Quantcast
What will be the last big title of this generation?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What will be the last big title of this generation?

Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

Sony only published it in two territories, and it was only for one version. Why do you think Sony has more rights to it than a company that published a version all over the world? Or that they would have all rights to all versions (save one?) in perpetuity?

What is it with you and all the arguements? ¬_¬

Sony published it in 2 territories, yes. I know. For a console version. Eidos published it for a PC version. Now can you explain to me any other reason why FFVII hasn't appeared on XBL?

I am not wrong, and you are not wrong. It's just 2 possible arguements (of something never proven) of something that will likely not happen for YEARS. Why do you get so worked up over little things and drag them on... All the time?

Well it's not an Xbox original

So I'm going to guess it's the size limit on XBLA titles.

BAM



Around the Network

we dont even know when this gen will end, how are we supposed to know, for all we know there could be a FFXV, Super Mario RPG 2, CoD11, Halo 5(or wathever they call it), or who knows what else still to come this gen



Xenoblade 3 :)



persona nth degree



CGI-Quality said:
Soriku said:
CGI-Quality said:

Sony haven't "lost" anything, (besides Ace Combat 6) as the PlayStation still got those other games, they just had to share them. And realistically, the exclusives that went multi haven't really been the PS3's greatest tragedy, it was the price, but that's another time.

For Final Fantasy VII though, I could see a fight for it, mainly due to the conditions I mentioned earlier. But yes, of course Square-Enix could put it on whatever they want.


If we're talking about the PS3 specifically, DQ isn't on it, MH isn't on it, Fatal Frame isn't on it. And once exclusive franchises are now multiplatform like FF XIII and DMC4 and whatever. Can't say I think FF VII would be an exception when I'd say FF XIII was more important to them.

- Fatal Frame wasn't an exclusive to begin with, it was on the Xbox as well, though the sequels were not.

- Monster Hunter would have done well on the PS3, but the PS3 isn't hurt without it.

- Dragon Quest is the biggie. DQX would have done very well on PS3 in Japan. In the West, not so much.

But those may have have stayed with the PayStation had it not been for the high price point. I know you were talking a lot of exclusives in general, but the ones that hurt were Final Fantasy, GTA, & Devil May Cry.

Looking at FFXIII's generational decline (~2.25m to ~1.85m), MH3 and DQIX both likely would've done worse on PS3 than where they went though.  And they likely would've done worse in the west too, since I doubt we see the sort of push from Sony that Nintendo's giving them.



Around the Network
jarrod said:
CGI-Quality said:
Soriku said:
CGI-Quality said:

Sony haven't "lost" anything, (besides Ace Combat 6) as the PlayStation still got those other games, they just had to share them. And realistically, the exclusives that went multi haven't really been the PS3's greatest tragedy, it was the price, but that's another time.

For Final Fantasy VII though, I could see a fight for it, mainly due to the conditions I mentioned earlier. But yes, of course Square-Enix could put it on whatever they want.


If we're talking about the PS3 specifically, DQ isn't on it, MH isn't on it, Fatal Frame isn't on it. And once exclusive franchises are now multiplatform like FF XIII and DMC4 and whatever. Can't say I think FF VII would be an exception when I'd say FF XIII was more important to them.

- Fatal Frame wasn't an exclusive to begin with, it was on the Xbox as well, though the sequels were not.

- Monster Hunter would have done well on the PS3, but the PS3 isn't hurt without it.

- Dragon Quest is the biggie. DQX would have done very well on PS3 in Japan. In the West, not so much.

But those may have have stayed with the PayStation had it not been for the high price point. I know you were talking a lot of exclusives in general, but the ones that hurt were Final Fantasy, GTA, & Devil May Cry.

Looking at FFXIII's generational decline (~2.25m to ~1.85m), MH3 and DQIX both likely would've done worse on PS3 than where they went though.  And they likely would've done worse in the west too, since I doubt we see the sort of push from Sony that Nintendo's giving them.

Not to mention SquareEnix wouldn't have done jack to help Dragon Quest itself.  It would have bombed in the west just as hard if it was on PS3 as it has on the DS.  So pretty much, Nintendo is the only one that is helping Dragon Quest outside of Japan at this moment.  While SquareEnix is just focusing on Final Fantasy (and its action RPG cousin Kingdom Hearts).

In Japan however, I daresay the sales for Dragon Quest X would have been lower due to the smaller install base.  There's a reason Yuji Horii always says he puts Dragon Quest on the 'most popular system'.  Last gen it was PS2.  This gen its DS and Wii.



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

Sony only published it in two territories, and it was only for one version. Why do you think Sony has more rights to it than a company that published a version all over the world? Or that they would have all rights to all versions (save one?) in perpetuity?

What is it with you and all the arguements? ¬_¬

Sony published it in 2 territories, yes. I know. For a console version. Eidos published it for a PC version. Now can you explain to me any other reason why FFVII hasn't appeared on XBL?

I am not wrong, and you are not wrong. It's just 2 possible arguements (of something never proven) of something that will likely not happen for YEARS. Why do you get so worked up over little things and drag them on... All the time?

Well it's not an Xbox original

So I'm going to guess it's the size limit on XBLA titles.

BAM

I know about the size limit, but it's been broken plenty of times. And seeing that FFVII sold over 100k on opening week... I'm highly surprised that they haven't put it on Live. I mean, they put Perfect Dark on Live, and it's from the same gen...



Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

Sony only published it in two territories, and it was only for one version. Why do you think Sony has more rights to it than a company that published a version all over the world? Or that they would have all rights to all versions (save one?) in perpetuity?

What is it with you and all the arguements? ¬_¬

Sony published it in 2 territories, yes. I know. For a console version. Eidos published it for a PC version. Now can you explain to me any other reason why FFVII hasn't appeared on XBL?

I am not wrong, and you are not wrong. It's just 2 possible arguements (of something never proven) of something that will likely not happen for YEARS. Why do you get so worked up over little things and drag them on... All the time?

Well it's not an Xbox original

So I'm going to guess it's the size limit on XBLA titles.

BAM

I know about the size limit, but it's been broken plenty of times. And seeing that FFVII sold over 100k on opening week... I'm highly surprised that they haven't put it on Live. I mean, they put Perfect Dark on Live, and it's from the same gen...

Perfect Dark is owned by Rare though.

Truth be told, 3rd Party PS1 classics usually just launch on PSN. It's one of those defining factors for the service too. Many PlayStation fans buy those classics from the store, which helps keep them from buying a 360. FFVII is without a doubt, one of those very titles.



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

Sony only published it in two territories, and it was only for one version. Why do you think Sony has more rights to it than a company that published a version all over the world? Or that they would have all rights to all versions (save one?) in perpetuity?

What is it with you and all the arguements? ¬_¬

Sony published it in 2 territories, yes. I know. For a console version. Eidos published it for a PC version. Now can you explain to me any other reason why FFVII hasn't appeared on XBL?

I am not wrong, and you are not wrong. It's just 2 possible arguements (of something never proven) of something that will likely not happen for YEARS. Why do you get so worked up over little things and drag them on... All the time?

Well it's not an Xbox original

So I'm going to guess it's the size limit on XBLA titles.

BAM

I know about the size limit, but it's been broken plenty of times. And seeing that FFVII sold over 100k on opening week... I'm highly surprised that they haven't put it on Live. I mean, they put Perfect Dark on Live, and it's from the same gen...

Perfect Dark is owned by Rare though.

Just as Final Fantasy VII is owned by SE. Are you telling me that they wouldn't want to be on the "best" online system this gen? Especially when they had/have Final Fantasy XIII on the 360.



Carl2291 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

Sony only published it in two territories, and it was only for one version. Why do you think Sony has more rights to it than a company that published a version all over the world? Or that they would have all rights to all versions (save one?) in perpetuity?

What is it with you and all the arguements? ¬_¬

Sony published it in 2 territories, yes. I know. For a console version. Eidos published it for a PC version. Now can you explain to me any other reason why FFVII hasn't appeared on XBL?

I am not wrong, and you are not wrong. It's just 2 possible arguements (of something never proven) of something that will likely not happen for YEARS. Why do you get so worked up over little things and drag them on... All the time?

Well it's not an Xbox original

So I'm going to guess it's the size limit on XBLA titles.

BAM

I know about the size limit, but it's been broken plenty of times. And seeing that FFVII sold over 100k on opening week... I'm highly surprised that they haven't put it on Live. I mean, they put Perfect Dark on Live, and it's from the same gen...

Perfect Dark is owned by Rare though.

Just as Final Fantasy VII is owned by SE. Are you telling me that they wouldn't want to be on the "best" online system this gen? Especially when they had/have Final Fantasy XIII on the 360.

No what I'm saying is, getting Perfect Dark made more sense as Micorosft owns the company that owns the property. FFVII was a PS1 classic. I guess Square didn't feel the need to venture out of the PlayStation platform for success. I'm also guessing that it's paid off as we've seen not even a mention of a 360 version of VII.

Also, maybe the publishing deal for VII interferes with that, as you say. And look at my edit in that last post.