Aj_habfan on 31 July 2008
| ZenfoldorVGI said: Why does it make it ok to be betrayed by a company as long as that company had a good reason? I mean, does saying Microsoft had to pay, make it feel like Square-Enix is really on your side, but they're just grifting the MS fans while they're at it? Doesn't matter if MS paid for games, or if they didn't. If Square could make one extra dollar by porting a Sony game to the 360, they would. Development cost for HD consoles is high, and companies making core games across the industry are in dire straights. Money is all that matters, if it's profit from 360 consumers, lump sums from Microsoft, or Playstation cash. I mean it's fine to speculate on motives here, but I'm talking about a broader talking point of PS3 fans claiming "oh MS just paid for it' which means Sony didn't! So, that either means MS cares more about their fans, or MS is richer. Take your pick. Neither one of them marginalize Microsoft or Square-Enixs decision, so explain to me why it is better for Microsoft to have paid SE for the exclusives, than if they got them for free, from a Playstation 3 fans point of view. |
It's not as much a matter of Square Enix and PS3 as 360 VS PS3. If PS3 owners know that the reason they are getting the raw end of the deal is because MS payed for it, as oppose to PS3's poor performance, it is a lot easier to deal with.
