Well that is entirely MS fault and not Sony's. 360 could have had it as well as the split screen, etc...

You mean the PS3 version. The PS3 version came with extras and no, because everyone was playing Halo at the time. JRPG's are in their own world and aren't competing with the likes of Halo, so this is a totally different matter at hand.

Now I can understand why I owned all the previous gen systems even though I'll probably hardly touch a PS3 if I get one; that way I don't have to worry about exclusives or crap like this lol.

Lol, kind of expected something like this. Hey, whatever helps them make Tales game is fine by me.

I am swallowing the pill. I was waiting for TOV and SO4 on the PS3 anyway, but I still dont find it to be fair to MS who essentially funded Sonys demands. Namco must've been scared shitless.

What? I would think the same way for Sony if they actually funded a game that Nintendo essentially got with additional stuff for free.

The PS3 version came later with co-op? No wai!

Lot of humour of the unintentional sort in this thread. I'll take the article with a pinch of salt, but assuming for a moment it's true it only confirms what has been fairly apparent for a while:

1) MS paid to ensure it got jRPG support and to use a 'restriction of availability' ploy to slow PS3 adoption in Japan. Fair business ploy, although personally I don't myself feel this tactic is fair to the consumer

2) the developer merrily took the money and concocted their own plan - we'll actually use this to cover 360 and PS3, cutting costs. We'll be down a little initially when first sales are 360 only but make it back when the title lands on PS3. Again, fair enough, although again personally I think they were a little cheeky with this

3) Sony, seeing MS approach and knowing they probably couldn't combat it directly, put in place a policy to ensure that when timed exclusives did land on PS3, the developer had to add new content. Their stick is that the developer (in this case) is now caught with a game that's not sold enough on 360 only, and needs a PS3 release - they also have the clear fact the developer initially contracted with MS for timed rights. The result, the developer adds the new content.


So in the end you've got MS suiting themselves trying to deny access to certain titles to people who want to use a different console, the developer trying to play the two companies (MS and Sony) to their advantage and getting caught somewhat with a bunch of unhappy 360 folk and Sony's new content policy, and Sony getting a game later than they'd like but with new content that they hope will attract enough gamers.

From a consumer standpoint it stinks really, with 360 owners essentially buying titles that will have additional content added at a later stage and PS3 owners getting a richer version 12 months later.

Personally I think games should be exclusive or not. None of this timed nonsense. If Namco want to take funding from MS then at least give them a true exclusive. If they didn't think sales would be enough on 360 they should have gracefully refused the timed offer and simply released the exact same game on 360/PS3 on the same day.

What I find most amazing is people seeing either Sony, MS or Namco as the guilty party vs the other two depending upon their individual console bias. All three have, in different ways, conducted business in a manner that essentially penalizes the customer.

That's competition for ya (economically speaking). One will try to outdo the other to benefit. But if you look at it, this would make sense because who would buy one copy of the game with minimal content (but cheaper), while there's another copy with much more extra content to the point it makes the original version almost obsolete (though more expensive) . The 360 buyers got royally screwed because of Sony and Namco's decision. ButI believe that's probably what they call a trade off (sry I'm trying to adapt to my economic class lol >_>) .