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

Forums - Microsoft - How much do you think Microsoft paid for FF 13 on the Box?

starcraft on 15 July 2008
ssj12 said:
nothing or very little, if they did pay though Sony would get a piece of the cash. So no matter what any Square game on the 360 benefits Sony due to them owning 8%.

Thats not true.  The loss of FFXIII exclusivity will EASILY negate the few million in royalties Sony might make from Xbox 360 sales royalties through Square Enix.

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
FishyJoe on 15 July 2008

I don't think that any of the companies 'pay' in the traditional sense. Often these deals are negotiated through licensing waivers and marketing agreements. The licensing is obvious, they simply reduce the console licensing fees. As for marketing, the company might agree to spend a certain amount in advertising and promotion for the product.



Leetgeek on 15 July 2008
mrstickball said:
Money is involved when a game goes MP. But it's not the kind of money that's involved in MS moneyhats every time. It's the kind of money a company makes like Ubisoft when Assassain's Creed debuts on the X360 and PS3 at the same time, and sells over 7 million copies worldwide.

Same thing for COD4 - launches on PS3/X360, and sells around 10m copies on those 2 systems. COD4 on just the X360 or PS3 wouldn't of made those kinds of sales.

Multiplatforming between 2 consoles is the new idea of exclusivity it seems. And Xbox 360 fans are the recipients of the goodness :)

This is bigger then AC or DMC4. This was PS3's Halo. This was PS3's Zelda.

 



obieslut on 15 July 2008

the better question is how much would sony have had to pay to stop this



O-D-C on 15 July 2008

0 they needed this game on Xbox 360.



Around the Network
trestres on 15 July 2008

Fish and chips for the whole SE crew.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

Kasz216 on 15 July 2008
brute said:
Kasz216 said:
brute said:
sc94597 said:
I actually don't think they paid for this one.

 

they would have nevr have gotten it then,they have most likely paid for it

 

Why? Why wouldn't SE want to maximize FF13's profit potential?

in that case why didnt konami want to maximize their profits on MGS4?

or then why don they just release it on pc and wii too

 

Cause sony gave Konami money/deals? While FF13 is too big of a game for either company to buy?

FF13 is a lot bigger then a MGS4.



mrstickball on 15 July 2008
tr
Leetgeek said:
mrstickball said:
Money is involved when a game goes MP. But it's not the kind of money that's involved in MS moneyhats every time. It's the kind of money a company makes like Ubisoft when Assassain's Creed debuts on the X360 and PS3 at the same time, and sells over 7 million copies worldwide.

Same thing for COD4 - launches on PS3/X360, and sells around 10m copies on those 2 systems. COD4 on just the X360 or PS3 wouldn't of made those kinds of sales.

Multiplatforming between 2 consoles is the new idea of exclusivity it seems. And Xbox 360 fans are the recipients of the goodness :)

This is bigger then AC or DMC4. This was PS3's Halo. This was PS3's Zelda.

 

And unlike Halo, or Zelda, the PS3 cannot move 6m+ copies of any given game to justify exclusivity by a 3rd party. So again, thats why such a hard business decision had to be made by SE. Look at the largest exclusive to the PS3: MGS4. How many copies has it sold again? Just hit 2 million after 2 weeks and rapidly falling? Do you think Square, a company that has (most likely invested) TWICE into FFXIII as MGS4 would want to follow a similar operating model as Konami? No. I don't think so.

And look at it this way: every copy that XIII sells on the 360 is (most likely) not a copy that Square would of sold otherwise. The X360 is an additional source of income, not a replacement, not a trade-off. If Square sells 2 million, or 3 million copies on the 360 (which is where I'd put it at, ATM), thats going to be anywhere from $60 million to $90 million of extra profits for Square to bank on other games.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

pichu_pichu on 15 July 2008

nothing, I guess...



Kasz216 on 15 July 2008
Leetgeek said:
mrstickball said:
Money is involved when a game goes MP. But it's not the kind of money that's involved in MS moneyhats every time. It's the kind of money a company makes like Ubisoft when Assassain's Creed debuts on the X360 and PS3 at the same time, and sells over 7 million copies worldwide.

Same thing for COD4 - launches on PS3/X360, and sells around 10m copies on those 2 systems. COD4 on just the X360 or PS3 wouldn't of made those kinds of sales.

Multiplatforming between 2 consoles is the new idea of exclusivity it seems. And Xbox 360 fans are the recipients of the goodness :)

This is bigger then AC or DMC4. This was PS3's Halo. This was PS3's Zelda.

 

Except unlike those two titles... this one isn't Sony owned.

So there is no need to buy it off. Simply just offer Square a way to make more money. Like Sony did back in the N64 era.

FF11 was on Xbox afterall wasn't it?

Had the Xbox or Gamecube been big competitors you probably woulda saw 12 on either console last gen.

Sony wants... not only wants but basically NEEDs to sell this to as many people as it can to get back dev costs and make a profit worthy of a headliner game.

Headliners need to be high risk, high reward.

Not High risk, profit somewhat over break even.