| rckrz6 said: This is old news, they announced last year that they weren;t starting the xbox version until the ps3 version was done |
So they should release the PS3 version now and release the 360 version later when they finish it.
| rckrz6 said: This is old news, they announced last year that they weren;t starting the xbox version until the ps3 version was done |
So they should release the PS3 version now and release the 360 version later when they finish it.
C_Hollomon said:
So they should release the PS3 version now and release the 360 version later when they finish it. |
The PS3 doesnt have a large enough user base to justify a solo release of the game. Sony users dont like to buy games as much as Xbox 360 users so it makes sence to have a simultaneous launch
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
With the move to HD, the overal costs have risen. Even a not unusual development time is now more of a financial strain on the company. To meet the level of detail you also need more people, which is the highest expense of them all. With any delay SE makes more costs and loses more potential profits. This is poor mangement. There is a reason, why Nintendo keeps its studio's compact and the development time short. This brings up the increasingly relevant question: Can you work more than 4 or 5 year on a game when the standard console lifetime is around 7 years?
|
Sure, but i'm certain that Microsoft is covering most or all of the extra costs that SE incurred due to the longer development cycle or at least the increased staffing requirements. While Nintendo can be viewed as the ideal management style in terms of profit, they too have been guilty of lengthy development cycles, particularly in the N64 era. I remember that Ocarina of time was announced and shown in 1995 and didn't see the light of day until the end of 1998, and i think that few people would argue that the delays weren't worth it.
edit: i am making the assumption that Microsoft did pay for this game.
| rckrz6 said: This is old news, they announced last year that they weren;t starting the version until the ps3 version was done |
So they should release the PS3 version now and release the 360 version later when they finish it.
Stupid idea. Final Fantasy games have massive marketing budgets, so why would you release a only one version now and a port later, when you can save costs by marketing them both at the same time?

GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.
I don't care if it's delayed since I'd rather have it delayed than pay $400 for a new console, but I know I'm one of the few fans of the series that bought a 360 over a PS3


| Shadowblind said: < bgcolor="#bbbbbb" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" width="90%"> |
|
C_Hollomon said:
So they should release the PS3 version now and release the 360 version later when they finish it. |
Stupid idea. Final Fantasy games have massive marketing budgets, so why would you release a only one version now and a port later, when you can save costs by marketing them both at the same time?
WTF DID YOU DO!!!!!!?????????
Undying said:
Stupid idea. Final Fantasy games have massive marketing budgets, so why would you release a only one version now and a port later, when you can save costs by marketing them both at the same time?
WTF DID YOU DO!!!!!!????????? |
o_O No clue

GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.
Shadowblind said:
o_O No clue |
THE END OF DAYS!!!
YOU DIVIDED BY 0!!
Undying said:
THE END OF DAYS!!!
|
Ha! My blue is back....crazy Firefox. I think I broke the internet :D

GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.