| Hardstuck-Platinum said: It's not Sony's fault that Nintendo keeps persisting with an obsolete Tegra X1 chipset with 4gb's of RAM. It is not Sony's fault that people don't buy Xbox games cos of Gamepass and MS launched a next gen console that has 8gb's of RAM, a RAM count which can be found in tablets that elderly people use. Have you considered that Square wants to be third party exclusive to Sony because the competitors hardware is so bottlenecked that they felt they couldn't make a good game if they released it on there? Same situation with the PS1. Sony didn't moneyhat exclusivity away from Nintendo 64. It's just that the storage space on the N64 was so limited they didn't want to be so restricted with how they developed their games. A worse game equals worse sales |
Sony paid big bucks for third party exclusivity during the PS1 era, it's just that the official messaging of third parties was about technological reasons because they didn't want to be viewed as whores. 20 years later a former Squaresoft exec openly admitted that they got the best deal among all third parties from Sony, so there's a clear implication that it wasn't only Squaresoft that got paid off.
Today's Square-Enix isn't any different. They still want to spend big on development for new Final Fantasy games despite their inability to make the series sell more, so they gladly take Sony's money once again.
On topic: When I read a topic title like this thread here has, I wonder how many gamers still haven't understood that the industry and gaming aren't synonymous. What's good for the industry is commonly not good for gamers or gaming as a whole.
In cases like the recent Final Fantasy games, it's certainly preferable for Square-Enix (the industry) to be exclusive to PS, because the financial viability of a FF multiplat is otherwise uncertain.
Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.
