By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Star Ocean 4 : questions.

Shadowblind on 06 May 2009
benmanu said:
Shadowblind said:
naznatips said:
benmanu said:
mrstickball said:
The thing about SO4 coming to the PS3 is:

We've only seen a few 360 JRPGs goto the PS3: Enchanted Arms (which was by a dev that worked quite a bit on PS titles), Eternal Sonata, and Tales of Vesperia (soon).

The issue is that ToV was semi-inevitable, given the fact that Eternal Sonata shares the same engine as ToV.

If SO4 was to come to the PS3, the precursor would be IU to the PS3. And that hasn't been announced yet. Not a good sign for a troll like PS3beats360.

are you sure that tov and es share the same engine? because if it the fact, then why eternal sonata background are much much much much more detailed than tov's? If tov and es share the same engine, then es is using it better than tov.

As for the iu case, perhaps it's a rumor but i've heard it was somehow "paid" by microsoft.

 

More importantly Stickball is full of it, because IU was published by MS, making it second party (which he knows very well), and SO4 was not.

 

Wrong. Microsoft does not hold any publishing rights to Infinite Undiscovery. Square Enix bought them:

http://search.ign.com/products?query=infinite+undiscovery

http://www.gamershell.com/companies/square_enix_co_ltd_/492424.html

@benmanu: Yes, ToV and Eternal Sonata are said to have shared the same engine.

 

squareenix does not need to buy the right, tri ace was part of enix and is then a part of squareenix, all tri ace games'rights apart end of eternity (whose rights are for sega) are squareenix's property.

When you think about it, i did not except squareenix to give tri ace so much freedom that they can do games for another firm...

 

The rights to the games are given to the publisher, as its the publisher who funds the development.

Sqeenix can't just say "hey SEGA, I want the rights to End of Eternity" and expect to get them for free just because tri-ace has done games for them in the past. When Microsoft was still the publisher to Infinite Undiscovery, they had the rights to the name. I don't know how the switch went down (whether by transaction or by other means) but I'm fairly certain some green(or yen) was involved.



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

Around the Network
naznatips on 06 May 2009
Shadowblind said:
benmanu said:
Shadowblind said:
naznatips said:
benmanu said:
mrstickball said:
The thing about SO4 coming to the PS3 is:

We've only seen a few 360 JRPGs goto the PS3: Enchanted Arms (which was by a dev that worked quite a bit on PS titles), Eternal Sonata, and Tales of Vesperia (soon).

The issue is that ToV was semi-inevitable, given the fact that Eternal Sonata shares the same engine as ToV.

If SO4 was to come to the PS3, the precursor would be IU to the PS3. And that hasn't been announced yet. Not a good sign for a troll like PS3beats360.

are you sure that tov and es share the same engine? because if it the fact, then why eternal sonata background are much much much much more detailed than tov's? If tov and es share the same engine, then es is using it better than tov.

As for the iu case, perhaps it's a rumor but i've heard it was somehow "paid" by microsoft.

 

More importantly Stickball is full of it, because IU was published by MS, making it second party (which he knows very well), and SO4 was not.

 

Wrong. Microsoft does not hold any publishing rights to Infinite Undiscovery. Square Enix bought them:

http://search.ign.com/products?query=infinite+undiscovery

http://www.gamershell.com/companies/square_enix_co_ltd_/492424.html

@benmanu: Yes, ToV and Eternal Sonata are said to have shared the same engine.

 

squareenix does not need to buy the right, tri ace was part of enix and is then a part of squareenix, all tri ace games'rights apart end of eternity (whose rights are for sega) are squareenix's property.

When you think about it, i did not except squareenix to give tri ace so much freedom that they can do games for another firm...

 

The rights to the games are given to the publisher, as its the publisher who funds the development.

Sqeenix can't just say "hey SEGA, I want the rights to End of Eternity" and expect to get them for free just because tri-ace has done games for them in the past. When Microsoft was still the publisher to Infinite Undiscovery, they had the rights to the name. I don't know how the switch went down (whether by transaction or by other means) but I'm fairly certain some green(or yen) was involved.

You're wrong. Microsoft holds the trademark, and that's what's important. SE may have been changed to the publisher, but Microsoft still bought and paid for that game, and holds all rights to it. http://www.microsoft.com/library/toolbar/3.0/trademarks/en-us.mspx



benmanu on 06 May 2009
dShadowblind said:
benmanu said:
Shadowblind said:
naznatips said:
benmanu said:
mrstickball said:
The thing about SO4 coming to the PS3 is:

We've only seen a few 360 JRPGs goto the PS3: Enchanted Arms (which was by a dev that worked quite a bit on PS titles), Eternal Sonata, and Tales of Vesperia (soon).

The issue is that ToV was semi-inevitable, given the fact that Eternal Sonata shares the same engine as ToV.

If SO4 was to come to the PS3, the precursor would be IU to the PS3. And that hasn't been announced yet. Not a good sign for a troll like PS3beats360.

are you sure that tov and es share the same engine? because if it the fact, then why eternal sonata background are much much much much more detailed than tov's? If tov and es share the same engine, then es is using it better than tov.

As for the iu case, perhaps it's a rumor but i've heard it was somehow "paid" by microsoft.

 

More importantly Stickball is full of it, because IU was published by MS, making it second party (which he knows very well), and SO4 was not.

 

Wrong. Microsoft does not hold any publishing rights to Infinite Undiscovery. Square Enix bought them:

http://search.ign.com/products?query=infinite+undiscovery

http://www.gamershell.com/companies/square_enix_co_ltd_/492424.html

@benmanu: Yes, ToV and Eternal Sonata are said to have shared the same engine.

 

squareenix does not need to buy the right, tri ace was part of enix and is then a part of squareenix, all tri ace games'rights apart end of eternity (whose rights are for sega) are squareenix's property.

When you think about it, i did not except squareenix to give tri ace so much freedom that they can do games for another firm...

 

The rights to the games are given to the publisher, as its the publisher who funds the development.

Sqeenix can't just say "hey SEGA, I want the rights to End of Eternity" and expect to get them for free just because tri-ace has done games for them in the past. When Microsoft was still the publisher to Infinite Undiscovery, they had the rights to the name. I don't know how the switch went down (whether by transaction or by other means) but I'm fairly certain some green(or yen) was involved.

 

 

i did not say they would reclaim the rights for end of eternity, i did say that tri ace, as a part of squareenix, give the rights to squareenix just when they announce a game with no publisher, because tri ace's default publisher is squareenix.

And the rights for end of eternity are for sega, yes, but as tri ace is a part of squareenix, therefore they have the right in some way

that is the same as when game arts (grandia) announce a game : they are a part of squareenix, therefore even if they get the game published by someone else, part of the rights are still belonging to squareenix because they own the developer.

Same for sony and level5, which is a part of sony japanese development teams. Even if they don't published, they somehow have the rights because they are owning the developer that has the right.

Of course, if tri ace would leave squareenix, they (squareenix) would have no more rights on it (end of eternity), that we all agree about.

 

 



outlawauron on 06 May 2009
naznatips said:
Shadowblind said:
benmanu said:
Shadowblind said:
naznatips said:
benmanu said:
mrstickball said:
The thing about SO4 coming to the PS3 is:

We've only seen a few 360 JRPGs goto the PS3: Enchanted Arms (which was by a dev that worked quite a bit on PS titles), Eternal Sonata, and Tales of Vesperia (soon).

The issue is that ToV was semi-inevitable, given the fact that Eternal Sonata shares the same engine as ToV.

If SO4 was to come to the PS3, the precursor would be IU to the PS3. And that hasn't been announced yet. Not a good sign for a troll like PS3beats360.

are you sure that tov and es share the same engine? because if it the fact, then why eternal sonata background are much much much much more detailed than tov's? If tov and es share the same engine, then es is using it better than tov.

As for the iu case, perhaps it's a rumor but i've heard it was somehow "paid" by microsoft.

 

More importantly Stickball is full of it, because IU was published by MS, making it second party (which he knows very well), and SO4 was not.

 

Wrong. Microsoft does not hold any publishing rights to Infinite Undiscovery. Square Enix bought them:

http://search.ign.com/products?query=infinite+undiscovery

http://www.gamershell.com/companies/square_enix_co_ltd_/492424.html

@benmanu: Yes, ToV and Eternal Sonata are said to have shared the same engine.

 

squareenix does not need to buy the right, tri ace was part of enix and is then a part of squareenix, all tri ace games'rights apart end of eternity (whose rights are for sega) are squareenix's property.

When you think about it, i did not except squareenix to give tri ace so much freedom that they can do games for another firm...

The rights to the games are given to the publisher, as its the publisher who funds the development.

Sqeenix can't just say "hey SEGA, I want the rights to End of Eternity" and expect to get them for free just because tri-ace has done games for them in the past. When Microsoft was still the publisher to Infinite Undiscovery, they had the rights to the name. I don't know how the switch went down (whether by transaction or by other means) but I'm fairly certain some green(or yen) was involved.

You're wrong. Microsoft holds the trademark, and that's what's important. SE may have been changed to the publisher, but Microsoft still bought and paid for that game, and holds all rights to it. http://www.microsoft.com/library/toolbar/3.0/trademarks/en-us.mspx

Oh wow, nice find!



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Shadowblind on 06 May 2009
naznatips said:
Shadowblind said:
benmanu said:
Shadowblind said:
naznatips said:
benmanu said:
mrstickball said:
The thing about SO4 coming to the PS3 is:

We've only seen a few 360 JRPGs goto the PS3: Enchanted Arms (which was by a dev that worked quite a bit on PS titles), Eternal Sonata, and Tales of Vesperia (soon).

The issue is that ToV was semi-inevitable, given the fact that Eternal Sonata shares the same engine as ToV.

If SO4 was to come to the PS3, the precursor would be IU to the PS3. And that hasn't been announced yet. Not a good sign for a troll like PS3beats360.

are you sure that tov and es share the same engine? because if it the fact, then why eternal sonata background are much much much much more detailed than tov's? If tov and es share the same engine, then es is using it better than tov.

As for the iu case, perhaps it's a rumor but i've heard it was somehow "paid" by microsoft.

 

More importantly Stickball is full of it, because IU was published by MS, making it second party (which he knows very well), and SO4 was not.

 

Wrong. Microsoft does not hold any publishing rights to Infinite Undiscovery. Square Enix bought them:

http://search.ign.com/products?query=infinite+undiscovery

http://www.gamershell.com/companies/square_enix_co_ltd_/492424.html

@benmanu: Yes, ToV and Eternal Sonata are said to have shared the same engine.

 

squareenix does not need to buy the right, tri ace was part of enix and is then a part of squareenix, all tri ace games'rights apart end of eternity (whose rights are for sega) are squareenix's property.

When you think about it, i did not except squareenix to give tri ace so much freedom that they can do games for another firm...

 

The rights to the games are given to the publisher, as its the publisher who funds the development.

Sqeenix can't just say "hey SEGA, I want the rights to End of Eternity" and expect to get them for free just because tri-ace has done games for them in the past. When Microsoft was still the publisher to Infinite Undiscovery, they had the rights to the name. I don't know how the switch went down (whether by transaction or by other means) but I'm fairly certain some green(or yen) was involved.

You're wrong. Microsoft holds the trademark, and that's what's important. SE may have been changed to the publisher, but Microsoft still bought and paid for that game, and holds all rights to it. http://www.microsoft.com/library/toolbar/3.0/trademarks/en-us.mspx

So Microsoft DID publish Infinite Undiscovery? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I also see Blue Dragon on there as well which had a game on the Nintendo DS published by Ignition, not Microsoft(also see Viva pinata). Owning the trademark doesn't mean that the game within the series or franchise cannot appear on another console or be published by another publisher, though I would assume it has to go through Microsoft first. Which, in the past, it has.

 



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

Around the Network
benmanu on 06 May 2009
Shadowblind said:
naznatips said:
Shadowblind said:
benmanu said:
Shadowblind said:
naznatips said:
benmanu said:
mrstickball said:
The thing about SO4 coming to the PS3 is:

We've only seen a few 360 JRPGs goto the PS3: Enchanted Arms (which was by a dev that worked quite a bit on PS titles), Eternal Sonata, and Tales of Vesperia (soon).

The issue is that ToV was semi-inevitable, given the fact that Eternal Sonata shares the same engine as ToV.

If SO4 was to come to the PS3, the precursor would be IU to the PS3. And that hasn't been announced yet. Not a good sign for a troll like PS3beats360.

are you sure that tov and es share the same engine? because if it the fact, then why eternal sonata background are much much much much more detailed than tov's? If tov and es share the same engine, then es is using it better than tov.

As for the iu case, perhaps it's a rumor but i've heard it was somehow "paid" by microsoft.

 

More importantly Stickball is full of it, because IU was published by MS, making it second party (which he knows very well), and SO4 was not.

 

Wrong. Microsoft does not hold any publishing rights to Infinite Undiscovery. Square Enix bought them:

http://search.ign.com/products?query=infinite+undiscovery

http://www.gamershell.com/companies/square_enix_co_ltd_/492424.html

@benmanu: Yes, ToV and Eternal Sonata are said to have shared the same engine.

 

squareenix does not need to buy the right, tri ace was part of enix and is then a part of squareenix, all tri ace games'rights apart end of eternity (whose rights are for sega) are squareenix's property.

When you think about it, i did not except squareenix to give tri ace so much freedom that they can do games for another firm...

 

The rights to the games are given to the publisher, as its the publisher who funds the development.

Sqeenix can't just say "hey SEGA, I want the rights to End of Eternity" and expect to get them for free just because tri-ace has done games for them in the past. When Microsoft was still the publisher to Infinite Undiscovery, they had the rights to the name. I don't know how the switch went down (whether by transaction or by other means) but I'm fairly certain some green(or yen) was involved.

You're wrong. Microsoft holds the trademark, and that's what's important. SE may have been changed to the publisher, but Microsoft still bought and paid for that game, and holds all rights to it. http://www.microsoft.com/library/toolbar/3.0/trademarks/en-us.mspx

So Microsoft DID publish Infinite Undiscovery? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I also see Blue Dragon on there as well which had a game on the Nintendo DS published by Ignition, not Microsoft(also see Viva pinata). Owning the trademark doesn't mean that the game within the series or franchise cannot appear on another console or be published by another publisher, though I would assume it has to go through Microsoft first. Which, in the past, it has.

 

 

and rare, owned by microsoft, developed games for gba and ds. As microsoft has no portable system, they don't see it as a threat if one of their games is released on a portable system.

But what you will never see is a blue dragon on ps3 and wii.



naznatips on 06 May 2009

You put too much stock in the publisher. The publisher does not HAVE to be the person holding the rights to the game. In most cases it is, but not in this case. There is obviously no way that Microsoft, holding the trademark to Infinite Undiscovery, would allow an exclusive they paid for to be released on PS3.

Star Ocean is fair game though.



Shadowblind on 06 May 2009
naznatips said:
You put too much stock in the publisher. The publisher does not HAVE to be the person holding the rights to the game. In most cases it is, but not in this case. There is obviously no way that Microsoft, holding the trademark to Infinite Undiscovery, would allow an exclusive they paid for to be released on PS3.

Star Ocean is fair game though.

 

Hmmm, I've always heard that essentially, the publisher holds all the cards once they gain publishing rights to a developer's game. Well, you learn something new every day I suppose. Still, I would say that these occurences seem rather rare...



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

Ephidari on 08 May 2009

I liked the star ocean 2&3 though its been a long time since ive played either of them. I do believe 4 is pretty good, at least in my opinion.



piggychan on 09 May 2009

This is an old vid (TGS 2007) but whether its relevant to the IU argument well..(some of their claims about discovery and impact.....>_>)  If it does go onto other systems I can't say I really care now.

 

But anyway back to SO theres another interview with SO staff at IGN if you guys haven't seen this yet although I think there is some scripting HTML problems as its not displaying correctly for me

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/977/977643p1.html

 

EDIT:

Oh this morning popped into my supermarket to get some groceries.. saw EDGE magazine and quickly glanced at the SO review.. they gave the game a 5/10 which I think was odd because they awarded IU with 7/10. but I didnt read many of the reasons why they disliked it except I did notice they said that the cut scenes were too long and lacked any emotion..