That's how you take my previous post? Those quotes make it obvious you take contradictory stances. You could have addressed those quotes directly to demonstrate where they were twisted, but instead you decided to re-write your points and avoided discussing the quotes.

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

You even put the "NOT" in capital letters, that really emphasis the fact right? But then when you were asked by brendude13 the following: "Who's to say Square Enix doesn't have a contract with Sony over Versus XIII?", you said:

Nobody. As far as anyone is aware there is no contract.

Not a single person inside this forum has the least amount of certainty of a single thing concerning this game. We don't even know if it still exist to the degree we could still refer to it as Vs13. You accepted that "nobody" can can tell for sure, and you have to accept that if Final Fantasy Vs XIII has a contract with Sony then there is no problem with that, judging by your reasoning which I am going to write about later on.

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.

I don't know why you even state this as a point of discussion. A game under contract is bound by the contract's game, that has never been under argument because there is simply no argument to discuss about this. When I brought the Gears argument, I did so taking in consideration what is known of the contract and/or what could happen after it ends, to see your stance of Gear going multi, and how you would consider the situation where FFVsXIII is contracted as Gears was/is.

3. 

A) 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.

Again, you don't know what are the terms if any between Sony and Square for FFvs13.

B) 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.

It will all depend on the development route of this game and when and where it will release. The moment I saw FFvsXIII as exclusive I thought there was a reason for it to be exclusive, a special deal with Sony or some specific reasons taken into consideration when developing the game which led to a conclusion that going the exclusive way was the way to go.

Square has opted to make FF console exclusive games though, specially spinoffs, and you cannot rule out the possibility that Square releases FFvs13 even without a contract (just putting this out here). The fact is that Square can look at the circumstances and take the decision of making this game exclusive or not, they have done this before.

I have said in this website that I feel FFvsXIII won't be exclusive. I want it to, but I don't feel it will be the case.

C) 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.

Every developer will take into consideration their circumstances and develop to the platforms they decide according to the decisions they end up making. You already stated you opinion about 3rd parties keeping exclusives without contracts, I will get into that below.

Ubisoft never released Conviction to the PS3, in spite of the users they could target in that console as well. You speak as if you are there in every company and know how they can handle the development of games and determined that making a game multi is not an issue, "always". You don't even know of the reasons why they decided to make a game exclusive to begin with. You have an opinion about 3rd parties keeping exclusive games without a contract? I will get into that below.

D) 3rd party devs should always make multiplatform games.

You are generalizing, you can't say all 3rd parties are in the same circumstances to engage in multi development.

E) 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.

Why do you respect games from 3rd parties contracted into 2nd party, but not games a 3rd party decides to release exclusively to a console? I could understand if you argue that releasing exclusively without a contract is not a good business decision (but not always by generalizing, like you do by saying: 3rd party devs should always make multiplatform games. ) but what does that have to do with "respecting" their decision?

What is the big difference between a paid exclusive and an exclusive that simply was decided upon? What is the ending result that differs so drastically as to respect one and disrespect another? You also wrote this later on:

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. 

So I will also consider then that for you and your opinion, 2nd party games serve the purpose of differentiating consoles. What is the difference in the way a 2nd party exclusive differentiates a console from another between how a third party exclusive differentiates a console from another, even without a contract? What is the big difference when both of them end up providing a gaming experience you can't have in the console that misses the exclusive?

4)

A) 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.

Yeah, they are different reasons, what about it? The result is the same. Gamers that don't get Gears in their console go through the same thing gamers that don't get Final Fantasy Vs XIII go through. They can't play the games in their console even if they want them. But I am not the one that is making an effort professes this:

I am not wishing for Final Fantasy to leave Sony. I want it and all 3rd party games, not under contract, to be available to as many people as possible.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5215533

VERSUS THIS:

If it's 3rd party they should all get to play. If it's 2nd or 1st party than you'll just have to buy the console if you want to play it badly enough.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5215533

There is no difference for gamers if a game is kept away from them for a contract or for a 3rd party decision, the result is the same to them = they can't play the game. But you respect if a game is kept away from them for money and that is where the limit of your backing to the notion that gamers should have more games accessible to them shows the limit. You have constantly evaded to answer to this in your posts. You don't put any effort in trying to explain how you reconcile these two opposing positions and how you ditch what you say about how you want more games for more gamers when you give so much validation when third party developers get games away from gamers because of money.

I would understand this stance of yours if you would say you don't want any third party games exclusives, be it for money or for the developers decisions. But the way you try to make an exception out of paid exclusives against decided exclusives is absurd, when both type of exclusive keep gamers away from games in the same way. I will bring your #5 in here:

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.

You recognize in here that they are unfortunate for gamers. Both of them are unfortunate but are the result from the decisions of third party developers and what they do with their property. You know that IP stands for "intellectual property", right? You know what that means? That means they can do whatever the hell they want with it without you telling them what they "should" do. You say this out-of-contract exclusives "shouldn't" happen, if that is by a business stand point, I talk about this in the next point "B".

B) 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.

Why should it? Because in your unquestionable opinion it should? Is it because of what you said about how gamers should get the games? Remit to the above if that is the case. Is it because it is the best business decision? You don't know that. You don't know why Square would decide to make it PS3/4 exclusive even without a contract. You don't know the pros and the cons they may be taking to into consideration to get to that decision.  I can tell you though, I feel this game will go multi, but I can tell you for sure that if this game releases as exclusive without a contract then Square took into account factors that you may be dismissing. Whether that proves as a good decision will be seen on the long run, maybe. If Square decided to make the game exclusive in spite of the potential sells they could get out of the Xbox version then they must have had taken into consideration good reasons for it to outweigh those other users from the other console, whether you believe them to be or not. Or is it that they ditch potential sales just to troll those users?

What I also I can tell you for sure is that FF is Square's IP and they will do whatever the hell they want to do with it. You and I are in no position to tell them what to do (actually, they are not even reading this to begin with but anyway). We can only have opinions about what they should do but that is all. You have no saying to say what they "should" do.

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.

I don't want gamers to suffer, I want my favorite company to thrive and I see the strengthening of the exclusive line up of Sony as part of the things that can help the company to achieve that. You said the following:

In my opinion what differentiates the PS3 and Xbox 360 isn't not 3rd party games, it's 1st/2nd party games.

In this I won't make a distinction between second party and exclusives. Sony getting more exclusives will help them differentiate themselves even more from the competition. I know that Sony's thriving can result in unhappy gamers on other sides and that can't be helped. This is how gaming is, it isn't just fun and games but also a business where companies are trying to devour each other to stay alive. You can suggest me all you want, you can have your opinion of what I need and don't need, but only I know what I like and want. I can't care less for Skyward, Halo 4 I would play if I had time and not games I am interested in playing (even in my huge backlog), Gears I plan to play one day some way or another. Not other experiences in gaming will overshadow what I feel for God of War, Uncharted and Co. and I do know my priorities in a hobby where one speaks with one's wallet in order to try to keep what one likes afloat.

I took the effort to reply to all your points. I honestly expect you to do the same. If you answer and argue back what I've written here I will happily keep this discussion alive but if you once again re-write a new post I will leave it here because I am getting tired of chasing you.

I have said the same thing so many times that I'm so tired of it I'm not going to say it all again. I have explained over and over why I believe 3rd party games should be multiplatform and why 1st and 2nd party games are the same thing. I really don't know how I could be more clear about the subject.  I'm starting to suspect that you are either intentionally misinterpreting my words or you are so focused on Sony that you have a hard time objectively looking at gaming as a whole. There's a big world of great games out there and most of it isn't related to Sony.

I will say this. I don't expect developers to do what I say. I just have a fundamental belief that 3rd party games should be multiplatform. I don't care why an 3rd party developer might choose to not port a game. All I care about is that it's not under contract and therefore should be available to as many gamers' as possible. Especially when the game was built with multiplatform tools and runs on a multiplatform engine.

Oh and I will answer your direct question even though I've already explained this many times. You want to know why I respect 2nd party games, but not 3rd party exclusives? It's because It's primarily because believe 1st and 2nd party games are the same thing.  Platform holders have the right to go out and buy games. They either end up as 1st or 2nd party and that's fine. 3rd party games are not limited to a single platform. 2nd party games can't be ported, but 3rd party games can. If it can be done than it should be done.

If you don't want to reply I'll be happy not to read another lengthy misinterpretation of my words.

You dont need to argue with him about it. Sony is moneyhatting FFVersus to win over Japan and dead US buyers (as well as Assassins Creed) just like MS is moneyhatted Gears, Bioshock, Condemned, Mass Effect, COD and Destiny (and countless other timed exclusives earlier in the gen), plain and simple. Final Fantasy will make or break whether Microsoft cant catch up with Sony. If Japan responds correctly to Sony next gen Microsoft will need  as much of America as they can get to save their sales. It will close out the PS3 chapter unless they move it to next gen.

I am afraid it isn't clear yet if that's the case. Hopefully Sony is fighting for a FF for the PS4 Japan launch like I also said in here (I think, or the other Versus thread in the forum). As far as I know Sony is the one getting Destiny exclusive content. I bet Micro is working to keep Gears, it will be a matter of whether Epic is willing to get contracted once again or take the risk of tapping the PS market. I didn't hear anything about COD but judging by this gen, right?

  Microsoft pays Activision for COD timed exclusive maps and content. They also partially pay $10 a year to Activision out of what people pay for Xbox Live.

hmm, you may be right. Unless Versus XIII has been long into development for the PS4 and E3 will be the full unveiling. Even then it could be kind of unlikely. Possibly to early 2014, at best.

Yeah, its been in development for almost the whole gen.  Any longer and they will have to push out the development into a twelve year process, im sure. Square will deliver it at E3 I am sure.

The question would be, if it really passed to PS4 development, at what point it did? Enough to have it pretty much ready by now? Hopefully. I have the feeling it was (if it really did) once they shut down all Vs XIII info and refused to show anything about it.

It makes the most sense to me that E3 will have the unveiling, but we are talking about Square in here. Gotta keep them expectations down for the sake of sanity and not looking like fools.

We could keep our expectations down, but after the Playstation meeting we know a huge unveiling is going to happen courtesy of SE and I know Microsoft might try to throw it off course. They might money hat their way to get the game to go multiplat, but I don't think it will happen at this point. SE knows they have at least 5-7 million coming to them on the PS3 alone, let the alone the fact that Versus will be a system seller. This is SE Japans chance to reprent for all of the bullshit. After they reveal it and give a release date perhaps they'll let the Kingdom Hearts team go. FF15 is pretty much what the majority of us are anticipating that it will be called.

You are actually more confident than I am. lol I don't trust Square to this point, but I have to admit I always have hope. I don't believe that Square presence there in the PS4 unveiling necessarily means an exclusive. I would hope so. I am also interested to know if Microsoft is really that interested in FF at al in this moment. Final Fantasy XIII sold well in Xbox but I don't feel it did much for them in the US where the losing of exclusivity didn't serve much beyond fanboy ammunition.

But of course, unless Micro just completely gave up on Japan (which I doubt), or will try to get the Japanese market with whatever they come up with (Kinect 2), they sure will try to have something big for Japan and outside MH, Mario (?) and Pokemon which aren't an option, Final Fantasy still seems to be the target. So yeah, I guess we could expect Micro to make effort to get a hold off Final Fantasy as well this gen.

I recall talks from Square about releasing a game that could rival FFVII and that after that they would feel like they could release a remake for FFVII, so I guess they do feel like they need to step up their game. The bad reviews for FFXIII and XIV are there as well. Maybe they will focus in a single platform and take the best out of it. But I wouldn't discard a port if the Xbox port is not that hard to get out. Maybe a timed exclusive for PS4, especially if all the rumors are wrong and Xbox releases some months later than the PS4. A Final Fantasy launch in the PS4 could pretty much go without much competition for Square in the Japanese market. Final Fantasy is indeed a system seller.