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

Forums - Sony - FF Versus XIII outfit designer lists game as “Final Fantasy 15"

Lyrikalstylez on 15 March 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity!


That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.


That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

 

That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?


looks like you'll be one of those people that'll have a mental breakdown when this goes multi, I cant wait lol

Oh and I think Gears of War will go Multi next Gen



Around the Network
kain_kusanagi on 15 March 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity!


That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.


That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

 

That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?

If Epic has no contract with MS to continue making Gears for Xbox than they would be stupid not to release future Gears games on as many platforms as possible. But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.

If a console maker is willing to pay upfront for exclusivity a dev should really consider it because that's guaranteed money. But a 100% independent dev should always release on as many platforms as possible because it's no longer an big investment to do so and it guarantees a greater rate of return than releasing on a single platform. It also builds a bigger fanbase because it reaches more people who will want more if it well received.



kain_kusanagi on 15 March 2013
Soriku said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Everything you said is very reasonable. But I'll tell you why I'd rather have 3rd party games tay multiplatform unless they are paid for 2nd party type partnerships.

"Well one they can focus on the strength and capabilities of one console to make a better game tailored to the hardware it's on."

Sure, but the PS3 and Xbox 360 have the same capabilities. Unless Sony gives a 3rd party dev Naughty Dog secrets or MS gives a 3rd party dev 343i secrets it's not going to matter. Even if a primary console was picked a port could still be made even if the primary release is superior. I'd rather have a dirty port than no port at all.

"Two, they might find that one platform is enough for sales because they believe their fanbase isn't split up everywhere. Then they can just continue to focus on making the best game on one console, and also not worry about the costs of another version of the game for another platform."

If one platform is enough than the sales of another is gravy. Multiplatform engines and tools are so good now that there it's cheap and easy to both develop in parallel and port after the fact. Devs should always focus on making the best game, but they should also get that game into as many hands as possible.

 


PS3 and 360 are similar in capabilities but I feel like the gap widens when devs make multiplat games. You can see games like The Last of Us or Halo 4 tailored to the PS3/360 and are considered more impressive than multiplat games.

Some devs just prefer developing on one platform. With Versus, I think Nomura and his team would rather focus on the PS3 only. If the game will sell what they expect on one platform, I don't think they necessarily need to put it on as many platforms as possible.

I don't really care if Nomura and his team love the PS3 and hate PC/Wii U/360. I'm talking about why I think all 3rd party games should always be multiplatform. The engine and the tools are multiplatform so it would be stupid for them to ignore half the market on 360 and even more on Wii U and PC. I have a fundimental belief that all 3rd party games should be available to as many people as possible. 1st and 2nd party are exclusive for a reason, 3rd party exclusives are ignoring gamers and devs should never ignore gamers.



AbbathTheGrim on 15 March 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity!


That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.


That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

 

That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?

If Epic has no contract with MS to continue making Gears for Xbox than they would be stupid not to release future Gears games on as many platforms as possible. But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.

If a console maker is willing to pay upfront for exclusivity a dev should really consider it because that's guaranteed money. But a 100% independent dev should always release on as many platforms as possible because it's no longer an big investment to do so and it guarantees a greater rate of return than releasing on a single platform. It also builds a bigger fanbase because it reaches more people who will want more if it well received.

Fair enough. Gears of Wars is in a position where sells in the PS3 could prove more benefitial than a contract from Microsoft, depending on the zeros of said contracts. It will all depend of what Micro is willing to pay and what Epic games expectations are for Gears of War as a franchise.

You seem to rule out the possibility Sony could pay for Versus XIII to strengthen the PS4 Japan launch. As well as how Square could be seeing the same benefits in a contract, similar to when you say "Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money", Square would also be stupid not to take Sony's money if this is the situation. As a consequence you kain cannot rule out circumstance where Square could be seeing benefits of releasing Versus as a Sony exclusive, judging by your reasoning.

Lyrikalstylez said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity!


That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.


That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.

 

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

 

That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?


looks like you'll be one of those people that'll have a mental breakdown when this goes multi, I cant wait lol

Oh and I think Gears of War will go Multi next Gen

Not to the point of a meltdown, I just want it exclusive.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

kain_kusanagi on 15 March 2013
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity!


That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.


That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

 

That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?

If Epic has no contract with MS to continue making Gears for Xbox than they would be stupid not to release future Gears games on as many platforms as possible. But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.

If a console maker is willing to pay upfront for exclusivity a dev should really consider it because that's guaranteed money. But a 100% independent dev should always release on as many platforms as possible because it's no longer an big investment to do so and it guarantees a greater rate of return than releasing on a single platform. It also builds a bigger fanbase because it reaches more people who will want more if it well received.

Fair enough. Gears of Wars is in a position where sells in the PS3 could prove more benefitial than a contract from Microsoft, depending on the zeros of said contracts. It will all depend of what Micro is willing to pay and what Epic games expectations are for Gears of War as a franchise.

You seem to rule out the possibility Sony could pay for Versus XIII to strengthen the PS4 Japan launch. As well as how Square could be seeing the same benefits in a contract, similar to when you say "Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money", Square would also be stupid not to take Sony's money if this is the situation. As a consequence you kain cannot rule out circumstance where Square could be seeing benefits of releasing Versus as a Sony exclusive, judging by your reasoning.

Lyrikalstylez said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity!


That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.


That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.

 

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

 

That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?


looks like you'll be one of those people that'll have a mental breakdown when this goes multi, I cant wait lol

Oh and I think Gears of War will go Multi next Gen

Not to the point of a meltdown, I just want it exclusive.


Why do you want it to be exclusive? There is no benefit to you if it is exclusive. We have been talking a lot about whats best in different situations for the devs and publishers, but the real reason I want 3rd party multiplatform games is so more people get to play the games. Sowhat do you get out of FF Vs XIII being exclusive? It doesn't make any sense for a gamer to want a game to be limited to only one console if it is a 3rd party release.



Around the Network
NintendoPie on 15 March 2013

I hope it comes to the Wii U. (But that's some strong hoping... *laughs*)



007BondAgent on 15 March 2013

should be a ps4 exclusive, rather then a ps3 exclusive :)



arcane_chaos on 15 March 2013

didn't S-E said at the PS4 conference they'd announce something exclusive for Sony? maybe this?



AbbathTheGrim on 15 March 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity!


That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.


That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

 

That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?

If Epic has no contract with MS to continue making Gears for Xbox than they would be stupid not to release future Gears games on as many platforms as possible. But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.

If a console maker is willing to pay upfront for exclusivity a dev should really consider it because that's guaranteed money. But a 100% independent dev should always release on as many platforms as possible because it's no longer an big investment to do so and it guarantees a greater rate of return than releasing on a single platform. It also builds a bigger fanbase because it reaches more people who will want more if it well received.

Fair enough. Gears of Wars is in a position where sells in the PS3 could prove more benefitial than a contract from Microsoft, depending on the zeros of said contracts. It will all depend of what Micro is willing to pay and what Epic games expectations are for Gears of War as a franchise.

You seem to rule out the possibility Sony could pay for Versus XIII to strengthen the PS4 Japan launch. As well as how Square could be seeing the same benefits in a contract, similar to when you say "Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money", Square would also be stupid not to take Sony's money if this is the situation. As a consequence you kain cannot rule out circumstance where Square could be seeing benefits of releasing Versus as a Sony exclusive, judging by your reasoning.

Lyrikalstylez said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity!


That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.


That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.

 

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

 

That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?


looks like you'll be one of those people that'll have a mental breakdown when this goes multi, I cant wait lol

Oh and I think Gears of War will go Multi next Gen

Not to the point of a meltdown, I just want it exclusive.


Why do you want it to be exclusive? There is no benefit to you if it is exclusive. We have been talking a lot about whats best in different situations for the devs and publishers, but the real reason I want 3rd party multiplatform games is so more people get to play the games. Sowhat do you get out of FF Vs XIII being exclusive? It doesn't make any sense for a gamer to want a game to be limited to only one console if it is a 3rd party release.

 

Given the fact that you didn't respond to what I wrote about the possibility that Square could see benefit from making Vs13 exclusive, I will take for granted you felt you can't rule out that possibility.

There is benefit in having FFVsXIII as exclusive. Having a Final Fantasy exclusive strengthens the Sony brand. If people would really like to play VS13 they would need to go to PS4 and play it. I seek nothing but to see Sony as the strongest gaming console and keep securing its place in the gaming industry along with its games. Why does Micro secured exclusives and timed-exclusives? So that they could rise and maintain themselves in the gaming industry. It is more than reasonable that a gamer who prefers a company, or feels that the most significant gaming experiences are found in said company, would wish for things that could secure and help that company into staying and getting a better position in gaming.

I know there are a lot of multiplatform gamers in here that would disagree and even dismiss my opinion and I can understand that. What I cannot understand is that it is you my fellow VGCharter kain_kusanagi who are bringing forth this argument.

Judging from the posts I've been reading from you I regard you as a Micro supporter. Nothing wrong with that. But I question if your take on FFVS13 availability in other consoles is a consequence of real view you have of gamers being able to access games without console restrictions, or if it is just a case that you dismiss this wish of a fan to see one of his beloved franchise game exclusive in its preferred console, that is rival to yours.

But hey, I could be wrong and I have regarded you as a strong Micro supporter. Maybe even though you support Micro you really don't want third party games and even second party games to be exclusives because you believe  "3rd party multiplatform games is so more people get to play the games".

Here is a great opportunity to show me and our other fellow VGCharters in here that you do not favor any console getting exclusives and that you see a bigger picture for the benefit of all gamers:

Express in this thread how much you honestly desire that Gears of War is not contracted by Micro into Xbox3 and it is released in the PS4 as well so that more gamers can enjoy it.

The thing is even if you express this now, you actually said: "I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games." So I don't understand why you would have something against me wishing for a "Final Fantasy Vs XIII" second party exclusive.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

BloodyRain on 15 March 2013

Hmm so versus 13 might actually come out, I expected for it to come out after 13,but instead we got 13-2. Hopefully versus or whatever it's called comes out soon after the ps4 releases, unless it's multi now then it'll prob be on the ps4 and next xbox.