Final Fantasy XIII on Xbox as well

[D.R. Payne]

Wow! Sucks to be Sony today.

 

[MinusTheBear]

Damn, this came out of left field. Chalk one up to Microsoft. Was this Sony's only exclusive RPG? Stuff like this really hurts Sony, they need as many exclusive games as possible. It seems Sony cannot get a leg up on Microsoft when it comes to games. Square Enix just royally screwed Sony.

 

[Mw`]

Makes you wonder how things went down behind the scenes...talk about a gut-shot.

 

[gus6464]

It's weird that they are porting XIII but keeping VS XIII as PS3 exclusive.

 

[j_garcia]

This was alluded to last year when it was foretold that MGS4 would be one of the last "big" exclusive titles because of the size of budgets for games these days. A title has to sell a LOT to recoup what they are spending to produce, and that means to sell more titles, more and more will be multi-platform. There will still be exclusives I am sure, but fewer of them going forward.

 

[snappy_snoopy]

I am happy either way, i can wait to play mgs4 or ff xiii on my 360, as i do not have a ps3 yet but will probably get one sooner or later just for the blue ray player

 

[j_garcia]

MGS4 won't be coming to the 360. That has been stated quite clearly by Kojima himself.

FFXIII will be on both, but I read there 360 release will not be day and date, it will come after it has already been out on the PS3 for a while.

 

[obscbyclouds]

This was alluded to last year when it was foretold that MGS4 would be one of the last "big" exclusive titles because of the size of budgets for games these days. A title has to sell a LOT to recoup what they are spending to produce, and that means to sell more titles, more and more will be multi-platform. There will still be exclusives I am sure, but fewer of them going forward.

This seems obvious as games get bigger and more complex. BUT, I think it's bad for the consumers and Sony. Here's why:

1.) It holds developers back from using all the benefits of the PS3's superior hardware so the game(s) can be ported for 360.

2.) I think most people who have both systems will purchase the games released for both on X360. I usually do for two reasons: Online play is typically better on Xbox live and the achievement system.

3.) it simple leads to less title development. Less competition = less truly good games.

 

[j_garcia]

You have an acheivement system on PSN now, though I haven't tried it.

 

[abboudc]

This seems obvious as games get bigger and more complex. BUT, I think it's bad for the consumers and Sony. Here's why:

1.) It holds developers back from using all the benefits of the PS3's superior hardware so the game(s) can be ported for 360.

Third party developers typically focus on the bigger installed base first, then portability second. The port is typically done by the "B" team. The problem so far for Sony is the 360 has a larger installed base and thus games are coded for it then ported to the PS3.

2.) I think most people who have both systems will purchase the games released for both on X360. I usually do for two reasons: Online play is typically better on Xbox live and the achievement system.

Most people don't have both systems, the purchasing patterns thus far are being dictated by installed base. For those that do have both, most people are picking the better version. The only third party game i've seen better on PS3 is Oblivion. EA Sports games run at twice the framerate on the 360, and other games like GTA IV offered exclusive content. Xbox Live is light years ahead of PSN currently, though that was to be expected i guess. At least PSN is free.