Square Steps Back from 'No FF on 360' Remark

GamesIndustry.biz is reporting that Square/Enix has stepped away from a comment made by Executive Producer Shinji Hashimoto. Wednesday we discussed his comment, which would seem to indicate that Final Fantasy titles won't be coming to the 360. Square took pains today to specify that he was only referring to current plans. "A spokesperson for Square Enix told GamesIndustry.biz, 'Hashimoto-san was talking about the current situation' - which would suggest his comments shouldn't be interpreted as forward-looking. Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter said he expects the next Final Fantasy to appear on PlayStation 3 exclusively - but observed that Square Enix will face a tough decision. 'The series has always been single console and given the Xbox 360 sell through in Japan, it would be hard to put the next Final Fantasy installment on the 360 only. Square Enix faces a dilemma: put the next game on the 360 only and alienate Japanese fans, depart with tradition and make it multi-platform, or go with PS3 as an exclusive and deal with the backlash from the west. I view Square Enix as a tradition-bound company, and expect the last alternative to be chosen.'"

Comments

Re:odd

[Anonymous Coward]

FFXI doesn't really count, in that it's an MMORPG (essentially, EverQuest with moogles). (Not to mention that it manages to screw up Live support (no voice chat, uses Live to launch a crappy Live clone), but that's kinda irrelevant.)

However, that doesn't change that statement: FFVII and FFVIII were both released for the PC too.

So Square-Enix going multiplatform isn't a big stretch. They've done it before, and they can do it again.

Hopefully it won't be like the abomination that is those previous ports, though, in that every single one of them essentially emulated the original platform for the port. FFVII and FFVIII still acted as if you had to insert PlayStation memory cards into your PC, FFXI uses the same low-res PS2 graphics on the PC, etc.

Solution:

[Dancindan84]

Go back to Nintendo! I'd be interested to see
1) If the wii had the horsepower for what they want
2) How the Square guys would take advantage of the wii design

Re:Solution:

[Belgand]

Exactly what I was thinking and with much the same problems.

The more recent Final Fantasy games (I'd say from VII on) have been increasingly driven by technology while not expanding significantly on gameplay. Sure, XII had a number of changes, but by making the game more or less play itself (or, if you prefer, drastically changing the player's role in battle to being more of a coach) it had gone too far in the other direction. The possibility exists that motion-sensitive control would also be too radical of a change, but the Wii would allow them to refocus on game design as opposed to making some very pretty cinematics.

Re:Solution:

[Sciros]

1)not even close. The White Engine was designed with the PS3 in mind, and that includes graphical capabilities. It's what FFXIII is built on, and it shows :-)
2)they wouldn't in any appreciable way I reckon, especially with the more "traditional" JRPG setup they have in FF games. Navigating menus and selecting "yes/no" in conversation is about all there is to it. The Wii's controls are better suited for pure real-time [inter]action, and I don't think even FFXIII will make quite that leap. (Although FF games are on their way to real-time slowly)

Re:Solution:

[penp]

The more recent Final Fantasy games (I'd say from VII on) have been increasingly driven by technology while not expanding significantly on gameplay. Sure, XII had a number of changes, but by making the game more or less play itself (or, if you prefer, drastically changing the player's role in battle to being more of a coach) it had gone too far in the other direction. The possibility exists that motion-sensitive control would also be too radical of a change, but the Wii would allow them to refocus on game design as opposed to making some very pretty cinematics. Talking about recent Final Fantasy games, you quote from VII on? Doesn't anyone realize that game is now ten years old? While I agree that it is a trend, it's hardly anything recent. I'd also like to note that the gameplay of Final Fantasy XII is nearly identical to the MMO gameplay of Final Fantasy XI, so it's not really as much of a change as most would say. Personally, I really enjoyed XII, because it was the first one since VII to have a story worth mentioning without solely (the key word here, of course) relying on pretty cinematics.

Square's changes in gameplay usually have less to do with how the game is controlled (i.e. which controller is used) and more to do with how the game has control (the introduction of the Active Battle System, the various different magic systems, job systems, the License Board). The gameplay has always been essentially a bunch of menus, but what effect those menus have on the game is what changes from game to game. I highly doubt Square will be diverting from a format which has given them success for twenty years.

Re:Solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

The more recent Final Fantasy games (I'd say from VII on) have been increasingly driven by technology while not expanding significantly on gameplay.

Final Fantasy (and Japanese RPGs on the whole) have never been about gameplay innovation. Even the newest games play identically to the early-80s Ultimas and Wizardrys they were inspired by. The only real changes have been in polish, with graphics and music taken to their extremes.

I think there are two basic reasons for this. First, as a Japanese coworker once explained to me, the Japanese are not very good at innovating but excellent at improving existing designs. The other reason is that the games were designed for machines with large read-only storage but very little RAM and even less non-volatile storage. It's not easy to do a Fallout-style game with complex interaction when your volatile data must be squeezed into a few tens of kilobytes.

Re:Solution:

[Belgand]

I actually was originally going to mention how XII was very similar to the MMORPG gameplay of XI, but I didn't like the way it was reading so I went back and changed it omitting all mention of XI.

Part of the reason I quote from VII on is because that was really the moment when they moved to a new paradigm. VII was the first to use extensive cinematics that were not just in-engine sprites moving around with text boxes. It was the first to use a 3d isometric world. It honestly changed everything.

On a more personal note, Final Fantasy III on the SNES was, excepting Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, the last one in the series that I played fully. I played snippets of VII, played a demo of the PC version of VIII, watched friends play IX, and about a month ago went back and bought a copy of X used, but for me VII was the point where I dropped out of the series after playing through the original, II, and III as each was released. Ok, in all honesty it's mainly because I skipped the entire PSX generation returning to PC gaming more heavily and only bought a Gamecube in '04 and a PS2 last August, but it's still a personal mark of when the games changed from "classic" to "recent" format.

Re:Solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

re: 1. No. It won't have the horsepower. Sorry. All these comments about this by people shouting "Wii" are dreaming. Square undoubtedly has spent millions already making high definition textures, models, and graphics. Have you seen the trailers?

Now you expect them to downrez to 480p? Come on. It's either the PS3 or the 360, or both. Smart money is on the PS3 here.

Re:Solution:

[Obsi]

The way you describe the gameplay of FF12, it's sounding a lot like .hack, well at least the R1 games, (Infection, Mutation, Outbreak, Quarantine) not sure about the R2 series.

No surprise

[hidannik]

This should come as no surprise to those who know what "We have no plans" really means, when translated from PR-speak.

Re:No surprise

[Aladrin]

So you're saying that 'we have no plans' means they don't have any plans? Wow, genius.

This is EXACTLY what they said, and it's how it should have been interpreted. They never said they won't be doing it, that was the Media trying to put spin on the quote. I believe the quote was "There's nothing on the books." It's means exactly that. They haven't written anything down, they aren't currently working on anything, they have no plans. Period. No more, no less.

I can't see how this is even slightly newsworthy. This must be Slashdot's version of a retraction.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you dont understand PR-speak then.

Why does it have to be exclusive?

[Wicko]

I understand the pains of coding for 2 entirely different systems, but they have the man power and they have the money. Why close themselves off? While I'm sure that both console makers would like to have an exclusive FF game, but that doesn't mean Square-Enix has to take a side. I would think it would boost sales for both consoles.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[Sciros]

Well, FF already *has* made its way onto Xbox with FFXI, but when it comes to the "flagship" FFXIII title, I think the problem is they are way too far along in development making the game *specifically suited* for he PS3 when it comes to the "white engine." Though that's just my speculation.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[Umuri]

The reason a lot of titles are exclusive, especially in the current "age" of consoles, is twofold.
First the architectures are entirely different, so a lot of extra work has to go coding a compatible version for whatever other platforms you are designing for.

Second is called reduction.
When you make a crossplatform game, it is limited by the lowest hardware specs of each console. maybe graphics for one, storage medium for another, and persistent objects for a third.
What this means is if they design for the wii or the xbox 360, they have to limit the game size to something that those consoles can manage, even if the ps3 can go higher. Likewise if they do something better than the ps3, they have to limit it to the ps3s specs.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[My name is Bucket]

Indeed. And that inevitably results in the ported game actually being LESS feature-rich or MISSING content due to the problems of translating code under time constraints. And that results in morons being led to think that the inferior console is instead SUPERIOR or that the more powerful console's architecture is somehow COUNTER-INTUITIVE. Which results in my face COMBUSTING.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[Wicko]

Good call. But, its Square.. pretty damn successful/large company. You would think they have the man power to code for both.. similar to coding for PC, you have so many hardware configurations/restraints. While the PC's would have much more in common than these two consoles, a bit of modular coding wouldn't hurt. But come to think of it, I can't really think of a block buster game released for two different consoles that really pushed the hardware to the limit.

I guess its also possible that the returns they might get for releasing it cross platform won't make up for production costs.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[Applekid]

"When you make a crossplatform game, it is limited by the lowest hardware specs of each console. maybe graphics for one, storage medium for another, and persistent objects for a third."

Now that's just silly. If all they're doing to change from building for Platform A to building for Platform B is changing a command line switch in their compiler then they deserve to be LCD'd.

Good porting means balancing and mitigating the strengths and weaknesses of each platform. If Console A has less graphical power than Console B, then THAT version might get geometrically simpler models or smaller textures or a lower framerate. If Console C has the juice to perform full physics on a moving car while Console D doesn't, your build for Console D will have a simplified physics model.

I mean, PC gaming has had those tweakable settings for over a decade, to compensate for the varied power in each machine. Naturally developers know of this.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[tepples]

If Console C has the juice to perform full physics on a moving car while Console D doesn't, your build for Console D will have a simplified physics model. And then you make it impossible to compare scores from the two consoles and impossible to play online between the two consoles.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[Applekid]

And then you make it impossible to compare scores from the two consoles and impossible to play online between the two consoles.

And if you're locked onto XBox Live, Nintendo WiFi, or whatever Sony's network is called, it's a moot point anyway.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[jchenx]

A lot of technical reasons have been provided by other posters, so I won't dive into that. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is money, specifically however much Sony may have provided to keep the title exclusive to their platform.

Naturally, the smaller the install base, the more you would expect the platform provider to pay in order to keep the title exclusive. There has to be an incentive for a developer NOT to spend some time/money to broaden the audience. It could be straight-up dollars, or it could be something liked shared marketing costs, etc.

Whether or not Sony is actually doing this for the premiere Final Fantasy franchise, and if so how much they're providing, will obviously be a very well kept secret.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[tepples]

And if you're locked onto XBox Live, Nintendo WiFi, or whatever Sony's network is called, it's a moot point anyway. Then how does Final Fantasy XI run PS2, PC, and Xbox 360 clients on the same net?

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[CaseM]

Good porting means balancing and mitigating the strengths and weaknesses of each platform.

Please note that you said "good porting". That's the problem. Many ports are shit and do get held back by the lowest common demoninator. Xbox owners were constantly receiving substandard ports of PS2 games because the PS2 happened to be the main development platform last generation.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[Applekid]

Lowest Common Denominator. I'm not saying that LCD is not an option, or that it's impossible. I'm just saying that LCD is generally a bad option and that well-funded games that happen to get ported to multiple platforms usually get polished pretty nicely for each platform above the level of just merely "it'll work for everything."

For me, I'd rather a game go multiplatform sensibly than just pushed out settling on the baseline performance in all areas of each console. If that means we won't see a flagship (non-MMO) Final Fantasy game go multiplatform, perhaps we're better for it?

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[Lost Engineer]

Gee, god forbid they work on the gameplay a bit and ignore the ultra sparkly nekkid goddess graphics. Conservative or no, they will sell games if they make it for the 360.

Honestly if they want a large installed base they should stick with the PS2. Square's best games ever have been on consoles primitive by today's standards. However, today there is no next-gen console with enough penetration to make an exclusive game. So you either go with the PS2, or you go multi-platform, or you're backasswards and not willing to invest to sell more games. Bungie doesn't count either; MS pwned them a long time ago.

Re:Why does it have to be exclusive?

[patternjuggler]

Good porting means balancing and mitigating the strengths and weaknesses of each platform. If Console A has less graphical power than Console B, then THAT version might get geometrically simpler models or smaller textures or a lower framerate. If Console C has the juice to perform full physics on a moving car while Console D doesn't, your build for Console D will have a simplified physics model.

That costs a lot more money and time than just focusing all development on one platform and releasing a shoddy port for a second or third, or even less development money is not to release a port at all. Remember that unlike a PC that a great deal of development tools for each platform are platform specific, meaning that even if they don't have to scale back the graphics on a port they still have to expend a lot of effort just to get the exact same thing running at the same quality level.

Final Fantasy? Who cares...

[Stormwatch]

I'd much rather get updated versions of Chrono Trigger and the Soul Blazer trilogy.

Re:Final Fantasy? Who cares...

[Yosho]

I'd much rather get updated versions of Chrono Trigger and the Soul Blazer trilogy.

Unfortunately, getting an update on the Soul Blazer series isn't likely to ever happen, given that it wasn't quite a best seller, and the people responsible for it have long since moved on from Square-Enix. However, you might be interested to know that it's not quite a trilogy.

Trolling != Rumors

[My name is Bucket]

I make it a rule to disregard any "rumor" that can be traced back to flamebaiters on message boards attempting to piss off fanboys. Speaking of which: did you know Gears of War might come to the PS3?

I don't understand...

[Ecuador]

why doesn't MS just tell Square - Enix, hey give us the exclusive and we will pre-pay you for 10 million copies. That should help the XBOX sell a few units at the tough (for outsiders) Japanese market and help bury the PS3... A very good investment IMHO.
And Square whether traditional or not, is still a business, so I can't see offers like that rejected "by principle".

Re:I don't understand...

[asuffield]

why doesn't MS just tell Square - Enix, hey give us the exclusive and we will pre-pay you for 10 million copies. That should help the XBOX sell a few units at the tough (for outsiders) Japanese market and help bury the PS3... A very good investment IMHO.
And Square whether traditional or not, is still a business, so I can't see offers like that rejected "by principle".

Japanese are not like Americans. They need to make a profit. They do not feel compelled to maximise their profit at the expense of all else - in fact, they often loathe that attitude. Many things are more important to most Japanese businessmen and executives than profit, particularly if they are traditionalists. Not everybody there is like this, but Square-Enix is run by some fairly traditional people. If Americans are slaves to the bottom line, then Japanese are slaves to tradition and pride.

A Japanese company would rather stick with somebody they know well and have prior connections with, than "shop around" for somebody who will give them a 10% lower price. They will not normally abandon a current partner unless they are mistreated or they are at risk of losing money (ie, making a loss, not just reduced profit).

If you want to make a traditionalist Japanese executive incredibly angry, offer him a bribe to switch to your company. It's a direct insult. If Microsoft even proposed something like you suggest, it would inspire hatred of a religious fervour, and it would be likely that no Square-Enix title would ever run on any platform made by Microsoft, ever. They may be able to win FF by persuasion; they will not be able to do it by throwing money around.

Re:I don't understand...

[DeepHurtn!]

Where does this myth of Japan being prejudiced against non-Japanese companies come from? From what I understand, with many young Japanese it's actually the opposite: a bit of a fetish for things seen as Western. And it doesn't explain at all the dominance of say, the iPod in Japan. The reality of the Xbox's failures in Japan are certainly much simpler: they just don't design the product with any understanding of the Japanese market (the first Xbox in particular).

Re:I don't understand...

[Ecuador]

I really think you take the difference in the Japanese business ethics to the extreme. The company I work for (electronics sector, not gaming though) does deal with Japanese manufacturers (well known ones) and I do have a good perspective on some aspects of their business culture, however they certainly do care about profit. Granted, they are different than some other manufacturers who care ONLY about profit, and that makes them unique, but I really don't think they are the tradition-fixated caricatures you present them to be.

One interesting incident followed an extremely apologetic e-mail from a Japanese manager to our CEO (about a payment that was delaying due to external factors). Our CEO responded along the lines of "as long as they you doing what you can, it is fine by us", to which the Japanese manager wrote back to thank our CEO for his kindness than now "will allow him to sleep at night"! Anyway, it does not sound that impressive unless you read the actual emails (which, obviously and unfortunately, I cannot share).

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were running Square-Enix, I'd answer: "Only if MS will also pre-pay us for 10 million copies each of the other FF13 universe games, FF14, FF14-2, FF15, FF16, ad infinitum."

You get the point? We're talking about one of the best-selling and longest-lasting console RPG series ever. Expected profit from FF13 is only a small portion of the expected profit from the whole of the franchise. It makes no sense to tie the franchise to a losing console, regardless of guaranteed sales, if it is going to hurt the sales of following iterations. And the Xbox franchise has been so consistently unpopular in Japan that it's hard to imagine that even an FF exclusive could save it at this point.

Re:I don't understand...

[7Prime]

Well, one of the distinctions isn't so much "profits" overall, but "when" the profits will come. Most countries in the world tend to think longer term than we do in the US. Most decisions in large corporations, these days, are made by the quarter or the year. Then again, many corporations in the US get big very fast, and then die very fast. American companies aren't very good at, and aren't too concerned with longevity. Japanese companies notice that what's good for the consumer is often good for the corporation, in the long run. paying employees higher wages, for instance, insures that the quality of living remains high in the surrounding area, and that people can continue to purchase their products for years to come. Also, paying higher wages means more productivity, and higher quality products.

- In the US, the difference between highest and lowest paid workers is somwhere around 600:1 in a given company

- In most industrialized nations, the difference between highest and lowest paid workers is about 50:1

- Japan is somewhere around 15:1, on average

backlash?

[Anonymous Coward]

backlash in the west for a ps3 exclusive? I don't think 360 owners were buying 360's because they wanted FFXIII and were putting $400 min on the chance, 2-3 years ahead of time, that square enix would make it cross platform.

MS probably doesn't make an offer partially because the things they've been offering other companies are of less interest to square enix, and partly because they wouldn't want to spend enough money to bribe for a game so far from what their ideas of the right games for the xbox are.

Re:backlash?

[KDR_11k]

MS probably doesn't make an offer partially because the things they've been offering other companies are of less interest to square enix, and partly because they wouldn't want to spend enough money to bribe for a game so far from what their ideas of the right games for the xbox are.

The right games for the XBox? MS doesn't want a homogenous library, they want lots of games to attract lots of users. They've already paid enough companies to get japanese RPGs on the system (to the point where the 360 actually has the most jRPGs of any nextgen system) so claiming MS isn't interested in FF is just silly, especially considering the emphasis they put on getting FF11 back then.

Flamebait

[ivan256]

Square Enix faces a dilemma: put the next game on the 360 only and alienate Japanese fans, depart with tradition and make it multi-platform, or go with PS3 as an exclusive and deal with the backlash from the west

That is just pure flamebait, and shouldn't have ended up on the front page of anywhere but an Xbox360 fansite.

Why is it flamebait? The subtext to that one sentence is that the PS3 is going to fail in the US, and ignores the fact that Final Fantasy titles usually sell as many copies in Japan alone as they do in the rest of the world. He, and everybody else with two or more brain cells, knows that there isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that a Final Fantasy game will ever be an Xbox360 exclusive given the non-existence of the platform in Japan, and that the next-gen race isn't even close to decided in the rest of the world. So why post the false dichotomy except to troll?

Re:Flamebait

[Doctor_Jest]

I think people are drinking too much of the kool-aid. The war's not over (if there ever was one... why does there have to be one winner?) and any snippet, shred, tiny molecule of information that makes console A look better than console B in the tiny minds of the fanboys is scraped up off the web and spread around like creamy peanut butter.

WTF? Yeah, I own both... I've got a good job... so I couldn't care less which one is "cooler". I might even buy a Wii if I ever can find the bloody thing.

I wish these people would simply enjoy the games and stop bloody well being the killjoy that is trying to justify purchase of console A over console B. News flash, at these prices, (BOTH consoles, fanboys) there is _NO_ "justification"... except that you wanted one.

Re:Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

The PS3 is already dead. It's not just tanking in the US it's also tanking in Japan. PS3 monthly sales worldwide are in the neighborhood of 150,000 a month right now. Even off season you generally only see numbers that low for a console near the end of its lifetime.

There's little hope to see the PS3 improve substantially during the holidays since its price makes it to expensive to give as a gift for all but the richest people (and even parents who can afford it will hesitate to spoil their child with a $600 game machine). The Xbox 360 is also hampered by its price to an extent but it should be ready for a price cut soon and Sony is having trouble getting their costs to the point where they can even match the 360's current price.

It's going to be at least 3 years before the PS3 can be priced competitively and by then the already huge leads that the Wii and 360 have will be even larger. The next-gen race isn't decided, but that's only because Microsoft and Nintendo still have a heated battle ahead. What is decided is that the PS3 will be relegated to a position roughly comparable to the GameCube's last generation.

Re:Flamebait

[airos4]

The backlash from the West is the howl of gamers when they find out they're going to have to fork over $500 to play the next chapter in the series. It'll be the game that spurs mass adoption of the PS3 which hasn't happened yet. I have one, some of my friends do, but there's arguably no KILLER reason to get one right this second. FF drove me to buy the PS2, it'll drive others to buy the PS3... even if they already have the Xbox. It's not predicting failure, it's predicting people being pissed that they have to buy another console.

Re:Flamebait

[ivan256]

It's not predicting failure, it's predicting people being pissed that they have to buy another console.

Microsoft has only sold 10 million 360s. That's not very many. The number of people who will be purchasing "another" next-gen console to play Final Fantasy will be low in comparison to the number who are picking up their first. Remember, the market share leader this generation will likely have sold close to 200 million consoles by the time it's over. The race just started.

Re:Flamebait

[airos4]

Not very many? It may not be very many when you're looking backwards at the end of the race, but as a headstart and an installed user base it's pretty decent... especially when Sony really hasn't let out anything as a killer app yet. No GT, no GTA, no FF yet... the PS3 needs something that makes people buy it, and FF might well be it. One or two games recognized as great will make the price seem a lot easier to swallow. Part of the problem so far has been you drop your five bills, and play... what? I rented Fall of Man and beat it in a weekend, but there's no strong franchise - no Sonic, no Mario, no Zelda, not even a Crash the Bandicoot to carry the idea of "well, this was worth what I spent on it".

Re:wHii?

[Trent Hawkins]

plus the later of Square's Nintendo Game Cube titles really sucked ass. They should stick to the high end and make those awesome graphics, not like their game play is getting any more original.

really.

[Pojut]

No offense intended, but they would be ass-backwords fucking stupid to not release it on the 360.

"I have an idea! Let's release our next Final Fantasy game exclusively on the system with the lowest install base worldwide!"

"That's a fantastic idea!"

I rarely enjoy the buisness side of gaming, but in this instance...well, as previously stated, they would be ass-backwords fucking stupid to not release it on the 360. The Playstation doesn't have the highest install base this time around, and they would be losing out on a LOT of money keeping it only on the PS3.

Not that I care. I haven't enjoyed a Final Fantasy game since FF6.

Re:really.

[DarkJC]

It's not as simple as worldwide sales. The largest FF market has always been Japan BY FAR, the market where the 360 trails the PS3 by a very very large margin. Even a new designed-for-japan JRPG IP from a legendary designer, Blue Dragon, barely moved 360 units. Square knows that FFXIII will move PS3s like there's no tomorrow when it's released in Japan. They don't have that guarantee for the 360, and judging from it's still poor reception in Japan, it's not as simple as you suggest.

Re:really.

[edwdig]

You're forgetting that RPGs sell more copies in Japan than they do in the rest of the world combined.

The 360 is a lot less attractive when you factor that in.

Re:really.

[Pojut]

Well, first off regardless of how slow it's selling there are still more gamers around the world with a 360 than a PS3. This is just a simple hard fact.

Secondly, Sony has lost many exclusives as well as gotten the short end of the stick. So you get Ninja Gaiden Sigma, congrats...the THIRD VERSION of a game that was what? Oh yeah, originally on Xbox. Tell me which system the next Ninja Gaiden game will exclusively be on? That's right. Your nemesis.

That being said. ALL consoles have their strong points, just like they all have their weakpoints. Personally, I love all consoles because they enable me to play video games. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy or a Sony fanboy or a Nintendo fanboy; I'm a video game fanboy. I have come to terms with the fact that no matter which company you deal with in the video game world (and just buisness in general) you will have to deal with some kind of shittyness.

Now. All of THAT being said. How's that shill job going for you? I mean I understand companies putting cuntscabs like you on various forums, but at least try to be less obvious about it...

Re:really.

[endianx]

Square knows that FFXIII will move PS3s like there's no tomorrow when it's released in Japan. And when it is released in the US too. I have little interest in a PS3 right now, but I'll be buying one when FF13 comes out...no question. FF13 will make Sony more cash than it will for Square.

Re:really.

[Twiceblessedman]

For the amount of time the 360 has been out it has a pretty small install base as well. Final Fantasy will be a system seller for the ps3 and I bet square will stay with Sony. Outside of North America, the 360 isn't selling that great so this is just probably a rumour from some troll on a video game forum.

Re:really.

[jstomel]

Except that each PS3 sold looses sony money

Re:really.

[endianx]

Very true. But they can make it up in game sales. There should be good games by then. Also, the manufacturing price should be lower by then as well. Sony must plan to make money on PS3s somehow or they wouldn't be selling them.

Re:really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that that is only valid for a momentary number of sales of consoles. With more sales, they get more benefits of mass production so they can reduce manufacturing costs per console.

Also more consoles sold means more auxiliary incomes from extra controllers and license fees on games sold.

Re:really.

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time FF13 comes out the Wii is quite likely have a larger install base than the 360. It depends on how important they consider hi-def* to be.

In fact, if they can make a PS2 version that would probably be the best selling SKU. All Final Fantasy fans already have one, after all...

*and any gameplay concepts they use that require more processing power etc. than the Wii can provide, but (aside from cramming multiple discs with FMV) FF isn't really known for stuff like that.

Someone from the west

[HalAtWork]

Speaking as someone from the west, it doesn't really matter what platform FF appears on. The series has proven that it will sell systems if consumers want it. Yeah, that includes the PS3. The reason that seems far fetched is because the series has seen a decline in what attracted the casual gamer. It concentrates more on mixing up the RPG formula than providing a good overall experience that is accessible and as deep as the player wants it to be. Final Fantasy 7 was praised for its mini-quests such as raising and racing chocobos, playing arcade games, looking for ultimate weapons, etc. FFXII is all over the map and spreads itself too thin, and thus appears daunting to the casual gamer. Not to mention that it's not as story-driven or character-driven as the others, so casual gamers don't have as much of a desire to see what's next and they aren't as attached to the main characters and they don't really care about making them survive or making their world better.

Honestly they'd be best off putting it on the Wii, but I guess they're too far into it and that ship has sailed. Putting spinoffs on the Wii probably will just make the series look worse to the average gamer.

Re:Someone from the west

[king-manic]

FFXII is all over the map and spreads itself too thin, and thus appears daunting to the casual gamer. Not to mention that it's not as story-driven or character-driven as the others, so casual gamers don't have as much of a desire to see what's next and they aren't as attached to the main characters and they don't really care about making them survive or making their world better.


Considerign how well it sold This is purely incorrect conjecture. It's as deep or as shallow as you want it to be. It doesn't demand you do the deep stuff you can easily beat the game with very crappy set ups and occasional manual commands. Of you can munchkin like a fiend and have a set up to beat all the optional bosses. Most of the 3rd best weapons and armour are store bought, and they allow you to easily handle the end game.

Re:Someone from the west

[Kopiok]

I am also from the west, and am about as big of a Final Fantasy fan as anyone from the west could get. (NES to PS2)

If FFXIII is PS3 exclusive, I will not be buying it .

This fact alone makes what console they put it on matter. The reason I would not be buying it is simple: Final Fantasy XIII is not worth $660. I could, simply, not afford the game.

I'm 16 (ahhh!) right now, and have a job that pays $6.15 an hour, working part time. I would have to save up for, if I get on average $80 a week, about 8 weeks to get a PS3. That's 2 entire months without buying anything. And that's just for the system. I'd rather buy a 360 and some games. The PS3 is not in my reach, financially. The 360 is. If I don't have a PS3, I can't play FFXIII, so I won't buy it. They've lost my sale. This probably includes a lot of people. Porting it to the 360 would also probably attract many new western gamers. The Halo-casual gamers, who haven't even heard of Final Fantasy, might have a friend that hears about it, or gets it, and they play and find themselves enjoying the game, and might just buy it for themselves. Putting it on the PS3 and 360 gives SE so many benefits, while keeping it exclusive seems to cut off entire markets. It would be a bad idea, any way you look at it, to make it PS3 exclusive.

Re:Someone from the west

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't demand you do the deep stuff you can easily beat the game with very crappy set ups and occasional manual commands.

If you don't do the deep stuff the game is boring (grinding for levels in this game is the worst, tasks are monotonous)... not so with Dragon Quest 8 or FFVII, etc

Tradition?

[Aurin Wildfire]

Final Fantasy VII and VIII were both released for the PS1 and PC.

Final Fantasy XI is on the PS2, PC, and 360.

A 360 port wouldn't exactly be an earth-shattering move.

Re:Tradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

And lets not forget about all the others too.

FF on the NES, PSX, WSC, GBA, PSP.
FFII on the NES, PSX, WSC, GBA, PSP.
FFIII on the NES, DS.
FFIV on the SNES, PSX, WSC, GBA, DS.
FFV on the SNES, PSX, GBA.
FFVI on the SNES, PSX, GBA.

And any other platforms that I missed.

Re:Tradition?

[Breakfast Pants]

Basically none of those were simultaneous releases, which is what the article is concerned with (referring just to your post here).

The original FF devs have already moved to 360

[Temporal]

Blue Dragon -- to be released in the US this summer -- is directed by Hironobu Sakaguchi, the original creator of Final Fantasy, who directed or produced every FF through FFX. The music is by Nobuo Uematsu, the composer of all the music in FF 1 through 9 and some of FFX. Neither of them were involved in FFXII nor are they involved in FFXIII. Blue Dragon is an XBox 360 exclusive.

I know a lot of people liked FFXII, and indeed I thought the gameplay was awesome, but I was disappointed by the story. Although intriguing in some ways, it was much thinner than in previous FF games, and lacked any sort of emotion. I'm hoping that the spirit of FF has gone with Sakaguchi and Uematsu and will return in Blue Dragon. This is also convenient because I have a 360 but really don't want to buy a PS3. :)

Re:The original FF devs have already moved to 360

[jandrese]

To be fair, people look back on the storyline to FF games with rose tinted glasses IMHO. Half of the time they make no sense or are a rehash of "giant evil guy wants to blow up the world for no good reason".

Re:The original FF devs have already moved to 360

[Kelbear]

I had to smile reading that "50 weirdest moments in gaming" article.

Cloud having to crossdress to get into a club and being picked over the girls as the playmate for the night...

Just creepy beyond words.

Developers go to where market share is

[Astarica]

Unless you're talking about a company that's actually owned by a console maker, there's no loyalty in the 3rd party world. If Wii has 95% of the market, Square will probably find a way to get FF13 on that instead even if it means scrapping the grahpic engine they've been working on. It's not like Square stayed exclusive to PSX out of loyalty to begin with. It's because PSX/PS2 had a huge dominating position in the market, coupled with some technical/political issues (i.e. feud with Nintendo, plus N64 was delayed so they couldn't develop for it even if they wanted to).

When N64 wasn't going anywhere, 3rd party had no problem jumping ship (but still develop for the dominant Nintendo handhelds). No reason to assume it's any different for Sony. And if PS3 really manages to take off, expect FF13 to go back to exclusively PS3 again.

Re:Developers go to where market share is

[king-manic]

Square was the king maker in the PS1 vs Saturn vs n64 generation.

Square was one of the king makers in the PS2 vs Dreamcast vs GC vs Xbox.

There is no doubt that a FF XIII exclusive will allow Sony to compete int his generation. Tiem will tell if that is alsoa king maker. At the very least it'll pull #3 sony in to #2.

Re:Developers go to where market share is

[LKM]

Final Fantasy VII came out in 1997, three years after the release of the Playstation. By that time, the war was already pretty much decided. Final Fantasy games are incredibly important and move tons of consoles, but I don't think they are "king makers." It's just that Square usually released them on the most successful console.

Re:Developers go to where market share is

[blueZhift]

A FFXIII PS3 exclusive would certainly help Sony move some consoles, but at the current price, the PS3 is still too expensive. If the price comes down a couple of hundred USD by the time of FFXIII release, then they may get people who have been waiting for a must have game to buy the system. In the meantime though, people are spending their money on Wii consoles and games. And in the US at least, the 360 cannot be ignored either. So I think Square's remarks are their way of hedging their bets. Since the 360 can't be ignored in the west against an overpriced PS3 (for now), crossplatform is a safe bet. Sony would have to pony up some major cash to secure a worldwide exclusive, so much cash that it may not be worth the trouble.

Re:Developers go to where market share is

[catprog]

And when was it announced that it was going to be playstation exclusive?

Re:Developers go to where market share is

[LKM]

I don't know. I think it started out as a N64 game and was converted during development, but I don't know when the switch was announced. Do you? Would be interesting to know.

Re:Developers go to where market share is

[brkello]

They left Nintendo because they like to push the edge with their games. Nintendo refused to move off cartridges which limited the amount of data too much. Also, Nintendo didn't treat their third parties very well. So they left to Sony. It wasn't just a "this console sales more" sort of thing. The Wii will get games from SquareEnix, but it won't be the main Final Fantasy series. The Wii just doesn't have the horsepower to handle that companies flagship product. But the PS3 and 360 are acceptable candidates. Nothing against the Wii...it just isn't the right console for the game.

Re:Developers go to where market share is

[Chris Mattern]

plus N64 was delayed so they couldn't develop for it even if they wanted to

While the N64 delays certainly weren't making Square happy, I believe the real deal-breaker was when they decided to drop the CD-ROM. Square's new game (the future Final Fantasy VII) was simply *not* going to fit on a cart. That's what made them jump to the PSX.

Chris Mattern

The Wii Nazi

[antek9]

Can't find a Wii? Hop over to Europe, they're sitting on shelves here. Nintendo's distribution practices surely are enigmatic.

Wasn't that in a Seinfeld episode once? "No Wii for YOU, come back, next year!"

Re:The Wii Nazi

[Doctor_Jest]

heheh. I think so. I don't think the Wii Nazi had a mustache... ;)

Nintendo's up to something, I'm sure. :)

The more I wait for one, the less I want one... the less compelling reasons I have for getting one, that is... the VC is nice, but not _that_ nice yet... and they're pretty draconian about what console they are tied to and where you can copy them, etc.

At least that's what I've read...

Re:The Wii Nazi

[_xeno_]

The more I wait for one, the less I want one... the less compelling reasons I have for getting one, that is... the VC is nice, but not _that_ nice yet... and they're pretty draconian about what console they are tied to and where you can copy them, etc.

I have to agree with that statement - after being unable to find one when I was looking, I just sort of stopped caring and stopped looking. At some point I wandered into a Target, and someone else was buying a Wii and I discovered that this Target hadn't bothered placing their Wii stock on display. (Target has these locked display cases where all their consoles and games are stored.) So I grabbed one then.

Now I can't say I regret the purchase, I don't, but I'm not really playing it anymore. The only thing I'm really doing is playing Virtual Console games. So on that note, I'll explain to you exactly how VC games work and let you decide just how draconian the restrictions are yourself.

First off, they are tied directly to the console they're downloaded onto and that Wii's owner. Supposedly you can back them up to SD cards, but I haven't tried that yet and from what I can tell, you have to copy them back onto the console to actually play them. In any case, you can't copy your VC games off your Wii and bring them to a friend's house: they're tied to the console and the owner.

On that "and the owner" bit: The license agreement that you have to agree to before you're allowed to access the Wii Shop Channel explicitly says that if you ever transfer ownership of the console, you must delete everything off the console. There's even a convenient option to do just that in the Wii Storage menu somewhere.

I have no idea how Nintendo intends to enforce that, of course. But you are supposed to delete all the downloaded content if you ever transfer the console to anyone else.

You're also not allowed to redownload games. So if you download a game, and then delete it, you'll have to buy the game a second time.

I have no idea what happens if your Wii breaks. I suppose that Nintendo might be able to transfer your VC games to a replacement Wii if you ship it back to them. (But if it's not under warranty, that'll probably cost you - although most likely less than a new console.) I'm not clear on this point, though - the license agreement appears to suggest that you'll have to rebuy the games should your Wii break.

Hopefully if Nintendo ever releases new versions of the Wii, they'll create some way to transfer downloaded games from console to console, so you can upgrade. At present, though, VC games are tied to the console they're downloaded onto, and you're required to delete them before transferring ownership of the console.

Re:The Wii Nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case, you can't copy your VC games off your Wii and bring them to a friend's house

Yes, you can.

You're also not allowed to redownload games.

Yes, you are.

Do you even own a Wii?

Re:The Wii Nazi

[Doctor_Jest]

Thanks for the explanation... the thing that bugs me, particularly with MS and Nintendo's versions of this store crud is the idea that if your console goes tango-uniform, your purchases on that console die with it... and they "let" you put them on a new console... (assuming they are less pissy about it at Nintendo... I mean, you literally have to threaten microsoft to get them to do the xfer... and even then it's some convoluted "dummy account" and some weirdness that is totally unacceptable even for $5 and $10 games...) The kicker in MS's case is, they bury that little tidbit... and since they've got a GLUT of broken consoles... people are becoming understandably pissed when they find out some of the "rules" of the game.... so to speak. It won't make them change their ways... because the revenue's working for them... people buy anyway. I just don't particularly want to... under the circumstances. And I believe their "system" of arcade/virtual console purchases is a load of crap. Others may not think so, and somehow they may believe I am simply sniping at the beloved Nintendo and Microsoft... but I'm not... But if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig.

I admit I do have Tekken5:DR for the PS3... oh and Gauntlet II... ;) But after recently updating my 20GB to 120GB, all I needed to do was head to the store and get my content I purchased back to my HDD... no questions, no frowny faced employee complaining that they have to "allow" me the chance to do it... Maybe that would not work if I had a new console... who knows? If so, then I hate their store too... I'm not playing favorites...

Is it tied to my console? It might be... But rebuying them in the event of console breakage? Unacceptable. It might work for some people, I just find it a problem. If indeed the Wii eula for VC is like you read it... Nintendo's VC is even MORE draconian than Microsoft's... and that's just sad. (And it makes my first statement in this thread correct..) If the Wii is made like a tank, it still may break... and re-buying the bloody VC content is horsefeathers...

Thanks again for your perspective. I'm liking the idea of a Wii even less now. Sorry Nintendo... Maybe if you wouldn't doublespeak about region-coding (oh, it works FINE without region coding on your handhelds...) and stop trying to treat people like they're "stealing" from you... I'd be more likely to support your console... Meh. They all act that way... but so far, ironically enough, Sony's been the least pissy so far this gen...

And to all the fans of Nintendo out there who are ready to lynch me.. I have a DS and Gamecube.... So put the pitchforks and torches away.

They have 3 options:

[Cadallin]

Duh! 1. Playstation 3: A system that performing so poorly about all you can is its outselling the 360 in Japan.

2. The 360. Piss-poor market in Japan, good everywhere else, but not selling as fast as:

3. The Wii - Fastest selling home console on the market worldwide, as fast as Nintendo can make them. Selling faster than the current numerical market leader (the 360) is or ever has. Popular everywhere, including Square's home turf.

Now, of course the intelligent thing to do would be to just make the damn series Wii exclusive. But of course, Square has be too smart for that! So instead they're pissing around waiting to see if PS3 sales will perk up, and trying to cover their asses in the meantime. I think it's clear they desperately don't want to have to crawl back to Nintendo. They ran off from Casa Nintendo 10 years ago like a spoiled Rich-Bitch, "You don't own me! I don't need you! I've got Sony!"

Of course, I'd really love to see Nintendo turn Square out on their ass "Uhhh, yeah, see, I'm kind of busy, and you're really a lot older and saggy now. Not as hot as you used to be at all." And let them slum it on a system with a barely 7 figure market, while Nintendo's well into 8.

I'd guess they don't want to go to Microsoft because MS poached all their talent. Including fucking Akira Torayama. Who by the way, has the worst fucking art style on the planet. Who the fuck decided that the most bland, uninteresting mangaka on the planet needed to be the most famous? Any schmuck with a one-shot in Shounen Jump can draw better than that hack (and make characters that don't all look alike through every fucking project he's ever been involved in!)

Re:They have 3 options:

[Anonymous Coward]

...fucking Akira Torayama.

That's that Dragon Ball twat-tard, huh?

Re:They have 3 options:

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh! 1. Playstation 3: A system that performing so poorly about all you can is its outselling the 360 in Japan.
2. The 360. Piss-poor market in Japan, good everywhere else... In Europe, well.. in Germany at least, the PS3 is outselling the xbox360 for now. The xbox360 has no market in Germany either. It's probably not as bad as in Japan but it still looks pretty bad. Not sure if it's the marketing.. I don't watch too much TV myself, but still I actually haven't seen a single xbox360 commercial yet (I've seen PS3 and Wii TV commercials though and those consoles are much more advertised in general).
The Wii isn't, unlike in Japan or the US, sold out anywhere either but it's doing MUCH better than the other two consoles.

- pflakes

Re:They have 3 options:

[Firehawke]

Um.. no. They didn't "crawl away from Nintendo", they left because Nintendo insisted on using cartridges on a platform where it was obvious they couldn't handle what Square was aiming for.

Secondly, as has PREVIOUSLY been noted above, Square's stuff sells about as well in the rest of the world COMBINED as it does in Japan. At a 50% ratio, it makes sense to stick with the devil you know and not have to rebuy all your devkits and retrain. As for the Wii, Square's always been more interested in pushing graphics boundaries. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see a traditional FF title on Wii, but they're FAR more likely to do spinoffs.

By the way, Akira Toriyama only did work for two series of any relevance to this-- Dragon Quest and Chrono Trigger. There's no reason to say "poached" as he'll do work for pretty much anyone who pays the cash for it.

In other words, you're talking out your ass on every single point here.

Re:They have 3 options:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the Wii has alot of sales, have you ever wondered why? or who is buying them? I doubt it's because of their great line up of jRPG's, I doubt it's to the people who traditionally play jRPG's either. The Wii has managed to break into the casual gamer/non gamer market, these are not the people who who sit down for hours at a time slogging their way through an RPG. I don't know anyone personally who has enjoyed FF games in the past who has any interest in the Wii, in fact I don't know anyone at all who has a lasting interest in the Wii. I live in a household full of gamers, there is a Wii here, it is gathering dust and has been since the novelty wore off after a week or two.

The problem with just looking at units sold is that you overlook that the Wii may actually be a completely different market to Xbox/PS, Yes there will be some people are more dedicated gamers who have a Wii but there wont be many who do not also have another system.

Re:They have 3 options:

[Cadallin]

"Couldn't handle what they were aiming for"? You mean CDs full of FMV? Blech.

I say the reality is that by aiming to keep load times unnoticable, Nintendo inadvertently saved its audience for the worst trend in Gaming History. Do you remember the garbage that got produced? Ye gods! The Live Action FMV clips? "Mad Dog McCree" "The Horde" Yes, those both predate the PSX, but they illustrate perfectly the kind of excrement that got produced.

Yes, I was talking out my ass, by exaggerating and using sarcasm to make a point.

You know, one of the perspectives that doesn't actually get taken much, but which is demonstrably accurate is that Square leaving Nintendo was the best thing that ever happened to Nintendo. How's that you say? Because in order to fill the traditional JRPG void left by Square, Nintendo created Pokemon. Pokemon has only been the second most successful franchise in the entire industry, second only to Nintendo's own Mario, and has been twice as successful as Final Fantasy as a franchise.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_games#Fr anchise

Re:They have 3 options:

[Firehawke]

Yeah, pretty much, on the FMV topic-- The preliminary 3D stuff Square had been playing with was SD models of the FF6 characters, and it was all purely done in a FMV style setup. I think it's pretty clear they'd been aiming to put more of the story sequences either in FMV or realtime rendered.

I think it certainly hurt Nintendo to lose Square. I feel Pokemon would have happened either way, but it certainly didn't help Nintendo to lose one of its biggest third-party developers at a time when JRPGs were starting to hit the limelight in the mainstream.

Frankly, the N64 was too little (expensive cartridges, quirky controller, not enough games), too late (by at least two years! KI was supposed to be on 'Ultra 64' in 1995!), with Nintendo's president easily as arrogant as Sega of America's at the time. Both managed to injure their relations with the third parties and the fans.

Re:They have 3 options:

[brkello]

They left Nintendo because Nintendo treated them like crap and refused to give up cartidges. The Wii isn't an option since it lacks in power. Sure, they will make games for the Wii...it just won't be the main FF series. They don't want to go MS because the install base is terrible in Japan. They play wait and see with the PS3 to see if the sales pick up. The Wii isn't mention for a reason...and it isn't because of the ones you list.

Re:odd

[mulvane]

Square never released FFVII and FFVIII to PC..Those were both done by Eidos who licensed them for PC release. At the time of release square has never released for more than one console at a time. They have in the past years done re-releases of many old classics though.

What this means

[suv4x4]

MEDIA: Do you plan FF on 360?

Exec1: Well.. I don't know of any plans to make one on 360 for now.

MEDIA: Aha! "EXEC SAYS: FF ON 360, NEVER!"

Exec2: Wait, we never said that, we're talking about immediate plans.

MEDIA: Aha! "SQUARE STEPS BACK FROM WHAT THEY SAID BEFORE!"

Exec3: But we never said it...?!

MEDIA: Aha! "SQUARE TRIES TO BEND HISTORY AND CENSOR MEDIA!"

Exec1: O_o
Exec2: o_O
Exec3: O_O

Solution! (Not really but what I'd like to see)

[rnmartinez]

I remeber that Square showed off a souped up remake of FF 7 at E3 - and they claim to have no plans to release it on PS3 (even though it was demoed on that hardware). Seeing as FF7 was the game that sort of broke them away from nintendo and to sony, I tihnk it would be cool if they finished it, made it possible to scale down to 480p and released it on the Wii. If it does well, then they should consider FF X3 or X4 on the Wii. hopefully the dev cost wouldnt be too bad since they are using some assets that they already have to a certain extent, although I wouldn't want to see some half assed controls either, so I guess it would require some $$$. I just think re releasing 7 and 8 the way they did FF3 on the DS (which was supposed to happen on the PSP) would be a good way to show the guys in Japan that the Wii is worth it. Not to mention that if you want to talk tradition old school FF meant it was on a Nintendo platform.

Square has only one choice

[MikeRT]

Dual platform. If they alienate either market, they're going to lose whatever influence Final Fantasy has left. It cannot make or break the PS3 right now because the PS3 is too expensive. Most people cannot afford to spend nearly $700 ($600 console, $60 game, at least $40 in sales tax in many places) for a single game. It has to be available in both, or it will be as though it weren't available in one of their target markets.

Re:Square has only one choice

[My name is Bucket]

If you buy a $600 console to play one game, you're a moron.
If, however, you buy a $600 console to play a bunch of games, watch HD movies, have an easy-to-use media center and more, well... you have a smart purchase right there.

Re:Square has only one choice

[Megane]

Well that's great if 1) it has the bunch of games you want to play 2) you want to watch HD movie discs, and 3) you want a toy "media center".

But 1) the PS3 doesn't have any compelling games for me (just like the Xbox didn't in the previous generation), 2) 99% of the HD movie discs are crappy Hollywood movies that I don't want to watch at any resolution, ever, and 3) I already have a real PC hooked up to my TV set, in beautiful 480p resolution using a DVI connection. (the chroma resolution even at 480p is far superior to S-video)

And 4) Recent FF games (since what, 8 or 9 or so?) are over-rated anyhow. Too many cut scenes and angst. It was not why I bought a PS2 and will not be a reason for me to buy a PS3. I got a PS2 because it had a well-balanced game library, something which the 360 is currently ahead in.

Re:Square has only one choice

[Twiceblessedman]

How is an army of first person shooters a well balanced game library? Been out for a year and they are still lacking.

Re:Square has only one choice

[Megane]

How is an army of first person shooters a well balanced game library? Been out for a year and they are still lacking.

And the PS3 has anything other than a bunch of first-person shooters and racers? At least the 360 has a couple of games that I might be interested in, like Ninety-Nine Nights and Blue Dragon.

But I'm still waiting for the die-shrink 360, because I don't want a system that you have to wrap in a freaking towel to get it to work again after it breaks.

Gamecube == High End

[LKM]

plus the later of Square's Nintendo Game Cube titles really sucked ass. They should stick to the high end and make those awesome graphics, not like their game play is getting any more original.

Uh... the Gamecube was the high end compared to the PS2. Maybe they should continue their PS2 tradition and stick to the low end if that worked so well?

Re:Gamecube == High End

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the gamecube was low-end. If you compare the vast majority of titles for both systems, the PS2 had better graphics. Now, the gamecube has more capability buy a long shot, but so does the wii, and games on wii and PS2 often look better on PS2. This is because it make financial sense to design a PS2 game and try to port it as cheaply as possible to the (quite different) nintendo architecture.

This will probably be a problem for the wii in the future, too. A lot of the cross console games will also be made on PS2, and some of the studios are going to try to get the wii to run the PS2 version (And because of the porting, the wii won't look as good as the PS2.

the PS3, similarly, doesn't usually look as good as the technically inferior 360, that's because they are doing their best to save money on production. We're seeing two tiers of technology, and the wii is on the PS2 tier, though it is much more powerful (and it's the second class citizen on the PS2 tier). If not for nintendo's excellend software, I wouldn't be really happy to have a wii.

Re:Gamecube == High End

[LKM]

No, the gamecube was low-end. If you compare the vast majority of titles for both systems, the PS2 had better graphics.

Uh... No, it didn't? Even most cross-platform games - which, as you said, were most likely optimized the most on the PS2 - quite simply looked better on the Cube.

Re:Gamecube == High End

[Anonymous Coward]

If you compare the vast majority of titles for both systems, the PS2 had better graphics.

The Gamecube was graphically superior, even if just a tiny bit, in every cross-platform game I have ever played or read a multi-platform review of. I had a Cube as my first console of the generation, so I had plenty of opportunity to compare it to friends PS2s

Re: Getting lost in this discussion.

[trdrstv]

And then you make it impossible to compare scores from the two consoles and impossible to play online between the two consoles.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Are we still talking about Final Fantasy XIII? Isn't it still a single player game?

Re: Wii VC DRM...

[trdrstv]

The more I wait for one, the less I want one... the less compelling reasons I have for getting one, that is... the VC is nice, but not _that_ nice yet... and they're pretty draconian about what console they are tied to and where you can copy them, etc.

At least that's what I've read...

Yeah the DRM is even less restrictive than the 360's which was already pretty tight. The thing is you can copy the files to an SD card and put where ever, but you can only play the games off of the internal memory of the Wii, and only on the system you bought the games on.

There is a download history stored (on the server) so you can always re-download something you purchased, and in the cases of Wii's getting Warranty work, Nintendo has been able to transfer your purchase history to the new Wii, but currently that is it.

So with the cost / value proposition stated above you have to ask is each VC game worth the cost to play given the above factors? 4.7 million downloads so far... and about 10 are mine...

360 hardware is the reason

[phishen]

I would love for Square to make FF for 360 because then I could have Blue Dragon and FF. Only problem with 360 is that they are always breaking! Everyone I know with a 360 has gotten the red ring and I see reports of it all the time. The demo unit at Target had it just the other day! I will never buy a 360 no matter what game is on it or exclusively on it if they can't make them stop breaking like that. My Wii runs like a charm.

PS2 = shitty hardware

[MMaestro]

The PS2 has shitty graphics once you got away from the FMVs. Slowdowns, lack of anti-aliasing and pixelation were all rampant in PS2 games if you had a good TV or had plenty of experience gaming on the PC.

And the PS3 was advertised as the second coming of video game graphics. Instead, we got sub-Xbox360 graphics and a series of cross-platform ports. The Cell processor (if you know how to program for it) is literally next-gen, yet we get current-gen level graphics. Sony fucked up plain and simply.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[7Prime]

Honestly, am I the only person who thinks that, regardless of horsepower and snazzy mapping effects, hardware anti-aliasing is the SINGLE most graphically enhancing thing out there? Seriously, the difference between the GC and PS2, at least to me, is like night and day because of it.

I saw Need for Speed: Carbon, on the PS3... and I swear, with all the flickering (on a large screen HD display), it looked like it STILL didn't have anti-aliasing. I'm going out on a limb here and am going to say that any Wii game, in 480p mode with anti-aliasing, looks better than a PS3 game at 1080p without it... regardless of what kind of gimicks they use.

If it turns out the PS3 doesn't have hardware anti-aliasing, I'm going to laugh.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[seaturnip]

Of course the PS3 has hardware anti-aliasing. The 360 and PS3 are about 10x as powerful as the previous gen. However, developers are given the option of turning it off if they want to use the antialiasing hardware for other purposes. (Not everyone agrees with you about antialiasing trumping anything else.)

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[7Prime]

I've never seen a situation in which anti-alaiasing is a BAD thing. No matter how fine your resolution is, antialiasing reduces flicker during motion, as well as increasing percieved resolution.

I think most people don't know what anti-aliasing is, exactly, and what it can do. But the difference very is apparent at the subconscious level.

I'm playing Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria, right now, on the PS2. Arguably the best graphics on the system (way above FF12 in quality, for instance). But the lack of anti-aliasing is still a bit problem. every time movement stops, everything looks beautiful, but every time you move, all the diagonal lines and finer details just flicker as they scan along, and it's very hard on the eyes. The unfortunate thing about this is that the more detailed the graphics, the more flicker is going to become a problem.

An anti-aliased game just looks more polished. It's why no PS2 game could ever quite look as good as a GameCube game, no matter how detailed they made the models (well that, and the lack of lighting effects).

And from what I've heard, no, the PS3 doesn't have it built-in, but MOST software developers code it into their games. The XBox, 360, GameCube, and Wii, however, all have anti-aliasing subroutines built into the platform.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[seaturnip]

Of course anti-antialiasing always looks better, what I'm saying is that there's a framerate hit when you turn it on, and one might prefer to have either higher FPS or some other effect (e.g. Multiple Render Target-based bloom and DOF) instead.

Full-scene anti-aliasing isn't done on the CPU and it's not hand-coded into shaders either -- it's a GPU render state flag -- so I think you're misunderstanding something if you use the word "subroutine". I'm not sure you entirely know what antialiasing is either, since it's very apparent in stills, and it counters jaggies, not "flicker".

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[7Prime]

Anti-aliasing essentially takes neighboring pixels, such as those in between every pixel on a diagonal, and makes them a semi-transparent color of the internal edge, thus approximating "half way to being the edge". What results is a pixel-based structure that represents more geometery than the exact location of all the pixels. Probably not a very clear way of describing it, but I don't know a better way without grabbing a sheet of graph paper and making a diagram.

Flicker occurs when "jaggies" (to use layman's terms) change their geometeric structure, usually by the simple rotatation of a diagonal line, or finely detailed texture. If you can dimish or completely stop jaggies from occuring through anti-aliasing, you also kill the flickering that occurs from the result of it's rotation. So yes, anti-aliasing, does, in fact, reduce flicker, tremendously.

There is a small similarity between anti-aliasing and interlace flicker filters used on NTSC displays, although an interlace flicker filter is much more simplistic and just a vertical gaussian blur applied to an image. But interlace flicker and alias flicker stem from similar problems with displaying abrupt edges on a pixel-based display.

Video doesn't share this problem because the chip on a video camera already acounts for neighboring pixels. But in a 3D graphics envirnoment, not accounting for neighboring pixels will create jaggies and huge amounts of flicker.

And obviously, no, anti-aliasing doesn't reduce framerate if you have the horsepower to do it. It's extremely graphically intesive because you're forcing the computer to calculate geometetric positions far more detailed than the screen resolution itself. But I can make a strong case that anti-aliased graphics appear to be much higher resolution than the same graphics at 4 or 5 times the ACTUAL resolution. If you would like, I could go into more detail.

As a graphic designer, I have to know a certain amount about the ins and outs of the visual perception of graphics.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

developers are given the option of turning it off if they want to use the antialiasing hardware for other purposes.

Actually, on 360, some form of antialiasing is required by Microsoft for all games, no exceptions. Obviously the easiest way to meet that requirement is to simply use the dedicated hardware...

I don't remember what the policy is for PS3, but I'd expect it to be the same. Lack of antialiasing on a decent HDTV really destroys the image quality :) (try Gran Turismo 4 on PS2 to see 1080i without AA!)

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[seaturnip]

"jitter" is a better term for the motion jaggy artifacts you're talking about. "Flicker" generally implies something is rapidly flickering on and off.

And obviously, no, anti-aliasing doesn't reduce framerate if you have the horsepower to do it.

This statement doesn't make sense in context. Most games exploit all the resources available and never have free horsepower left over, so yes turning on antialiasing will reduce framerate (unless there is a big bottleneck on the CPU or memory bandwidth).

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[7Prime]

This statement doesn't make sense in context. Most games exploit all the resources available and never have free horsepower left over, so yes turning on antialiasing will reduce framerate (unless there is a big bottleneck on the CPU or memory bandwidth).

That's completely untrue. Most games use nothing near the power output of a modern console. I remember Nintendo complaining, a while back, that noone had really tried to push the GameCube as far as it can go... and it's pretty damn obvious.

Now there is SOME truth to that, but only in the fact that programmers, if they have a lot of power, get lazy and use code that takes a lot of power instead of streamlining the code down. That's actually one of the reasons why I prefer console gaming, because it eventually forces programmers to start really writing good clean code, in order to make "state-of-the-art" games, even when a console is 4 years old (where as, with a computer, they just throw in a newer video card, and call it good).

If you look at the huge difference in quality on one console, it's pretty hard to say that all those games couldn't use anti-aliasing because they were ALL using up all the horsepower. No. It takes A LOT of design work to be able to create enough models to really eat up graphical processing power, most companies don't have the resources to create enough models to come close to using up the horsepower on even something as underpowered as a PS2.

And the bottom line is, with a bit of work, some graphical tricks, and just plain cleaner design, a 480p game on the Wii can look just as good as a game on the PS3, the programmers just have to be on their toes a bit more... and a lot don't want to have to be.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[donaldm]

I have a HDTV (only 37") that will display and enhance standard definition input (composite or AV and S video) so if I play a GameCube game the graphics comes out as "good" to "not bad" and the same is true for my PS2 games. From my personal perspective it can be quite hard to pick the difference although I would definitely concede that the GC graphics for the games I have are marginally better than some of my PS2 games but not all.

Enter the 60GB PS3 (Australian) which I recently purchased for a very good deal (US$400 + PS2 and 10 PS2 games trade-in). Put on V1.7 firmware and most of my PS2 games still played but I could not notice any graphical enhancement. A few days later I put on the V1.8 firmware and the graphical improvement on my PS1 and PS2 games (all except 2 of my games play now) was remarkable since they were now upscaled with smoothing to 720p or 1080i via component or HDMI. Even DVD's are upscaled via HDMI and the result is also remarkable. With the V1.8 firmware the PS3 will now upscale PS1/2 games to 1080p but my HDTV does not support that so I cannot comment.

I still play the GC (Metroid and Zelda) but if you compare it's graphics against the PS3 upscaled PS2 games it is now no contest since the PS2 games just look better to the point that I am now replying many of my favourate PS2 games. IMHO the only downside of the PS3 is it's lack of PS3 games but since I can play graphically enhanced PS2 games I can wait. Even some of my PS1 games are now graphically acceptable on my HDTV.

The problem many people have with the PS3 and the Xbox360 is choosing a decent HDTV and I would be very wary of "HD ready" because your TV must support 720p at the minimum to qualify as a HDTV. Just because you have a large screen does not necessarily mean it is a HDTV in-fact once you look at getting a HDTV over 47" you really should look at 1080p but that is going to be more expensive. Re your post I cannot comment on screen flickering since I have never seen it on my TV but then I prefer RPG's and Action Adventure games.

My recommendation to anyone at the moment is if you have the money and want a gaming/home entertainment system get a decent HDTV first but do some serious homework before you buy and I can't repeat this often enough make sure your HDTV has HDMI and supports as a base minimum 720p. IMHO any HDTV less than 32" should be relegated to the kids room (if you have any) but then this does depend on your disposable income.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[seaturnip]

"Lazy" programming, or in other words, code that was as optimized as possible given the deadline. The point is that all the hardware is used, whether efficiently or no.

It's kind of ridiculous to claim that the problem is that game programmers love to sit on their asses and be lazy. The massive overwork and crunch times in the game industry are legendary. Have some sense of the tradeoffs involved here.

And no, no amount of "graphical tricks" and "cleaner design" can counter a something like 10x difference in power between two consoles. Just go look up the specs on Wikipedia, count the cores and compare the clock speeds. Now I agree that cartoony/abstract art design can make Wii games look good, but in terms of sheer detail output there can never be any comparison between it and the other next-gen consoles.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[7Prime]

Note that most of the "crunch" does NOT come from coding, but from the artists/designers. Games, these days, are about 90% art/design, and 10% coding.

And sure game design can counter 10x difference in power. In the opinion of myself, and most people who have played it, Okami is one of the greatest looking games ever made. That was a PS2 game. The graphical "trick" in this case, was coming up with a style that was so wonderful, in it's own right, that it completely overcame a lack of horsepower.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[Sciros]

Graphical fidelity can greatly complement or improve many games, though. A new Resident Evil title, for instance, which relies in large part on realism to produce its indended "boo" effect, has more potential in that regard if developed for PS3/360 than Wii.

Crunch time in MANY games doesn't rely on artists/designers as much as you say, but on the script writers, QA personnel, and random other stuff like voice recording and sound editing. An MMO I alpha tested, for instance, frequently had visual assets ready to go early on, and the actual quest creation and voices came later. Sure, various weapon designs, a few monsters and NPCs, etc., came late in the game. But creating all the dialogue, quest markers, and other "busy work" of that nature is what's saved for last I noticed.

Some games are 90% artists/designers and 10% coding, but many, particularly MMORPGs (multiplayer implementation, all the quest scripts, tons of complex UI interfaces, etc.) I think involve a bit more coding and much of it gets left for later.

Thinking about it, I'd say "crunch" time is basically what game devs leave "knowns" for as opposed to unknowns. Things that have more uncertainty w.r.t. schedule, etc. are taken care of first, and the busy work people are familiar with is left for last, whatever it may be.

Back to the PS3/360 vs Wii, since Resident Evil characters have the mobility of a peg-legged pirate, perhaps the Wiimote aiming is a more welcome feature than higher graphics fidelity :-P but that's a different topic.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[7Prime]

I have a nice 19" Samsung HDTV that I bought a few months back, and to double as a computer monitor. Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can afford something like a 37" HDTV. Hell, I paid a good $440 for mine, and that was probably more than I should have. Anyway, it is true HD, though it doesn't have an HD tuner (which is fine, since I can't get TV reception in my cabin anyway).

Now, I am interested in the rescaling of PS2 games on the PS3, but from what I've understood is that there's no smoothing going on (except for maybe 2D graphics), but just model resizing. If there's some anti-aliasing going on, that would be great, but I haven't heard anything to that extent.

Re:PS2 = shitty hardware

[rtechie]

Nobody is claiming that the PS2 had better graphics that PCs (even at launch) or the XBOX. The claim is that while the Gamecube technically had better hardware than the PS2, most games looked better on the PS2. Especially multiplatform games. I generally agree with this statement. With a handful of exceptions, most notably Resident Evil 4, PS2 games looked slightly better than Gamecube games.

I'd also like to address one other point: The deranged notion that most games don't use 100% of a console's resources. his statement must come from someone who knows nothing about game design. Ever hear the term "polygon budget"? Typcally games are "envisioned" and then that vision is pared down to accomodate the limitations of the console and the programming environment. That last bit is key. What happens during a console cycle is NOT the designers suddenly start using parts of the console they weren't before, but that they get better at utilizing he console's resources because the programming environment improves.

I'll concede that some launch games for consoles may not utilize all of the console's resources, but that's because those particular games were rushed and were created before the programmers knew how to write for the console. There also might be games released that just aren't that computationally intensive. Guitar Hero strikes me as an example with it's relatively simple graphics and gameplay.

Not Flamebait

[MMaestro]

Its not flamebait because one developer, even one as big as SquareEnix, cannot single-handedly hold up a console.

A number of developers have either jumped ship (Capcom is pretty happy with Dead Rising sales), went cross-platform (Devil May Cry 4) or aren't putting all their eggs in one basket (SquareEnix announced Dragon Quest/Warrior 9 for the DS and several Final Fantasy spin-offs for the DS and the Wii.) Unless Sony suddenly creates (first-party) the next Mario; the PS3's outlook is bleak.

Re:Not Flamebait

[ivan256]

Just because you agree with it doesn't mean it's flamebait.

Nobody is asking a single developer to hold up the PS3. If the PS3 needed that, this wouldn't even be a question, FF13 would be on the 360. The problem is that outside the US the 360 may as well not even exist.

Re:Not Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

If the 360 gets a price cut it's going to start outselling the PS3 in Japan. Not by much, but enough to make it clear that the PS3 is irrelevant.

Re:Not Flamebait

[MMaestro]

The problem is that outside the US the 360 may as well not even exist.

Except for the fact that the 360 is doing fairly well in Europe (not sure about Australia). Japan is really the only market that hasn't gotten over the anti-Microsoft/Xbox/they're-not-making-game-genre- X sentiment and adopted the system.

Re:Not Flamebait

[ivan256]

It's doing fairly well in the UK. It's doing horribly in Europe.

In March Microsoft predicted 12 million consoles sold worldwide by the end of June, but by their numbers they've sold less than a million since Christmas.

Re:Not Flamebait

[ivan256]

If it's the harddrive-less 360 basic that gets the price cut (It's already being sold way below list as brand new on overstock auction sites, and people aren't bidding) The only thing that will happen is a large, collective point and laugh.

Chrono trigger for Wii Download!!!

[jamie(really)]

That would rule! I would so buy it.

I think they are dead-ending themselves by going high-end graphics etc. I never bought a Square game because of the graphics. I bought them because they were engaging and addictive. In fact they pretty much lost me after the Super Nintendo. If they would drop the high-end requirement they could do simultaneous development on 360/PS3 using (gasp) an engine, or they could do Wii. The reason Square isnt just Square is because of that movie fiasco. Hopefully they'll dig themselves a whole trying to make movies on the PS3, and someone will buy them and bitch slap them into making Wii games.

I know. Its not really the same company is it? I can but dream.

PvP in a primarily 1-player game

[tepples]

and impossible to play online between the two consoles. Are we still talking about Final Fantasy XIII? Isn't it still a single player game? Some single-player games still allow for occasional item trading or PvP skirmishes. These include at least Nintendo's Pokémon RPGs.

Re: Wii VC DRM...

[Doctor_Jest]

Great. If it works for you, that's fine. For the record, I didn't mention the 360's live arcade, but that doesn't mean I endorse it over the Wii's. (I own the live arcade game disk they came out with a while back... that's it. I refuse to "rent" games...)

The least restrictive I've seen so far is Sony's... it's tied to your account more than the machine, and you can redownload it no problem... (that is IMPOSSIBLE without a lot of ass-chewing on MS side... don't know about Nintendo... but it sounds just as stupid.)

Until they lay off the bloody DRM... they can have their VC.

Just because 4.7 million downloads have occurred... that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Re: Wii VC DRM...

[Doctor_Jest]

Oddly, something else that caught my attention was the only able to play on internal Wii memory... I don't get that... that is indeed odd... *shrug*

Ah well... Their lineup on the VC is impressive (of the bunches I've seen released so far..) but the DRM is bugging me to no end.

Doesn't matter anyway... I can't find a Wii... and I think after this discussion, I'll stop looking.

Go multiplatform!

[wolfing]

I just don't know why they *must* be console exclusives. Sure, it's how they've done in the past, but then, this is a completely different market situation than what they've had in most of their releases. Here, you have 3 distinct players: The wildly successful but technologically challenged Wii, the 'western player majority' Xbox360, and the low sales high priced PS3. None of the 3 options is the 'right choice'. I think the old 'exclusive' games should be relegated (in this day and age) to first party games, as showcases of their console, while 3rd party should just go multi-platform. But even this decision is not the final one to make. After you decide going multi-platform, do you include the Wii or not? Its sales numbers certainly tempt you that way, but its far inferior technical capabilities make it so you have to 'downgrade' your game, thus risking another company to pull a 'FF killer' that only works in HD on the 360 and PS3.

Re: Wii VC DRM...

[trdrstv]

Great. If it works for you, that's fine. For the record, I didn't mention the 360's live arcade, but that doesn't mean I endorse it over the Wii's. (I own the live arcade game disk they came out with a while back... that's it. I refuse to "rent" games...)

You own them, not rent them. Unless of course you're of the mindset where you "rent beer" and don't own it either, then I understand. You pay a nominal fee for a restricted copy of a game, and it's yours to play (or anyone in your household) until such time that your Wii parts from this earth. (Assuming it does after nintendo stops supporting the hardware, which they do for several years after they stop making software for it).

The least restrictive I've seen so far is Sony's... it's tied to your account more than the machine, and you can redownload it no problem... (that is IMPOSSIBLE without a lot of ass-chewing on MS side... don't know about Nintendo... but it sounds just as stupid.)

Though I can't speak about the PS3's online service (you'll have to clarify for me as I don't own one) I'm confused about your stance with the 360. It is not impossible to redownload content you paid for on the 360, in fact it's quite easy. If you delete it you can go back and pull it down from the store free of charge. Nintendo's VC works the same way, and it couldn't be simpler.

Where the 360 differs, is in addition to licencing the content to you the specific machine it licences it to your gamertag. Meaning the original purchaser doesn't have to be logged into that xbox to access content purchased by that person. The whole household gets it. In addition, if that person were to log onto another person's Xbox they would have access to all content they bought while they were logged in. This is why you can move your gamertag profile to a memory card, and not copy it (to discourage mass sharing). It should also be noted that any downloadable game (from Sony, MS, Nintendo) have no resale value, nor can you return them for a refund. That is uniform across the board.

Can you clarify what Sony does? Does it lock it to the PS3, a user profile, or both? How does it handle the PSP connectivity? Do you have to register each PSP to the PS3 for licensing?

Until they lay off the bloody DRM... they can have their VC.

Out of curosity, what level of DRM would you support? You stated Sony's as best so far, but what you described is alot like what MS is doing, and you don't support that so... What would you support?

Re: Wii VC DRM...

[trdrstv]

Oddly, something else that caught my attention was the only able to play on internal Wii memory... I don't get that... that is indeed odd... *shrug*

That is currently the case. The Wii has 512 megs of internal storage and that's where all the Channels load from (including the VC games). The files sizes however are still quite small so you can have a lot of games on it. The SD card reader is available to backup games (I have a 2 gig SD card and it works fine.) but they cannot be played directly from the SD card at this time. If you delete the VC games you can always restore them from the SD card, or re-download them free of charge.

Currently I don't have any issue with the system as it's fine for the VC games (as they are smaller), I only hope full fledge Wii games start using the SD card for storage when they start adding DLC like map packs and stuff.

Re: Wii VC DRM...

[Doctor_Jest]

I support none. itunes is the most unobtrusive (and easiest to get rid of if need be)... but I still have no idea why DRM exists at all... it simply makes the legitimate purchaser out to be a common criminal. If you don't think so, that's fine. I simply hate the idea that DRM has to exist when stores like eMusic have 0 drm and are doing fine (I in fact buy most of my music from them, that I don't buy on physical CD). And _NO_ before anyone gets the wrong idea.. I'm not against DRM because I love bittorrent or usenet for all my content... I simply feel that it is a waste of money for companies to try, and each time they make an "unbreakable" one, it gets broken... and all that money they wasted trying to make me out to be a criminal could be better served with making more reliable consoles, and perhaps cheaper ones...

I have yet to experience MS' redownload, so I can't say... (I've not had a dead console... and MS's stance is as close to impossible as you can get tying it to machine _AND_ gamertag...that was my original point) I'm going on the many reports that I've read online and from friends who've had similar situations.. it's a convoluted mess at times, to be perfectly honest. For someone who has a new console that wants to be able to use it at Grandma's without having to be logged in is kinda out of the question without the "dummy profile" stuff that MS uses as a workaround to their OWN drm.

I have not found that to be the case with my PS3. Should that ever change, I will most likely not use its store at all either (for what little I do use it... I'm not much on the idea yet...) Licensing to a particular machine is what I expect most likely to bite me in the ass in the future. Consoles don't last, and God knows, Microsoft's machine has been a pile... when that occurs, having to be logged in because my original Xbox is dead in order to play DLC is pathetic. Sorry.. it simply mirrors their attempts at "rental" they've been trying to foist since they test marketed "software rentals" in Europe (Office)... You don't own it unless you're able to do with it what you will. Copy a CD? Sure. Loan it to a friend? Sure. Make backups to your computer? Sure. Everything else is just an assault on Fair use. And yes, I do support the EFF. ;)

Who knows? Maybe Sony does as well, and I just don't know it yet. But like I said in the beginning... ANY DRM is shit. It does nothing to prevent the determined... it just makes me feel like I'm being treated as an untrustworthy nutjob who will turn on the poor corporation at any moment. If they don't trust me with their precious content, why should I trust them with my money?

NO content is worth that hassle. Not even Tekken 5.