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

Forums - Sony - Square Enix's Rational for Shunning the PS3?

My post stands. Until FFXIII hits the West after the usual translation time, you are just a whining Sony fanboy.



Around the Network

SE has its own terms of breaking into the Western market.
You can say the 360 support is a mistake. Otherwise, why would they distribute their products over Steam?



360 + Wii + Steam

Lone traveler

Microsoft essentially paid SE for all of their games to fail. It was worth it to SE, it was probably even worth it for Microsoft, (because SE games would have been HUGE on the PS3 in Japan) but not worth it for the PS3, and not worth it for fans of video games in general.
If these games would have been multiplat, there would have been better marketing behind them, and the dev. cycles would have probably been more complete, making for better overall games.

It is the most obvious representation of how Microsoft plays the game. Competition and profits rape creativity and uniqueness.



̶3̶R̶D̶   2ND! Place has never been so sweet.


ultraslick said:
Microsoft essentially paid SE for all of their games to fail. It was worth it to SE, it was probably even worth it for Microsoft, (because SE games would have been HUGE on the PS3 in Japan) but not worth it for the PS3, and not worth it for fans of video games in general.
If these games would have been multiplat, there would have been better marketing behind them, and the dev. cycles would have probably been more complete, making for better overall games.

It is the most obvious representation of how Microsoft plays the game. Competition and profits rape creativity and uniqueness.

 

Last time I checked the Wii was dominating the 360 so I fail to see your point, unles you mean the PS3 is creative which is of course complete fanboy nonsense.  Also the strategy Microsoft is using is pretty much identical to Sony's strategy in the past but you wouldn't have whinged then.



SE did not support MS throughout...
360 is not the main console of which SE games are publish

its the Nintendo Products (Wii and DS)

but for the sake of the thread...

think about this... if SE wants the multi-plat=profit strategy...
why would SE released no games for the PS3?

so MS paid SE(not yet confirmed) but you would not take that as an answer, do you?

Alternative:

SE will get more profit when supporting MS for their system... why?
MS got LOTS of money and (i think) the advertisement of the 3rd-party games release on 360 is paid by MS

MS have the capability to advertise SE's games more thoroughly around the world and thru Live and internet free of charge...

but when SE support PS3 ONLY, they will be the one who paid for the advertisements of their games...



PLAYSTATION®2 is the yesterday.....NOW.......still......A_L_I_V_E

Consoles own:

Nintendo: Famicom(japanese NES, Family Computer), GBC, GBA, DS, Wii

Sony: PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3

Microsoft: future 360 owner

MyBrute

Around the Network
ultraslick said:
Microsoft essentially paid SE for all of their games to fail. It was worth it to SE, it was probably even worth it for Microsoft, (because SE games would have been HUGE on the PS3 in Japan) but not worth it for the PS3, and not worth it for fans of video games in general.
If these games would have been multiplat, there would have been better marketing behind them, and the dev. cycles would have probably been more complete, making for better overall games.

It is the most obvious representation of how Microsoft plays the game. Competition and profits rape creativity and uniqueness.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? Why do PS3 fanboys always resort to slander if their logic fails?



Sony could've had SE making more games for them, but they chose to bring the videogame market into the DVD format war. They waited forever to get focused on games and the fans. SE realized they wouldn't make as much profit off of Sony as they did last gen, so there you have it. Sony fucked themselves.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
Sony could've had SE making more games for them, but they chose to bring the videogame market into the DVD format war. They waited forever to get focused on games and the fans. SE realized they wouldn't make as much profit off of Sony as they did last gen, so there you have it. Sony fucked themselves.

 

another point...

but remember Sony has shares on SE so... every games release on all console...

Sony have a profit...

 

but your argument is plausible if not possible just like my argument!



PLAYSTATION®2 is the yesterday.....NOW.......still......A_L_I_V_E

Consoles own:

Nintendo: Famicom(japanese NES, Family Computer), GBC, GBA, DS, Wii

Sony: PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3

Microsoft: future 360 owner

MyBrute

leo-j said:
@Soriku

False, they have brought castlevania: SOTN? (originally a ps1 title) to the xbox live market place

It may have originally been a PS1 title, but it also came out on the Sega Saturn (at least in Japan) about a year after the PS1 release. So it's not unreasonable that it came out on other platforms as well like XBLA.




starcraft: "I and every PS3 fanboy alive are waiting for Versus more than FFXIII.
Me since the games were revealed, the fanboys since E3."

Skeeuk: "playstation 3 is the ultimate in gaming acceleration"

zordiark said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Sony could've had SE making more games for them, but they chose to bring the videogame market into the DVD format war. They waited forever to get focused on games and the fans. SE realized they wouldn't make as much profit off of Sony as they did last gen, so there you have it. Sony fucked themselves.

 

another point...

but remember Sony has shares on SE so... every games release on all console...

Sony have a profit...

 

but your argument is plausible if not possible just like my argument!

 

 

Your argument makes a lot of sense. I just cannot believe Sony would put themselves through this with SE, knowing they have shares in the company.