Azuren said:
Actually, I had a response, but you know what? No. You can argue the Xbox One would run it better, except you know it wouldn't, because unless Microsoft paid for it nothing runs better on Xbox One. |
I didn't say it'd run better.
betacon said:
In what way were they wrong? |
In the "let's make FF exclusive again!" and how they started releasing everything for the console because even though it obviously didn't outsell the PS3 version (expectations dammit!) they still sold enough to make them a lot more money.
Final Fantasy is not Tales. You might as well say "make Skyrim PS4 exclusive" to the same effect.
Azuren said:
They weren't wrong. Despite being during a period when X360 still had higher numbers than PS3, the PS3 versions of each game outsold their X360 counterparts. And it wasn't by a small amount, either; the closest race was still 2:1 in PS3's favor. In fact, only one of the three games on X360 broke a million worldwide, and it was still outsold by XIII-2 on PS3.
Final numbers for the trilogy on X360 managed to only hit 3.16M, whereas the PS3 trilogy hit 9.01M. That's nearly a 3:1 sales ratio, meaning that a system with less units sold almost 75% of the series. |
Because of expectations (announced as an exclusive) and because the reception was pretty terrible...
Now, illuminate me as to why exclusivism is a good thing (right now, anything that hurts Microsoft's competition can only represent a gain. Sony has acted cocky recently and they need to be dragged in the mud to show them their place) and show everyone where I said the game will run better on the Xbox One...
