By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dianko on 15 February 2009
Edit Thread
makingmusic476 said:
Dianko said:
Pristine20 said:
makingmusic476 said:
And I agree with those saying that making 360 exclusives was a stupid idea. Out of the five major platforms in Japan, the 360 has BY FAR the smallest install base.

And to the people saying those exclusives weren't moneyhatted... lol. SE may be dumb, but they're not THAT dumb. They certainly had at least some compensation for those endeavors.

 

 this is why many believe that moneyhats were involved. Not saying that thats a good or bad thing...it's just the thing.

Maybe the money M$ gave them far surpassed whatever profits they could make from a ps3 version. That and the fact that they're trying to westernize themselves as that's "where it's at" nowadays.

 

Well, what about the money that Sony must be paying SE? Afterall, PS3 sales in Japan are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. And elsewhere, there is no reason FFv13 should be exclusive since there is an almost 10 million unit deficit between the 360 and PS3. And that's not even bringing the Wii into the discussion. There is an ongoing thread in 2ch gaming that I think expresses the situation fairly well. It translates roughly to "SE to Sony: "Hurry up and sell some fucking consoles already!", the implication being that SE has refused to release their big games on the PS3 due to the failure by Sony to sell the system.


Why is there a belief that a PS3 version is a given when it's not even in a good enough position to KEEP exclusives? And again, that's an argument against the PS3 and for the 360/mulitplatform. The Wii makes the argument even uglier.

 

Paying for what?  Versus?  If so, do you really think that Sony paid for Versus and not the actual FFXIII?

Versus is staying exclusive for now for very odd reasons (as far as I know), and it's very likely to go multiplat. If it does go multiplat, expect some interesting things to happen internally at Square Enix.

And I don't see SE holding out for MS to sell some more consoles in Japan, so why would they do the same for Sony in the West? JRPGs have a much higher attach rate in Japan than in the West, and I don't think SE would be too worried about the ps3's sales specifically in NA of all regions (in Europe things are roughly equal).  The majority of JRPGs (up until those on the 360) sell more in Japan than in either of the other two territories. This holds true for the juggernauts like FF, DQ, and Pokemon, and it usually holds true for more niche titles like Valkyria Chronicles and the Tales franchise. Hell, even the 360 version of Tales sold more in Japan than in NA (it has yet to hit Europe).

Ultimately, Japan is the most important region for JRPGs.  The only reason SE is ignoring that must be the result of monetary compensation.  Yes, you could say that the ps3's install base doesn't warrant exclusives, and this is true, but the same holds true for the 360's install base, if not even moreso.

Just look at White Knight Chronicles.  It is apparently a fairly mediocre RPG according to various reviewers (much to my disappointment), yet it has managed to sell almost half that of Lost Odyssey in only two months, despite being released in only one territory vs Lost Odyssey's three.

I don't actually think Sony paid for Versus, but I was trying to make a counter argument that the moneyhatting argument isn't the best. I'm sure there are some arrangements in place between Sony and SE to keep it on the PS3 (just as MS is sure to have an arrangement with SE for SO4).

However, I strongly disagree with the userbase argument specifically for IU. Its been mentioned already by myself and others that game is a different case, since its development was funded by MS, and SE merely published it. That being the case, even the half million copies sold would be good for SE, since they didn't spend the millions of dollars it cost to develop. Almost like a Wii-game, since all SE had to do was pay for the packaging, distribution and advertisement (in that Wii games cost significantly less to make, so less copies need to be sold to turn a profit). Aside from that, there would be no reason for that game to be on the PS3 since MS funded it. As for Last Remnant, nobody can be sure. UE3 games have a history of problems with PS3, but the fact that the PC version was delayed as well points to some kind of deal with MS. Ultimately, I think that it was a title meant to test the western waters with a new IP, but I could just as well be full of shit.

As far as WKC, it has sold well in Japan for a PS3 title. However, you yourself mentioned that JRPGs tend to do best in Japan, so I don't think the game will end up selling as well WW as Lost Odyssey, particularly since Sony doesn't seem to want to advertise their games that much (I have yet to see a Killzone 2 ad here in the US, while LO for example was well advertised). Keep in mind that of the 3 home consoles, Lost Odyssey is the best selling JRPG of this gen worldwide.

I'm not really arguing against moneyhatting being done, but that the same reasoning given to say MS is moneyhatting can be applied to Sony, since both are in fairly similar circumstances. And I believe that both SO4 and Versus are gonna end up on both systems anyway.