By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WilliamWatts on 15 January 2010
Reasonable said:
WilliamWatts said:

http://stripesonfire.com/nsc/

Oh really? If they are limited to 6.8GB they would use all space available. As of yet theres no real space pressure. Sony has given a mandate to pimp Blu Ray to its exclusive developers, so of course they are going to throw everything they can into the disc to make it bigger.

What's your point?  Not all games are going to fill a DVD, heck there are games that would barely fill up a CD.  My point is that the 360 established the DVD as the standard in line with PC, vs Sony's attempt to push the notion of BR and games needing more space.  This is a fact.  I'm not saying that games are being held back, simply that with DVD as a standard developers will use that as the baseline, with only occasional games going over 1 DVD and most of those will be Sony exclusives pushing the notion of more content.  Games have always ben developed (and material has been cut) to fit to the prevelant storage medium.  On PC a lot of games did go beyond DVD, but due to the fact you always install they could unpack themselves accordingly.

Calm yourself.

I personally doubt many games will go over DVD for a while, the cost is too high.  However, if we do want better textures, larger worlds, etc. then the DVD barrier will need to be broken.  Right now though that's titles like Rage (when it releases) or Uncharted 2, which will only represent a minority of titles for a while yet I think.

Oh sorry, I misread the gist of your post.

 

 

 

 



Around the Network
Tridrakious on 15 January 2010

Once I get a keypad or keyboard for my PS3 I will dive into this a little further.

But if some mental condition is preventing people from understanding what happened to the PlayStation 3 version of the game, It's a tough task to help. The articles are everywhere. VGChartz, Joystiq, IGN, etc.

Can't really blame me for not being overly happy or willing to jump through hoops for this.



slowmo on 15 January 2010
MakoInfused said:
slowmo said:
Seriously guys the hate in here is rather pathetic to say the least. Square obviously looked to Sony for help funding FFXIII and got nothing from them to help them make the best game they could. The only avenue left to fund the game at that point was for either Microsoft to have part funded the game or for them to have made the decision themselves that the extra revenue by going multiplatform would minimize the risk.

Stop being hypocritical with your criticism, Sony first and foremost are to blame for this supposed debacle that has happened, NOBODY else. I guess this point conveniently slipped your mind when you all saw the opportunity to jump on the hate 360 and SE wagon today.

O'RLY?

Could you provide some kind of backup for your claim?

 

They went multiplat simply because X360 stands strong in the console war,and considering FFXIII is such a big game (in name, quality and investment) SE just wanted more revenue.

OT:

I'm sure if it stayed exclusive it would have more content, and i dare to say it would be superior to some extent too (PS3 sound is crisper compared to the 360 version thanks to uncompressed sound...but i think visuals could have been improved aswell).
However, FFXIII is still a grade A game, and 360-only owners deserve to enjoy it too. (I hope Bioware does the same favor and brings Mass Effect to PS3  )

Nyway.

FFXIII: Versus  remains exclusive...if any sort of Blu-ray superiority was gonna happen, it should happen there.

There was no claim, it quite clearly states in my post they went multiplatform due to either money paid by Microsoft or to get extra revenue.  If you're saying my claim that they didn't goto Sony first is incorrect then fair enough, there is no absolute proof but that hardly stops anyone in this thread claiming the most outrageous bullshit as fact but you've chosen to take umbridge with my post instead.....



Ajescent on 15 January 2010
BMaker11 said:
Ajescent said:
This I'm afraid is the price you have to pay for backing one horse over the other, folks who go for both get the best of both worlds but if you opt to be ps3 only then you have to make do with getting the short hand or nothing at all.

Point of interest, Bayonetta

This game was never meant to come to the ps3 but Sega went out of their way to make it.
On the one hand you could argue Sega just wanted the munniez but on the other hand, a ps3 only owner doesn't have a chance to play it unless they are thrown bones.

But then there's the question of games like FF13 and Tekken 6

Why settle for busting your gut to make a game for a console that has the least amount of owners only to get small change when you can port to a higher install and getting high(er) returns? When you are catering for a higher audience on an easier machine, folks are more inclined to work harder to maximise their product but if it's on a harder machine with lesser audience number...the insentive really isn't there to bust a gut.

So by being a ps3 only owner, you are signing up to inferior ports and suspect hand me downs, begs the question, would you rather play a shoddy version of your 3rd party favourites on your ps3 or not at all?

Even if you're a PS3 fan, I still hate this statement, even coming from you because MGS4 completely shits over that logic, and that was almost 2 years BEFORE FFXIII comes out. The PS3 has like 20M more users now, so that makes that logic of "port so you don't have to worry about the least amount of owners" even more faulty. Didn't MGS4 (when the PS3 was at like....12M) raise Konami's profits for almost a year?


I'm gonna argue that's exception not the norm also Kojima...



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

xman on 15 January 2010

How the hell is it MS fault that someone dosent put everything on a disc?  Its amazing to me how much grief this company gets they are no saints but seriously if a GAME company makes an inferior version for a console blame the GAME compnay not MS



PS3, WII and 360 all great systems depends on what type of console player you are.

Currently playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Halo ODST and Dragon Age Origins is next game

Xbox live:mywiferocks

Around the Network
Burning Typhoon on 15 January 2010

Yeah, it's pretty silly knowing that Tekken 6 was gimped for the sake of the 360. You can talk about catering to a bigger audience all you want. If gimping the game is going to cause you to loose what you normally could have made (due to PS3 fans being upset that it was delayed, and gimped, and thus not buying it) they may as well had made the game PS3 only.

Look at the sales. If Namco would have left it exclusive, released it on time, and made the game what it should have been, they would have made the money plus more that they got from the 360.

Releasing it on time would have put the game in front of the BlazBlue and Street Fighter IV hype, and they would have benefited from being 1st. Also, with less fighters to compare it to, it wouldn't have scored so low. And, had it actually had the resources that went to the 360, instead go to the PS3, we probably would have had a better Scenario Campaign, and other modes.

I will not be standing in line on release day for a Tekken 7. I'm going to wait 3 weeks, maybe rent it, and see if it's worth it..

Also, if it's too much trouble... I don't care if the next Tekken gets a multi release, if you're going to gimp the game, gimp the system that can't handle the game, and leave the original the way it should have been.



Tridrakious on 15 January 2010

I agree with Burning Typhoon.

My thoughts exactly. I mean this isn't 2007, almost every game company has seen how to effectively develop for the PS3. If you are having trouble with the PS3, there are many sources you can go to for assistance.



CommonMan on 15 January 2010

Wait, Tekken 6 was gimped due to the 360? Can someone link this one for me? How do I miss this stuff?



No one in the world ever gets what they want, and that is beautiful.

yo_john117 on 15 January 2010
CommonMan said:
Wait, Tekken 6 was gimped due to the 360? Can someone link this one for me? How do I miss this stuff?

It probably wasn't.  Most of these facts are just jibble to make some people feel better about themselves.



jesus kung fu magic on 15 January 2010
Tridrakious said:
Cut out more than half of the content that was already running on the PS3. They said that it was to control volume and overall game balance, but the game is spread across 3 dvd's on 360), which is around 21-22 gigs. that's less than what a single layer Blu-Ray Disc holds.

So the wouldn't have been a problem if it remained PS3 exclusive, like it was originally announced as.

Explain this to the J man....Resistance 1 was 22 gb of data as stated here....now as you hopefully know this 22 gb game could easily be done on the 360 on a single disc.

Could you explain how this is possible even though a DVD-DL is only 6.8 gb of usable data? (Just to let you know I know the answer just hoping you know as well)



N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!