

EDIT: And with all of that argument, you still can't deny that S-E will make much more money by selling on both platforms. If you want to compare the meerkat market, they'll be looking to sell in three major areas firstly and everywhere else as an afterthought. Japan (360 dominant), America (going by Amazon sales of the Beatles multiplatform release, it's Wii/360 dominant) and Europe (360 dominant last I checked). The only people I know personally over here that have a PS3 regret getting a PS3. That probably won't stop me buying one though... if I ever get the money. =/

[Croyles]

Originally Posted by Loony BoB ^

Originally Posted by Bolivar ^

^ This is completely regardless of the fact that Square's decision to make it multi-platform comes from a faulty forecast on the prospects of the PS3. In the months following 2007, when even mobile phone divisions were performing better than the ps3 for some companies, Square decided it would be best to not throw all their eggs in that one basket, at least not in North America. If they waited a couple months, they would have seen how Metal Gear Solid 4 proved you can have a PS3 exclusive and still sell millions of copies, even with a limited install base. In 2008, software sales skyrocketed nearly 800% for the platform, yielding more money for Ubisoft, EA, Namco, and (no surprise) Konami than the 360, and in some cases, the Wii as well (and in EA's case, the 360 and Wii combined). Consoles sales, even at $400, continued to out-pace the 360 on a month for month basis since launch time series. With the price drop to $299, the choice to go multiplatform seems more futile than ever.

You're right, Square-Enix should totally have predicted the future.

EDIT: And with all of that argument, you still can't deny that S-E will make much more money by selling on both platforms. If you want to compare the meerkat market, they'll be looking to sell in three major areas firstly and everywhere else as an afterthought. Japan (360 dominant), America (going by Amazon sales of the Beatles multiplatform release, it's Wii/360 dominant) and Europe (360 dominant last I checked). The only people I know personally over here that have a PS3 regret getting a PS3. That probably won't stop me buying one though... if I ever get the money. =/

Lol at the meerkat bit

Wait sorry what? 360 is dominant in Japan? Where did you get that from? And its only on PS3 in japan anyway lol.
The 360 isnt that dominant, its actually pretty equal to the PS3 on a month to month basis, and especially not in europe.
Yeah its great that their making more money. But.... Lol since when does anyone defend a company about making money? All other times everyone is always moaning about companies milking people.

Again, im glad its on the 360 as long as this article isnt true (ive found a few places saying it isn't).

[Loony BoB]

I had PS3 there but a couple of my work colleagues (who happened to be at my desk discussing similar things) insisted it was 360 dominant since the 360 came out first or something. I caved after nobody found a source in the rest of my short lunch hour. xD So apologies on that end of things and HA to my work colleagues, I was right all along.

EDIT: Month to month means little if you're referring to console sales - it's total working units that matter (or, more specifically, total working units which games are actually being bought for ).

I defend companies for making money because it's what I'd do if I ran a company. What should they do if not make money? How could they develop future games without it? It's silly to say that we should accuse them of trying to make money. If anything, be proud that they're doing that. A successful company is, well, a successful company. Final Fantasy XIII wouldn't even be being worked on right now if Square Enix wasn't out to make dosh.

[Croyles]

Originally Posted by Loony BoB ^

I had PS3 there but a couple of my work colleagues (who happened to be at my desk discussing similar things) insisted it was 360 dominant since the 360 came out first or something. I caved after nobody found a source in the rest of my short lunch hour. xD So apologies on that end of things and HA to my work colleagues, I was right all along.

EDIT: Month to month means little if you're referring to console sales - it's total working units that matter (or, more specifically, total working units which games are actually being bought for ).

I defend companies for making money because it's what I'd do if I ran a company. What should they do if not make money? How could they develop future games without it? It's silly to say that we should accuse them of trying to make money. If anything, be proud that they're doing that. A successful company is, well, a successful company. Final Fantasy XIII wouldn't even be being worked on right now if Square Enix wasn't out to make dosh.

Of course. My only point was, usually fans dont give a crap about that and moan about every single little "rip off". For example, when a company releases DLC around a month after release everybody shouts foul play, even if the company started working on that DLC AFTER the game has 'gone gold'.
They deserve the money, but everybody gets in a big huff and puff about it.

And tell me, if SE wanted to make money, why didnt they release SO4, The last Remnant and all those RPGs on the PS3 at all? I think they just didnt really know what they were doing to be honest.
Maybe they got into that 'hey look the PS3 isnt far behind the 360 buts its definitely going to fail' mentality that the whole journalistic world was in until about a year ago (you seem to be a little bit in that mentality as well, thinking people dont buy games for it etc. EA and Ubisoft have made more money of software sales on the PS3 than the 360 and Wii combined lol)?
If SE were thinking along those lines then that's them predicting something where they shouldnt.

[Loony BoB]

If they didn't release them on the PS3 at all then they either...
1. Were paid to do it exclusive
2. Didn't think the time/money spent developing a PS3 port would be worthwhile.
3. Didn't have the resources available to them.
4. Didn't think it would make a profit on that system.
5. Didn't want to commit to too many projects at once.
6. Didn't have the time available to the developers to port to multiple consoles.

Or some other business reason. There are always business reasons. Always.