Why FFXV and Kingdom Hearts 3 should have been exclusive

Now, we know that SE have been weird this gen, mostly due to MS's checks and Ex-CEO Mr. Wada. I do not want them to be like this again for the next-gen console cycle, but it seems they will be anyway as they are starting off in the wrong foot. I want them to be great again and have the fans loving them again as well. They will not be that way if they keep making the same mistakes.

I read this article and it seemed to have great points http://www.junkiemonkeys.co...

"Kingdom Hearts and Kingdom Hearts II were groundbreaking titles that rocked the PlayStation 2 over a decade ago. It still doesn't make sense; chosen to release their upcoming Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix exclusively on the PlayStation 3. It's weird that Square Enix would choose to release an HD collection on one console and release Kingdom Hearts III on the Xbox One and PlayStation 4.I just do not understand the logic behind SE's decision other than money, money, money."

If they want to release KH3 for Xbox one, why in the world is Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix not out on Xbox 360? If gamers want to get KH3 for xbox one and it's their only console, those who only owned the Xbox brand in their past will not know the backstory! Doesn't Square-Enix care about them to understand the whole story? If they never played the KH games and only owned the Xbox, why would they suddenly care about KH3 when it releases? Especially, since, Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix is only on PS3?

Now, it seems the obvious reason for them to make both games multi-platform was to make the most money, but that logic is wrong right now and I'll explain why.

First, lets look at the sales for FF13
PS3 4.96m
360 1.96m

The sales were dominate 5:2.

Now at FF13-2
PS3 2.34m
360 650,00

You see the sales for PS3 were again dominate even more 4:1.

I expect FF13 Lightning Returns to be as dominating for PS3 with the 4:1 ratio. I don't see a reason why it won't change, and the biggest JRPG fans own a PS3.

With the extra budgeting plans that developers have to do with the process of making a game multi-platform, this domination of sales shown is not worth it. If they make it for one platform, they can release the game quicker, and this will be able to have them releasing more games overall, which would make them even more profit and we the consumers enjoy more great games. Remember we had games delayed about at least 5 months because they decided to make a game multi-platform; FF13 and Rayman Legends come to mind. Not only that, the games quality will increase because they will focus and use the full power of one system, which will create an even better game, resulting in higher reviews and creating even more sales.

Second, currently the Xbox one and PS4 sales is at zero. Now, based on polls, customer demand and response, we will know there be a much higher quantity of PS4s sold. I can guarantee you that if FFXV and KH3 were mentioned as exclusives, there would be a lot more PS4s sold, and I am talking way before and just as the games would of released. Those are games people would buy a system for, especially if both of them were exclusive. Many people have mentioned they have first bought the PS3 for one of the reasons to play FF13VS; way before the game was set in stone on when it will come out. The proof is there. If both these games released only on PS4 and were both great, a very high quantity of PS4s would have been sold. The PS4 is also the cheaper platform, more consumers will get it anyhow, so overall their profit would have been huge as the PS4 console would have dominated in sales, SE wouldn't have to worry about getting their investment back. These games as exclusives would have been a huge turning point for SONY, it was because of their platform SE became big. (I said big, not started) Like I said, their profits would be fine.

Also SE, you have blacklisted SONY this gen. Released multiple console exclusives for the Xbox brand, while taking away SONY's exclusives as well. Do them and the fans some service, release console exclusives for them. FF14 doesn't count as MS didn't want it on their systems and re-releasing old games does not count either. MS won't even have Xbox One available in your home country until after a year, that doesn't offend you or even care?

Just make the right choice and make at least one of these games exclusive.

[DEATHxTHExKIDx]

FF13 Lightning Returns to be as dominating for PS3 not PS4.

ANYWAY I understand where ur coming from but, as long as the games are good I think fans will be ok. I dont think they can go back and make either one exclusive now.

[FamilyGuy]

2 Million copies sold of ff13 is nothing to scoff at and neither is the fact that M$ HAD a larger install base at that time, as well as them basically writing a check to fund it into its multiplatform state. Also, many PS2 owners jumped ship to the xbox 360 this gen so saying they probably didn't play it isn't all that true.

Other than that this blog is pretty logical but a good game is a good game. You don't need to know the back story if it's good enough. People will buy it regardless.

I think FF15 should have remained exclusive as that was what it was claimed to be when they showed it to us as ffvs13. It's been delayed to holy hell already, why make it take even longer going multiplatform? -_-

SE doesn't care about it's fan base, they're just like M$.

[Skips]

"I think FF15 should have remained exclusive as that was what it was claimed to be when they showed it to us as ffvs13."

^^^ This

I know a stupidly huge amount of people who bought a PS3 SPECIFICALLY for FFVS XIII. And ever since they heard the news about it shifting to PS4 and it ALSO being on Xbox One.

They were all like... WTF??? REAAALLLY?!?!

lol

What worries me more is Square trying to appeal more to the western market (limiting their creativity) and not just doing their own thing ala FF XIII being influenced by Call Of Duty.

Square cutting content for FF XIII (supposedly an entire games worth), saying they were influenced by Call Of Duty, and then finally releasing FF XIII for the 360. I knew something was up...

What worries me even FURTHER is KH 3 supposedly having MP. >: O

Let's just hope FF XV and Kingdom Hearts 3 don't suffer the same fate as FF XIII. : /

[Man-E-Faces]

Some of this blame is on Sony as well, if you know you have a big third party exclusive that draws interest to your platform you need/try to pony up the cash and help development and advertisement cost, like Microsoft did with Gears for 360 life cycle if not why would a third party care about platform exclusivity. Imagine if MGS5 was exclusive to PS4 and was unveiled at this year's e3 instead of it being multiplat now, did Sony not see the impact MGS4 had with PS3 owners and the excitement it brought to the console when PS3 was getting blasted with the no games stigma.
Deep Down looks promising and Capcom may be open to keep it exclusive to PS4 but will Sony even care to help out there? As for FF15, Square is just a snake, if you state a game is exclusive you need to honor your word, Square led PS3 gamers on and flipped them the finger by going multiplat now. Why didn't they just put it on PS3 and PS4 and have a much bigger audience to sell to with PS3's install base which could be 100+ million by the time this game releases.

[DragonKnight]

"Some of this blame is on Sony as well, if you know you have a big third party exclusive that draws interest to your platform you need/try to pony up the cash and help development and advertisement cost, like Microsoft did with Gears for 360 life cycle if not why would a third party care about platform exclusivity."

Absolutely wrong. It isn't Sony's responsibility to make up for SE's shortcomings by funding their projects. The exclusivity contract likely already provided them with funding as it is, Sony has no responsibility to provide more.

What's more, Sony can possibly have the legal right to sue Square-Enix for promising an exclusive title that they didn't deliver.

"Imagine if MGS5 was exclusive to PS4 and was unveiled at this year's e3 instead of it being multiplat now, did Sony not see the impact MGS4 had with PS3 owners and the excitement it brought to the console when PS3 was getting blasted with the no games stigma."

It's not Sony's fault that MGS5 is multiplat. That's the decision of Konami, and Konami alone. How do you know that Sony didn't approach them with a deal that Konami turned down? You don't.

"Deep Down looks promising and Capcom may be open to keep it exclusive to PS4 but will Sony even care to help out there?"

Again, not their responsibility.

The only responsibility the platform holders have is to A)Provide the platform, and B)Make an enticing offer. Beyond that, it's the publishers concern.

[darthv72]

but they all lead to the same conclusion. Money is exchanged in return for the exclusive rights to a title.

A) the developer/publisher approaches the platform holder with the proposition of if you back this project, we will give you exclusive rights to distribute it.

B) the platform holder approaches the dev/pub with the proposition of let us fund your project in exchange for the right to exclusively distribute.

Both case may seem the same but it is dependent on who moves first. If the platform holder moves first it is the example of buying exclusivity. If the dev/pub moves first it is the example of invested or funded exclusivity.

Buying and investing/funding are the same but seen from different points of view.

Now there are reasons why a game can be funded but still not exclusive. It could be the contract between the platform holder and the dev/pub could not be agreed upon. Like for example, too much control over the distribution leaning one way or the other.

smaller companies are more prone to allowing the bigger "investor" call the shots if it means their project sees the light of day. In the case of a bigger company dealing with the "investor" they base the amount of control on the initial investment.

Obviously if the project is 100% investor funded then that company has to abide by the contract. Even if it is 50% funded it would be in the best interest of the contract to abide by it. But if the initial investment is less than half, that company can approach (or be approached) by another investor to help fund it. thus we get multiplatform games where there should be exclusives.

The bigger the 3rd party dev/pub is, the less likely exclusives are warranted unless it is a specific type of game that only appeals to a certain demographic (ie, a touch based game in 3D would be more for the 3DS than the vita).

for the most part 3rd party games try to go for as much return on investment as they can. Which implies they are distributed to as many platforms as are fitting to support the product.

[Man-E-Faces]

'' It isn't Sony's responsibility to make up for SE's shortcomings by funding their projects. The exclusivity contract likely already provided them with funding as it is, Sony has no responsibility to provide more.''

If Sony's not helping out then don't expect the game to remain exclusive, regardless of Square mismanagement. And you assume there was a contract or that Sony gave even a penny or offered any help for FF15 exclusivity, you tell me I am wrong yet make up your own opinions and state them as facts.

''How do you know that Sony didn't approach them with a deal that Konami turned down? You don't.''

And you don't know if Sony even tried either, so your argument there is meaningless.

''The only responsibility the platform holders have is to A)Provide the platform, and B)Make an enticing offer.''

So you admit in point B that it's Sony job to make an enticing offer yet my whole post pretty much stated just that. If you want a game exclusive pony up the cash or help in the development, that is in essence what would be considered an enticing offer to a third party.

[DragonKnight]

"If Sony's not helping out then don't expect the game to remain exclusive, regardless of Square mismanagement. And you assume there was a contract or that Sony gave even a penny or offered any help for FF15 exclusivity, you tell me I am wrong yet make up your own opinions and state them as facts."

Why should Sony provide continued aid beyond what any agreement would require? It's foolish to assume that Sony is in the business of developer charity just to maintain an exclusive. Again, it's SE's responsibility, not Sony's.

"And you don't know if Sony even tried either, so your argument there is meaningless."

My argument is only as meaningless as the meaningless point you brought up that I was responding to.

"So you admit in point B that it's Sony job to make an enticing offer yet my whole post pretty much stated just that. If you want a game exclusive pony up the cash or help in the development, that is in essence what would be considered an enticing offer to a third party."

An enticing offer =/= 7 years of funding. Learn the difference.

[bobtheimpaler]

At this point I don't think it matters. The 360 and the PS3 was in a different environment at the time ffxiii came out...With the way things are going with the differences between the PS4 and XBOne, I don't see people who are into JRPGs picking up an xbone anyway. The xbox mainly appeals to a completely different demographic.

Same with MGS5. I also doubt sony would want to spend a lot of money trying to win exclusivity of a 3rd party develped game when it will probably be more rewarding for them to come up with a new exclusive IP. Development costs are expensive and I'm sure they would have conducted cost benefit analysis to see which option would be better worth their time.

This is just square trying to recoup their costs by releasing on more than one system.

[project_pat36]

I could care less about multi plat release. I had both ps3 and 360 at the time of launch of ff13 and 13-2. Because I loved final fantasy, I opted for the ps3 versions. The same goes for Tekken. I feel that games who originated on one system, should stay on that one system. In the case that does not happen, I just get the game for the system it should've been exclusive to.

list of game franchises that used to be ps only, that I still only bought for ps :)

DMC4
DMC Reboot
Final Fantasy 13
Final Fantasy 13-2
Tekken 6
Tekken Tag Tournament 2
MGS

List of game franchises I bought on 360 that used to be exclusive

Dead or Alive 5...

Both lists obviously have more to them but FML, why waste time posting it all when this post will only get 3-4 agrees, and about 12 disagrees, respectively.

Just me though. How about you?

[Kalowest]

I don't find Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix and FFX/X-2 not being released on 360 weird. Both were coded for the PS2.
Some ppl will say like at the Silent Hill and ZoE HD collections, they were able to make 360 ports, true; But you can't say those Collections were really good(The SH collection problems weren't even patched on the 360 also).

[Nate-Dog]

It's inevitable that these games (particularly Kingdom Hearts 3) will sell better on a Playstation console than on any other, but that doesn't mean bringing the game to another console won't be profitable to them. These systems are supposed to be a lot easier to develop for together than the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 were. I've been waiting years for Versus and it looks like we might actually get it soon so I'm not going to complain. The game looks great, and the more people that get to play and enjoy it, the better.

Also I don't know what you mean about Square "blacklisting" Sony this generation, it is well known that Square and Sony have a very good relationship. That being said something obviously changed in their plans as Versus was planned to be exclusive to Playstation, but look at how poor a generation they have had. Final Fantasy XIII being in development for 5 years before being released, FFXIV holding up development of all their other HD projects and having to be re-released because of the ridiculous number of issues with the first version of it being released, etcetera.

Nomura (unfortunately) has already spoken about making direct sequels to XV, so if XV was a PS4 exclusive then all the sequels would need to be too wouldn't they? That's a lot of possible revenue for SE to miss out on from possible sales on other systems. Also don't forget that Nomura has hinted at PC versions for these games too: with Wada stepping down and Matsuda taking the reigns after such a bad generation things had to change.

Don't be such a fanboy all the time Dathreats.

[TopDudeMan]

Sorry, but all I'm seeing here is "wah wah wah, I'm a fan boy wah wah wah." You give no good reason why it shouldn't be multiplatform. While I intend to play final fantasy XV on the PS4, I don't think it would be a good idea for them to make it exclusive.

You mention sales. Final fantasy XIII sold almost 2 million copies on 360. Some games don't even get that many sales. So you're saying they should throw those potential sales away so you have more ammunition for your next fanboy war?

Don't forget, FFXV has been in development hell for about 7 years now. 7 Years ago, they announced it as a PS3 exclusive. A lot can change in that time. My advice to you would be to grow up and realise that square enix is an independent third party developer, publisher and first and foremost a business and therefore have no obligation to please you by releasing exclusives for your favourite console on nothing but your own selfish whim.

@Disagreer, are you disagreeing because there's a logical reason for why you think I'm wrong or do you just not like the sense that I am speaking?

[BillytheBarbarian]

Well said:). Bubbled up.

[DragonKnight]

Here's a reason to disagree with you. Speaking specifically about KH3, there is no history of that game on Xbox consoles. The argument can be made that there was no history of FF games on the Xbox consoles, but the difference is that FF is a different game, every game, while KH is not. The KH story is convoluted and spread across multiple platforms, none of which are Xbox at all. Putting KH3 on the Xbox One is a huge gamble, made bigger by the fact that the Xbox userbase has traditionally shunned JRPGs in the past, as well as the fact that it's likely many will see "Disney" and pass it up because it's not a dudebro game.

As for FFXV, there could be sales on the Xbox One, but look at FFXIII-2. It only sold a total of 3 million copies and most of that was on the PS3. Basically, given that JRPGs on Xbox consoles typically decline in interest over time, one has to wonder if the cost of porting the games over to the Xbox One is even worth it. Especially considering the negativity surrounding the Xbox One itself. SE could be wasting their time.

[maniacmayhem]

That is not a very good reason at all.

You actually believe that KH's story is so convoluted and hard to understand that a person won't be able to pick up part 3 and not understand what is going on? That is beyond ridiculous. I read two sentences about the next game and already know what's going on. KH is not Shakespeare.

Both PS4 and X1 architecture are so similar that porting to each system is a breeze. There is no HUGE gamble. Not like before when one was made with the cell in mind.

Topdude is absolutely right, VS was announced when the PS3 launched. I have a fat 60 gig launch system and I remember seeing the advert of Vs on the box. After 7+ years anyone who thought that game would stay exclusive was just fooling themselves.

It doesn't matter which system it sold more on. The game still sold on each system and it sold well.

[DragonKnight]

"You actually believe that KH's story is so convoluted and hard to understand that a person won't be able to pick up part 3 and not understand what is going on? That is beyond ridiculous. I read two sentences about the next game and already know what's going on. KH is not Shakespeare."

It's not hard to know what's going on in the game itself, especially if you already played other KH games, but you won't have the same understanding of the series or characters if you start from the 3rd game in the main series. So yes, it is a good reason despite your inability to accept it.

"Both PS4 and X1 architecture are so similar that porting to each system is a breeze. There is no HUGE gamble. Not like before when one was made with the cell in mind."

The architecture is irrelevant. Porting costs money. It isn't free regardless of how similar the architectures are and you failed to grasp the context with which I used the world "gamble" so I'm puzzled as to why you'd bother mentioning it. The fact remains that KH3 presents a larger possibility of being more of a waste of time due to a lack of history with the brand and a lack of interest with the genre.

"Topdude is absolutely right, VS was announced when the PS3 launched. I have a fat 60 gig launch system and I remember seeing the advert of Vs on the box. After 7+ years anyone who thought that game would stay exclusive was just fooling themselves."

No he's not. Plenty of games have had long development times and remained exclusive. Just because that's not something you understand doesn't make your point accurate. Final Fantasy Versus XIII doesn't exist any longer, so it can't be an exclusive to the PS3 if it doesn't exist. The only reason FFXV isn't an exclusive is a loophole that SE exploited but can still have ramifications for their future dealings. It isn't unreasonable or foolish to expect that the game that was once Versus XIII, an exclusive to the PS3, would remain an exclusive. Just because it's not doesn't make anyone foolish but does indeed make you arrogant for belittling peoples wishes.

"It doesn't matter which system it sold more on. The game still sold on each system and it sold well."

I'm glad you're not running things. If you're of the mind that greater numbers don't matter, you'd fail at business big time. Larger numbers means a larger fanbase that is more likely to purchase your product. Increasingly decreasing numbers means an increasing lack of interest in your product and poor justification for further releases. When one console sells twice as many copies of the same game as another console, then sells 3 times as many, and so on, diminishing returns aren't so attractive.

[TopDudeMan]

Well, I can't really comment on kingdom hearts. I tried the first one and didn't enjoy it at all.

As for the point about XIII-2, I never expected that to sell well, at all anyway. Most final fantasy fans will testify that XIII has been by far been the most disappointing game of the series. So naturally, less people are going to want anything to do with any said sequels. I couldn't understand what they were thinking when they announced lightning returns, because even if it's a good game, it's destined to flop. Any structure is only as solid as the foundation that supports it.

FFXV, however is a new story. The game is an action RPG, which makes it differ to a considerable degree. It's a fresh start. If they can market this game well (That's already started- the trailer was really cool) and it's a good solid game, people will buy it regardless of which system they're on. And yes, the reason they got it on xbox is effectively by saying that FF versus XIII has been cancelled and taking the work from that project and renaming it FFXV.

Honestly, at this stage, I want whatever is best for the game. I think putting the game on Xbox is financially a good decision for SE as it widens their target market - please note again the game is an action RPG (action being the keyword)- and I bet they got some good dollars from Microsoft for doing it, too.

[DragonKnight]

Eh, I guess we'll see if FFXV's action aspect overrides it's Japanese aspect for the Xbox One crowd. I doubt it, but anything's possible.

[maniacmayhem]

@Dragon

"but you won't have the same understanding of the series or characters if you start from the 3rd game in the main series."

Yes, because google and Wiki are just so hard for people to get to and get an understanding of this intricate, tightly woven, twisting tale of life, love and death. You are really trying too hard to make something that is not there.

"The architecture is irrelevant."

That pretty much sums up how little you really know. Yes, porting still costs money but now that both systems are almost exactly similar it will take even less time for code changes, changes in text scripts or art assets for controller/button layouts. So again it is no more of a gamble than releasing any other game for both systems, regardless on what it appeared on first.

"Plenty of games have had long development times and remained exclusive."

Really? What other 3rd party game has had more than seven years development time and still remained exclusive to that console for this gen. Off top I can't think of any, but maybe you have one in mind since you said that statement.

"The only reason FFXV isn't an exclusive is a loophole that SE exploited but can still have ramifications for their future dealings..."

What? What is this loophole that SE exploited?

"It isn't unreasonable or foolish to expect that the game that was once Versus XIII, an exclusive to the PS3, would remain an exclusive."

Why, who benefits from this game being exclusive to the Sony platform? Sony fanboys? So they can come on forums like this one and beat their chests that they have Versus and the other consoles don't? yes it is foolish, very foolish and childish to be upset over something as trivial as this game coming to more than one platform.

"I'm glad you're not running things. If you're of the mind that greater numbers don't matter, you'd fail at business big time.."

And I'm guessing you have a business degree from Harvard correct? Everything about that last paragraph has nothing to do with the current situation SE has at hand. And good luck running a business like that. I guess we should thank god we're both not running things right?

FF may have not sold as much as it did for the PS3 but it did sell well enough for the 360 to be considered a success. It sold well enough on the 360 for it to have a part 2 and a part 3 coming out for it. So if these games don't sell as well (or the fanbase is dwindling)for the 360 then why is Square making (porting!!) the sequels to the 360 system? Why are they porting Vs and KH? If what you say is true, and clearly you know better than SE, then they should have stopped at XIII-2 correct?

SE is seeing TWO incomes from two different systems that made a return in investment for their game(s). Yes one was larger than the other but the other still made a profit. So why cut that out and keep a game exclusive?

[DragonKnight]

-Yes, because people want to read up about a series instead of playing the games within them. You're such a gamer. /s

-Context seems to be your mortal enemy. Oh well. As for porting, it also costs money for distribution. The costs add up and have to be weighed in the question of "will this make enough of a return back for us to justify spending the money to port it in the first place." Example: A game is released on 2 consoles and 2 million copies are sent out. The console with the fanbase and history immediately sells out, the console without sells half the copies. The distribution costs were made up with the first console, but not the second console. Therefore, a loss is registered. You can't look at things as just 3 million sold copies, you have to look at how much it cost to get those 3 million out there to sell and what happens to the last million.

-This gen hasn't seen many 3rd party exclusives period to begin with. Doesn't negate my point. And since when was development length a consideration of platform exclusivity if a platform holder had a funding contract in place?

-Changing the name obviously. Versus XIII was an exclusive, XV is not. If there were a contract in place for exclusivity, it's voided when Versus XIII no longer exists.

-Benefit is irrelevant to gamers. Many expected an exclusive and planned purchases around that expectation. That's why it isn't foolish. But if you want to be an apologist go ahead. Oh, and btw, Final Fantasy XIII proved that multiplatform releases are in fact detrimental to fans. The PS3 version was ready to ship out, and yet it was held back so the Xbox 360 version could have a simultaneous release. Where's the benefit in that hmm?

-Why mention something if you're not going to address the point and just evade it? You're a fool if you think that a larger fanbase on one console isn't important.

-Simple. You're talking about games where the expense (FFXIII-2 and Lightning Returns) is minimal due to the reuse of assets. Releasing those games on the 360 is no real effort. Also they would risk looking bad by releasing the sequels only on the PS3 despite the obvious fact that they would have sold better on the PS3. I can't deny a dual income, but you aren't seeing the forest for the trees. I mean, if your stance is correct, why wouldn't all 3rd party games be multiplatform from the very beginning? Obviously because there is reason not to make them multiplatform and contracts obviously aren't enough of one. Only a douchebag belittles people's expectations that were fostered by the developers themselves.

[nirwanda]

@manicmayhem while I agree with you that the story could be picked up by anyone (look at mass effect 2 ported to the ps3), I disagree that the xbone and ps4 are practically the same to programme.
Everything on the xbone has to be written in a form of compressed direct X and uses the move engines to make all the registers and has things unique to the gpu that need to be specially programed for

Where as the ps4 uses linux and probably a version of open gl and has to be registered properly but has much less specific programing.

[MoreRPG]

@DragonKnight Just because jrpg didnt sell well on the xbox doesnt mean xbox users dont care about jrpg.

Must of the gamers i know own both systems. They use the ps3 to play rpg, exclusives and games like assassins creed and use the xbox to play multiplayer games like shooters and sports games.

[DragonKnight]

@MoreRPG: You just proved my point. Low sales and your friends who play RPGs on PS3 prove the Xbox userbase doesn't care about RPGs.

[MikeMyers]

@DragonKnight,
"You just proved my point. Low sales and your friends who play RPGs on PS3 prove the Xbox userbase doesn't care about RPGs."

Of course they do. Oblivion and Skyrim and Fallout were all successful on the Xbox 360. Lost Odyssey also sold close to 1 million copies. FFXIII sold close to 2 million copies. Games that are aimed solely to the Japanese market that don't sell very well outside of Japan will of course tank on the Xbox since they are very xenophobic when it comes to games.

"Here's a reason to disagree with you. Speaking specifically about KH3, there is no history of that game on Xbox consoles. The argument can be made that there was no history of FF games on the Xbox consoles, but the difference is that FF is a different game, every game, while KH is not. The KH story is convoluted and spread across multiple platforms, none of which are Xbox at all."

Poor argument. Mass Effect on the PS3 started at #2. It was a trilogy from the very beginning. We all knew that story would carry over 3 games and your decisions would also change the story from one game to the next. You can't get more convoluted than that. They managed to get PS3 gamers into the mix of things starting with #2 by having a short epilogue. So anything is possible for KH.

KH sells well outside of Japan so it makes sense to offer it on other systems like the Xbox which does well outside of Japan. Which also explains why MGS is on more than the Playstation now.

This exclusivity stuff doesn't make much sense for games. Games should be accessible when possible. Gamers should not have this mindset of exclusivity. It should be like movies and music, to be enjoyed by as many people as possible, not to breed more fanboys.

[maniacmayhem]

"-Yes, because people want to read up about a series instead of playing the games within them. You're such a gamer. /s"

- Yea, because people will be soooo lost when they pop in KH3. They'll be no backstory or recap just thrusted right into the middle of the story with no explanation. I mean this is how most stories work. /s

- So you gloss over my question. You said:

"Plenty of games have had long development times and remained exclusive."

And I asked you which games were 7 years in development by a 3rd party and remained exclusive? The fact that now you say it doesn't matter means you had no idea what you were saying in the first place.

Also where does it say the platform was funding this project? To my knowledge Sony was never funding the project.

- So this is just your assumption and not actual fact. Because when you said that SE exploited some loophole I thought you actually knew for certain.

- Benefit is irrelevant to gamers? Seriously, maybe it is irrelevant to you for some unknown reason, but please don't lump all gamers in to prove a fantasy you have. Maybe people did buy a PS3 to play Versus, but they should be more upset that the game was never released for the PS3 after 7 years of its console life span. And now it has been confirmed for the PS4. Not for some silly notion that it is now on X1 too.

"The PS3 version was ready to ship out, and yet it was held back so the Xbox 360 version could have a simultaneous release. Where's the benefit in that hmm?"

Really, is this just another wild speculation or is this really true? And if true, who cares the benefit is that 360 only owners got to play the game.

- In your last point you said a lot without saying anything.

Your only point in everything that you said is SE shouldn't release KH on X1 because the story didn't start on 360. Also that Versus shouldn't be released for X1 because PS3 owners were anticipating it for the PS3. Again foolish and non essential to any argument of bringing one of the most popular RPG's (ever) to both systems where every GAMER can enjoy it.

[wishingW3L]

it makes no difference to me. XB1 and PS4 share the same architecture, both have blu-ray, etc. But when the game sells like 10:1 on PS4 then Square will make it exclusive again. lol

[Chard]

Agreed, this wouldn't be like 360 holding back a once PS3 exclusive. All that matters is that the original vision for the game is realised.

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

Everyone knows that the "xbox holding back ps3" is not true.

[Chard]

That wasn't the main point of my comment but;
Imagine that the game was shown at this latest e3, still as 'FFvsXIII' and still as a PS3 game, but with a 360 version added.
Remembering that 360 and PS3 have very different architecture (unlike Xone and PS4 which are similar), and remembering that Nomura himself had said previously "all visions can come true" when referring to the once PS3 exclusivity of vsXIII ( http://n4g.com/news/70547/n... ), and remembering the questions raised over graphical downgrades with FFXIII after the multiplatform announcement ( http://www.uffsite.net/news... ), it follows that such an announcement would have raised legitimate concerns about the quality of the game. Thankfully that didn't happen, so let's all rejoice and get on with our lives.

[gamejediben]

Well if the trends continue as they are, the XBone will be as forgotten as the Atari Jaguar and Sqaure-Enix may decide that the publishing costs for such a miniscule market aren't worth it.

It might as well be exclusive at this point so let not your heart be troubled, Sony fanboys. A year from now we'll all be laughing about Squeenix trying to sell Kingdom Hearts to the 2% of the market that doesn't mind getting anally violated by Microsoft's DRM policies.

[BillytheBarbarian]

I will never understand this kind of thinking. How is getting final fantasy out to more gamers a bad thing? What if the Xbox gamer falls in love with the series and go back to play them all? They would have to get a PS2, psone, and an SNES...or other possible ways. What would you have said when ffvii made the jump from Nintendo to Sony? "Grrr! Nintendo needs to pony up, make a CD drive, rabble rabble." :D

[gamejediben]

Funny thing is, I said that exact thing in 1996.

"Nintendo is living in the past. CDs are the future! Final Fantasy belongs on Nintendo! Why are they being so cheap? I can't imagine what Final Fantasy is going to look like on a Sony machine. It's just wrong..."

Flash forward 17 years and I can't imagine FF on anything else. Also FFVII and FFVIII came to PC too. Squares been jumping platforms since the mid 90's but since FFVII-XII were on Sony platforms, it just feels off to see a FF title on another platform. Like if you saw Sonic on a Nintendo console. Oh wait...

[mamotte]

To fill someone's ego?

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

Leave it to Dathreats to post a blog about why X should have been exclusive.

DaThreats, you don't even have a Ps3. Even I have a ps3. Stop this nonsense. Not only that, but your logic is beyond the dumbest I've ever heard. If you told this to a CEO, they'd laugh you out of a job. You're essentially saying "Hey, we sold a bit less on this console. We shouldn't have sold that in the first place". Do you know how quickly you'd be fired if you ever said that to your boss? Eliminating potential revenue? Eliminating revenue?

[Christopher]

No to third party exclusives entirely here. I don't care if that means less sales for Sony or Microsoft. I believe all gamers deserve to play a game and not be left out because of their platform of choice.

Bring it to PC, bring it to XBO, bring it to PS4, bring it to iPad, bring it.

[Welcome2Die]

Seriously what happened to loyalty?
MGS, FF and KH thrived on the PS2 and the PS3. To make these games available on Xboned sound greedy to me. I hope they regret it.

[BillytheBarbarian]

Screw loyalty if it means an end to a series. I can only imagine if there would have been PS2 versions of Shenmue 1 and 2, Jade Empire, KOTOR 1 and 2, and countless other classics that just couldn't get the sales on a single platform. (I'm not counting PC here because it just opens all kinds of Master Race stuff.)

Those games would have all received follow ups not only because of it's multiplatform range but because they're all damn good games that ended too soon. Loyal playstation 2 owners would have gotten a chance to see why the Xbox and Dreamcast are fondly looked back upon even though the PS2 dominated the market.

Exclusive games just don't make sense for anyone these days. Devs need to make money on their games in order to see more great content from them in the future.

[Welcome2Die]

so basically youre saying that Kingdom Hearts and the other games I mentioned didnt get any sales on the Playstation?

[BillytheBarbarian]

No back then PS2 had 70-80% of the market. Publishers could do it then. It doesn't work for PS3 because of 360 chunk of the market hence final fantasy games ended up on Xbox platforms.

Read it again. I said if said games were also on PS2 they would have survived.

[Capt-FuzzyPants]

Nomura in an interview said that they are developing all of their games using Direct X11. Since the architecture for both systems is similar it is easy and cheap to port. So the only way SE makes an exclusive this gen is if it needs the extra power and ram of the PS4.

[TriforceLightning]

Gamers play games. Developers make games. Game development costs money. By putting the title on multiple platforms increase the probability of greater profits. This was purely a business decision. Square-Enix doesn't owe you a thing.#thatisall

[BillytheBarbarian]

And this happens to be a current headliner on N4G's homepage:

http://n4g.com/news/1283137...

Exclusive = loss of sales. The end.