Would you like FFXIII to stay a PS3 exclusive?

Square-enix are welcome to make games for the 360 but long running series' like Final Fantasy should stick to their home console(s) (i.e. Sony/Nintendo consoles)Brandon2127

Well to bad for Microsoft, because SquareEnix said that they're not doing any titles for the 360 except for the ones already out.

It's well known fact that games are better developed and OPTIMIZED when they are exclusive. As for which platform,

I honestly feel Lost Odyssey suffered from being on the Xbox 360. I like my Final Fantasies on the Playstation

Yes I want FF13 to be ps3 exclusive.I mean the FF was always for a sony console anyway:PEVAN0070

FF7+ ya but before that it was for nintendo not that big of a deal but ya... any way i think it should stay for playstation becuase SE already gave other games to the 360 and i would hate to see that FF13 got brought down due to making it playable on the 360. i wanna see what SE can do on a ps3. since the xbox specs are worse than ps3 i just want to see what they can pull off here. even though im pretty sure SE already said FF13 was ps3 exclusive but none the less.

I honestly don't care where it goes. In the end I'll purchase the platform the series will be available on. One of the reasons why I don't have a PS3 is because FFXIII isn't available. I would get one this Summer with the release of MGS4 but we'll see what happens after I get a new car.

360 doesn't have HD, the disks don't support, you can increase the resolution, but you can't change what comes on the disk...therefore if it was multiplatfom, the 360 one would be worse...A_Fading_Scream

Not neccasarilly, its how far the developers wanna take the game. Gears of war looks pretty damn good for the type of game it is even though its limiteded to the 9 gigs of a DVD not to mention Bioshock. I see it as if developers want to just make a game that'll sell well they'll either make it multiplatform (thus not fully utilizing the memory of the blu-ray) or make it a 360 exclusive. Mind you im talking from a 360/PS3 stance not the other consoles and portable stuff. But if a developer really wants to push the envelope and utilize the better format (blu-ray) they'll go for the PS3. Of course you gotta factor in developer relations with publishers and all that jazz. And u also cant deny the fact that the PS3 is harder to work with so its gonna be intresting who wins the "Console Wars".

I really don't care about a 360 version, it would just add more restrictions to the game. I'd definitely want it to stay PS3 exclusive, so they can optimize it.NWA_31

Hi, Sam! Didnt know you where in this union too:)

I really dont care if its exclusive or not cause i only got a ps3 anyway.

I'm with the majority on this. The core FF titles should remain on the Playstation consoles.

Hi, Sam! Didnt know you where in this union too:)

I really dont care if its exclusive or not cause i only got a ps3 anyway.

FreedomBYgaming

Yeah, i'm a big Final Fantasy fan. :D

I don't get some of these reponses. Going multi-platform doesn't mean you need to play it on both systems. It doesn't mean it is on;y on the Xbox360 - it means that it is on both platforms. So you can play it either way you can. What's wrong with that? And I don't thinl the hypothetical question is supposed to aassume the worst scenario. I think it means that however it is acheived that the end product works the same on both systems, and plays just fine. Why some of you keep throwing in all of this negative conjecture and subjective pinpoints is really beyond me.

The best thing for Sqeenix or any developer to do is to have as many people buying their product as possible - and that means multi-platform. Xbox and PC players canno have no reason to buy a game they cannot play - and most of them are not going to run out and invest more money in a new system just to play one game. The only thing staving them off is the backroom deals they are making - basically strongarming Sony in order to stay with them and keep them afloat.

If you want to talk graphics and power - neither system can compare to even a mid-range PC with a proper graphic card - so if you want to talk about what system is really "best" for all a game has to offer, then you have to concede that hands down it is the PC, not any console, So then - the reason is not to offer us the best experience, but rather big fat exclusivity checks. If they cared about aesthetics they would release every one on the PC (which they are finally now doing).

Lastly, Square-Enix started out with Nintendo, not Sony - so do get all "patriotic" about them. they have jumped ship before and will likely do it again. How'd you like it if they decided to be exclusively where they really "belong" - on the Wii?

I don't get some of these reponses. Going multi-platform doesn't mean you need to play it on both systems. It doesn't mean it is on;y on the Xbox360 - it means that it is on both platforms. So you can play it either way you can. What's wrong with that? And I don't thinl the hypothetical question is supposed to aassume the worst scenario. I think it means that however it is acheived that the end product works the same on both systems, and plays just fine. Why some of you keep throwing in all of this negative conjecture and subjective pinpoints is really beyond me.

The best thing for Sqeenix or any developer to do is to have as many people buying their product as possible - and that means multi-platform. Xbox and PC players canno have no reason to buy a game they cannot play - and most of them are not going to run out and invest more money in a new system just to play one game. The only thing staving them off is the backroom deals they are making - basically strongarming Sony in order to stay with them and keep them afloat.

If you want to talk graphics and power - neither system can compare to even a mid-range PC with a proper graphic card - so if you want to talk about what system is really "best" for all a game has to offer, then you have to concede that hands down it is the PC, not any console, So then - the reason is not to offer us the best experience, but rather big fat exclusivity checks. If they cared about aesthetics they would release every one on the PC (which they are finally now doing).

Lastly, Square-Enix started out with Nintendo, not Sony - so do get all "patriotic" about them. they have jumped ship before and will likely do it again. How'd you like it if they decided to be exclusively where they really "belong" - on the Wii?

magusat999

I don't get some of these reponses. Going multi-platform doesn't mean you need to play it on both systems. It doesn't mean it is on;y on the Xbox360 - it means that it is on both platforms. So you can play it either way you can. What's wrong with that? And I don't thinl the hypothetical question is supposed to aassume the worst scenario. I think it means that however it is acheived that the end product works the same on both systems, and plays just fine. Why some of you keep throwing in all of this negative conjecture and subjective pinpoints is really beyond me.

The best thing for Sqeenix or any developer to do is to have as many people buying their product as possible - and that means multi-platform. Xbox and PC players canno have no reason to buy a game they cannot play - and most of them are not going to run out and invest more money in a new system just to play one game. The only thing staving them off is the backroom deals they are making - basically strongarming Sony in order to stay with them and keep them afloat.

If you want to talk graphics and power - neither system can compare to even a mid-range PC with a proper graphic card - so if you want to talk about what system is really "best" for all a game has to offer, then you have to concede that hands down it is the PC, not any console, So then - the reason is not to offer us the best experience, but rather big fat exclusivity checks. If they cared about aesthetics they would release every one on the PC (which they are finally now doing).

Lastly, Square-Enix started out with Nintendo, not Sony - so do get all "patriotic" about them. they have jumped ship before and will likely do it again. How'd you like it if they decided to be exclusively where they really "belong" - on the Wii?

magusat999

I don't think people are just being greedy. As I said before, some people (such as myself) prefer exclusives because they are usually of higher quality than mutliplatforms. Gears of War is a perfect example of what a developer can do when using the full power of a single console rather than adding more restrictions by putting it on another console as well and therefore, effectively dumbing the game down.

As for the power argument, I believe the people in this thread were naturally assuming it would be a console. As you probably know, the PC right now isn't exactly a profitable system, so a Final Fantasy exclusively or mainly focusing on the PC is definitely out of the question, especially for a Japanese publisher - most of them have never really liked PCs to begin with.

And I do not think Square-Enix belongs to any console or company, actually. If you look at the games they release, they have pretty much been making games on whatever they want. So far, Sony has been pretty smart by keeping a tight relationship with them and S-E has been returning the favor with the games, but they will not hesitate to move on to a more profitable system, just as they have with the PlayStation.

[QUOTE="magusat999"]

I don't get some of these reponses. Going multi-platform doesn't mean you need to play it on both systems. It doesn't mean it is on;y on the Xbox360 - it means that it is on both platforms. So you can play it either way you can. What's wrong with that? And I don't thinl the hypothetical question is supposed to aassume the worst scenario. I think it means that however it is acheived that the end product works the same on both systems, and plays just fine. Why some of you keep throwing in all of this negative conjecture and subjective pinpoints is really beyond me.

The best thing for Sqeenix or any developer to do is to have as many people buying their product as possible - and that means multi-platform. Xbox and PC players canno have no reason to buy a game they cannot play - and most of them are not going to run out and invest more money in a new system just to play one game. The only thing staving them off is the backroom deals they are making - basically strongarming Sony in order to stay with them and keep them afloat.

If you want to talk graphics and power - neither system can compare to even a mid-range PC with a proper graphic card - so if you want to talk about what system is really "best" for all a game has to offer, then you have to concede that hands down it is the PC, not any console, So then - the reason is not to offer us the best experience, but rather big fat exclusivity checks. If they cared about aesthetics they would release every one on the PC (which they are finally now doing).

Lastly, Square-Enix started out with Nintendo, not Sony - so do get all "patriotic" about them. they have jumped ship before and will likely do it again. How'd you like it if they decided to be exclusively where they really "belong" - on the Wii?

NWA_31

I don't think people are just being greedy. As I said before, some people (such as myself) prefer exclusives because they are usually of higher quality than mutliplatforms. Gears of War is a perfect example of what a developer can do when using the full power of a single console rather than adding more restrictions by putting it on another console as well and therefore, effectively dumbing the game down.

As for the power argument, I believe the people in this thread were naturally assuming it would be a console. As you probably know, the PC right now isn't exactly a profitable system, so a Final Fantasy exclusively or mainly focusing on the PC is definitely out of the question, especially for a Japanese publisher - most of them have never really liked PCs to begin with.

And I do not think Square-Enix belongs to any console or company, actually. If you look at the games they release, they have pretty much been making games on whatever they want. So far, Sony has been pretty smart by keeping a tight relationship with them and S-E has been returning the favor with the games, but they will not hesitate to move on to a more profitable system, just as they have with the PlayStation.

So far though, the PS3 hasn't shown itself to be much stronger than the 360. In fact, the majority of multiplatform games tend to look worse on the PS3. When devs say that a game can't be done on a certian system, they're usually talking about current state, optimization, etc. For example, the Resistance devs stated that Resistance could not be done on the 360, and there plenty of 360 games that surpass it graphically. I'd take what devs say with a grain of salt.TaCoDuDe

Games that are made only for 1 system, tend to have problems when they are ported over or when devs try to port them over. Take The Orange Box for example. It was made primarily for the 360 and PC. The process was mainly fit for those platforms, not the PS3. Plus up until a couple months ago, most devs didn't really show any interest in making the PS3 versions any better. They slapped them together and released them.

In the end I believe every console ever created wants to be blessed with such a wonderful franchise as the FF series.frostbourne

I agree.

So far though, the PS3 hasn't shown itself to be much stronger than the 360. In fact, the majority of multiplatform games tend to look worse on the PS3. When devs say that a game can't be done on a certian system, they're usually talking about current state, optimization, etc. For example, the Resistance devs stated that Resistance could not be done on the 360, and there plenty of 360 games that surpass it graphically. I'd take what devs say with a grain of salt.TaCoDuDe

Although I don't believe that either, it's not always about the graphics. The PS3 and 360's architecture is very different, it could have something to do with the coding and all that ish. From what I gather, the PS3 technically should be capable of more, but is difficult to program for while the 360 technically should be capable of less, but is easy to program for.

That's why most multiplatform games usually look worse on PS3, they were developed on 360 first and were ported to the PS3. When it's the other way around, like Burnout Paradise, DMC4 and GTA IV, they look identical.

I voted for it to stay with Sony and the PS3. There ought to be games that are exclusive to the PS3, X360 and Wii for that matter. Otherwise, what would be the point if all of the games out there were available on all platforms? Why would there be a need for three separate systems?

[QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]So far though, the PS3 hasn't shown itself to be much stronger than the 360. In fact, the majority of multiplatform games tend to look worse on the PS3. When devs say that a game can't be done on a certian system, they're usually talking about current state, optimization, etc. For example, the Resistance devs stated that Resistance could not be done on the 360, and there plenty of 360 games that surpass it graphically. I'd take what devs say with a grain of salt.NWA_31

Although I don't believe that either, it's not always about the graphics. The PS3 and 360's architecture is very different, it could have something to do with the coding and all that ish. From what I gather, the PS3 technically should be capable of more, but is difficult to program for while the 360 technically should be capable of less, but is easy to program for.

That's why most multiplatform games usually look worse on PS3, they were developed on 360 first and were ported to the PS3. When it's the other way around, like Burnout Paradise, DMC4 and GTA IV, they look identical.

Yes indeed. But for the benefit of people owning other consoles, I think it's about time everyone get a feel of the final fantasy experience.frostbourne

i would like to, it gives me more of a reason not to get an xbox, because if this left, the only ps3 exclusive game i would be interested in would be MGS4johngebreadman

Haha. Yes. I'm not really interested with X-Box and/or the 360. [I know i'm biased on this issue] :PFantasy_Gamer

[QUOTE="johngebreadman"]i would like to, it gives me more of a reason not to get an xbox, because if this left, the only ps3 exclusive game i would be interested in would be MGS4Sony_FanBoy

Don't forget Heavy Rain, Tekken 6, and Uncharted 2.

[QUOTE="Sony_FanBoy"][QUOTE="johngebreadman"]i would like to, it gives me more of a reason not to get an xbox, because if this left, the only ps3 exclusive game i would be interested in would be MGS4the_greenzero

Don't forget Heavy Rain, Tekken 6, and Uncharted 2.