Slashdot Mirror
FFXIII Exclusivity Under Discussion
In an interview between a French-language newspaper and Sony Computer Entertainment France president Georges Fornay, he revealed that FFXIII's exclusivity is still under discussion. Gamespot reports, and attempted to check with Square-Enix about the reality of this situation. If the high-profile RPG's exclusivity is not a lock for the PS3, it could be a crushing blow for Sony's future plans. "The development costs of games have exploded, and it has become more difficult to have exclusives, outside of our own games. But we have for launch day [in France] 30 games, including MotorStorm, Resistance: Fall of Man, and Virtua Fighter 5. Moreover, we are expecting 200 games [for the PS3] by the end of 2007...As far as Final Fantasy XIII goes, I can tell you that the exclusivity is in discussion."
I guess X was a big hit, but I don't think "final fantasy" resonates the way it did. I don't know if the franchise still guarantees a hit.
I haven't played the latest (XII), but there's been a lot of crap games (X-2), media/merch crap (advent children, spirits within).
I'd think another player would have toppled FF off the tip of the RPG mountain by now.
I just don't see how a exclusive lock on final fantasy is as lucrative as it once was (like it was with VII).
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
...that the end of Final Fantasy console exclusivity (FF titles are on Nintendo's handhelds, and there's been PC versions of some games, but in general it's all Sony) would pretty much be the end of the Playstation 3. It's already suffering in the corner. People follow both companies and games, but the latter is more important at the end of the day. If you can play the same game for $100 less and have the same experience, which console are you going to buy?
It seems to me that the two franchises that have been keeping Sony going are Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy. Turismo is their property, so they'll be able to hold that one. But if that's their only selling point, it's over. And since Sony is bringing out a $600 Blu-Ray standalone player, which is pretty much guaranteed to be a better player than than the PS3 no matter how good the PS3 is, that final non-game reason to buy a PS3 is going down the toilet if you don't also desire the gaming functionality.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I bought a PSone just for FF9 (my first FF game). I bought a PS2 just for FFX but have now played FFX,FFX-2,FFXII. (I did subsequently buy some other games for each, and loved Katamari Damashii.) I saw the upcoming issues with PS3 and said I would not buy it, even if the next FF standalone was exclusive on it.
Sony knows that FF has enormous draw but even that has limits. I hope Square does more with other platforms.
[
The President of Sony France probably doesn't have very much to do with the decision making process regarding whether or not a game made by a 3rd party publisher stays exclusive.
Besides, it's France. Why would we listen to them now?
This could mean several things.
1) FFXIII isn't exclusive, and Sony is now in talks to lock it in.
2) FFXIII was exclusive, but they're considering taking it cross-platform, and Sony is trying to get them to stay the course.
3) FFXIII is exclusive, but Microsoft/Nintendo are trying to convince them to port it.
4) Insert more here.
That being said, if they do defect, it would be a serious blow to Sony. Ace Combat has already switched over entirely (now 360 exclusive), and Devil May Cry is cross platform. The list of AAA exclusives is dwindling. I think they're sitting at, first party titles (God of War), Ratchet and Clank, MGS4, and FFXIII.
If FFXIII defects, then that combined with Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon might be enough to start swaying the Japanese market. It would be a very strategic title for Microsoft to acquire. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Microsoft has been leaving suitcases full of cash at Square's doorstep if this turns out to be accurate.
I remember the Sony fanboys saying the exact same thing about a Devil May Cry 4 port, despite your insistence that it was obvious. XBox and PS3 are, currently, neck to neck graphically.
That's strange, can you point me to a post anywhere claiming that DMC4 was 'gimped' looking prior to the announcement it would be on the Xbox 360 as well? In fact, I recall everyone claiming the game looked too good to be done on the 360!
j pg
I guess being a Sony fan these days is like being a Republican. Every 5 minutes you need to revise past statements and claim that you new belief has always been your belief.
Oh, and just try and call me a fanboy:
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/8692/00001re2.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
...nope, that was Sony stock falling.
But seriously, I'm not in the least bit surprised. In fact, I've been expecting FF13 to go cross-platform for quite some time now. Square has more reason to go cross-platform, now more than ever before. When they were with Nintendo, they were pretty tight, and were more intimately familliar with their hardware design. They switched to Sony only because Nintendo screwed them with the N64. FFX came out long before the XBox or GameCube, and even FF12 was in progress while those consoles were in their infancy. And up until now, there hasn't been any direct competition with Sony that revolved around the exact same user-base. That's changed... and we have two very similar consoles, with similar (or at least potentially similar) install bases. The fact that Square has already jumped ship on many other titles, makes me think they're not adverse to doing so with any... and it just seems the safest, and most ecconomical, to do so.
There's only one line of reasoning as to why they would be better off remaining exclusive. That is that if the PS3 were to fail, the resistance to the 360 in Japan may not simply go away over-night... meaning NO ONE would have a system capable of buying and playing FF13 on. If they were to port FF13 to the 360, the Japanese may simply ditch the series as well as the PS3, and go completely over to the Wii. Still, in the US, where Final Fantasy is the strongest, porting FF13 to the 360 would generate enormous sales, enough to counter any strange occurences that Japan might provide.
I gave FF13 a 75% chance of going over to the 360, back in November... this news raises that to about 90%.
It's going to go, let's just sit back and watch the fireworks.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
I would summarize it as: - Nicer battle system (more interactive, more realistic) - Lots of eyecandy - Poor transitions (from in-game to pre-rendered video, for example many boss attachs) However, it has these certain MMORPG overtones - Lots of repetitive tasks - Sidequests don't add much to the overall story value - Grind... And the plot is a bit lacking - Underdeveloped characters - Less believable characters - Pretty, but fluffy... However, the environment itself was rather nice. In the english version, the use of somewhat archaic language added somewhat to the game IMHO
Final fantasy games are starting to become mini franchises, with at least 3 variations of XIII planned: the standard, epic XIII, VS XIII for MMORPG, and a portable called Agito (for phones at the moment). The whole thing is called Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII. The VS title would most likely be for any thing that can handle it, including PC and possibly more consoles. The exclusivity may be just for VS, or perhaps if they are considering a port of VS they are starting to think about doing the same with the main title.
I suspect the nature of the talks isn't really likely to land FF13 on the 360. It's more likely square is waiting till sony realizes square has their nuts in a vice and can squeze for all the money they want on this exclusivity deal.
I'm just curious... this is a blow that could potentially mean the end of a console line. Sure, it isn't official, but even the fact that it's in question is pretty big gaming news. Why is it not a full post?
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
I *despise* Sony nowadays and keep saying I'll never buy a PS3. FF13 would come close to swaying me to the dark side (providing FF12 gets exciting... I'm probably half-way through and it's failed to do so thus far), but I've been hoping, praying and begging for S.E. to bring it to another platform - fingers are suitably crossed.
Sir, I am torn between respecting the large amount of money you have available for consoles, and seething with jealousy because I can't get my hands on a damn Wii.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I like how when I was reading the text and trying to distinguish if that was three III's or two II's or four IIII's and I realized that the title for Final Fantasy is now becoming like the games in the franchise.
Join the damn club stores haven't had them for 6 weeks here.
oogly boogly!
If you spare time read the wii forums. Thats how i found mine, someone posted delivery dates to bestbuy, just show up when the stores opens on the listed date. Not sure how it is now, finding a second controller back in january was impossible though.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
So where does the rumored FF VII remake fit in with all this? Back before launch it was rumored that this was a pet project at square, FFVII with PS3 graphics. If they do wind up making this and if it goes cross platform, as well as FF XIII, that may be the last straw for me. I'm happy with my Wii, but there are so many kickass games on the 360 now... Well, ill wait till the built in HD-DVD version comes out.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I can relate to that. I bought a PS1 largely just for FF7, having played the older chapters on NES/SNES back in the day. If I ever do buy a PS3, the exclusivity of Gran Turismo is likely to be the breaking point for me, assuming it lives up to the standard the previous games have set.
The real question I have is why would an independent company sign an exclusivity agreement with a console manufacturer these days? If you are Square-Enix and have a more or less guaranteed blockbuster (FF13) waiting to come out why would you? How much money can Sony possibly pay them to make it financially worth their while to exclude other platforms like the 360/Wii?
Obviously it makes sense for first party titles to be exclusive. But why third parties go for this is beyond me. I wonder how much Sony paid Rockstar for the exclusive rights to the GTA3 franchise (yes, I know they came out on XBOX but not for quite a while after the PS2). After the first title was a smash hit, when Vice City (and later San Andreas) came out if I was Rockstar I would have said "sorry Sony, we're releasing this on the XBOX as well as the PS2 at launch. Cha-Ching!". That must have cost Sony a lot of money.
...despite your insistence that it was obvious. XBox and PS3 are, currently, neck to neck graphically.
Which should tell you a great deal. Look at FFXII. This is a PS2 game. Look at its graphics compared to early PS2 games. It's like night and day.
Developers have had more time to work with XBox 360 than the PS3. More time to figure out where power can be squeezed out of the hardware to pull off better looking graphics. Give it another year. The comparison will be night and day.
Japan is a pretty damn important market for Final Fantasy! You should check out a Japanese game shop, I've seen some that are arranged like PS2|GC|handhelds|FF - it gets it's own section as though it was a console.
So, Sony has a counter weapon. They can threaten not to release FF on PS3, and Squeenix either loses Japanese sales or goes to Wii or even DS (like Dragon Quest).
Oh, and just try and call me a fanboy:
How 'bout "arrogant braggart with too much time and disposeable income on his hands?"
I mean, that's what...? Well over $1000-1200 in hardware plus whatever that fourth thing in the middle is? I mean, do you even have more than three games for each system (that you've actually played) to justify owning each one?
Yeesh. I'm having a hard enough time cost- and time-justifying owning two of those systems, much less all three.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It just so happens that the console which had the FF main series exclusively, has always won the console war. Square must be really good at picking the winning team eh?
When the original Xbox launched, its games looked better than their PS2 counterparts, right off the bat. And those were launch titles.
If the PS3 really is much more powerful than anything else, why couldn't it pull off the same thing? Should I really take your word over everyone who's done an in-depth technical comparison?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
The voice acting wasn't bad... I'd definitely have to say that the "olde english" flair added something to the environment, however then I got my GF into playing FFX.
Some of the rendering is a little plasticy, but I'd have to say that while the character models are perhaps not as good as FFXII, the environment is in many cases a little better, the soundtrack is better, and the actual voice acting is definitely a step above.
I remember playing KOTOR a few years back and thinking that a final-fantasy-style game would do well in such an environment, so FFXII wasn't a big deviation for me in terms of gameplay. When you think about it, it's really just a step up from the mechanics of say, "Chrono Trigger" and "Secret of Mana"
I remember the SNES days. After hearing that Nintendo is developing the "Dolphin", I quickly anticipated the next Final Fantasy on it. It even had a tech demo of 3d FFVI characters. Then, when I heard that the PS1 was getting FFVII, I was shocked. It was so shocking that I had to save up money for two systems instead of one. By the way, I bought more PS1 games than N64 mainly due to the RPG selection. The only N64 games I had are the 1st party games and Golden Eye (btw, kicked ass back in the day).
Every geek has some sort of website, programming or computer project. Here's mine: www.youtasteit.com . What's yours?
It's the Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive in the middle.
And yes, I enjoy them all quite a bit! Some more than others sure, but they all get some loving.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
The XBOX launched almost 2 years after the PS2 (Nov 15 2001 vs Mar 15 2000). It had an off-the-shelf card that rendered more polygons, had onboard AA, etc. It did a lot of these things right out of the box, which the PS2 developers took a bit to figure out.
Now compare, say Black on the PS2 to Halo 1... and a few years later, Halo 2 isn't showing that much improvement. In fact, Black on the PS2 and XBOX are almost indistinguishable. And compare games like God of War 2 to early titles like Evergrace. Criminy.
What does all of this show? First, most obviously, that the PS2 improved a whole lot over its lifetime---enough that it's still comparable to the XBOX. Second, that the XBOX hasn't improved a great deal over its (somewhat shorter) lifetime.
Neither of these conclude anything about the 360 vs the PS3; what does, however, is to look at how the philosophies paid off. Sony said "here's some powerful custom hardware, it may be hard to program at first, but it will pay off later". It did. Microsoft said "here's some hardware you know how to program, what you see is pretty much what you get". The PS2 still has a lot of big name titles coming out throughout its seventh year, while the XBOX has already been EOL'd.
Similarly with the 360 and the PS3---though the PS3 has been released little less than a year later, and the launch titles already matches 2nd-gen 360 games---and some of them in 1080p vs 720p. The 360 is all about "easy, Windows-like platform". The PS3 is all about "here's a system custom-tailored for game development", like the PS2 was. Now, note, a lot of the PS3's "power" is focused around the Cell: things like managing thousands of on-screen entities, doing physics, etc. Some of this helps with graphics: high bandwidth to process and push textures, things move and act smoother, etc. Raw graphic card vs graphics card, I'm not going there, because I don't know---someone else can comment.
But let's compare the Cell. A couple easy things to think about: looking at the F@H stats, the OSX/PPC clients are outputting 7 TFLOPS. The PS3 clients are outputting 564 TFLOPS with 2.6 as many CPUs. If things were "about as powerful", they should be outputting more like... 18-19 TFLOPS. Not two orders of magnitude more.
So, OK, the OSX/PPC boxes are probably slower than the 360 cores: I don't think you could get a 3.2GHz G5 PPC Mac, and even if you could, not everyone on that list is running them. So multiply the TFLOPS by 2 or 3 to bring those 1GHz boxes up to 3, if you want ... but that's not the 80.5 times greater you'd need to match the PS3 numbers. But perhaps Microsoft will be kind enough to release their own F@H client so we can get a real comparison, not just a rough estimate.
In terms of games, we'll have to see: can the 360 do things like Little Big Planet's fully-physically-simulated worlds? Even just in terms of graphics, does the 360 have anything like LBP to match the sheer solidity and real-world look LBP objects have? After 16 months, does the 360 even have a demo that will match a PS3 demo shown after only 4 months? (Video previews shouldn't really count, but I'll take 'em.)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
FF doesn't matter as much as it did in the face of God of War, which has broader appeal and is simply an amazing game.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I have no doubts that the Cell is more powerful, and that eventually PS3 games will outclass 360 games in terms of graphics. However, that alone isn't going to cut it.
Both systems are likely going to progress towards their respective limits at similar rates. Until such time as the 360's limit is reached, the graphical differences between titles on the consoles will be minimal. All games made for the PS3 in this time period will have no significant eye candy advantage.
It is only after the 360 has reached its peak that the PS3 can have games that are "night and day" above the 360. Even then, it will only apply to the latest games.
The most important factors here are the limit on the 360's power, and the relative speed at which the Cell is exploited compared to the 360's chip. Sony only wins out in the scenario I detailed if the 360's limit is hit very soon, or if the Cell is exploited faster than the 360.
This is a problem for Sony, because they need to prove now that the PS3 is better than the 360. It could happen in their second wave of titles, but each successive wave that we wait to see the "night and day" difference between the systems is time the PS3 spends wallowing without distinction from its competitor.
Sony can't really affect the 360's limit, so their best shot is to do whatever they can to help developers get the most juice possible out of the Cell.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
I don't have a PS3, but I do have a Slim PS2, a Wii and an Xbox360 sans the HD-DVD drive. I love all three systems, and I'm looking forward to when there's a good reason for me to pick up a PS3.
/. is as easy as saying anything potentionally negative or positive about any given console. I've been labelled a fanboy for each of the big three once or twice apiece.
Getting labelled a fanboy on
Posting the image was likely just an act of, "To hell with this crap" rather than, "Look at me I have money and luxury".
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!