LOL, That's so fake!

The way the FFXV logo dissapears is clearly fake.

Buuuuut, WiiU and PS3 makes more sense that PS3 and 360

How dare you call me a hypocrite!

I've never once said that Gears of War should remain MS exclusive. I've said that it is under contract and therefore the same as a 1st party exclusive. I've said that if the contract runs out and it goes multiplatform I'd be happy for those who've missed out on the previous games. I've even said that I honestly don't understand why 3rd party devs enter into 2nd party contracts in the first place. Gears of War is much like Heavy Rain. Quantic Dreams is independent but Heavy Rain was made under contract.

Please explain to me how Final Fantasy is ANYTHING like Gears of War. One is a 3rd party series with no exclusivity contract that has been on more systems than I want to count and the other is a 2nd party exclusive with a contract between a console manufacturer and a developer. Sure Epic owns the rights to Gears of War, but they are under contract with MS. That's what we commonly refer to as a 2nd party relationship. Sony tends to buy devs or IPs and MS tends to make partnerships, but the result is the same, exclusives. Square is not under any contract.

I've been very consistent on this. 1st and 2nd party games are exclusive for a reason and I'm not arguing to change that. 3rd party games should not be exclusive and I've always argued that they should be multiplatform. But I've also said that if Gears of War's contract ran out and it went multiplatform I'd be happy for more people to be able to play it. I'm just not going to "wish" for it to be multiplatform before it's contract is up because to me 1st and 2nd party exclusive are the same thing. 3rd party games have NO business being exclusive.

Wikipedia defines Gears of War, Uncharted, Heavy Rain and others as "externally produced first party games" and defines the term 2nd Party as in reality 1st party exclusives.

Nobody believes that 1st party games should be multiplatform. 2nd party is the same as 1st party so I'm not going to argue that 2nd party games should be multiplatform. 3rd party games have NO business being exclusive.

How is that hypocritical?

1) You are discussing this again? I wrote the answer to this some days ago for you:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5215122

This part:

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.

When I wrote that, you didn't reply to these points. You started to question what was my benefit in having FFvs13 as exclusive. Remember? You also mentioned this:

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.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5215073

It seems you point out that developers should releases games for multiple platforms because it is more beneficial for them BUT they should also consider the benefits of getting into a good contract, I quote you again: But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.

I put Gears out here to make a comparison between Square and Epic Games. If you see that Epic Games can benefit from a contract by Micro, you can't rule out the possibility that Square will benefit from a good contract by Sony. You cancelled your argument that "3rd party games have no business being platform exclusive" when you wrote "But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again."

2) You'd be able to play a multiplatform FF Vs 13 on Playstation just as easily as an exclusive FF Vs 13. But you selfishly want it kept away from PC, Nintendo and MS. I cannot understand this.

In a perfect world where Sony is not in financial troubles and where Sony, Micro and Nintendo consoles can coexist without danger of going out of business for their respective fans and where the success of one rival company may not mean the possibility of failure for the other, I wouldn't need to be happy when good things come to the PS field that the rest of the consoles don't have.

This is just me establishing the priorities in my gaming and sadly enough the happiness of other gamers with their expectations and desires do not necessarily make my gaming experience any better or allows it to continue as it stands today.

3) It really doesn't matter to me if a 3rd Party IP is started on one platform first or another. If it's paid for to be a 2nd party exclusive it deserves it's place just like 1st party games. If the contract ends and it goes multiplatform that's good for everyone who missed out on the earlier games.

What exactly does it mean to "deserves it's place just like 1st party games", what does that mean to you? That is no way clear. I will wait for your response to know what you really mean with that but in the meantime I will cite you once again:

I'm not going to wish for Gears of War to go multiplatform any more than I would for Killzone, Halo, Fable or Uncharted to go multiplatform.

You clearly establish in here that you wouldn't "wish" for those games to go multi. This is what I pointed out previously, your backing to your own notion that games should be available to more gamers is limited by a personal notion of yours of games being attached to consoles for being 1st/2nd party. I think this is why ils411 unnecessarily called you hypocrite. I believe you are simply expressing conflicting ideas or contradicting yourself.

I would like you to elaborate why you wish for 2nd party games to be attached to their consoles contracted companies, is it because you feel said console owners and only them should have access to those games, or is it because you have this special notion that the company has some special right to those franchises? Whatever may be the reason, you are over imposing that reason over the benefit of gamers in general, which is what you seem to root for but contradict at the same time.

4) 1st and 2nd party games have a purpose. So long as the contract stands they have a reason to be exclusive.

I am doing a great effort in putting your ideas together but it is hard as you go back and forth between them. Are you really aware that a second party game is a game contracted by a company from a free developer/third party developer?

Why do these developers get into contracts of exclusivity with companies if not because they see benefit in them? You then say as well:

3rd party independent companies like Square Enix, Activision, EA, Capcom, Konami, etc. have no reason to make exclusive games.

Why don't they have reasons to get into exclusivity contracts? Is it because you think only little, free developers have benefits in making exclusivity contracts with companies while relatively big companies don't? I am trying to make sense out of this. But Epic Games' Gears sells as much or even better than games from those companies, Gears is no small franchise. But what did you say about Epic Games and Micro's Gears exclusivity? This:

But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.

So it seems that "independent companies" do have "reason to make exclusive games", if the money is right, according to you.

5) It now takes both the Xbox 360 and PS3 together to match the market share that the PS2 enjoyed. To limit sales to half that is just stupid, unless one side pays for it to be 2nd party.

This is what I am talking about when I say your ideas conflict with one another. This you wrote agrees with this you wrote:

But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.

But contradicts this:

3rd party independent companies like Square Enix, Activision, EA, Capcom, Konami, etc. have no reason to make exclusive games.

I can't understand how you try to reason why you wish Gears to remain exclusive while not wanting FFvs13 to become PS exclusive:

If it's paid for to be a 2nd party exclusive it deserves it's place just like 1st party games.

If Sony pays Vs13 into exclusivity why don't you believe "it deserves it's place just like 1st party games"? Maybe because you think the games didn't start in Playstation? That is impossible because you wrote this:

It really doesn't matter to me if a 3rd Party IP is started on one platform first or another. If it's paid for to be a 2nd party exclusive it deserves it's place just like 1st party games.

Source: your previous post

This is a contradiction, it is impossible to tell where you really stand. This also contradicts your reply to ils411:

Final Fantasy is ANYTHING like Gears of War. One is a 3rd party series with no exclusivity contract that has been on more systems than I want to count and the other is a 2nd party exclusive with a contract between a console manufacturer and a developer.

In the end it comes down to a game from an independent company paid to be exclusive, there is no difference.

6) As for your statement about my genuine feelings about this. I have made this same opinion public on this website on numerous occasions. Below is an example from June 2011:

Source: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/86928/do-third-party-exclusives-have-a-place-in-gaming-anymore/

You can see that in criticize both 3rd party exclusives as well as count 2nd party as legitimate exclusives. You will also notice that while I replying to the subject of MS and Halo I mention Bungie's frustration with MS and explain why I think all 3rd party companies should stay independent. I also praise the games of all three console manufacturers.

I can identify the things you point out from this post your provided. It shows that you can criticize things from your preferred (?) company and praise things from other companies. I can do the same thing for you. I can point out games I am interested in from Micro and Nintendo. I can point out screw ups from Sony. That doesn't make me any less from being a hardcore Sony fan, does it? Not trying to dismiss your argument and imply you may still be writing things in favor of Micro, just telling that things can get very grey and are not necessarily black and white, even with hardcore fans like me.

Still, this post you linked conflicts with things you have written in this thread. What things? the things above mentioned in this post.

7) I am consistent on this point. 3rd party games have no business being platform exclusive. Especially today when they run on multiplatform engines.

Multiplatform engines like the Unreal Engine?

I feel you need to put some ideas in order. They conflict with each other. If you believe you are not contradicting yourself, please reply taking this formatting into consideration and please make an effort in reconciling the quotes from you that I have put against each other in this post, before advancing any further with the discussion.

I can see it now, Final Fantasy Versus XIII Meridiem Fabula: In Flagrante Delicto 1/1412 Days Final Mix 

Yea, I know people told me it was fake (but how do you know for sure?) when it came out, but I still think it's the most likely scenario.

However it would have to release this fall in Japan to be true, otherwise the game will be releasing wayy too late on the PS3.

Good grief. You have gone to great lengths to twist my words into other meanings. I have been saying the same thing over and over and you keep willingly misunderstanding me and then accusing me of being inconsistent. What you fail to understand is that a person's opinion of 1st/2nd party exclusives and 3rd party games can be different because they are, in fact, different subjects.

I'm going to reply to your extremely long and distorted account of my post with a simple statement to try to keep you from twisting my words further.

Here goes:

1. FF Vs 13 is NOT under contract by Sony. I believe it and all 3rd party games should be multiplatform.

2. Gears of War IS under contract by MS. I believe 1st and 2nd party games are the same and therefore while under contract can remain exclusive.

3. FF Vs 13 is NOT a 2nd party Sony game so Square Enix would be stupid to ignore the profits to be made on as many platforms as possible. 3rd party devs should always make multiplatform games. They would be stupid not to. Unless an exclusive contract is so good they would be stupid to ignore it. Sony has yet to offer Square such a deal as MS has with Epic. If Sony did and Square Enix accepted it than it would be a 2nd party exclusive and I would respect that. I just don't respect independent 3rd party platform exclusives outside of contracts.

4. Your wishing for Sony to buyout FF Vs 13 is NOT the same as my respecting the exclusivity of the MS/Epic Gears of War deal.  IF Epic was NOT under contract, but made Gears of War exclusive I would call for it to be multiplatform just like I am calling for FF Vs 13 to be multiplatform. But Epic entered into contract with MS and Square Enix has not entered into contract with Sony. Therefore FF Vs 13 can and should be multiplatform. Not only that but unless Sony pays them a ton of money Square Enix would be stupid to make it exclusive.

5. 1st party exclusives are a given. 2nd party exclusives are unfortunate for gamers, but like 1st party games they are fine. 3rd party exclusives should not happen. None of these opinions are mutually exclusive.

EDIT:  I want to address your love of Sony. I understand it. I'm a fan of many things and I want to see those things continue. But I really am having a hard time understand you. You want other gamers to suffer so that your favorite company wins? I suggest you go out and buy all the major consoles and play games like Zelda Skyward Sword, Halo 4, Mario Galaxy, Gears of War, etc. I think you need to play more games so you can see that there are more games worth playing than just on Sony systems.

This rumor is actually very credible. I would say that FF Versus has become FF XV. It makes sense, FFXIII wasn't well received, and they have already done multible spin-offs. People would give Versus a much better look if it was a new numbered title. Why waste all kinds of resources on what is aparently a unique and well-developed title by calling it a spin-off? Make it its own title.

The question then becomes systems and release dates. I think it will probably be on PS4. I think this was alluded to at the PS4 announcement converence. I don't think it will be exclusive though, or they probably would have announced it there. I think it will be on at least one other system. I think that system is probably Wii U, which would match up well with the leaked MiiVerse page showing "Final Fantasy 3". Square was probably thinking of WiiU having a solid intall base by the time the game comes out in both Japan and the west, as the Wii did. This would help them sell more copies than on PS4 alone, and they've had good success on DS and 3DS, and have DQX on the platform. The game may skip the XBox platforms, or may come there as well. Be interesting to find out though, I hope it's a real good game.

just because you believe all games should be multiplat, it doesn't mean they will be, this game was always an exclusive, so what's the problem? the entire final fantasy series isn't going to be a playstation exclusive, just this, wish people would just realise this and just move on

Isn't Gears of War out of contract now? How would you feel about having Judgement on the PS3?

Non-Nintendo consoles are built on 3rd party exclusives, if you get rid of 3rd party exclusives, you're getting rid of practically the only thing which is differentiating the PS3 and the Xbox 360 from eachother at the moment. I'm all for 3rd party exclusives, as long as there is no "franchise stealing" involved and the game is most at home on the console it's exclusive to.

Nobody knows what the MS/Epic contract is. If the contract was up after Gears of War 3 than yes I would want Epic to have made Judgement multiplatform. It's a multiplatform engine after all. But it doesn't really matter when talking about FF Vs 13. Epic was or is under 2nd party contract, but Sony has not paid for FF Vs 13 to be exclusive. If Nobody has paid for exclusivity than it should be multiplatform. It's as simple as that.

I disagree with your statment. In my opinion what differentiates the PS3 and Xbox 360 isn't not 3rd party games, it's 1st/2nd party games. That's the mayn reason why I want all 3rd party games multiplatform. 3rd party devs have no reason to make exclusive games. Modern game dev tools and engines make multiplatform development easy and cheap.

BTW, I don't know what "franchise stealing" is.